Welcome login | signup
Language en es fr
OccupyForum

Forum Post: Decentralization of leadership at top levels of OCW

Posted 6 years ago on Oct. 14, 2011, 8:50 p.m. EST by CST (4) from Chicago, IL
This content is user submitted and not an official statement

This movement is way too powerful for a single person or a group or people to control. Instead of nominating a leader for this movement, we must stay decentralised. We should have a online message board where anybody can add their ideas and vote for ideas and direction of this movement. This would remove the possibility of corruption at the top levels and misrepresentation of the very people that this movement is designed to benefit. Other benefits in decentralised leadership would include:

True Direct Democracy instead of representative democracy. Immediate submission of ideas by anyone willing to participate, approval/disapproval of upcoming actions/agendas/events. Its cheaper to have an online forum than an office filled with executives. (donated money will be actully used for projects instead of paychecks) A massive voting base can not be bought and therefore is inherently corruption free. The only downside I can think of to this is being a radically different form of leadership that people are not used to. But then again the type of leadership we are used to usually gets us nowhere by looking out for itself instead of the people they lead.

I vote to reorganise this forum so that it is more user friendly for counting ideas by thumbs up or down system vote. Creating different sections within this forum for different types of ideas. Adding a bank transaction section where ALL of the money donated and spent is displayed. This would not only prevent corruption but also let potential donors decide if and how much they want to give because they would know for sure how their money would be spent.

If you support what is written here, please ADD a thread to this message to generate support and finally put direct democracy of OWS in place. =)

9 Comments

9 Comments


Read the Rules
[-] 2 points by precipice (220) 6 years ago

Well, yes I agree. OWS is not entirely decentralized and it is most likely a movement puppeteered by Adbusters. The site owners of occupywallst.org are unknown at this point, everything seems quite secretive. The whole Wall Street movement may be brought to a standstill if this one website ever goes down or if a divisive / controversial blog post comes up. Imagine a post "OccupyWallSt Officially Supports Communism" showing up - it'd destroy us. For the same reason the top headlines of our posts clearly indicate "User Submitted," OccupyWallSt blog posts need to indicate that they are but one voice in the community. It seems that occupywallst.org is become our voice, and I think that is something we need to be careful of. We need to take ownership of this movement. Now, this is not a bad movement by any means and the motivations are well-founded, but it is becoming prone to corruption and power is being centralized. The Occupy Resistsance Network ( http://www.OccupyR.com ) is a more independent source and has the democratic features you're talking about in place. Check that out as well. OccupyTogether.org also appears more decentralized based off of local meetup groups, but I believe that website is also backed by AdBusters.

[-] 1 points by CST (4) from Chicago, IL 6 years ago

I really like this movement because it seems to focus on people and quality of life for the masses instead of bottom line for the few, but I still rather watch this website die off than be controlled by a person or a group of people. The whole idea is to be inherently corruption free, by avoiding letting someone or some group control the masses. If the leadership of this website stays centralised then it wont be any less secretive or less prone to being bought then the people that run the wall street. And as cold as it may seem, yes, decentralise this movement and make it completely transparent or let it die. We don't need another "representative democracy" I've already seen what the current one is like.

[-] 2 points by precipice (220) 6 years ago

Here's what we need: 100% transparency. It's a trick that's worked well in uncovering corruption in finances and government. We need to demand to know who is behind occupywallst.org. It's ridiculous that we don't know who runs this site, and that the owner has actually taken measures to hide this information.

[-] 1 points by daffyff (104) from Redwood City, CA 6 years ago

Direct democracy, while being incorruptible in theory, can become hysteria driven/mob-ruled. All it would take is a few charismatic people to steer the masses, and those people can be bribed or influenced. Also I can only imagine the mayhem of such a forum unless it was moderated heavily, and wouldn't that be the same as a representative, only not actually voted in?

[-] 1 points by CST (4) from Chicago, IL 6 years ago

As far as moderation, nobody would need to moderate it at all: if a post would receive 99% negative votes it would be deleted by a computer. It would be much like a stock market actually, it may look as if its hysteria driven from the outside but each idea would be individually graded by the general population approved, disapproved, put to action or forgotten. The only difference between direct democracy forum introduced ideas and a stock market would be instead of a quest for money it would be a quest for better quality of life for the general voting population. besides wouldn't you rather have a direct vote over specific things that you're dealing with?

[-] 1 points by daffyff (104) from Redwood City, CA 6 years ago

Right now i am content with the way it is, without direction or leadership. I'd throw in support for organizing in a week or two maybe? Mostly holding out until i see some solidarity between left and right happen, and because this may be a red herring thrown in to further disillusion us.

To be frank, I am maintaining a distance from getting involved because if it does turn out to be a front for the left wing and moveon.org i'll be crushed and sorely disappointed in the american people.

[-] 1 points by seaglass (671) from Brigantine, NJ 6 years ago

I agree. Direct Democracy doesn't work in reality never has never will.

[-] 1 points by CST (4) from Chicago, IL 6 years ago

Direct democracy has never worked before because of the communication barriers. Today with widespread internet anybody can vote on anything. And if current system is working so well then why are we having OWS in the first place?

[-] 1 points by daffyff (104) from Redwood City, CA 6 years ago

The current system actually kinda does work pretty well. This wouldn't be the first time public outcry has changed this country, and won't be the last.