Welcome login | signup
Language en es fr
OccupyForum

Forum Post: Get a Leader!

Posted 2 years ago on May 19, 2012, 3:03 p.m. EST by cregglund (4) from Honokaa, HI
This content is user submitted and not an official statement

History repeats itself and every successful societal revolution in history started out just like the Occupy Wall Street movement has started with just one exception: OWS still has no leader.

Without a leader, you have no point on the spear and no real direction. Think of 6 people in a raft trying to row from one side of the lake to the other. Without a leader for the 6 rowers to watch, the raft will simply spin around in circles.

Think of the American Revolution. Many men such as yourselves considered themselves radicals and wanted to fight against the British Nobles; many of those men died because they were rowing the raft in different directions getting nowhere.

Romney and Obama share the same ideology but from opposite ends of the spectrum.

The Conservative GOP and the Democratic Liberals are basically the same party, just opposite sides of the room; the rest of us aren't invited.

All of them represent the American Elitists. Why else are we so disappointed with the Obama Administration? He let us down because his rhetoric sounded so liberating but when he took office he became just another American Elitist; once he walked into the castle he never came back out.

I am an old man (not so old, actually – just over 50) and I have been waiting a long time for this revolution that you young people are starting. But you’re doing it all wrong! You look like a bunch of Elitist wannabes out to gain personal validation.

Get organized! Figure out your mission! Elect or appoint a body of leaders and watch their lead so that you all row the raft in the same direction.

If you continue the way you began then they will divide and conquer you. The OWS might be popular for one or two generations but history will only remember you as a bunch of misguided myopic discontents.

If I were your leader my first order of business would be to formerly register the OWS as an American political party and then I would encourage every member and supporter of the OWS to NOT VOTE this coming election.

If you want to “create real change from the bottom up” then stop putting the same group of people in power every four years. Study the history of America and learn!

The American Judicial System was formed as an institution where the average citizen could get justice – the first of its kind in the history of the world. But the system is corrupted; it’s been purposefully distorted by the lawyers for the convenience of the lawyers.

The American citizen, no matter how innocent they are, must be wealthy for the American judicial system to work. And the wealthy American, no matter how guilty they are, can always count on the system to work.

The American Judicial system is now no different than the Majlis-e-Shoora (Pakistan Parliament). The same thing is happening to healthcare -- if you are not an American Elitist then you might as well travel to Mexico for your healthcare.

The elite barristers in America who call themselves counselors should all be ashamed and embarrassed but they are too busy counting their coins.

Those barristers are the politicians, the prosecutors, the judges, the congress, the senate, and even the presidents of the US. They have sacrifised "for the people" and replaced it with "for the lawyer".

The OWS is off to a good start but don’t blow it now by pretending its cool to be spontaneous and random; it is a waste of good energy. Empowerment only goes so far on its own and then it needs to be tamed and harnessed just like a stallion.

Think! Think hard!! Find yourself a moral leader with respectable intentions and listen to him/her. Study how our founding fathers successfully fought against the ruling nobles by picking one good man (George Washington) and do the same thing! Take the next step and don't blow it or you will surely die!!!!

61 Comments

61 Comments


Read the Rules
[-] 2 points by bensdad (8977) 2 years ago

We are anarchists we don't believe in structure or A leader
just look at the success of ?
We are communists
just look at the success of ?
We are nazis and believe we should rule the world
just look at the success of ?
We are protestants we believe in burning witches
just look at the success of ?
We are Spanish catholics we believe in burning Jews
just look at the success of ?

We are juveniles and don't believe in what our parents did
no matter were they were successful


can anyone argue that OWS's structureless leaderless consensus model
is not leading to our demise?


