Forum Post: Forming Leadership Creates Inequality
Posted 12 years ago on Nov. 20, 2011, 4:12 p.m. EST by RantCasey
(782)
from Saginaw, MI
This content is user submitted and not an official statement
Why do people keep coming on this site demanding leadership. Leadership shifts power from everyone to fewer people. Can't a group of people converse and make decisions on a level field. I remember hearing sumwhere in my life that all men are created equal??? The reason that the media is pushing a leader is because it is easier to attack a face than an idea. The elite are pushing so hard to put a face on this protest but they can't they are failing.
Look in a mirror. We are all leaders. OWS is not leaderless. It is leaderful.
Shouldn't the good ideas lead??? A good idea is what should lead a movement not a single person. People are corruptible ideas aren't. Ideas are what they are good or bad. As new better ideas come they will replace the old ones. Until more people shift to this way of thought we will continue to be dissapointed. People aren't perfect....I'm not. So quit backing people and back the ideas you think are best.
That's right. The media can attack a face. But there is also the problem of people within the movement wanting a leader. It's an ancient human tradition that we must have leaders. Once one has a leader, one has an institution, too. In many cases that is well and good, but this is not an organization, so it doesn't need to be institutionalized or led. It is obviously doing GREAT job just as it is without any clear leader or spokesperson. So, it should remain. It is not as if this movement has been unsuccessful! It has been enormously successful in gaining THE ENTIRE WORLD'S ATTENTION! All without a leader. That is because it is a movement, not an organization. It is simply irate people coming together around points they can agree with.
--Knave Dave http://TheGreatRecession.info/blog
There is even a document that sets out a plan of attack against us, and within that document it mentions identification and targeting of leadership figures.
http://msnbcmedia.msn.com/i/msnbc/sections/news/CLGF-msnbc.pdf
I say a lack of leadership is an advantage - it makes us more flexible. At the same time, those in the establishment will be confused by that, and in all probability won't believe it.
We could consider giving them what they want . . . and laugh our asses off. As long as those the media begins to focus on keep saying there is no leadership, it will cause those who believe there is to become more convinced, and not only that, but convinced they have found the leaders.
The utility of such a device, beyond it's value as a humorous fuck you, escapes me just now - but I am certain there are several different applications to such a thing.
It would certainly keep them both busy and confused.
And of course, the current state of affairs does that quite well too.
You beat me to it ZenDog. I was going to bring up that CLGF plan as the perfect reason why we shouldn't have a leader at the moment. If we had a single figurehead, he or she would be portrayed as nothing less than the Antichrist by the time they finished their smear campaign. And the comment below mine by gawdoftruth, confirms it. He knows what he's saying. Having someone well-versed in game theory on our side is an incredible asset.
I didn't see that post. I think I've spent time exploring game theory applied but it's hard to say - and nobody knows who won, so . . . .
What occurs to me is that while a lack of leadership is an advantage - some things seem inevitable.
The media - and others - are looking for leaders - if we don't appoint them they will determine who they are by default.
Not that it really matters - as long as we are consistent with the message that there is no leader.
It would be interesting to supply a puppet leader just to see how far they would go in their smear campaign before we expose the 'leader' as a fake then use the whole thing to expose the media for what they really are.
I don't think they would believe it. I think if a leader is handed them, the leader will be stuck forever stating otherwise. If we did that, gave someone among us that responsibility, they better have a great sense of humor.
I do think it could be useful, but I'm not sure how beyond confusing them, and boosting moral through the humor of it. In order to maintain the humor of it the message has to be consistent - there is no leader.
Ha! If the leader insists there is no leader, and it is picked up by media - it reinforces the message in both directions - those who believe there is none take it as confirmation there is none - those who believe there is one will believe they have found what they are looking for!
haha!
I don't know why I like that so well. It seems silly. But it may be useful.
You probably like the idea for the same reason I do. The humor aspect. It would be very difficult to pull off and would probably require a professional actor to be successful. I think it would be a great practical joke, as long as it didn't backfire. That's all it would be in my opinion; an elaborate practical joke designed to screw with the MSM. But I do like the concept.
It is funny alright. But it is all serious as well. If you haven't read this, you should:
http://msnbcmedia.msn.com/i/msnbc/sections/news/CLGF-msnbc.pdf
We are a threat to moneyed interests, precisely because we aim to change the rules by which money is made. There are people who will kill to protect what they have.
