Forum Post: A strong "We" must first start at an even stronger "I"

In light of this most recent activism versus corporate corruption I recall back to 2001 when the Enron scandal was first exposed. Particularly I recall the teeth grinding, fist-clenching outrage I felt towards the insulting demonstration of just how evacuated of integrity the corporate apparatus was (and would likely continue to be). I wrote several papers for assignments and seen most every conversation of consequence gravitate towards the topic of corporatism with Enron as the case-in-point. I also recall no shortage of annoyed friends as it had become a neurotic but nonetheless substantiated fixation of mine. Somehow I had become shrill and through my soapbox sermons and attempts to proselytize others was actually dis-empowering myself even if the count in the ranks towards the cause grew. A mentor of mine seen the sincerity of my activism as well as the intensity (good bad and otherwise) of my commitment to it. His admonition had a persistent and profound impact on my outlook and strategy to affect change. You are only accountable for what you do. You alone must decide upon the choices you make and the views that you hold and if by chance or merit others rally under your banner it matters not how many in number or stalwart of spirit you cannot afford the luxury to assume their continued support nor should you rob yourself of the fortitude that attends so selfless a conviction that you could stand alone but unwavering. Solidarity is required for change but is on its own insufficient. The rhetoric and appeals to "the 99%" renders further discourse vapid. How about we are the 99.999 or 80 or 75 and so on. Unfortunately there are times when majority or even consensus opinion departs from what is best or what is true. As a slogan I see the intent towards a renewed first fair then democratic social philosophy but is painfully thought terminating. Our point shouldn't be demonstrating ad nauseum that there exists an opulently wealthy few and a comparatively poor many. The focus of efforts shouldnt be on reiterating how salty our wounds became by seeing bailout money translate to bonuses for the very same architects of disaster. Pigs will be pigs after all but how was it that these opulently wealthy could not consist more of the Gates/Buffet variety. Surely we would have fewer perhaps no objections if the wealthy few were not so much less wealthy rather than less greedy. What people have rallied under has been the apparent for some time now which causes me to question the motivations. Corporate corruption has led to systemic toxicities This is unarguably true but why protest now and not when Enron was happening (when I could have used the support ;)? Outrage is fanning the flames of protest when what we need is articulate, well defined, disciplined, comprehensive but focused means of determining how this happened and the road to preventing this in the future. The response from OWS proponents is the matter is multifactorial (which it most certainly is) and we must encourage a pluralist approach to accommodate this complexity (most certainly wrong). By adopting a position of wanting to be as inclusive as possible it by default avoids the unfortunate truth that anarcho-primitivists are entirely incompatible with myself (for instance) a believer in a democratic technocracy. The desire to include and acquire consenus should never undercut the need to arrive at solutions (particularly when they exist!) is what I've seen as the Achilles heel with this movement. What is the fear of having a leadership bodies form? Its human, it happens. Fractionation is healthy it should be encouraged not feared it will help to crystallize objectives, rally more impassioned sentiments and encourage specialization to effectively tackle related problems. Keep in mind nothing precludes cooperation if their differences can be reconciled to a common end. I would think that by know enough kinship has been formed that should agencies "go their separate ways" such newly gained camaraderie would allow for unparalleled cooperation and compromise in seeing that they emerge from the same democratic tradition. As opposed to trying to artificially prop-up this very unnatural heterogeneous amorphous social movement allow for the strength of the individual (or individual movements) to shine through. My unfortunately bleak prediction is that the ideology of the unofficial leadership will prevent distinct groups from forming and insist on this herd of cats model that although many in number is impotent to forward specific and furthermore coherent demands/plans. Winter is coming and presents a very real time constraint "We" are only strong if it is composed of unrestricted "I'"s. OWS should not be afraid of gaining the sum of individual convictions at the cost of superficial solidarity.