Sure - tp had money to back up its lemmings -
but we have romney and grover and alec and koch and superpacs helping us


and as long as we worship the idol of "not like our parents"
........................................................................................WE WILL LOSE

[-] 2 points by DKAtoday (28265) from Coon Rapids, MN 2 years ago

Thanks for the advice Trashy - I thought you were leaving.


cregglund

Just a guy trying to survive in a world gone mad. Private Messages

Information

From Honokaa, HI Joined May 19, 2012

[-] 1 points by francismjenkins (3713) 2 years ago

Here's a good read for the OP:

http://www.spunk.org/library/intro/sp001550.html

[-] 1 points by geo (2638) from Concord, NC 2 years ago

Empowerment only goes so far on its own and then it needs to be tamed and harnessed just like a stallion. Think! Think hard!! Find yourself a moral leader with respectable intentions and listen to him/her

Guess you never heard that power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely. The road to hell is paved with good intentions. Personal empowerment has no need to be tamed.

[-] 2 points by bensdad (8977) 2 years ago

Why do the "leaderless" advocates believe leader = dictator
I'd vote for the president of OWS - Warren, Sanders, Feingold, Reich, Hartman

[-] 1 points by geo (2638) from Concord, NC 2 years ago

I don't believe in a cult of personality. What happens when that specific leader passes on/bails out/sells out? Can one person embody the spirit of the movement and understand the needs of all the constituents?

[-] 2 points by bensdad (8977) 2 years ago

Was Churchill a cult leader ? Franklin ? Eisenhower ? Lincoln ?
Do you deny that OWS, after brilliantly waking up the world to many truths - is now foundering ? If you think not - ask anyone who is NOT in OWS about how their attitude about OWS has changed. Why is Paul Ryan's budget still possible ? Why are we not screaming every day about the republican lies ?
Why are we glued to policies and methods that have never worked ?
Certainly, Obama's magnetism could be called cultish to and by some people but -
Why are we afraid to say "Obama is not perfect - but he is the best choice for the future" Democratically elected leaders have to be re-eleced - and are the essence of a non-cult For me a cult is ONE unalterable way of looking at things - like a religion

[-] 2 points by geo (2638) from Concord, NC 2 years ago

It comes down to that I don't believe that we can change this system by taking part in it. A leader becomes a target for the opposition to focus on. Whatever flaws they have will be interpreted as flaws for the movement. We can see this with Ron Paul.

Maybe OWS is relegated to just sounding the alarm and participation in this group only accomplishes that. I don't see an anarchist revolution being feasible, especially with the Black Bloc actions and the negative publicity gained from that. But raising the alarm and starting discussion on topics that have been avoided is a noble action and non trivial in of itself.

I still feel that OWS's strongest suit is that it takes issues to the street. The organization is still new, very new. That interest may have waned in the press is to be expected. I see this as a long term fight. And I believe that civil unrest does more to shakeup a corrupt political system than participation in that corrupt system. Maybe I'm wrong, but thats what brought me here.

[-] 3 points by bensdad (8977) 2 years ago

I'm glad you are here - dialog always helps -
but I respectfully disagree - FDR was elected by the people four times

[-] 3 points by geo (2638) from Concord, NC 2 years ago

Thats true, FDR was elected 4 times, then term restrictions were imposed out of fear by the opposition.

I believe that there is room for both of us in the movement. I could see the necessity of both tactics (street action and political involvement) to be used in order to create change. Just one avenue may not be enough.

[-] 1 points by bensdad (8977) 2 years ago

absolutely- "my" group "Corporations Are Not People" is the political arn and "End Corporate Personhood" is the street arm ;

[-] 0 points by cregglund (4) from Honokaa, HI 2 years ago

Yes, I've heard those slogans. Have you ever heard "Don't swap horses in midstream"?

[-] 1 points by geo (2638) from Concord, NC 2 years ago

Enlighten me as how that applies to the discussion.

[-] 1 points by cregglund (4) from Honokaa, HI 2 years ago

Logically, it applies because if you are going to use slogans instead of free-thinking then don't cherry pick the ones you like; use them all.

Abraham Lincoln coined that slogan about horses in midstream (not the Vampire Hunter; the 16th American President) and it means don't change the current direction of the country right in the middle of turbulent times. Duh.

