Welcome login | signup
Language en es fr

Forum Post: I Have Advocated A Leaderless Movement, But No More

Posted 3 years ago on Dec. 18, 2011, 5:16 p.m. EST by GypsyKing (8719)
This content is user submitted and not an official statement

In a movement like this, people must remain flexible to face events as they evolve. I had hoped that through the NGA, and through internet networking, we could achieve a focused agenda. This does not appear to be happening, and so I would advovate either Elizabeth Warren, or Russ Feingold, if either of them would be willing to take up that mantle.

Puff was right, and I was wrong.



Read the Rules
[-] 4 points by April (3196) 3 years ago

Anarchists do not believe in leaders. It will never happen.

The anarchists will promote direct democracy only up to the point that it might be used against them. The very democracy they advocate as a solution, is the same thing they use to manipulate this movement to keep themselves and their principles in power.

[-] 3 points by GypsyKing (8719) 3 years ago

We must simply circumvent this now by empowering a leader that actually represents this movement. Warren or Feingold would be such people.

[-] 1 points by tbuontempo (194) from Jersey City, NJ 3 years ago

GK, you can circumvent all you want. But one thing is for certain, if there is a leader, it is NOT OWS any longer. It is something else.

[-] 2 points by GypsyKing (8719) 3 years ago

Well, if people decide that they don't want a leader, or some workable form of leadership, that's up to them. I'm just one voice, and I'm just calling it like I see it.

[-] 1 points by tbuontempo (194) from Jersey City, NJ 2 years ago

GK, I understand your point. But I want to make my point clear.

The Direct Democracy system is at its core a facilitation system. OWS was established with this foundation. If it is changed, then it is not the OWS system, it is another system, or whatever.

Why I am such a stickler about this point is, simply put, all other systems that choose leaders allow for the serious possibility of the creation of an cult of personality. Anarchists recognized this a long time ago. It is why they broke with the Bolsheviks.

I am of the opinion, newly found, they are correct.

Something recently dawned on me, after the beginning of OWS. I have been heavily involved in electoral politics. I thought a lot about what creates distinction and division, fractions as John Adams called them, in political movements and it is, simply, ego. When you invest power, to any degree, in any body of people, the mature individuals who can keep the ego at bay are seemingly in the minority.

When I saw the facilitation process of OWS, I saw a real in your face example of a process which would serious limit the power of the ego.

I have seen nothing in the OWS, as compared to other political organizations, where one person is able to completely take the reigns of power.

I am firmly of the opinion this is the only possible system guideline for OWS to evolve along. If a cult of leadership rises up, it will fundamentally change the meaning of this movement.

More importantly, I see many people who have a superstructure of "get things done," a corporate mentality in my opinion, being brought into OWS. They want results. They are trying to force the Movement, the same way a corporation forces profit.

The mentality of the profit at all cost is what created the conditions, good or bad, we currently live in. The conditions of our economy, our politics and a social life. I think these conditions of our life can be described as pathological.

It is my hope this Movement is a beginning to revolutionize our lives, not reform.

[-] 2 points by GypsyKing (8719) 2 years ago

I appreciate this well thought out response. I am not 100% commited to the idea of a single leader, and I agree with you about the ego factor, and the cult of personality. It is also true tha OWS is something unique and has already had a lot of success. It is a damned difficult dilemma. All I can say is that we need to keep our eyes open as this movement evolves, or doesn't evolve, under it's current structure. On thing that worries me is that, as it is, this movement is tremendously dependent on the internet, something that I believe is still subject to corporate and government control. That issue needs to be addressed. Another issue is the concentration of effort. Unless this movement can persuade a large percentage of the population to act independently for change, that is actually get out in the streets and perform other actions to disrupt the current system, then they can wait us all out. Time is on their side. These are among the things that led me to feel a two-pronged approach would be most effective. We continue doing what we are doing, but also work within the political process. I understand your view, in fact I held the same view for a long time. But the stakes are high, and I don't think we should self-limit our options. The teabaggers in Congress are universally hated, and I think we could sweep the congressional elections if we took that approach. This would vastly improve the prospets for this movement, might even be the deciding factor. Just my thoughts. Thanks.

[-] 1 points by April (3196) 3 years ago

I could not possibly agree with you more. However, the horizontal structure of this thing, the direct democracy that is used to manipulate - was put into place precisely because it is difficult to break through. It prevents the movement from being co-opted, above all, by the moderate voices in the movement.

Many moderates that are still around have drank too much of the direct democracy koolaid. And love to echo the anarchists principles "we are all our own leaders", blah blah blah. Drunk is the only word for it.

Sadly, I see less and less moderate voices. So many people that were calling for a new organizational structure and leadership weeks/months ago are gone. I think for every 1 new curiousity seeker in the movement, 2 leave. Because most moderate intelligent people see how absurd this movement is. Anarchy does not work. To be successful this movement needs a better organizational structure (non-hierarchical is horribly ineffecient and practically completely disfunctional) and leadership. And direct democracy is a dangerous concept, also inefficient and easily manipulated. People know this. So they leave, realizing how absurd this all is.

I will say however, that there is less of the most radical anarchists than there was 2-3 months ago, on this forum anyway. Back then there was near constant rabid attack about replacing our Republic with Direct Democracy. Most of that is gone thankfully. I suppose that can be taken as a good sign.

But I fear and can only conclude that the most ravenous anarchists are still doing the groundwork, leading, guiding and manipulating this movement for their own agenda. And it has nothing to do with equality or ending government corruption.

I'm afraid this movement is a shameful waste. At this point, I see more moderates leaving than joining. The end result - this thing is going to end just like it started. With a handful of anarchists sitting in a park. Their work will have been done and successful. They have successfully created disruption, some amount of chaos, and maybe found some new recruits into their anarchy beliefs.

I do not think the anarchists will move aside or allow the moderate voices or agenda to break through. Evidence of that is what just happened between OWS ptb and 99%Declaration. If OWS ptb will not even try to work with 99%Decl, they certainly will not allow this movement to get a leader. OWS ptb rubbed them out 2 months ago, allowed them back as a Working Group only recently, and now shut them down again. They make excuses about procedural stuff being the reason. This is such a lie. If they wanted to, they could be working together with 99%Decl to fix whatever problems there might be. It is all about philosophical differences. 99%Decl wants to work with government, put people on ballots. I heard they were going to try to do write-in candidates for 2012. This is diametrically opposed by OWS ptb - "we don't need politicians".

Personally, I think the best course is to throw as much support and manpower as possible behind 99%Decl. That group needs help. They have a plan. More people can make it even better.

I'm not trying to be negative. But I think if anyone truly wants to, and IF there is a way to circumvent this thing, we have to fully understand the situation we are dealing with. This is just my take on it, of course.

But, Warren or Feingold are good with me. I'm flexible. I'll pretty much back anyone who is willing to work within government.

What's your idea anyway. Try to get consensus on a "who" then figure out "how"?? It might be more realistic to try to get a single message first - that will attract more moderate support - as a step 1.

[-] 3 points by XenuLives (1645) from Charlotte, NC 3 years ago

"Personally, I think the best course is to throw as much support and manpower as possible behind 99%Decl. That group needs help. They have a plan. More people can make it even better."

I agree, mainly because this is a way for people who can't physically Occupy to participate in the movement. I especially like how every Congressional District is involved by design.

I think that whatever the ultimate goal of the movement becomes, that it needs to involve working within the government in order to reform it. We can't just expect all of the demands to be met in one swift fashion. There are too many hurdles, too much corruption and control at every level for that to happen.

What WILL push us closer to the end game that we want is a concerted push to reform everything starting from the ground up. Lets get the city councils on our side first. Then work our way up to where we have enough influence to fill seats in the House and Senate. Only then should we try to run a candidate for President.

We have the momentum to get this started, but we have to be smart about how we use that momentum. I am afraid that if we aim for the Presidency too early then we will face the same fate as the Libertarians and Green party supporters: irrelevancy.

There are enough intelligent people in this movement that I know this can be done. It will take a lot of consensus and a LOT of time, but I am confident that this movement is finally the movement that can start a real, influential third party.

[-] 1 points by blazefire (947) 2 years ago

Ok....so firstly I'd love to thankyou for being here, and in this moment selflessly giving yourself to occupy (I think we should all do more of this).

Let me firstly say that I agree with much of what you said (the list of disagreements being shorter), and, so I will point out some points that I do disagree with:

  1. "non-hierarchical is horribly ineffecient and practically completely disfunctional."

So....To begin with, I would table that such a system has not been 'tried', or 'tested', however there are many theories out there, and some of them I find quite interesting....so interesting that I wrote a book:


The fact is that we need something new. The old and antiquated systems of democracy, socialism, communism, and all the other ism's, simply dont function very well. They suited us somewhat, through the dark ages, and the 1800's and whatever, but none of them, have proven success.

If I may table an opinion:

Humanity needs to unite.

It's just that simple....and a heirarchial system just won't 'cut the mustard'.

And it's world unity we need....the bankers are only adding an exponential layer, to a simple problem:


World limited resources, are limited.

We NEED to figure our way out of this mess.....and 'we' NEED to do it in a way that is acceptable by everyone: A non-heirarchial system.

  1. "Sadly, I see less and less moderate voices"

Hi. lol

[-] 1 points by April (3196) 2 years ago

Hierarchy and leadership structures work. Capitalism works. Republics work. Not perfectly, needs attention and tuning up from time to time.

How would you reconcile a non-hierarchical structure with capitalism. Because reality is - most people believe in capitalism. I'm not willing to "test" any untried form of government or economic system on a large scale and replace our form of government or economic system with something untried and untested. If you want an experiment to "test" a new form of government and/or economic system , it needs to be done on a small communal scale. Work out any snags between theory and practice before you subject 300,000,000 people to an experiment.

I suppose my use of the term "moderate" is really very subjective. I think the important thing to do is to be realistic and find common ground. And realize that we are all here because we want to make things better.

I agree we should unite. Let's start with something a little realistic like uniting our own country before we take to the rest of the world.
Even more realistic - I wonder if you and I can unite behind the idea of ending government corruption?

I haven't read you're whole book yet. I do have it bookmarked for when I have more time. I certainly appreciate the time and effort that must have gone into your work. : )

[-] 1 points by blazefire (947) 2 years ago

Again....I have very little to disagree with....and again I would like to point out that your presence and yourself are not those things....

"Hierarchy and leadership structures work."

  • A single leader might be fantastic....but leadership and heirarchy itself, is IMHO a completely different thing.

So......how should we pick our leaders then? Clearly kings and queens and successions based on birth, simply don't function very well. Democratic systems of voting simply end up as a popularity contest that has very little to do with policy, 'climbing the ranks', ends up with inordinate amounts of corruption.....what system of selecting leaders has shown success? And then theres the leaders themselves....

Even the best leader is only human. And a single human has only one lifetimes experience to draw from. How can they possibly have an understanding of all the things that 'government', encompasses? The director of a single hospital, can not possibly have an understanding of all that happens within that single institution, and this is only one, very small part of a whole that is impossible for any individual to understand....Then of course there are two sayings, about the nature of us humans, which, when seen in conjunction must cause anyone to pause...