Look back over some of the past Presidential races - and you will see the way in which this kind of conflict plays out. Anyone held up as a leader is going to find it .. . .
challenging
Yes I have read it. It's worth its weight in gold. Two important things I've gleaned from it. One, if anyone thinks OWS has been ineffectual, this document resoundingly proves otherwise. And second, it's clear-cut proof that the democratic party wishes to adopt (co-opt) OWS for its potential votes. It also gives insight into the tactics TPTB will use against us, i.e. monitoring of social networking sites for potential plans of action, demographic information, etc. What would be ideal would be to get a hold of the results of their studies two months down the road. That would also be priceless info.
The dems don't have to co-opt us - all they have to do is reflect our values - and whatever portion of America isn't on the street that sympathizes will produce a benefit for them.
I don't necessarily mind, but they will be in a position at that time where they have got to deliver.
As for the rest - yes. Absolutely. And more intel would be priceless - as long as it's accurate.
Saying leaders will shift the power from the people to few people is due to the lack of perspective of the situation as well as restrictions within your own train of thought.
I believe leaders/organizers could offer a lot, specially as far as getting more of a unified voice. Which for the time being, is something this movement is lacking in greatly.
I'm pretty sure people get the message the protest has... You have been arguing against it all day??
Apparently you don't understand what I have to say, assuming I am against the whole message when in reality I am trying to help.
Why do leaders have to be bad? Why can't they fulfill certain roles that make it easier to protest and make the whole movement run a little smoother?
It don't have to run smooth ...nobody said democracy had to be easy. Why does anybodies view have to be less than anyone else's. You can lead without being a leader too. In my opinion the idea is the leader.
Wasn't saying you had to run smooth, wasn't saying democracy had to be easy either. Just saying it could run smoother.
It always can
Hence our whole discussion.
But leaders don't make it run smooth. We got hundreds in congress right now who can't do shit. And a president who don't make anything smooth either. Why are we looking for sum savior to save the planet. We all know what's right or wrong.you dint give yourself enough credit. You don't need someone to tell you your ideas you can do that on your own right???
You surely could, but not everyone thinks the same way.
I look at it as all our so called "leaders" in our government are anything but leaders. I think they gave us something more valuable then showing us the wright way. They showed us exactly how NOT to be a leader. You can look at them and go out to lead knowing full well you have a really good Idea of what NOT to do.
You are focusing on the negative aspects of the discussion while I am trying to focus on the positive.
There are many ways to lead, not necessarily ordering people around but inspiring people, to lead by example.
I'm not against all leadership I just don't think it is needed here. I was a Marine I liked leadership when I was in. When I was a lowly recruit in boot camp was probably the most fun. (accept the crazy excersize at first) but you learn not to think and just do. It's fun it is a break on the mind. Sounds stupid but the lack of responsibility is great but in the normal world you have decisions to make and have to make decisions for yourself. You cant keep letting people tell you what to think. We all have to do something
I was a Marine too, so I know exactly what you mean. What you are saying is true, but some people might need that inspiration to get out of whatever comfort zone they are stuck in. You didn't have those recruits in boot camp that seemingly couldn't make it one there own? Shit bags as they were so commonly called. People like those either broke on there own, or were lifted by the example and mentor ship of those around them. Steer them in the right direction whilst letting them make there own decisions.
Like u said there is a point where people can't be legislated to succeed. But I don't think anybody in the OWS movement thinks they are going to create a utopian society. Just a better one. Homelessness isn't going to end. But it can be decreased. Coruption in govt isn't going to end. But it can be decreased. Not everyone can be wealthy. But an environment can be created where there are more demand for employment. More demand for employment means higher wages. OWS isn't going to fix any of this. What they can do though is the first step. Showing the people the corruption so they can force it to be fixed
suggesting a leader now would kill the movement:
the media would personalize everything and no longer focus on the issues.
Eventually yes, but we have plenty of time to refine the message and work together. We don't need a presidential candidate until summer of 2012 at the soonest.
Real leaders are just those people listen to seriously. Having "a" leader is a waste.
Without some form all you have is consensus. And have we have seen, that just leads to nothing getting done.
A person that stands for nothing will fall for anything.
What could a leader of a protest do that isn't already getting done???? They are protesting the are voicing there message they are making sure people are getting fed. This is a protest not congress.
Ask MLK.
agreed, systemically and game theory wise, ows is more powerful without central leaders, more powerful with all of us leading, more powerful NOT creating some new oligarchic structure.
they only want an oligarchy so that they can corrupt it, kill it, or attack it. They don't know how to deal with horizontal organization.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4Z9WVZddH9w
[Removed]
[Removed]
Anarchist nonsense. A movement can't be effective by so called "consensus".