[-] 1 points by geo (2638) from Concord, NC 2 years ago

Slogans aren't data. Data gathered about a subject applies to that subject, all slogans do not apply to all situations thus picking the ones that do apply is very logical.

Yes, changing horses midstream... keep the status quo during turbulent times.... a very conservative sentiment. I would agree with you except that it is the status quo that has given us these turbulent times. Keeping things the same would be a huge logic fail.

Here is another slogan: "Insanity: doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results" ~ Albert Einstein

[-] 2 points by bensdad (8977) 2 years ago

republiclan = felon = reagan = republiclan = felon = nixon = republiclan = felon = bush

[Removed]

[Removed]

[-] 0 points by beautifulworld (20516) 2 years ago

If this movement had a leader I probably wouldn't participate because I'm not a follower. I'm not going to go along 100% with any one particular leader. You see, we all contribute equally here, everyone matters with this movement. That is why it hasn't been corrupted and possibly never will be. You say make OWS a political party. Good grief. That would be the kiss of death.

[-] 1 points by JPB950 (2254) 2 years ago

Few will go along with anything 100%, but I disagree about the leadership, every collection of individuals develop a hierarchy, even if they don't specifically identify it as such, it's there.

[-] 1 points by beautifulworld (20516) 2 years ago

But, what you're saying then is that we should have our very own 1% within OWS. I disagree. Everyone has equal say. That is the point.

[-] 1 points by JPB950 (2254) 2 years ago

In all honesty I believe you probably have something close to it already. Not as small as one percent, but a minority actually being looked to as people to admire and listen to (a rose by any other name...).It begins all on it's own and grows. There are people whose opinions are sought, listened to more then others, that are more articulate, sound more authoritative. People simply are not all exactly the same and some personalities will rise to the top.

[-] 1 points by beautifulworld (20516) 2 years ago

Okay, but they're not pounding their fists and ordering us about. They seem to be open-minded people. If they wanted to take over the power of this movement in a real way, they would, wouldn't they? Things have to get done. Like this website, for goodness sake, somebody has to run it, but can't you see how open-minded the mods are by the number of trolls allowed here? It's a pain, but in the end it is a good thing.

[-] 1 points by JPB950 (2254) 2 years ago

I'm not saying it has to happen, but honestly, few governments start out totally corrupt. Corruption seeps in as people become complacent and allow others to take charge. Occupy does have people that tend to lead, over time that power is capable of corrupting.

When Ben Franklin was asked what kind of government he'd given us he replied a republic, if you can keep it. The if you can keep it portion of that quote goes for any participatory form of government. When the majority stop working at government the leaders will assume more power, benignly at first, but it can't end well when the people no longer care.

[-] 2 points by beautifulworld (20516) 2 years ago

OWS is a movement not a government.

[-] 1 points by JPB950 (2254) 2 years ago

Organization then, not really an important distinction when it come to corruption developing, ask those over at the United Way.

[-] 0 points by beautifulworld (20516) 2 years ago

I understand what you are saying.

[-] -2 points by DSams (-71) 2 years ago

That is reliance on "heresay" and facts not in evidence (with regard to the "character" of people in OWS leadership positions (either formal or informal)). I am not attacking, merely observing the difference and boundary between facts and opinion (hope?).

[-] 1 points by beautifulworld (20516) 2 years ago

No, not heresay. I've been on this forum since October and have a pretty good idea of what has gone down here. The mods are more than tolerant.

[-] 0 points by DSams (-71) 2 years ago

If the forum is your source of information, then "heresay" more than applies. This is merely an anonymous message board, and provides little factual insight to Occupy "character" and "leadership".

[-] 0 points by beautifulworld (20516) 2 years ago

I'm talking about what I said about the forum. If the information I have from being on the forum for 7 months doesn't apply to the forum, then I just don't know what to tell you.

[-] -1 points by DSams (-71) 2 years ago

I beg to disagree...