"The road to evil is paved with good intentions."

"Power corrupts, and absolute power, corrupts absolutely."

A vote for any leader, no matter how good they are is a vote for leadership, which, in government, is almost predestined to fail, again, and again.

"How would you reconcile a non-hierarchical structure with capitalism. " - read further!

"If you want an experiment to "test" a new form of government and/or economic system , it needs to be done on a small communal scale."

YES!!!! And why has this not been done....to the empth degree? Why have we not picked a willing town and said, "hey guys want to try this new form of government?", and then look to the results, why, when we test so many of our communal systems, and work them and improve them, can the same not be said of our political arenas.....?

It has been done, in a 'non-sanctioned' manner.


And thanks again....and occupy! Omnia vincit amor.

[-] 1 points by ineptcongress (648) 3 years ago

you do know warren taught business and bankruptcy law at harvard--no political entangelements, but i will tell you she has top flight knowledge of business, regulations, and the problems central to this country--more than anyone else in there at present. she is a great choice, and a fearless advocate--she committed political suicide telling the blunt truth on the jon stewart show, and knew it--shortly after that appearance she lost the bid for CPB director--though i would use the word "relinquished"

[-] 1 points by GypsyKing (8719) 3 years ago

It is what you are saying exactly that has forced me to change my mind. We simply cannot let this movement founder out of misdirection. We should simply gather the signatures on a refferendum and go with a leader that is expierenced enough politically to reach out to the actual 99%. The last thing we need is to become just another radical splinter group. We simply cannot afford to fail here. Anyone sane can see that the goals are what's important here. Money out of government. End of corporate stranglehold on ecomomy. That's what we MUST achieve!

[-] 0 points by April (3196) 3 years ago

Buddy Roemer is available now and needs national exposure.

[-] 0 points by GypsyKing (8719) 3 years ago

I don't know who he is, but I know who Feingold and Warren are, and I think they are both great assets to our movement. I think we should devote ourselves to advancing Feingold, for reasons I stated previously in this post.

[-] 0 points by April (3196) 3 years ago

He's running for President. He's running on a platform of fighting special interest corruption and banking reform. He does not accept PAC money, only individual contributions, and wants to eliminate Super PACs. He needs supporters. If be some miracle Feingold were to be involved at some point, all the better.

Everyone should at least consider supporting him for Pres.



[-] 0 points by GypsyKing (8719) 3 years ago

No, we need a well known person with a long track record of supporting the interests of humanity as a whole. There are a long list of such people to chose from.

[-] 0 points by April (3196) 3 years ago

That's true. I was just throwing it out there. Like I said, I'm totally flexible.

[-] 0 points by GypsyKing (8719) 3 years ago

Well, don't be totally flexible. Read, read, read, read. Not a critisism, just a bit of well meaning advice:)

[-] -3 points by Jflynn64 (337) 3 years ago

Donut King, words of wisdom, lose the class warfare and socialist angle if you want to get anything accomplished. You have no support being a communist.

[-] 0 points by GypsyKing (8719) 3 years ago

If you are insinuating I am a Communist, you are dead wrong. Neither am I a socialist - I am a Jeffersonian Democrat. But the cold war is over, the elite support China, even though it is a Communist country, proving their utter hypocracy, and your scare words have lost their sting. Find some other angle to stiffle debate - ah, I've got it - use "terrorist" to describe anyone who disagrees with you.

[-] -1 points by Jflynn64 (337) 3 years ago

You want to stifle freedom by controlling people's ability to fed their families. You want to send this control to WA where there will be more corruption than there is now. Look at what just happened in the State of IL with the state treating corps differently to try to get jobs. The power corrupts. And it is not unique to a party.

Lable it what you want.

[-] 1 points by GypsyKing (8719) 3 years ago

It is also possible to remove corruption from power, whether the power of the state, or of big business. FDR did a good job, it lasted quite awhile after his death. What you are saying is justice doesn't exist. I don't agree.

[-] 0 points by Jflynn64 (337) 3 years ago

It's impossible to remove corruption from absolute power as it is humans making those decisions. Without counterbalances and checks, bad decisions happen. You can think FDR was great, but he still tried to control the Supreme Court. A recent example is Paterno at Penn State. It has nothing to do with parties or ideologies, it is human nature, IMHO.

[-] 2 points by GypsyKing (8719) 3 years ago

I.e., "Therfore nothing can be reformed,so just go home and take that minimum wage job if you can find it." I just wanted to some up your point here.

[-] 0 points by Jflynn64 (337) 3 years ago

No reforms are easy by forcing competition and boundaries. It's the old sports team analogies. What would happened to Freddie and Fannie if they did not have cheap government funding. What would have happened to the banks if they did not have all the deposits forced upon them by the government guarantee.

[-] 1 points by GypsyKing (8719) 3 years ago

"No reforms are easy by forcing competition and boundries."

Please note the absolutely Orwellian illogic of this sentence, and it's complete failing of gramatical structure. It is designed to at once confuse and bore the reader into submission.

At one point I posted an example from Orwell on this subject, but that post is burried now somewhere on this forum.

[-] 0 points by Jflynn64 (337) 3 years ago

You are assuming that the boundaries are government enacted and controlled.

Why did MF Global, two years after the financial crisis, go out and violate the most basic and prudent rule of investing - diversification. Because they knew from prior governmental actions that they would be bailed out at some point. If the government would just let the institutions fail and make the equity and bond holders lose all their money, then gong forward their will be a much higher appreciation for risk.

You might believe that government restrictions will solve problems but rarely do. They didn't catch MF Global, which frankly was pretty easy and the market is adapting now to the restrictions of Dodd Frank with the advent of private lenders. In my opinion, there will be a bevy of private/mezz debt lenders who will grow to take over the lending roles from the banks as they wither.

[-] 1 points by infonomics (393) 3 years ago

" It has nothing to do with parties or ideologies, it is human nature, IMHO."

Amen. Remember the infamous words of Tim Russert "integrity is for paupers." Yep, that was Tim's revelation when NBC dangled that golden carrot in his face. Money transformed Tim from Democratic congressional aide to General Electric’s puppet.

Anyone can be bought. Changing puppets instead of changing the system is a manifestation of an exhausted mind. For example, what about a plural executive in the executive branch? Radical? Apparently not, since Alexander Hamilton pondered it.

[-] 0 points by puff6962 (4052) 3 years ago

My Lord, change your name or get a little more intelligent.

[-] -1 points by Jflynn64 (337) 3 years ago

Man, you ego has to be huge, All you do is tell everybody how much money you've made and how intelligent you are.

[-] 1 points by puff6962 (4052) 3 years ago

Actually, I have never done either.

[-] 0 points by Jflynn64 (337) 2 years ago

Oh yeah, you're the nicest guy on this board. You never told us about your past success and intellectual capacity.

What happened, was it the Dems or Reps who wouldn't listen to you and kicked you out of the party. Did you get into an argument with Karl Rove?

[-] 0 points by puff6962 (4052) 2 years ago

blah blah blah 1% blah blah blah Republocrat blah blah blah

[-] 0 points by Jflynn64 (337) 2 years ago

Nice response, put down the drink and move away from the computer.

[-] 2 points by tbuontempo (194) from Jersey City, NJ 3 years ago

Can you give me an example of where "anarchists will promote direct democracy only up to the point that it might be used against them" this happened?

Please no abstract speculation, just a real example of something you experienced.

[-] 1 points by April (3196) 2 years ago

Yes, the example is above. The situation between OWS ptb and 99%Decl.

You'll need to do your own research on the situation. I can't possibly recite the whole mess that has gone on between the 2 groups over the past few months.

Anarchists are opposed to authority, yet the OTW ptb are imposing their rules and authority against the 99%Declartion group.

It's the anarchists dilemma. What if a majority voted through direct democracy not to use direct democracy anymore? I would really like to know. Based on how OWS ptb has treated the 99% Decl group, I do not believe that OWS ptb would ever allow such a vote to take place.

[-] 1 points by tbuontempo (194) from Jersey City, NJ 2 years ago

April, Do my own research? On what, where? I have no idea what you are talking about.

My initial question still stands. Your statement in reply about the OTW ptb and 99% Declaration are making references to events and a document that have no baring on my question, as far as I know.

Once again I will restate, can you give me an example of where "anarchists will promote direct democracy only up to the point that it might be used against them" this happened? Your statement is abstract. I am asking you to explain where the concept for your statement came from. What did you experience to conjure up this statement? What did you experience that lead you to this belief? And, now that I am thinking about it, how do you know the people you interacted with were Anarchists? I have at OWS run into a number of people who seem to think Anarchism means running around topless doing whatever they want with no rules to effect the expression of their ego.

I need something that I can understand, an event, a name, a description of the person who said this. Where did it happen? What was the context of the conversation you had, or the debate or whatever? I have no idea where you are coming from with this. It is an incomplete thought.

As for your "anarchists dilemma." If the majority voted not use DD, than it is not OWS any longer. It is a different Movement. OWS has a foundation. It the foundation is not there, it is not OWS.

As an example: Let us suppose a group of Catholics, 2000 persons, in a community get tired of Priests raping their children. This group decides as a whole, on a democratic vote, to move to another church. This group moves to a Buddhist temple. But once at the temple, they are confounded with the ritual. They begin to demand that a Catholic style mass be implemented. They demand, they are the majority, that the Buddhists conduct ceremonies very similar to the Catholic Mass. They also ask for the appointment of a Bishop. As so on.

At some point it becomes obvious it is no longer a Buddhist Temple, but a Catholic church. This is the answer to your "anarchist dilemma," as you call it. If there is no DD, no OWS.

[-] 0 points by CrowPotkin (22) from Holbrook, NY 3 years ago

+1 to this. All I see is liberal belly-aching with no real critique.

[-] 2 points by ARod1993 (2420) 3 years ago

The critique is simple: the bigger you get the more disciplined and multifaceted your organization has to become if it wants to stay relevant. The occupations were great at raising awareness and making it possible to discuss income inequality openly in this country, and several of the continuing movements like the occupations of foreclosed homes are a great idea.

Now that you've begun to raise sufficient awareness you need to get people organized and you need to get them politically active. Develop a decent organizational structure, pick a few people to run in the Democratic or Republican primaries (whichever party generally holds your district), and build campaigns for them. Get friendly, clean-cut faces on the talk shows discussing fairness and reform (and the policies necessary to get those things) on a regular basis. Get OWS involved where it'll count the most.

[-] 1 points by GypsyKing (8719) 2 years ago

I think ARod is seeing this clearly. The thing I see as the most harmful is getting excessively caught up in process. The process is secondary to achieving the goal. We have taked over the issues to the best of our ability, and I think the logical conclusion is to work both within and without the system. Why be self limiting?

[-] 1 points by tbuontempo (194) from Jersey City, NJ 2 years ago

ARod, I see your point.

However, it is implicit in your argument some sort of unification of ideas and control. That is not the OWS I have experienced.

