佔領中環始終解答不了策略問題

在佔領中環 的facebook看到陳健民繼續解畫,我始終看不出他們的想要完成什麽目標,怎樣完成目標和他們完成目標對政制問題有什麽影響。以下用藍色標示的是陳健民的説話。

「希望市民明白佔中的要點不在於長期癱瘓金融中心,而是要透過自我犧牲(負上刑責),引發大家思考管治困局的根源和喚醒我們對社會的責任感。佔中,是為了長遠的和諧。」

他們到底是不是要癱瘓金融中心,又如何去癱瘓,不論是長期或短期,我們完全不知道。如果說他們能夠阻塞中環的交通一天,就算是一個星期,我也想不到這樣的行動會對爭取民主有什麽影響。第二,什麽是「長遠的和諧」?「佔中」不是爲了民主嗎?爭取民主的行動,跟「負上刑責」有什麽關係?這幾個概念完全沒有邏輯關係,除了滿足發起人的「道德取向」之外,並沒有任何策略意義。負上刑責」並不會逼使中共妥協,如果你真的入獄,至少短期内你不能再組織運動,這樣子對誰有好處??

「和平佔中運動的目標是要爭取2017真普選,以公民抗命方式佔領中環是我們守護底線的最後手段。在此之前,更重要的是透過商討和公民授權(民間全民投票)產生一個或多個政改方案,讓政黨與政府進行對話談判。」

「爭取2017真普選」是主動的攻性行為,「守護底線」是被動的守性行爲,兩者有不同的效果。「佔中」可以攻守兼備,但到目前為止,我們看不到他們打算如何進攻。先假設他們打算癱瘓,有足夠的人馬。如果是短期癱瘓,行動效果就會煙消雲散;如果是長期癱瘓,甚至只有有違法行爲,警察就會清場,行動效果也一樣煙消雲散。再者,發動這樣的運動需要大量政治資本,可一不可再。行動沒有效果,就會有人退出;預見不到行動有效果,有頭腦的人不會參加。預見不到行動有效果,又要「負上刑責」,跟爲了違法而違法沒有太大分別。另外,行動目的爲何又突然從「爭取2017真普選」變爲「產生一個或多個政改方案,讓政黨與政府進行對話談判」?佔中的「政改方案」跟「政黨與政府進行對話談判」完全沒有邏輯關係,而且政黨有它們自己的方案,其他團體又有他們的方案,屈指一算,各方提出的方案已經不下十來個,是不是只要方案夠多政府就會因爲看不過來而投降?

假如說想透過方案凝聚向心力,那一個方案就很足夠;多於一個方案只會引起無謂的爭吵。再説,今時今日,民主政制可以這樣談判而取得嗎?政府可以怎樣還價?政黨與政府談判,你們「佔中」有沒有份參與?到時候是政府跟政黨還價還是跟你們還價?這種言論太多邏輯問題,只是發起人在想當然,跟本沒有考慮到事情會怎樣發展。

「即使談判破裂走上佔中之路…」

民主黨或普選聯願意在選委會上妥協,是否「談判破裂」?如果「佔中」也在選委會問題上妥協,誰來佔領「佔領中環」?你憑什麽說你提出的是底綫?

「控制自己及伙伴情緒的技巧,和應對執法者鎮壓的方法」;「民主是沒有敵人的——無論是親北京的、是本土的、是貧、是富,大家都可在一個平等的基礎上參與。」

「鎮壓」?爲什麽要假設警察會「鎮壓」?你們說自己要負上刑責,就是説你們一定會做出違法行爲,當你們進行違法行爲,警察執法就是,唉,「執法」,而非「鎮壓」。將警察說成是「必然的鎮壓者」,怎麽可以說「沒有敵人」?假如警察「鎮壓」,我相信「佔中」根本不可能有任何應對方法。「民主是沒有敵人」??那極權是什麽?「親北京的」人就是支持,或至少不質疑,中共極權統治的合法性,陳健民是在說反對民主的人可以在一個平等的基礎上參與爭取民主的行動?還是說中國的民主並不重要,假如中共皇恩浩蕩給香港人民主的話,香港的「民主鬥士」可以接受中共的極權統治?