[Removed]

[-] -1 points by JoeWinters (47) 2 years ago

The fact that you think OWS is not corrupted and never will be is the most dangerous part of OWS. When there are humans running something, there is always some corruption. You should always keep your eyes open. Good clean political systems don't come from blind trust, but rather, from tight vigilance.

OWS has leaders, except they benefit from not having to be elected and don't have limit terms. The leaders are the anarchists who started the movement and make it to every GA. They make the decisions. No one else. If you don't know this it's because you haven't research it yet.

[-] 0 points by beautifulworld (20516) 2 years ago

I thought you couldn't participate anymore. I tend to stay away from organizations that say you must believe x,y and z. OWS is somewhat amorphous, and I'm sure not perfect, but I like it that way.

[-] -2 points by JoeWinters (47) 2 years ago

OK, I must have misread. I thought you had the goofy idea that somehow OWS was un-corruptable because of its nature when we all know from attending GAs and reading minutes that the minority is king and that the anarchists have already highjacked the decisional process more than once.

There are some great things about OWS, but nothing is perfect. It's important to remember that nothing is perfect, or else we end up getting easily tricked and unhappily surprised. Keep your head up mate. Always.

Yeah, I was supposed to start a contract yesterday, but the contractors are a day late, so I had one more day to help people find their bearings on this site.

[-] 1 points by beautifulworld (20516) 2 years ago

No offense, but I have my bearings. LOL! And, so do most others here. You are right, nothing is perfect and to expect perfection is only setting oneself up for disappointment. We're free here, I believe, to think and say what we want. That's a great thing. Let people think for themselves, post what you believe, and people will mull over what you and others say. Spreading knowledge can be a slow process but there is nothing more valuable, in my mind.

[-] -1 points by JoeWinters (47) 2 years ago

Knowledge doesn't come from what people believe, it comes from research and the scientific method which helps people know, not believe. I don't have faith in anything. I don't believe in faith. I know the GA is corrupted because I read the minutes and saw GAs for myself. Others believe the GA is the perfect system because they have never tried it.

[-] 1 points by beautifulworld (20516) 2 years ago

That is obvious. One comes to believe something after researching it and mulling it over, so to speak. I don't believe in faith either. Belief and faith are two different things. One problem with the U.S. is blind nationalism that is based on faith, like a religion. It is the root cause of most of the problems we have in this society.

I would never expect the GA's to be perfect, but that doesn't mean that OWS is less valuable to me.

[-] -1 points by JoeWinters (47) 2 years ago

Well, let's just hope OWS can affect some positive change that will last for years to come.

I'm just sad this site has been co-opted by conspiracy theorists and political discussions. It would be nice to have another site where the forum rules are enforced.

[-] 0 points by beautifulworld (20516) 2 years ago

I think you over-emphasize that aspect as most posts are good ones, be they for or against the movement, but I know what you are saying. Keep in mind that the freedom here is a positive thing in the long run.

[-] 0 points by lancealotlink (147) 2 years ago

Who says we are leaderless? I consider myself a leader. I am the first congressional candidate to run for Congress in the Occupy movement. though not every occupier might agree with all my political platforms I contend that I identify with this movement and those in this movement identify with me.

And I believe that I am the first of the many that will step forward in this movement and become leaders remember we're only six months old the tea party is five yeards old and it got hijacked by their so-called leaders"Sarah Palin" and "Dick Armey".

So maybe it's not so good that we be so easily lead to follow and be more trustful with this movement rather than its political stars who l lead us.. Please go visit my website employmentforthe99.com.

[-] 0 points by idealovindara (1) 2 years ago

no. endorsing a leader will only perpetuate the same power systems that we are trying to deconstruct. May occupy not endorse anyone as a savior. The only salvation to be found is within our communities and the interdependence we build between one another. THAT is real power. The relationships between people are already hard enough without the added hierarchical structure that oppresses and silences. NO ONE LEADER - but many leaders.

I for one, have no interest in repeating history.

[-] 0 points by cregglund (4) from Honokaa, HI 2 years ago

Many leaders or one leader... But all for none and none for all? Look at any team sport; does anarchy work for them?