OWS Oakland has its own problems and needs. Some are similar to OWS NYC, some are different. Each individual GA must make its own decisions as to what directions it will take as to actions, and politics. Each can ask for support and solidarity from other GAs.

To have a leadership structure similar to the Democratic and Republican party would be nothing new. It would be the same worn out failed Representative Republicanism that has, once again, created a massive economic crisis.

With the technology we have today, it does not take a very deep creative thinker to come up with a system of national or international facilitation process where we all can make up our own minds on issues, and vote on them.

This type of process will keep economic issues, especially economic issues, and social and political issues local. By becoming involved in the Democratic-Republican machine, we will wind up like Bill and Hillary, co-oped.

It is my hope this Movement will evolve over a long period of time, and be at the forefront of long term change.

[-] 1 points by tbuontempo (194) from Jersey City, NJ 2 years ago

CP, can you give me an example of a critique you have witnessed at OWS that is "liberal belly aching?"

Since OWS is an anarchist Movement, I am sure when your real world example is presented to the GA, they will want it out as much as you do.

[-] 1 points by tbuontempo (194) from Jersey City, NJ 3 years ago

April, can you explain the experience you had that lead you to write this:

"The anarchists will promote direct democracy only up to the point that it might be used against them. The very democracy they advocate as a solution, is the same thing they use to manipulate this movement to keep themselves and their principles in power."

[-] 4 points by Algee (182) 3 years ago

No, we should stick to our roots. If you want a party then lets make our own. A party of people, from the bottom up. Let us not fall into the profit politics trap, and remain true the people. Let us Occupy congress seats with the people. I know you are impatient but control yourselves and help yourselves and all people work towards our own international movement. Only through hard work and time will we make it.

[-] 1 points by thenewgreen (170) 3 years ago

What do you guys think of the Americans Elect idea? It could be a good way to get a candidate on the ticket without them being the OWS candidate but rather the "peoples" candidate? .... that just so happens to hold the ideals of the ows movement?

I found out about the American's Elect thing here: http://hubski.com/pub?id=11424

[-] 1 points by Algee (182) 3 years ago

What does this entail?

[-] 1 points by thenewgreen (170) 3 years ago

From their website, "THE GOAL OF AMERICANS ELECT is to nominate a presidential ticket that answers directly to voters—not the political system.

American voters are tired of politics as usual. They want leaders that will put their country before their party, and American interests before special interests. Leaders who will work together to develop fresh solutions to the serious challenges facing our country. We believe a secure, online nominating process will prove that America is ready for a competitive, nonpartisan ticket"

They have raised a substantial amount of money, I some reservations about it but for the most part it seems legit.

[-] 2 points by Algee (182) 3 years ago

It seems interesting enough, though we should make sure that they put more emphasis on the people than the leaders. If they are legit I want to know how they run their voting and how they count. It would only be fair to let the people in on how this done. Transparency is the key, we must make sure we can trust this group. Thank you for finding this all contributions are welcomed.

[-] 2 points by thenewgreen (170) 3 years ago

Their entire premise is "transparency", and from what I've gathered they've done a good job thus far.

I like this site (ows) a lot. It's well structured. Good work to who ever is hosting/designing it! -hope you hear me :)

[-] 0 points by Jflynn64 (337) 3 years ago

because you will get high single digit returns. Most Americans are against income redistribution.

[-] 1 points by GypsyKing (8719) 3 years ago

You make a very good point. Eventually a seperate party might be a viable option, but the absurd realities of the two party system would almost certainly just divide the Democratic vote right down the middle, if we attempted this before the next election, leading to the unmitigated disaster of yet another Republican regime. This is about the dictates of political reality, which is where we must start. We simply cannot start anywhere else. If anyone else has an equally VIABLE plan, I'm all ears.

[-] 1 points by puff6962 (4052) 3 years ago

One other idea is for OWS to support the worst Republican candidate in their congressional primaries. This, of course, can backfire if the guy actually gets elected. The Democrats in California once encouraged donors to give to a certain Republican gubernatorial candidate during his primary on the basis that they thought he would be the weakest candidate to face the Democrat in the general.

Guess who that was.

[-] 2 points by GypsyKing (8719) 3 years ago

I would guess our old, addled, and cluless figurehead, RR. This example alone is enough to make me leary of that approach. Although given a really stark choice between one perhaps viable Republican candidate (and given the current sate of things I have a hard time imagining that any Republican would be seen as viable), and an obvious buffoon, it might be worthwhile to back the buffoon. The problem is, as you say, people I have seen as unelectable have been elected in the country, and not just a few times.

[-] 1 points by Algee (182) 3 years ago

I agree, we should try this and see what happens. But we must be careful to make sure that all our hopes do not rest solely on the leader. That could mean the collapse of the movement if results are not favorable. We must organize ourselves, even as individuals. Organize ourselves into our own groups and unite when the fight comes. And one more thing we should be careful of this "donating" thing, we must be able to accept even those that do not donate money. They already donate their hearts, minds and time to the movement that should be enough.

[-] 2 points by GypsyKing (8719) 3 years ago

Yes, that was one of my prime considerstions for opposing a leader in the first place. But I think this movement has, amazingly, already attracted a broad enough following that it won't be derailed in this manner. I am actually really excited by the prospects of this movement right now!

[-] 2 points by Algee (182) 3 years ago

There's another thing we have to do, we have to start a movement Television channel and a radio channel. We should also focus on disrupting the corporate media of each country. That would stop the flowing of propaganda. Now I am aware that this is only the beginning of the movement, these are just suggestions for the future. We should also focus some of our attention at building up alliances with other groups that think the same as this one does. Our leader must be as determined and capable as all of combined. He/she must be able to talk and argue. A person that has good organizational skills and can relate to people.

[-] 1 points by zoom6000 (430) from St Petersburg, FL 3 years ago

We need to ask other counties media to help with broadcasting covering all US state

[-] 1 points by ropeknot (359) 3 years ago

"But we must be careful to make sure that all our hopes do not rest solely on the leader."

Our hopes are what our leader says in an honest democracy ; where as we have failed to this date !

So yes ;

Make sure our leader says what we say !

[-] 1 points by Algee (182) 3 years ago

I said this because time and time again movements have gone hectic after the loss of specific leaders. We do not want that to happen for our movement. That is why we must have a leader and at the same time diversify in or dealings, if we should lose our leader let us not lose the movement at the same time. We should also work to not create a Cult of personality, in which people see the movement as in that sole person, the movement is the people and not an individual .

[-] 2 points by ropeknot (359) 3 years ago

Correct !

So when I wake up tomorrow I should be able to see your answer of how we can get this voting thing going "HERE" on this site !

Going to bed !

See you tomorrow !

Think hard about this , 'cause it matters for all !

Thanks in advance !

[-] -1 points by Jflynn64 (337) 3 years ago

You are kidding right, who is going to work for your party. Don't you get it, your followers don't want to work and get paid for it. Who will work to get out the vote, who will donate money?

[-] 2 points by aahpat (1407) 3 years ago

Leaderless is pointless. There is no frame of reference for people in the body politic who want to address social and economic justice that incite OWS.

A singular voice articulating the concerns of the multitude. I prefer that person or people, rise up through the ranks on a merit basis.

OWS is unique in its physical character of being facilitated by the Internet to respond in a flash action way effectively. This gets the attention of the status quo. But it does not then give the status quo anything on a policy basis to move forward with. The uniqueness is squandered. A million voices each angrily shouting something different is an effective roar but says nothing.

Some articulate personalities need to rise up and give a consistent voice to OWS for anyone to listen. America is a personality cult political culture. Denying yourself the seat at the table that that represents is simply self imposed blindness.

Work for change either be tearing down what exists over generations while ignoring the immediate needs of millions of desperate Americans or by flash mobbing the status quo and taking it back now by force of character and righteousness of cause.

The NGO is an exercise in democracy but it is not exercising America's democracy. Separate is not equal.

[-] 1 points by GypsyKing (8719) 3 years ago

If we worked in both areas it would double our effectiveness. We must be as inclusive as possible, and to deny a link with even the left-wing of the Democratic Party is sheer madness. We must not only include them but reach out to form a much broader coalition. Everyone who agrees with our core pricipals must be included.

[-] 1 points by aahpat (1407) 3 years ago

Associating with parties is always dangerous. But getting powerful enough as a political identity that the existing parties 1. try to adopt your values to co-opt you and 2. adopt your values to draw you into majority coalitions is how to make the masses of OWS, in the short term, into the political entity that it must be to actually achieve any of the goals that it aspires to.

[-] 1 points by GypsyKing (8719) 3 years ago

I respect your view, but given the failure of third political parties in the past, I don't think we should adopt that tactic as of yet - the reson being that with the presidential elections so near it would split the democratic vote - giving us four or eight years of yey another republican president and congress, by the end of which time this movement, and America itself, may literally just be history. In other words, I disagree.

[-] 1 points by aahpat (1407) 3 years ago

As an Independent voter I long ago gave up on voting for people who represent my social justice values. Voting for the best of Democrats results in murderous thugs like Barack Obama.

So I vote my values using the elections to express my political beliefs. I vote for the individuals who best reflect and respect my social justice values. Or I Write-In a candidate or opinion in races where I have no one to vote for or against.

[-] 2 points by GypsyKing (8719) 3 years ago

Yes, I understand registering Independent, and have always thought it a shame that it never became a really viable protest party. I think the problem may have been that Independents are really too politically diverse to come together effectively under the same banner. I think OWS, at the moment, might have the same problem. That's why I think we need to run our own cantidates. I don't care if they are Democrats or Independents, as long as they sign a pledge adhearing to OWS goals, and we can get them elected.

[-] 1 points by aahpat (1407) 3 years ago

Coming together under the same banner is not in the nature of Independent voting. Its more a matter of persuasion and incitement to a consensus. At least for me.

I am expecting that small local consensus bodies will come together around particular candidates for Congress across the country. There needs to be a central clearinghouse of ideas and support which is where the GA's should be going with their time and resources. After all, we don't need a majority of seats in the Congress. The tea party showed the nation that all we really need is a decisive margin that can force compromise with our ideals. A decisive margin is enough to be a winning margin. All that really needs to be is a couple of dozen sympathetic or like-minded Congress-people and, at most, a half a dozen senators. Not a very big or daunting task when there are most of 535 seats up for grabs for us to focus on.

It would be great to see a bunch of state level OWS groups acting as interchanges with a national organization.

But all of that is way to much to expect.

[-] 2 points by GypsyKing (8719) 3 years ago

Yes, that is why I have reluctantly come to the conclusion this movement needs a leader. We need to focus our energy where it will do the most good, and that's not happening.

[-] 2 points by GypsyKing (8719) 3 years ago

People, this is a watershed moment for our movement. We can either think in terms of dichotomys: this approach vs. that approach, my ideas vs. their ideas, my group vs. their group; or we can come together and use all the power we can muster in every manner within our ability.