只要大家一起聚焦理性商討一個合乎《基本法》和國際標準的普選方案,這場風便打不成了。」

先不說什麽是「國際標準」,《基本法》的解釋權在中共手裏,它堅持選委會,小圈子選舉你也沒奈何。它也可以隨意的說這樣這樣就符合國際標準,民主黨、李柱銘就是這樣提議,你要政黨跟它談判,結果可想而知。

這樣子「佔中」,我根本不擔心什麽經濟的負面影響,因為「佔中」本身並沒有這個能耐;我所擔心的是「佔中」會消耗大量政治資本,往後再不能使用公民抗命這一招。「佔中」無效–以目前的情況看,它「成功」的可能性很低–香港的反抗陣營會四分五裂得更厲害。戴耀廷他們的最大盲點就是想以政治中立的「純潔」力量去參與政治,單以道德價值而不是行動的效果去考慮事情就會有這樣的問題,只會好心做壞事。

This entry was posted in 策略, 政治與經濟 and tagged , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

25 則回應給 佔領中環始終解答不了策略問題

  1. C 說:

    「負上刑責」令我想起六七暴動者的下場。他們當時也為了「崇高理想」,但之後誰可憐他們?

    「如果是長期癱瘓,甚至只有有違法行爲,警察就會清場,行動效果也一樣煙消雲散。」 — 我不太同意這點。清場手法太狠會令一部份人反感而轉向支持佔中人士。

    • 山中 說:

      如果他們集體的「違法」,警察除了拘捕他們之外沒有太多選擇。

      • annie 說:

        佔中是談判桌上的一張底牌,如果你不XXXX,就會逼我們集體違法(公民抗命)。那又如何?如果對方真的不在意,那香港也就真的沒有辦法。你說佔中沒有清晰的可供達成的目標,的確如此,因為在北京面前,香港本來就無談判籌碼可言。給,或者不給;有,或者沒有;從法律上到政治上,香港本土實際上並沒有什麼空間。佔中,是在談判桌上攤牌的前一刻,泛民強行增加的一個環節,強行拓展的一個空間,賭的是什麼?賭的是要是真到了佔中那一刻,你要拉一萬人坐監,你會很難看,你會證明給全世界看一國兩制失敗,統戰失敗。賭的是北京不願意放棄體面。說白了,這是在拿命去賭人家不敢脫衣服。而不是以命搏命。香港的命運,香港人自己從來也不在談判桌上,就算在,也從沒有過勢均力敵的談判。所以談目標就可笑了。能做的,除了基於價值的堅持,策略上,最高目標也只能是把對手拖下水而已。

        • 山中 說:

          ? 沒有目標怎樣制定策略?如果佔中不是credible threat,提它來有什麽用?爲什麽會有一萬人坐監?這好像不是香港法律制度的運作模式。

  2. anon 說:

    我始終看不出他們的想要完成什麽目標,怎樣完成目標和他們完成目標對政制問題有什麽影響:
    What do you think Rosa Parks had done on December 1, 1955?

    • 山中 說:

      我相信他們對這些問題也沒有答案。Rosa Parks帶起了國際社會對人權的關注和支出當時的「民主」國家在人權問題上採用雙重標準,但她與往後的行動主要是人權運動,不是政治運動。

  3. anon 說:

    我相信他們對這些問題也沒有答案"
    Do you think Rosa foreseed the results of violating the existing laws at her time?
    行動主要是人權運動,不是政治運動
    Do the “rights" in human rights ever exist meaningfully without the protection of law? Don’t they have to work tandemly?

    • 山中 說:

      We to think about couple things: 1) whether the law is just; 2) whether people have to right to defend themselves against unjust law. Rights do require just law for protection, but unjust laws will violate the most basic rights, so if the point is to uphold the rights (or have more rights), the unjust legal regime will have to be dismantled. That said, how correct is the “right claim" is another question.

  4. anon 說:

    Thanks. I want to go back to:
    我始終看不出他們的想要完成什麽目標,怎樣完成目標和他們完成目標對政制問題有什麽影響:
    in relation to
    “我相信他們對這些問題也沒有答案”
    Do you think Rosa foreseed the results of violating the existing laws at her time?"
    ######################################

    In the case of Rosa, she, even in her wildest dream, would not have forseed the results of her actions.
    If " 想要完成什麽目標,怎樣完成目標和他們完成目標對政制問題有什麽影響",
    then, she should move to the back of the bus until she formulates a concrete plan for fight the injusted?