Nobody wants to repeat history, but you and I are too small to change the laws of the universe; history is repeating as we speak.

[-] 1 points by idealovindara (1) 2 years ago

Ghandi's mantra: 'be the change you wish to see in the world' seems useful to mention. I appreciate the definition of anarchism that was posted so thoroughly below by DKAtoday. You may also consider reading up on the possibilities within humanity to function in societies.without a central leader within history - David Graeber and Howard Zinn are starts. Since neither of us know the future, the question should not be ' what will happen' but 'what end will we act towards'? I've studied how our founding fathers 'picked one good man' and do not mean to settle for the oppression and injustice central to the structure of our 'democratic' country, which only allowed land-owning, white men any substantial rights for hundreds of years thereafter.

[-] 0 points by TitusMoans (2451) from Boulder City, NV 2 years ago

A leader(s) would contradict the whole basis of an anarchist movement.

[-] -1 points by cregglund (4) from Honokaa, HI 2 years ago

If you truly were an anarchist movement then you wouldn't keep showing up in groups.

[-] 2 points by geo (2638) from Concord, NC 2 years ago

Democracy works in groups.

[-] -1 points by cregglund (4) from Honokaa, HI 2 years ago

You are misusing the associative law of math. Bad logic; try again.

[-] 3 points by geo (2638) from Concord, NC 2 years ago

Maybe you should look up the meaning of 'anarchist'

[-] 1 points by bensdad (8977) 2 years ago

ask ayn rand
for some real fum - google "ayn rand william hickman"

[-] 1 points by cregglund (4) from Honokaa, HI 2 years ago

I know what anarchist means. Do you? All revolutions started with anarchy but there isn’t a single society in history that overthrew tyranny yet remained anarchistic. If you don’t take the next step then your group will simply fade away into obscurity.

[-] 1 points by geo (2638) from Concord, NC 2 years ago

I know what anarchist means. Do you?

Given your response to DKAtoday's apt definition, and underestimation of the intelligence of people, I'll just state that I do. I don't want to bridge your attention span, nor do I believe in soundbites to get a complex message across.... neither do many others here.

As to your analysis of history.... well only time will tell.

[-] 0 points by DKAtoday (28265) from Coon Rapids, MN 2 years ago

What is anarchism?

Anarchism is the movement for social justice through freedom. It is concrete, democratic and egalitarian. It has existed and developed since the seventeenth century, with a philosophy and a defined outlook that have evolved and grown with time and circumstance. Anarchism began as what it remains today: a direct challenge by the underprivileged to their oppression and exploitation. It opposes both the insidious growth of state power and the pernicious ethos of possessive individualism, which, together or separately, ultimately serve only the interests of the few at the expense of the rest.

Anarchism promotes mutual aid, harmony and human solidarity, to achieve a free, classless society - a cooperative commonwealth. Anarchism is both a theory and practice of life. Philosophically, it aims for perfect accord between the individual, society and nature. In an anarchist society, mutually respectful sovereign individuals would be organised in non-coercive relationships within naturally defined communities in which the means of production and distribution are held in common.

Anarchists, are not simply dreamers obsessed with abstract principles. We know that events are ruled by chance, and that people’s actions depend much on long-held habits and on psychological and emotional factors that are often anti-social and usually unpredictable. We are well aware that a perfect society cannot be won tomorrow. Indeed, the struggle could last forever! However, it is the vision that provides the spur to struggle against things as they are, and for things that might be.

Whatever the immediate prospects of achieving a free society, and however remote the ideal, if we value our common humanity then we must never cease to strive to realise our vision. If we settle for anything less, then we are little more than beasts of burden at the service of the privileged few, without much to gain from life other than a lighter load, better feed and a cosier berth.

Ultimately, only struggle determines outcome, and progress towards a more meaningful community must begin with the will to resist every form of injustice.