I can tell you that the united, inclusive, expansive way of thinking will win the day. I KNOW this. We must not be divissive, but inclusive - not only of people but approaches to solving the problem. Open up, do not withdraw into fragmented, group think. That is exactly what our opponents want. We can work within the system and without the system, use protest, occupations, pressure on the Democratic party, and multinational approches to solving these issues. Expand your thinking to include the whole. Some of the best thinking I have seen here has come from Idaho, Nevada, Texas, and Florida. This movement has spread, and must spread beyond Zucotti Park, beyond the National General Assembly, beyond the confines of Manhattan Island - and it must do so quickly. Leaders can now help us focus, but we must not put our faith in leaders. It is we that are the driving force. Open up to the new, don't get locked into dogmatic thinking Embrace those outside the confines of our subjective world view and we will triumph.

[-] 2 points by FalseFlag (121) 3 years ago

We need a revolutionary thought to unite the world and end exploitation by dividing people. 99% around the world should unite for the same purpose. Warren is a bright person but we need a revolution, a lot more truth than she would talk about.

[-] 1 points by GypsyKing (8719) 3 years ago

I agree. But what I am talking about is means, not philosophy. I am talking about practical ways to begin to assert our aims in reality, as opposed to way we would ideally like to see in the long run.

A "revolution" whatever that would entail, would take a much greater percentage of the population behind us than we now have. And words like revolution (with it's potential implication violence) are a lot of the problem we have in bringing the actual 99% to our cause. We must get focused in our message, speak of revolution only in terms of overthrowing the 1/10th of 1% that are that are the real problem. It is the nuance of these distinctions that a sophisticated leader could help us to communicate.

[-] 1 points by FalseFlag (121) 3 years ago

We should jail top 0.1% and keep top 1% under surveillance until wealth distribution occurs. We thought Obama was great, now we think Warren is great. We should declare something all people around the world would sign online, end tyranny, make people politically equal. We need a world declaration of new human rights including equality in education, health and politics.

[-] 1 points by GypsyKing (8719) 3 years ago

What I am advocating doesn't preclude any of these ideas. And if any leader of the movement tried to reign in any of these approches, than he or she would no longer be recongnized as a leader of our movement. We need a leader, like Ghandi, who is willing to go to jail if necessary, but who can keep this movment going through a strong, ethical grounding.

[-] 1 points by FalseFlag (121) 3 years ago

That was independence movement against British. Since we are against tyranny of top 0.1% and cooperation of top 1%, we need something like french revolution. History shows that there is no other way, as long as they are around and powerful, they will outsmart you. You will get more 911 and patriot act. Enjoy!

[-] 1 points by GypsyKing (8719) 3 years ago

You would have to rephrase this, so that I could understand what you're saying.

[-] 1 points by FalseFlag (121) 3 years ago

Unless we do something like the French Revolution, we will not succeed. Powerful will always find a way to take control, to exploit and to rule.

[-] 1 points by GypsyKing (8719) 3 years ago

I disagree totally. The French revolution led to Napolion, simply because it was based sheerly upon materialism, and not upon the deeper values of the enlightenmet, represented by Jefferson and some of the other founders of this nation, who were ahead of the French at that time. We must go through this process, while at the same time maintaining civilized order.

[-] 1 points by FalseFlag (121) 3 years ago

The leader should grow out of OWS. A person who knows how it is like to argue with a corrupt major, a person who knows how it feels like to be beaten down by the police to protest what is going on in the government. We need class consciousness and we need to deal with the ruling elite, otherwise they are going to eat us for lunch. They already control us by fear, producing terror, they already stole our liberties. A revolution is the only solution.

[-] 1 points by GypsyKing (8719) 3 years ago

Well, if we genuinely had 99% at our back that would be possible. But the word revolution is ambiguous. By that do you mean violent reprisals, because if you do, it just starts the whole cycle all over again and we end up back where we started. Meanwhile the world moves ever closer to destruction. What we need is justice, and a spiritual renewal. I think that means mobilizing people on conscience, who may justifiably turned off by the word "revolution," unless it is more specifically defined.

[-] 1 points by FalseFlag (121) 3 years ago

OK, let's petition the government than:) I don't believe we can handle these people without revolution, they will eat us alive until we stop them. Revolution is turning it upside down which is take their power and privileges, distribute wealth to provide necessary services to people, plain the field, let people prosper through equality of opportunity and meritocracy. If you don't control their wealth and redistribute, they will always rule through more 911 and patriot act and fear or they will find something. Media is already propaganda machine, it will be impossible to wake people up, without taking what they have and give it to people. Sorry but that is how it works, take it, offer them meritocracy and equality of opportunity, but you can't build a mansion because the guy with the mansion always rule.

[-] 1 points by GypsyKing (8719) 3 years ago

I understand what you are saying, but you are putting the cart before the horse. The question is, HOW do we go about accomplishing these things?

[-] 1 points by FalseFlag (121) 3 years ago

I know we have reasons, I don't know how. The reason is doing this will give you a better economy and more prosperous people. Current economic ideology lies, in reality we are doing very badly, current wealth is a result of empire and dollar. If we don't do the revolution, we will be in terrible condition when the empire and dollar fall. I guess when enough people wake up, when we don't have the empire of elite, there will be not be enough resources and people will rebel to fix things. People will demand revolution to fix the economy and social ills. But as long as we have the empire, people won't revolt, so we need to wait until empire and dollar fall. After that, we will need the revolution to improve economy, to bring meritocracy, equality of opportunity. We will take the wealth and redistribute. Today, the empire is strong and they have tools, so I guess they will put us down for a while, until people wake up through internet. We need to keep telling the truth so people can wake up. When we are strong enough, we can legislate or make a revolution.

[-] 1 points by GypsyKing (8719) 3 years ago

Agreed. But what we are talking about now is means. Ways of actually being able to move from here to there, given the current state of political reality.

[-] 0 points by Jflynn64 (337) 3 years ago

You would have to jail Puffy 6269.

[-] 1 points by GypsyKing (8719) 3 years ago

I wouldn't be surprized, as he is a ringer for Puff6962, and a troll.

[-] 2 points by JadedCitizen (4277) 3 years ago

I'm for Russ, I like Elizabeth Warren a lot too, but according to what little information I could find, Russ already has traction among a couple of polls I looked at to be the primary challenger to Obama. In one straw poll, he captured 21% as the right candidate to challenge Obama. Warren wasn't on either poll.

[-] 2 points by GypsyKing (8719) 3 years ago

I agree too from this standpoint. Ms. Warren looks like she will win her Senate bid. Russ Feingold was defeated by a huge expedature of the 1% in his Senate race. Therefore she will be in a strong position to be useful as it stands, while he has been unseated.

[-] 2 points by JadedCitizen (4277) 3 years ago

V E R Y good point. & Puff always seems to be right - the smug, genius, little son of a bitch that he is. ;)

[-] 2 points by GypsyKing (8719) 3 years ago

I don't know anything about Puff, but yes, he is very smart. I think he has seen this clearly where I have not. My failing is often too great a degree of idealism to be realistic. The question is means. How do those of us who agree make this a reality? Lockean said something about this but I have yet to hear back from hIm/her. If we want change in the next election cycle we can spend no more time pondering. Those of us in agreement must act.

[-] 2 points by JadedCitizen (4277) 3 years ago

I've supported the big Puffer from the start, so I can get away with razzing him a little bit. To effect change, we need a clear, practical plan. He's laid the groundwork, but we need to keep gaining more supporters for Russ.

[-] 2 points by GypsyKing (8719) 3 years ago

How, through a petition? If so, lets get that going ASAP. I would sign right now!

[-] 1 points by JadedCitizen (4277) 3 years ago

Yes, I would too. An online petition would be best, but I'm clueless on how to do that. Puff also mentioned needing someone to draft a pledge for Russ to sign on ending corruption.

[-] 1 points by GypsyKing (8719) 3 years ago

Unfortunately, I am geogephically isolated, and am unable to work on these issues. I think we need to contact people with a connection to Russ Feingold, and get some feedback.

[-] 1 points by JadedCitizen (4277) 3 years ago

Maybe. I could contact someone at the group he founded, progressives united, and see what feedback they could provide, but I don't know how much good it would do. After thinking about it, the most useful thing that could happen is for Occupy to have an event or announcement to stand in solidarity with progressives united to end corruption in the government. If that could happen, then I think we would be in business.

[-] 1 points by GypsyKing (8719) 3 years ago

Please, do contact them anyway. As far as I can see, it's up to us individually to act on these things. As it is there seems to be no functional collective body, which is the problem. Thank you very much!

[-] 1 points by demcapitalist (977) 3 years ago

When you look at the revolving door for Goldman execs at the white house you can see the need for changes within the system. One of the problems that exists is there are very few people who truly understand the bond markets, trading, the nature of derivatives and the dangers of over leverage who would actually be willing to make the citizens of our country a priority. That's why I love Liz Warren and Russ Fiengold. These Goldman guys come in and talk a bunch of naive politicians into voting for laws they don't really understand like the 2005 "No derivatives left behind" act. that was the gift to Goldman in the AIG bailout. If we don't get new blood in these white house positions things won't change, risk levels won't change, we will still maintain an over leveraged banking system that's just waiting for a small breeze to blow us into another crisis/ bailout situation.

"Several former Goldman executives hold senior positions in the Obama administration, including Gary Gensler, the chairman of the Commodity Futures Trading Commission; Mark Patterson, a former Goldman lobbyist who is chief of staff to Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner; and Robert Hormats, the undersecretary of state for economic, energy and agricultural affairs." http://www.mcclatchydc.com/2010/04/21/92637/goldmans-connections-to-white.html

[-] 1 points by GypsyKing (8719) 3 years ago

Warren and Feingold are true outsiders, who are both smart as a whip. I sometimes wonder what is at the root of so much divisiveness that people can't even agree with those who agree with them? That quickly becomes a really dysfunctional situation.

[-] 1 points by demcapitalist (977) 3 years ago

Yup it's the problem with the left -tons of individualists. The right gets together picks out a few ideas that fit on bumper stickers and everyone can recite them within a few weeks dat's how they get all those votes even though they truly represent the 1%

[-] 1 points by GypsyKing (8719) 3 years ago

Yes! Thus the stupid defeat the smart. Makes you feel kinda stupid, doesn't it?

[-] 1 points by demcapitalist (977) 3 years ago

LOL frustrated for sure. ----- think about it 1 Smoot Hawley caused the depression, 2 The government made banks loan money to the poor 3 Obama is a socialist 4 the free market 5 the job creators can't have their taxes raised. Not a shred of incite only a few minor mostly irrelevant facts to back it up yet it works.

[-] 1 points by GypsyKing (8719) 2 years ago


[-] 1 points by demcapitalist (977) 2 years ago

That's my list of the GOP bumper sticker one liners.

[-] 1 points by GypsyKing (8719) 2 years ago

Wow, I'm thunderstruck by that outpouring of creativity! What will you do for an encore? Brush your teeth?

[-] 1 points by demcapitalist (977) 2 years ago

You can be a smartass if you want but the GOP gets elected because a bunch of guys sit in a room and come up with simplistic ideas like that and they sell.

[-] 1 points by GypsyKing (8719) 2 years ago

Are you saying we should all sit in a room and come up with simplistic ideas. I'm sorry, I'm not being ironical now, I just can't figure out what it is you're trying to say.