It makes much more sense then allowing everybody to do things for you. I don't need someone to vote for me. So do u just wanna live in a dictatorship???
If you think you're leaderless, you're clueless. The people who control the money, own the domain names and control communications are the leaders.
Not true. A leader gives directions. No one is giving directions. A leader, in the very least, inspires direction. No particular person or group is doing that either. This site, while apparently funded by a group with a lot of money, does not tell me what to write or think. It's part of the movement. You and I come here and write whatever we want. Those who are hear writing on the side of OWS are not being guided in what they write by anyone other than their own sense of what is right and wrong. Neither does the site appear to be channeling the message to give it direction by filtering things out. So far as I can tell, there are plenty of detractors like yourself here. One of the clearest proofs that there is no leader is the constant complaint against the movement that it has "no specific demands."
If it had a leader, it would have clear demands by now that would be its platform. Because it is not an organization, but a movement, it is disjointed with many people from many walks gathering simply because they are mad at the way government is operating in bed with Wall Street. They all have many ideas, no clear platform. People, of course, will try to organize it and harness it to create a platform or manifesto. Detractors will complain that it is not an organization because they think it should be so they could more easily attack it. It is a MOVEMENT. It is a lot of angry people coming together to voice their anger and demand that their politicians start working together for viable solutions that do not smile on Wall Street's greed and misconduct. It is a lot of people saying, "You're not going to get away with this, Wall Street. We are going to chastise you and pressure you and pressure government UNTIL we start to see serious action taken to clean up The Street."
--Knave Dave http://TheGreatRecession.info/blog
The protests are failing because there is no direction. You need to be specific about what you want, not just angry.
A good leader listens to people and would be able to keep people on track.
Not everybody is created equal by the way. We should treat each other as such but we simply are not.
I said everyone's view should be treated equally. If it didn't then that's what I meant. I know everyone isn't created equal I have watched bay watch. And if there isn't a clear view then why can people argue against it. Why would banks be upset if there wasn't a clear message?? The message is clear.. The only ones confused are probably those who are less equal in intelligence
You said "I've heard all men are created equal".
The message is all over the place. There isn't a clear-cut set of demands on the policy level. And even if you did have good enough demands, you have to tell them to congress, not wall street.
Why wall street tells congress what to do. And a protest don't set policy government does!!!
Yeah, that's what I'm saying. Congress has to enact the policy you want. They can make policy demands out of the protests the same way I can pull Hershey's out of my ass. They have no specific demands or pressure to meet those demands from you.
Wall street influences congress but does not tell it what to do. There is a difference. No one is making the politicians take the money, they do it because its in their self interest.
I'm all for limiting individual donor amounts too.
Wall st tells them exactly what to do.
Its not a puppet government.
There is a difference between influencing a vote and voting.
Whatever you want to call it. Our government don't vote for what's better for the country as a whole they vote to help big campaign financiers companies make more money.
Not every bill has something to do with campaign finance, believe it or not.
Don't listen to trolls who want to convince you you need a leader. They probably know it will be the death of the movement. Just look at this comment: "The protests are failing because there is no direction.." Who says the protests are failing? The protests have gone from New York city to cities big and small all over the world in about two months time -- faster than the tea party spread through the U.S. That's failing???
--Knave Dave http://TheGreatRecession.info/blog
Size of the protest doesn't matter. Have you had any political endorsements? Are you pressuring Washington?
Nope. Unless something results from the protests in the political arena that changes everything, standing out in the cold does nothing.
Why would this movement want political endorsements? What it wants is politicians to agree to what it says, and there have been a number of those. It wants to strengthen their dissolve to do something about it. We don't know if it has done that. It wants to get other people in the world to finally start raising their voices about what happened. And on that it has been enormously successful!. That is no small accomplishment in just two months! It is nothing short of astounding. I know, as I've tried to influence opinions on this topic ever since it began with very little success at stirring people up.
--Knave Dave http://TheGreatRecession.info/blog
It doesn't matter that you're pissed off if nothing in the legislation changes. Political endorsements make it look better.
Many dems don't want to touch this movement with a 10 foot pole right now.
You don't really think any group could change the most entrenched politicians in the universe to change their positions in just two months do you? The gridlock in Washington was around before the Occupy Wall Street movement started, and it exists because politicians in the U.S. are more stuck in their positions than ever -- most Republicans. Democrats who have built up a career in politics are not likely to rush to endorse a group that has only been around for about two months.
--Knave Dave http://TheGreatRecession.info/blog
Of course not, but you're not even trying. Its just spewing random stuff left and right. There is nothing specific that has been demanded