    • 山中 說:

      Rosa Parks is an individual taking individual action, not a movement. Occupy Central is an quasi-organized political movement trying to establish a democratic regime. They are fundamentally different.

  5. anon 說:

    “Rosa Parks is an individual taking individual action, not a movement. "
    Was Civil Rights movement an individual action or movement?
    Can you give us an example where a movement does not orginate from one individual at its infancy?

  6. anon 說:

    “Rosa Parks is an individual taking individual action, not a movement."
    Do you know Rosa Parks’ action lead to Montgomery Bus Boycott? Are the boycott of a few thousand people (a movement) started from the action of one? Prof. Tai is trying to make just a movement.

    “但她與往後的行動主要是人權運動,不是政治運動。"
    Is Montgomary Bus Boycott a human right movement or a political movement? Can you enlighten us on the difference?

    • 山中 說:

      Do I need to roll my eyes at you? Rosa, as I have already said, was an individual taking individual action; she was not, note the word here, organizing a movement. And seriously, you can’t tell the difference? Political movement calls for the change of the whole political regime; a right moment calls for the implementation or upholding of a certain right. What happened in Egypt was a political movement, not a right movement

      • anon 說:

        “Rosa, as I have already said, was an individual taking individual action"

        Rosa is a card-carrying member of NAACP long before all these. Do you know what NAACP does? What usually a Secratary of NAACP does?

        • 山中 說:

          I have been a member of the PlayStation Network for 7 years, does that mean I am planning and executing Sony’s corporate strategy whenever I pick up the controller and play games on online with friends? Man, Sony should start paying me executive salary.

  7. anon 說:

    “Political movement calls for the change of the whole political regime; a right moment calls for the implementation or upholding of a certain right."

    You are the very first person able to claim Political movements and Social Movements is mutually exclusive, one doesn’t involve the other. Like oil and water they live in separete world.

    • 山中 說:

      Where did I use the term, “social moment"? and where did I say political and social movement are mutually exclusive? You cannot understand the word “different"? Man and woman are different, does that mean they are mutually exclusive to one another? You cannot see that a political movement has a different range and scope from a “right movement"?

      Like I said before, if you cannot read, why bother posting questions. Go learn how to read first.

  8. anon 說:

    I have been a member of the PlayStation Network for 7 years, does that mean I am planning and executing Sony’s corporate strategy whenever I pick up the controller and play games on online with friends? Man, Sony should start paying me executive salary.

    One more question: Do you buy condoms to jerk off? I thought people buy them to have sexual intercourse. But you a have difference way of thinking. hahahahahahaa

    NAACP had been looking for an opportunity to break the law to bring the issue front and center. It was in the plan. Read some history, would you?

    • 山中 說:

      Your point being? When did Rosa Parks cease to become an individual when she joined an organization? Even if she was fulfilling an organization plan, so what? Was she planning the organization strategy? Even if she was, so? What does it have to do with the topic at hand?

      You know condoms can also be used to smuggle drugs? You know they can be brought by consumer groups for testing and for review? and again, you point?

      If you are so thick that you are unable to raise any coherent and substantial points, then you have no business asking any questions.

  9. anon 說:

    By the way, if you a member of Playstation Network for 7 years, “normal people" would think you intend to play online games. Not earning a salary. Pick a better arguement next time.

    Stop jerking off with a condom on, you will grow teller. ahahahaahaaaa

  10. anon 說:

    No need to reply anymore. I will laugh my head off if you do.

    You are a phony.

    • 山中 說:

      It seems you are incapable of understanding simple words.

    • C 說:

      anon,

      Calm down.🙂

      From Wikipedia, “Nixon conferred with Jo Ann Robinson, an Alabama State College professor and member of the Women’s Political Council (WPC), about the Parks’ case. Robinson believed it important to seize the opportunity and stayed up all night mimeographing over 35,000 handbills announcing a bus boycott. The Women’s Political Council was the first group to officially endorse the boycott." (Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rosa_Parks#Montgomery_Bus_Boycott)

      I think it is more relevant to compare 陳健民 with Nixon & Robinson, rather than with Parks. After all, Parks was not the organizer.

發表迴響

在下方填入你的資料或按右方圖示以社群網站登入:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / 變更 )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / 變更 )

Facebook照片

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / 變更 )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / 變更 )

連結到 %s