[-] 1 points by demcapitalist (977) 2 years ago

I'm just expressing frustration that the right has a great system to get votes with silly meaningless talking points and the left seems to not be able to agree on anything despite the many smart creative people.

[-] 1 points by GypsyKing (8719) 2 years ago

I'm sorry, I really didn't understand what you were saying. There are so many troils here! Anyway, yes! Isn't it frustrating? People who don't think for themselves are ready to get in line at a moments notice, and here we are, it's like they say, trying to herd cats! I just hope some functional system is put in place at some time in the future. I don't know what else to say. A lot of people believe in direct democracy, but I just don't see how that's going to be implemented. Meanwhile our message is getting coopted by groups completely outside this movements real values. It's beyond frustrating. We're losing centrists all the time. Sorry to say that, but it's true.

[-] 1 points by demcapitalist (977) 2 years ago

Trying to heard cats is nice ! sorry if I wasn't clear. I just remember this month a little while into the banking melt down when every right winger we knew was suddenly talking about how the depression was caused by Smoot Hawley an obscure relatively meaningless law passed in1930. No one I knew on the left was talking about how the derivatives that blew up wall street in 1929 were an almost identical in structure to the ones that blew up wall street in 2007. I bet Liz Warren could have told people that but who was listening.

[-] 2 points by RedJazz43 (2757) 3 years ago

You cannot point to a single social movement in history that had a single leader. Some had several, most many, Back in the days of the civil rights movement we used to refer to the "Big 6." They were respectively, the leaders of the NAACP, CORE, SNCC, the Urban League, the SCLC and the Negro American Labor Council. Each group was autonomous and not accountable or responsible to the others along with countless unaffiliated local organizations. This, as a whole, made up "the movement."

It is undoubtedly a misrepresentation to characterize OWS as leaderless. It is more accurately leaderful. When necessary and depending on the context, people rise to the occasion when their talents are needed and assert their leadership, but it is always contingent. While it is certainly not ego free and has a long way to go in that regard OWS is by comparison the most ego free movement I have seen in nearly 50 years of involvement in social movements, This is a new and very healthy development and should be encouraged,

What exactly would a leader be leading? That is, excepting for local GAs OWS has literally no structure and it has no structure at all beyond the local level besides personal and internet links. Leaders are typically the leaders of organizations, which are typically chosen by the democratic participation of the membership, Since OWS is not a memberhship organization, exactly how might such a leader be chosen,

That aside the last "leader" that OWS needs is some Democrat like Warren and Feingold. One of OWSs great strengths is its independence from the two political parties of the 1%. The history of the eviseration of popular movements of opposition in the US is a history of their being co-opted by the Democratic Party which is where every mass movement since the Populists has gone to die, Certainly choosing a prominent Democrat to lead OWS, by whatever means, would be the first step toward that co-optation and the begining of its demise as a social movement,

[-] 2 points by GypsyKing (8719) 3 years ago

I have considered your points thoroughly, and Indeed they were among my reasons for first believing that this movement should remain leaderless. But what I am seeing at the moment is, I believe, a dissipation of this movements energy through lack of focus. That is something a leader could address. Secondly, I think leaders, plural, will develop as the movement goes along. The fear of being co-opted really has to do with nothing but our resolve to not be co-opted. In the end, no matter what happens, it is only our collective resolve that will enable us to achive our objectives. But I have come to see that without a leader we are subject to having our "image" manipulated by the media, into something that is unpalatable to mainstream Americans, and it is their interests we are working for, along with the interests of all others in the world who are oppressed by the existing system of staggeringly centralized profits.

It is a question of means, not philosophy. It is a question of HOW to achieve our ends rather than anything else that has changed my mind.

[-] 1 points by RedJazz43 (2757) 3 years ago

Certainly the movement has had a set back primarily because of all the evictions and also because so far at least there has yet to be a successful re-occupation anywhere, But if anything the existence of real leadership has been demonstrated specifically as a consequence of the evictions and leaders have stepped up to guide and administer the various working groups that continue to function, What is lacking is the co-ordination which was much more a consequence of the eviction and the lack of a central occupation space than it is the lack of any star quality ego driven leaders, The movement today reminds me of a science fiction movie where a being has been dismembered and the various body parts are seeking each other out, That is where I think OWS is at this point, I think that will continue not until there is a leader with public name recognition, but until there is a space that OWS can occupy and where the parts can come together again to form a whole,

That is one reason why I think an occupation is so essential to the occupy movement, certainly more essential than a publicly identifiable leader, If OWS fails to successfully occupy by late spring that will indeed be a set back but it will still not be fatal for a number of reasons, among which are the fact that the crises it is addressing are systemic and not cyclical and unlikely to be resolved in the forseeable future and also the fact that OWS is an international movement and the repression of the movement in any one place will be invigorated by successes elsewhere,

There is also the very practical problem of how a leader would be chosen and what their role would be in a movement that has no organizational structure at all outside of local GAs.

[-] 2 points by GypsyKing (8719) 3 years ago

What is presented here is two different views of the movement. One is organic; revolving around the occupy sites and their interconnectedness globally, primarily via the web. The other is a mainstream political movement through the two party system.

I simply don't believe these things are, or should be, mutually exclusive. Ideally the one would support the other. The organic grass root component, keeping the mainstream movement honest, and the mainstream able to support the grass roots in the halls of power. The combination would be a serious threat to the staus quo.

[-] 2 points by Just1MoreVoice (76) 3 years ago

Pardon my asking, but what kind of goal could you really expect to achieve with OWS that might be better accomplished with a leader? There is a lot to be said for a collective of angry, creative individuals who desperately need to have a hand in changing things for the better. Don't give up on it just yet.

We don't have an infrastructure in the way political parties have them, and that is where we need to begin. We do need a few individuals capable of representing the interests of the movement (Elizabeth Warren is certainly an excellent candidate, but there are others), but they shouldn't be leaders, they should be representatives who can take our varied demands to the public at large and to the other factions that we need to be coordinating with.

OWS is a movement that embodies the frustration of the 99% and keeps it in the public eye. It doesn't need to be more than that. As long as we continue to demonstrate and to find clever ways of using the mass of willing and able bodes to peaceably gum up the system, then we are doing our job.

[-] 3 points by GypsyKing (8719) 3 years ago

You know, I've come to see that this isn't an either/or proposition. I should say, I have never seen it as an either/or proposition. I think we all have a tendency to see things as a matter of distinctions. It's just the natural way that people sort out reality, But sometimes it leads us to distinctions that aren't really necessary. The point is, I think we can do both.


[-] 1 points by GypsyKing (8719) 2 years ago

I don't know who puff is, so I can't say. Maybe you're right, but than a lot of other people are ego tripping too. That just seems to go with the territory in efforts like this, although I agree that it's a flaw, it's something most people get past at some point in life. All you really have to do is go out on a clear night, if you can find a place where you can still see the stars, and just stare at them for about ten minutes. Works every time.


[-] 1 points by hchc (3297) from Tampa, FL 3 years ago

Dont go with establishment figures, or you get......Establishment!!

[-] 1 points by GypsyKing (8719) 2 years ago

I think we need someone with a long established recond of uncorruptability. In spite of what one of the trolls here said, there are such people. If their weren't we would all have been starved or put into forced labor camps long ago. Feingold, Warren and Sanders are all such people. There are and have been people in the establishment that are uncorruptable, just not nearly enough.

[-] 1 points by maplehead74 (60) from Brooksville, FL 3 years ago

If it had to be an insider(government) I would highly recommend Bernie Sanders ( sanders.senate.gov/ ) He is an independent and fights hard for the 99%. I had figured a coalition of the movement with national or maybe even international representation would come out of this movement. And that from that would get some new leaders emerging. That powerful support for those that are emerging,those that are already on the job fighting for the people (Warren,Sanders...) would be only matched by the mighty scorn of those that are not. The Vermont Progressive party has a good model for this kind of model.

April don't be so heavy hearted. The impact of the movement is huge. I am in Florida and see people of all stripes pushing for change. I hear a dialog in the media and in the work place the could only be happening because of all the brave ,strong Occupiers. There is going to be power struggles in any group. With time it will work its self out. Fallow your heart, do what you know is right , and don't be discouraged. Something incredible is going to come out of this movement . History will have OWS as a defining moment when the people of the world rose up together to demand a voice for the 99% . What are we going to say?

[-] 2 points by GypsyKing (8719) 3 years ago

Maplehead, thanks for your comment and your words of encouragement. Bernie Sanders would be another public figure that would get my support.

[-] 1 points by jrhirsch (4714) from Sun City, CA 3 years ago

Leadership is unimportant. The key is to understand the root cause of this economic inequality, then fight it individually. No generals are necessary. The very basis for all economic inequality is for one group to overvalue their goods and services while the other group undervalues theirs. If you trade two hours of your labor for another persons labor of one hour, will you become richer or poorer? Poorer of course! And who's fault is it? Yours! In your battle against the unfairness of this economic system, you ignore your most powerful weapon! Your dollar! It is your labor, in a portable form. It's not just a piece of green paper made of plant fibers. What it represents has great value! It is the only weapon that wall street and the corporations will take notice of! So where do I use this weapon? At the source. The marketplace. This is where the battle must take place! Here you will find that a 1 pound box of cereal cost 3 dollars, yet the grain inside only costs 11 cents? Or a soda at a fast food restaurant that costs nearly two dollars, yet it's ingredients are worth pennies? Surely it isn't due to the high cost of water. Why does the name brand product always cost half again to twice as much? Are you that brainwashed to believe that a logo will guarantee you quality and status? It is amazing that the poor crave the very things that keep them in poverty. Don't buy name brands! Period! Buy generic, even better, buy used or make yourself! If you protest against these greedy corporations, but continue to buy their products, what will be the outcome? Nothing! You protest against the corporation on one side, but support the corporation on the other by buying their products. How will that make any change? Closing ports will only raise prices that you will pay for in the end. The objective of your protest is not to feel good about what you are doing by occupying a space or closing a place of business. The purpose is to make positive change in the balance of economic power! My God, if you can't see that, rip off those glasses you wear that have been darkened by years of false advertising and empty promises. Open your eyes and use your mightiest weapon. You the 99 per cent must value themselves higher and the 1 per cent lower! It is the only form of protest that will make change! Protest with your dollar!

[-] 1 points by GypsyKing (8719) 3 years ago

Protest with your dollar while others manipulate international labor markets and the rate of exchange? Good luck.

[-] 1 points by CrowPotkin (22) from Holbrook, NY 3 years ago

The moment this has a leader, you can count on it going the way of the Tea Party-- an irrelevant arm of disgruntled party members.

Fuck that noise.

[-] 1 points by GypsyKing (8719) 3 years ago

Well, I see that all the trolls agree with you.

[-] 1 points by CrowPotkin (22) from Holbrook, NY 3 years ago

Well, I see your intellectual honesty only extends as far as your fingers resting at home row.

[-] 1 points by GypsyKing (8719) 3 years ago

You can chose to think what you want, you don't know me.