In general terms, this means challenging all exploitation and defying the legitimacy of all coercive authority. If anarchists have one article of unshakeable faith then it is that, once the habit of deferring to politicians or ideologues is lost, and that of resistance to domination and exploitation acquired, then ordinary people have a capacity to organise every aspect of their lives in their own interests, anywhere and at any time, both freely and fairly.

Anarchism encompasses such a broad view of the world that it cannot easily be distilled into a formal definition. Michael Bakunin, the man whose writings and example over a century ago did most to transform anarchism from an abstract critique of political power into a theory of practical social action, defined its fundamental tenet thus: In a word, we reject all privileged, licensed, official, and legal legislation and authority, even though it arise from universal suffrage, convinced that it could only turn to the benefit of a dominant and exploiting minority, and against the interests of the vast enslaved majority.

Anarchists do not stand aside from popular struggle, nor do they attempt to dominate it. They seek to contribute to it practically whatever they can, and also to assist within it the highest possible levels both of individual self-development and of group solidarity. It is possible to recognise anarchist ideas concerning voluntary relationships, egalitarian participation in decision-making processes, mutual aid and a related critique of all forms of domination in philosophical, social and revolutionary movements in all times and places.

Elsewhere, the less formal practices and struggles of the more indomitable among the propertyless and disadvantaged victims of the authority system have found articulation in the writings of those who on brief acquaintance would appear to be mere millenarian dreamers. Far from being abstract speculations conjured out of thin air, such works have, like all social theories, been derived from sensitive observation. They reflect the fundamental and uncontainable conviction nourished by a conscious minority throughout history that social power held over people is a usurpation of natural rights: power originates in the people, and they alone have, together, the right to wield it.

[-] -1 points by cregglund (4) from Honokaa, HI 2 years ago

You just lost the attention span of 75% of the 99%. Make it fit in an SMS message and they might listen.

[-] 0 points by TitusMoans (2451) from Boulder City, NV 2 years ago

Anachists don't congregate in groups? That's a new one. What about anarcho-syndicalism or anarcho-communism or anarcho-capitalism, how would those work without a group?

[-] -2 points by jph (2652) 2 years ago

"If Voting Changed Anything, They'd Make It Illegal" -E.G.

By the time you jump through all the flaming hoops required to get into the system the system has already corrupted your intent. The very idea of 'representative' government came about from the past when people needed to travel for days by horse and carriage to get from New York to Boston,. this time is long past.

We need to use the modern world in the political system,. at least acknowledged that times have changed, and have a real participatory democracy, not an oligarchy of the 1% with wealth.

[-] 1 points by bensdad (8977) 2 years ago

voting changes nothing - except a president who kept America in one piece, and a British leader to protect the world from the nazis, and a german leader to conquer the world

The world is not black and white - it is virtually all gray - some good - some bad
The only time black & white is "right" is in religion is OWS a religion ? To some people it is

[-] -2 points by eboz987 (-7) 2 years ago

Your historical references are not valid in reference to modern-day American elections, wherein brainwashed Sheeple make false choices in rigged elections with predetermined ourcomes guaranteed if necessary by judicial overrides.

[-] 2 points by bensdad (8977) 2 years ago

making a point with global generalizations is VERY illogical
Hitler was elected - does that mean Germany should not have elections?
Fake choices- ?
Would an Rs let GM fail - yes
Would an Rs get t he troops out of Iraq - no
Would an Rs NOT support th e ryan plan
Would an Rs NOT sign the grover pledge
Would an Rs NOT cut medicare


If you know todays elections are predetermined -
who is our next president - Romney or Obama ?


and if you are silly enough to say there is no difference, tell me why
( scalia + roberts ) = ( sotomayor + kagan )

[-] 0 points by cregglund (4) from Honokaa, HI 2 years ago

Make up your mind: are you trying to change the world or nip the hips of republicans?

Here's a quesion: if you won the lottery tomorrow, would your political views remain the same? Probably not, hypocrite.

[-] 2 points by bensdad (8977) 2 years ago

I'm really impressed that you are so intelligent that you know me
better than I do