[-] 1 points by Samcitt (136) 3 years ago

Why do you need one leader? Why not make your own elected council or senate? Champion democracy by practicing what you preach.

Alternatively if you need leadersip for the whole of Occupy, each occupy group has its own leader and the many occupy groups (I know, there are lots) form a Senate.

[-] 1 points by puff6962 (4052) 3 years ago

“Democracy destroys itself because it abuses its right to freedom and equality. Because it teaches its citizens to consider audacity as a right, lawlessness as a freedom, abrasive speech as equality, and anarchy as progress.”

― Isocrates

“A democracy is nothing more than mob rule, where fifty-one percent of the people may take away the rights of the other forty-nine.”

---Thomas Jefferson

"Democracy never lasts long. It soon wastes, exhausts and murders itself. There was never a democracy that did not commit suicide."

---John Adams

A leaderless movement moves nowhere and then destroys itself.

That is why this entire web democracy, leaderless movement, charade is nonsense. It is death by an accumulation of self-inflicted wounds.

[-] 1 points by GypsyKing (8719) 3 years ago

I think that's what is being tried, in a sense, with the formation of the NGA, and to me it seems that(at the moment) they are bound in gridlock. If we can't create such a workable structure, and do it fast our effectiveness will be greatly reduced. Personally, I don't feel it can be done that fast. By a "leader" I really mean more of a spokesperson, in a sense, because this is, and will remain a grassroots movement. That has already been clearly demonstrated.

[-] 1 points by puff6962 (4052) 3 years ago

Na, we're both right. What should lead is our ideas and who should lead us is the best person to project those ideas.

In a sense, Occupy shall always remain amorphous.....much like the Democratic party.....and it shall be a progressive philosophy that will unite us.

[-] 1 points by GypsyKing (8719) 3 years ago

This I think sums up the model we must follow sucinctly. Thanks for contributing here. Further, let me say that your economic status, in my eyes makes your clearly honest contribution here all the more honorable, because it represents an example of regard for humanity at large, and not just self-interest.

We need more, many more, people who exibit an understanding that humanity and life on earth are interconnected.

One example: cutting funding for public health services. Anyone who can't see the danger in this, not just to the poor and vunerable but to everyone, needs to take a course in infectious and contageous disease. The truth is that most of the ultra-rich (and I am not implying that you fall into this group) have come to the erronious conclusion that they live in a buble separate from other people and other life on this planet. That is rank stupidity, and if we continue down the present road much longer they are in for a rude awakening.

[-] 1 points by Shule (2239) 3 years ago

OWS electing a leader is like putting a person up on a podium to be shot. Now, who amongst us would really want to do that to anybody, or would we?

Spare a life. Let's remain leaderless.

[-] 2 points by GypsyKing (8719) 3 years ago

I have always thought we should remain leaderless, but we can't do without leadership. If an effective method of actually leading, collectively, would emerge than I think we wouldn't need a leader. But that does not seem to be happening, and unless we can form definite goals, and engage in concerted action then we are just spinning our wheels. Whether anyone would want to lead this movement, I don't know.

[-] 1 points by Shule (2239) 3 years ago

There is this idea of "collective leadership", i.e. collective or "team" decision making. Maybe that is what is causing the problem. I've participated in many such groups with much frustration almost always seeing the group is too slow in collectively coming to any sort of smart decisions for complex and fast paced environments. I have come to being a proponent of putting the best available person in charge of a given something and hope that person makes good, quick, and orderly decisions which are acceptable to the rest of group. (When making decisions, one does not need consensus, just acceptance.) Just in case that person doesn't perform satisfactorily, the group should maintain its option and ability to remove the individual, and put the next available person in charge. Not very democratic, but it works. I believe what I described is not too far from what you are advocating. The only question thus become how does one select such a person. In a group dynamic one often sees certain people tending to taking leadership of certain particular things, usually things they are knowledgable at and willing to do. That is the right person. Maybe the thing to do is to simply let such people informally take the lead on whatever they are already doing, and then getting out of their way; i.e. the group make job assignments, and then disperse.

At the same time, I also think that to be effective in adversarial situations, and OWS is certainly up against most formable adversaries, a movement's leadership, its organization, its goals, strategies, and tactics are best kept cloaked. Otherwise it is too easily undermined. (Maybe there already are a few really smart cookies out there leading the Occupy movements, but we don't know it.) Take it from our adversary, the 1%. Do we exactly know who there are? Who exactly is leading them? How are they organized? What exactly are they doing? Where exactly are they taking us? We don't know. Until we do, putting serious challenge up against them remains most difficult. It may be better to figure their organization out, before we figure out our own.

[-] 1 points by GypsyKing (8719) 3 years ago

Wow, really interesting comment! Firstly, by the tennor of your post you seem to feel as I do that this issue is central right now. In some ways I think it is a question that would challenge Solomon, due to the fact that what we are doing has never really been done, and I believe there are both inherent advantages and disadvantages in that fact itself!

A really big question lies in the comptuor technology itself. It gives us a great new organizational tool, but at the same time it is vulnerable, and leaves us vulnerable if we rely on it too heavily. That is another thought that has led me to believe that we need a more traditional, political leader as well. If we opperate on both fronts, and if this "leader" is responsive to the rank and file OWSers, than that two track method could be more effective and less vulnerable thatn a one track method.

On the other issue of working groups, I think many a populist movement has been destroyed by the sluggishness and essential dysfunction inherent in collective decision making. Somehow that must be averted, and decision making at all levels must be streamlined until it is flexible and when necessary, swift.

Those are my thoughts anyway; thanks again for the great comment.

[-] 1 points by Apparatchiki (4) 3 years ago

I define terrorism as any act which oppresses a certian race or people more than another ,I define terrorism as an act which forces people to commit crimes and turn to drugs.I define terrorism as injustice and inequality.I do not get paid to share this message its for free and that is what I hope for that men will stand for dignity for free .

I support Occupy Wall Street and Anonymous .I am happy to know that people are finally wanting more out of life .Like the right to have a job basic shelter .According to the U.N the support the Right To Housing and even jobs.

I say this with love please do not take no offense anyone because I plan to join the movement .I hear alot of people saying the whole wolrd is watching they are they are watching people get arrested and beaten and having their stuff taken away from them.

I wish to see this change .I wish to see the Revolution spread like wild fire when you look at all the great revolutions through out the world the formed in areas where the people are oppressed the most .

In order for their to be a real revolution thier needs to be communties set up .And more oppressed I feel the Occupy Wall Street Movement has alot more potential than what it is showing but it will take money and resources to reach the most oppressed in America.

I have spoken with people about the movement some feel it is just people that come from middle class familes I feel it primarily is .Those at the bottom the very botttom are all over America not in the millions but by the tens of millions reach them and you will have more support than what you asked for .

[-] 1 points by GypsyKing (8719) 3 years ago

I agree with what you are saying. I don't think our problem right now is a lack of energy, it is a lack of focus. We need to channel our energy into doing what you advocate, reaching out, and also towards change through the political process. I think we have come to the point that a leader of some kind is necessary to provide that direction.

[-] 1 points by FalseFlag (121) 3 years ago

Consumable wealth for living expenditures must be limited. The richest person can consume only 20 times the poorest. Wealth which is spend for consumption should be redistributed. Bill Gates, Obama can only consume 20X when a janitor consumes 2X, safety net is 1X which is enough for shelter, food, health, education. If you want more than that, want a car, and travelling, you should be working to earn more than 1X, anybody who can work should get at least 2X which can lead to home ownership if spend wisely. Safety net, 1X, should allow people to grow intellectually so they can still give back to society however they like. Everybody owes to society all the time. Personal consumption can not go over 20X, because if you build a mansion, you rule, and we are no longer equal politically. Your wealth and economic power will give you connections and political power. Society invests in social, economic, politic infrastructure, create more social and humane contract for society. Bill Gates can spend 20X a year, and can have as much investment money as possible. Nobody can have a chunk of this world, the world is holly and precious. The most productive, talented and hard worker can earn 20X max, when a burger guy earns 2X, and unfortunate can have safety net of X. People do science and contribute to society based on love for humanity, justice, truth, knowledge. The system is same because Bill Gates can have unlimited resources but can only consume 20X, so his home is maximum 20 times larger than a burger guy's home. We owe our lives to every living creature who existed, suffered through time through existence, we owe ourselves to other human being who creates the gene pool, the society and the possibility of existence of us. We owe our lives to all other people around the world. We can not become kings and queens through corrupt organizations such as states. States are for to level the field, to bring justice and equality. State can not become center of power. It will be corrupted. One simple legislation can bring you this new world which will transform your lives and the world. Economic system will be more productive. What do you say?

[-] 2 points by GypsyKing (8719) 3 years ago

Sorry, I could't read beyond "consumable wealth for living expedatures must be limited." I was bored into a stupor at that point, which I think was your intention.

[-] 1 points by commonsense37 (1) 3 years ago

The word Leader in that it is our English version of Fuehrer resonates with creepy fascist implications. So it's not a leader we need for pulling US together as much as the common purposefulness of our working for winning back the ownership of our governance by means of a constitutional amendment for banning all corporate and private funding to our elections. That by putting US the electorate back into the driver's seat will have all of US the people collectively becoming our own leader in the accomplishment of our collective common purposes in a unified manner that will owe nothing at all to corporate and private wealth.

[-] 1 points by GypsyKing (8719) 3 years ago

How do we do this?

[-] 1 points by ImaDreamer (82) 3 years ago

Perhaps we should consider following ideas rather than leaders?

There are leaders all over in this movement, organizing people and websites all over the place, and without them we'd get nowhere, so they deserve our support. But if we push one person to the forefront and they blow it somehow, or if the 1% takes them out, the whole movement could come down with them.

But what if we were to come to a general consensus on individual ideas instead? If we had a way to "vote ideas to the top" so all of us could see and understand what the best ideas are, we could, as individuals, choose to act in support of each particular idea, or not support particular ideas if we don't agree with them.

What we need is a way to say, "the majority of those in the occupy movement currently support (insert policies here)." People can change their vote, and if voting results change over time what we support would change over time.

I think it is necessary to have leaders within the group, but what we need out front leading us are great ideas.

[-] 1 points by GypsyKing (8719) 3 years ago

As I have said before, I don't think these themes are mutually exclusive. I think we can have both; a grassroots continuation of the movement, and a more mainstream aspect of the movement that can mutually re-enforce one another. Why limit our potential expansion?

[-] 1 points by Rico (3027) 3 years ago

It wouldn't hurt to get retired Justice John Paul Steven's on board.

[-] 1 points by GypsyKing (8719) 3 years ago

I'll stick to Feingold, thanks. And time is of the essence.

[-] 1 points by Rico (3027) 3 years ago

We don't have to have only one. A Supreme Court justice adds some respected experience with Constitutional law.

[-] 1 points by GypsyKing (8719) 3 years ago

If you could get him on board with this movements goals, I don't think anyone would object, but I'm for Feingold.

[-] 1 points by thenewgreen (170) 3 years ago

I would wholeheartedly support a leadership role from Elizabeth Warren, but I hear she has other things on her agenda (senate). We had a great dialogue on Hubski that stemmed from one of her quotes: http://hubski.com/pub?id=5943

[-] 1 points by GypsyKing (8719) 3 years ago

Yes, let's look at Feingold then. I think he would be a very good choice!

[-] 1 points by ubercaput (175) from New York City, NY 3 years ago

Everyone is free to create his fork movement.

[-] 1 points by GypsyKing (8719) 3 years ago

No, I think that it might just play out the opposite way.

[-] 1 points by ropeknot (359) 3 years ago

[-] Just1MoreVoice

As per your comment ;

"Pardon my asking, but what kind of goal could you really expect to achieve with OWS that might be better accomplished with a leader? "

How about answers ?

[-] 1 points by GypsyKing (8719) 3 years ago

The reformation of the state.

[-] 1 points by ropeknot (359) 3 years ago

State , or country ?

And how does this happen ?

[-] 2 points by GypsyKing (8719) 3 years ago

The nation. The point is that the NGA is not putting forward a ratified set of goals, or a concerted plan of action: both things necessary for this movement to progress. If they can't do this than we have no choice but to chose a leader, because a leader can. Both Feingold and Warren have proven backgrounds of supporting the causes that this movement backs, including getting money out of politics and holding bankers and corporations accountable.

[-] 1 points by ropeknot (359) 3 years ago

Yup !

As I said ;

I'll check them out !

How do we get a voting process going "HERE" ?

[-] 1 points by GypsyKing (8719) 3 years ago

I can't answer that because I am not there. I am afraid though, that in order to move forward this movement may split to some degree. That is all right. It's just part of the process. In going forward we also draw more people in.

[-] 1 points by ropeknot (359) 3 years ago

Thanks !

Let us all hope for the best us American citizens can get from the majority !

[-] 1 points by GypsyKing (8719) 3 years ago

If we apply ourselves to the Congressional primaries we don't need to have a plurality to achieve significant results. Just look at the way the tea party created total gridlock in the midtern elections. God, what a disaster they wreaked with a small minority of votes. Furthermore something like 70% of Americans believe money should be gotten out of elections and corporations need to be taxed. I think under these conditions change is possible.

[-] 1 points by April (3196) 3 years ago

One of the things I do is post on my Representatives facebook page, sometimes 2-3 times a week. Particularly links and information about the Udall and Sanders bills. Also, when I find good charts or articles about wealth inequality. Usually, I find those things here!

I feel like this is a good way to spread the word. Most mainstream people don't want to have anything to do with the crazy mixed up movement.

[-] 1 points by GypsyKing (8719) 3 years ago

We simply must get beyond this kind of impression, and really become inclusive. I feel like there has been a really good dialogue about the issues, and we must now focus on honing our message, and focusing our goals. We need leadership now, the right kind of leadership to bridge the gap. I really don't think this movement's goals are out of the mainstream, and it's the goals that matter, not personalities. Ironically, the right leader could give this movement a positive face, and therefore reduce the personality factor. Clearly the NGA is not accomplishing these things.

[-] 1 points by April (3196) 3 years ago

Are you referring to the 99%Decl NGA or the OWS NYCGA? Because I think the NGA has some assemblence of leadership and organization.

[-] 1 points by GypsyKing (8719) 3 years ago

I am simply judging by what I'm seeing as dispersed, rather than concentrated effort, and the lack of a clearly hammered-out platform to rally people around. These things are a must, in order to move foreward.

[-] 1 points by April (3196) 3 years ago

99%Decl has a platform. Clearly hammered out? Not exactly. But they at least have a plan to do that through the NGA. OWS NYCGA is philosophically opposed to the NGA. Which is why OWS NYCGA keeps rubbing them out as a Working Group. I think they're back up for now, but my prediction is it won't last long.


[-] 1 points by GypsyKing (8719) 3 years ago

Thanks for the update. This is why I've concluded we need Russ Feingold, or someone of similar stature and convictions, to become the public face of this movement.

[-] 1 points by April (3196) 3 years ago

While you're working on Russ, you might want to support the 99%Decl too. I do not think the 99%Decl would be philosophically opposed to having a leader. In fact, there already is a leader and leadership group. And if they had someone like Feingold on board, I bet they would be beyond thrilled.

OWS is opposed to leadership. Hello head, meet brick wall.

[-] 1 points by anonwolf (279) from West Peoria, IL 3 years ago

Elizabeth Warren <-------!!!!!!!

[-] 1 points by gsw (2739) 3 years ago

There should be leaders, and they should run for office, or at least get involved politically at the local level, and become involved in local, state and national politics, find out where the local politicos stands on the identified OWS positions, and inform the public, in a friendly informing way, not an in-your face way. Run candidates from the ground-level up, new people, establish a new party, or take over the one that will get elected in your local districts. I think OWS should focus on a few clear issues where they can affect change, and where the population is already in support, as they develop their philosophy for how to make the whole economic political system support the good of the people. One issue the majority seems to agree is: increase of taxes on wealthy. Occupy congress, occupy congressional phones, email, mail, etc. until congress implements the will of the people. Then move on to issue 2, campaign finance reform, get the lobbyists and billionaires and all the money in the campaigns out, and have some sort of equal playing field, where the campaigns are all paid from some common fund, getting equal amounts. And as the above persons said, being seen on the side of good causes don't hurt: supporting the downtrodden through some OWS events. And why can't OWS have a news website to post clearly, research-based "news" and where they can boast some positive impacts on society. OWS has the philosophy. Now they need to have some actions with clear beneficial outcomes for society. I am sure there are progressive churches and other established groups they can partner with. The message needs to be more down-to-earth for busy Americans, the 99 percent who are trying to get by, and do not believe intellectuals and politicians, and the rich, have any stake in their day to day struggles to put food on the table. Todays news said almost one half Americans are in poverty http://www.thenewstribune.com/2011/12/14/1945704/census-shows-1-in-2-people-are.html#storylink=misearch


http://www.thenewstribune.com/2010/05/28/1204005/percentage-of-high-poverty-schools.html#storylink=misearch We need to keep things clear and simple for the masses who have been massacred financially by the 1 percent in the past 30 years. Strikes that negatively impact truckers and workers, kind of goes against the message. But if OWS has daily "marches"and rallies, on the capital steps, that should make the news and not be so controversial, as long as there are clear doable steps that are being advocated for, and can be achieved with legislation and pressure on legislators to see OWS is not going away. Occupy tutoring needy kids in schools. Many parents are trying to survive, and they don't have many resources left for their kids, unfortunately. If you have a list of 57 items, like Romney's plan for economic recovery, it's kind of long for many's attention span. We need some clear leaders at the local level who can identify a positive plan of action within the system that is not going to alienate the "silent majority" which are the 99 percent. Get a friendly agenda. Do some local positive works in the community. Establish a party, where us common folks can join and feel welcome and connected. Some of us older folks can't march on Washington DC, but we could join at our local state capitals, and support a more progressive tax structure.

[-] 2 points by GypsyKing (8719) 3 years ago

I agree completely with about 90% of this, but I would be leary of any third party attempts beyond the state level at this time. Whether we like it or not the Republican Party is still very powerful, and likely to take great advantage of any political splitting between now and next November. But I loved your post! Thank You very much!

[-] 2 points by gsw (2739) 3 years ago

Agreed. Because Ralph Nader tipped Florida, and hence the country to Bush, way back in 2000, (And I still haven't saved enough money to get out here in response, cause I'd realized the country had lost its mind.) It is sad how the younger generation has had all this crap delivered to them, without a say: huge deficits, poverty, lack of health care, lack of upward mobility, lack of work. If Gingrich or Romney and their bunch take charge, there will be little hope, in my opinion, in regards to a basic health plan for all, They (repubs) say they are for not giving away money to the undeserving, unless its to oil/gas companies, ethenol companies, large companies like GE. And this is not all republicans, there is that ex-Louisiana governor who makes sense. I think if ows grows it may have more of a positive influence on Obama, although I still can't get my mind around this defense bill-holding Americans (terrorits) indefinately. Since they didn't rack up all the bills, and the billionaires profitted imensely from all the wars, and shipping of jobs overseas, etc, maybe there should be a generational "discount" or tax credit. and the millionaires should have a surcharge. I just keep ranting on. I hope to see some progressive changes in my lifetime...some economic karma would be nice occasionally.

[-] 2 points by GypsyKing (8719) 3 years ago

Agreed absolutely, and there are a significant number of Democrats that already agree with our goals; there are no Republicans who do so.

[-] 1 points by ropeknot (359) 3 years ago

Yup !

Been there !Done that !

Here and the G.A. .

No response for a solution that has been voted on or taken hold "HERE"!

Sorry people , but that's the truth "HERE" !!!

Try getting a vote on anything "Here" ; other than the way it's set up whereby the clicks and replies to a post are the things that make an idea go to the top ; and you will be disappointed !

[-] 2 points by GypsyKing (8719) 3 years ago

Yes, unfortunately we must face the fact that this situation has become dysfunctional. We tried without a leader. Now we must have one.

[-] 1 points by ropeknot (359) 3 years ago

Who do you suggest , other than the whole of the O.W.S. forum as a general consensus ?

[-] 1 points by GypsyKing (8719) 3 years ago

The problem is, we aren't getting consensus, at least not to the degree that we are getting a hammered-out platform and concentrated action. Many have advovated Russ Feingold, or Elizabeth Warren. Either would be okay with me. The point is, when we must remain flexible enough that when we see a problem we can take action, and not just entrench ourselves in a single viewpoint, regardless of whether it is working or not. I advocated a leaderless movement, but it is becoming clear that this isn't producing results. Thus, I have changed my stance.

[-] 1 points by ropeknot (359) 3 years ago

Good for you !

Now have you done your homework on these people?

What do they represent ?

[-] 2 points by GypsyKing (8719) 3 years ago

Yes, I have done my homework. They both represent money out of government and corporate reform, for starters. Both have views directly in line with the principals of the genuine members of OWS.

[-] 1 points by ropeknot (359) 3 years ago

Thanks for your response !

I'll make a note to check them out .

I would suggest you make a post on this , and see if it goes anywhere !

Make it to the O.W.S.G.A. also and good luck with that one !

Been there done that to no avail !

[-] 1 points by GypsyKing (8719) 3 years ago

Well, in the end, there are millions in this movement, around the world. It has grown beyond the OWSGA. Nobody owns an idea.

[-] 1 points by ropeknot (359) 3 years ago

yes , but there needs to be some 1 to talk to !

Our system was designed that way , but got lost !

Our system needs to be brought back to its original concept via 1 stating everyones' thoughts via vote !

[-] 1 points by GypsyKing (8719) 3 years ago

Vote, yes. But we can't ever hope to reach total consensus. That limitation has long been a recognized reality of the democratic process. I believe Warren or Feingold represent the cause of this movement to the degree that either could bring the vast majority with them.

[-] 1 points by ropeknot (359) 3 years ago

There still needs to be a VOTE .

Total consensus is derived from a vote if it's honest and not corrupt !

[-] 1 points by GypsyKing (8719) 3 years ago

Total consensus can never be derived from any vote of a large number of people. If it could be than there would be no point in voting in the first place.

[-] 1 points by ropeknot (359) 3 years ago

Then without a vote from the people , how can you know what the people want ?

[-] 1 points by GypsyKing (8719) 3 years ago

I never said "without a vote," I said we cannot hope that through a vote we can reach consensus. I am all in favor of the voting process, but I also know that the vote is a means to an end, not an end in itself.

[-] 1 points by ropeknot (359) 3 years ago

A means to an end ?

I think a vote by the people is the end answer !

A vote from the people , by the people and for the people is the end result of a question and is law !

Now how do we do that "HERE" , so we can end the forum and vote ?

[-] 1 points by ropeknot (359) 3 years ago


[-] 1 points by GypsyKing (8719) 3 years ago

People have put forward two good suggestions, Elizabeth Warren and Russ Feingold. Either would be good with me, if either chose to do so.

[-] 0 points by ropeknot (359) 3 years ago

Without me going to Google , who are they ?

[-] -1 points by Jflynn64 (337) 3 years ago

Buck up Gypsy King, I will handle duties at the donut store why you work to bring socialism to the US. When do I quit work. we will be like Lenin and Trotsky.

[-] 1 points by OurTimes2011 (377) from Arlington, VA 3 years ago

wrong. so wrong. the system is broken. you could get abe lincoln and he would still be unable to make significant change.

dump them all. start over. it's not gonna work if you keep looking for a savior.

[-] 1 points by GypsyKing (8719) 3 years ago

How, exactly, do we dump them all?

[-] 1 points by OurTimes2011 (377) from Arlington, VA 3 years ago

launch an effort to remove all incumbents.

[-] 1 points by GypsyKing (8719) 3 years ago

How? And if you remove all incumbents then there is no government, a state that would be both impossible, and undesireable.

[-] 1 points by OurTimes2011 (377) from Arlington, VA 3 years ago

Wrong. Let's say all incumbents were voted out. They stay for a month until the new gals come in. No problem. The govt continues to function.

At the federal level, you can only vote out half of the sitting reps in any given election year anyway, so this is a two year process at least.

[-] 1 points by ropeknot (359) 3 years ago

A vote to remove them is like saying the pen is mightier than the sword !

Too bad they have the pen and our swords are useless against their ( our ) government !

Where do we go now ?

[-] 0 points by Tinhorn (285) 3 years ago

To many sub-sects have infiltrated this organization now for almost any public figure to want that job.

[-] 1 points by GypsyKing (8719) 3 years ago

Sub-sects will be weeded out by a conscise agenda and a concerted plan of action.

[-] 0 points by Tinhorn (285) 3 years ago

I would love to believe that but it is a huge risk to pin your hopes on it.

[-] 1 points by GypsyKing (8719) 3 years ago

What then, should we pin our hopes on?

[-] 0 points by Tinhorn (285) 3 years ago

They should be pinned on the core issues of Corruption out of Government and Corporations out of Government. When this movement spawned out from those it became uncohesive. Moving back to them and weeding out the rest of the crazies that have now infested it would bring back that cohesion. If it were to attack those two core issues only to start, I think there could be some success.

[-] 1 points by GypsyKing (8719) 3 years ago

I agree. We need to refocus, and go about building the broadest coalition possible out of the core issues.

[-] 0 points by redteddy (263) from New York, NY 3 years ago

Oh I would LOVE to see Elizabeth Warren take up the mantle in any movement. I really admire her integrity. She's running for senate at the moment.

[-] 0 points by GypsyKing (8719) 3 years ago

So would I. The hopes of those of us us who wanted this movement to remain leaderless are being dashed by a failure to produce concerted action and a final agenda. We need a leader.

[-] 0 points by ronjj (-241) 3 years ago

If you missed the cartoon in todays papers about the anteaters and their group "hunt" you really don't know anything about the term "networking" which is in great vogue these days and quite a few days in the past.

These buzz words really get me going: flexible, evolve, networking, focus, agenda, advocate. The best that I can do to the adequately interpret them is this:

" My head is entirely empty - got anything in yours??"


[-] 0 points by ilovecars (36) 3 years ago

I would suggest a leader who is expendable- like a SACRIFICIAL Lamb- someone who wouldn't be missed- "Gypsyking" are you available- lol http://tinyurl.com/7rvpv43

[-] 1 points by GypsyKing (8719) 3 years ago

"From too much love of living, From hope and fear set free, We thank with brief thanksgiving Whatever god's may be That no life lives forever, That dead men rise up never, That even the weariest river Winds somewhere safe to sea."

[-] 1 points by ropeknot (359) 3 years ago

Ha ! Ha !

She is not expendable !

[-] -1 points by infonomics (393) 3 years ago

Elizabeth Warren, Russ Feingold? Apparently these mortals are exempt from the notion of human nature. They will not sell out. Hooey. In the back rooms of K street or Wall Street, anyone will sell out. Remember the infamous words of Tim Russert "integrity is for paupers." Yep, that was Tim's revelation when NBC dangled that golden carrot in his face. Money transformed Tim from Democratic congressional aide to General Electric’s puppet.

Anyone can be bought. Changing puppets instead of changing the system is a manifestation of an exhausted mind. Change the system. For example, what about a plural executive in the executive branch? Radical? Apparently not, since Alexander Hamilton pondered it. What of this plural executive? Well, instead of a unitary one, like one president, you have a plurality, more than one president; specifically, a number divisible by three. So, with a plurality of three, you could have a one Republican, one Democrat and one Independent. The Independent settles the tie. With this arrangement, all three would have to be bought by the lobbyists at the same time. And most of all, we stop the endless whining: Obama is a communist, Bush is stupid, Paul is radical. Well, sometimes these candidates are the only choices, so you either change them, which you cannot, or you mitigate their extremes by diluting their power by sharing it among the other presidents.

Briefly, somehow a notion has developed that if you support direct democracy you must be a radical or an anarchists. Is this understanding as assessment of the American people? The American people are incapable of voting on their own affairs? If this true, then what is the value of polls? Indeed, are not polls a form of direct democracy, a voice of public opinion? Yes, I will agree that the American people need to be better informed for voting on legislation but that need is needed anyway; for example, like voting for a president.

Lastly, I posted a request for ideas on December 18 which you can see here: http://occupywallst.org/forum/running-list-of-ideas-to-promote-the-general-welfa/#comment-517871 . As of today, I have received only one, interest free loans, which I would classify as idealistic but better than none. Where are the ideas? Don't let OWS be the forum where ideas die and whining prevails. Substituting one puppet for another is not an idea.

[-] 1 points by GypsyKing (8719) 2 years ago

Firstly, Tim Russert was never my model for integrety. Secondly, Alexander Hamilton established the corporate charter in American society - something Jefferson opposed adamently. Thirdly, if everyone is corruptable, than what is the advantage of promoting everyone's will? Finally, I don't see what you are actually advocating.

[-] 1 points by infonomics (393) 2 years ago

Anyone "one" person or entity is vulnerable to corruption, which explains the need for checks and balances that our forefather so wisely implemented. The same idea is prevalent in corporate America which is why the CPA profession implements internal control (checks and balances). For example, a poor internal control is the use of one signature on an invoice or check. So, with this understanding, corruption or malfeasance can be mitigated by increasing the number of parties in the decision making process. For example, like Congress, with its two-plus parties or the Supreme Court with its nine justices. Only the executive branch has a unitary representation; that is, one President. What I am advocating is a plural executive which Hamilton discussed in Federalist Paper #70 (go here for a synopsis: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federalist_No._70). The discussion is brief so do not be daunted. Although Hamilton did not approve of the idea, his paper is a testament that he or someone else recognized its merits. Why else would he put forth the effort to denounce it? I envision a Presidency with one Democrat, one Republican and one Independent or any number divisible by 3 for the obvious reason. Without going in to grand detail, you can understand the obvious advantage: three in the executive branch mitigates a rogue President like George W. Bush plus it offers a better representation to the people, all of whom think their candidate should be in the WH. Well, with a plural executive, their wishes come true and their whining should wane. Lastly, I think it is safe to say that no one person has the wisdom to manage a country of 300+ million. If you respond that they have a staff, I will counter that they have sycophants.

I fear that what Schopenhauer expressed about truth is also applicable to new ideas: All ideas pass through three stages. First, it is ridiculed. Second, it is violently opposed. Third, it is accepted as being obviously good all along.

[-] 1 points by GypsyKing (8719) 2 years ago

If by this you mean a system of direct democracy, I think puff6962 said it when he said first you must get the power, then make the change. We are at the stage of getting the power, rather then of making the change. That presents us with some practical obsticles to implementing direct democracy.

[-] -1 points by burningman2012 (187) 3 years ago

no, we at a bare minimum need someone who understands real history, and is willing to listen to scientists and engineers to solve problems but also possesses morals and character and vision someone like mike gravel i know he is old but man is he wise here is a man who knows real history like howard zinn a peoples history of the united states, who believes in science and rational thought who fought hard to end the war in vietnam, who knows the government has conspired against the people, and hidden and lied about a great many things....i have never heard a politician who spoke so much truth it was amazing... http://occupywallst.org/forum/will-the-untied-states-rise-to-the-occasion-or-cru/#comment-518041

[-] 2 points by GypsyKing (8719) 3 years ago

I am aware of Howard Zinn, and I agree he would be good. Mike Graves I haven't head of, but I will check it out. Thanks. But I think you may be selling both Feingold and Warren short.

[-] 1 points by MaryS (678) 3 years ago

Howard Zinn is apparently deceased and Mike Gravel is a libertarian.

[-] 1 points by GypsyKing (8719) 3 years ago

Wow, I didn't know Zinn was deceased. Thanks. In any case I stand by my backing of either Warren or Feingold. Thanks.

[-] 1 points by MaryS (678) 3 years ago

Yes I like them too. you're welcome.

[-] -1 points by burningman2012 (187) 3 years ago

i am sure they are nice people but look into mike gravels 2008 presidential platform or listen to him talk internet

[-] 2 points by GypsyKing (8719) 3 years ago

I will do that, thanks, but I think both Warren and Feilgold are already known to most of us, have an established reputation, and stand strongly wih our goals, so I would throw myself behind either one of them now.

[-] 0 points by burningman2012 (187) 3 years ago

do we really know their stance on issues besides wall street?

[-] 1 points by GypsyKing (8719) 3 years ago

I have confidence in Russ feingold. I was there when he ran his first campaign for Senate, and I can tell you that it was an inspiring, come from behind victory by a real champion of the people! I was astounded that he was ever elected! I think he is a first rate man, a man of the people, and a man of honor! That is why the 1% spent so much to unseat him from the Senate.

[-] 0 points by burningman2012 (187) 3 years ago

not sure he is leftist enough for my tastes

[-] 1 points by GypsyKing (8719) 3 years ago

Well, join the other 3% of the 99% for a philosophical discussion group, because my one reservation is that he may be to far left for the 99%. Be that as it may, he represents our values.