Forum Post: Should there be a Leader.... After All? Is Leaderless...Self Defeating?
Posted 11 years ago on Nov. 3, 2012, 6 p.m. EST by 10N
(134)
This content is user submitted and not an official statement
Every successful Movement has had a voice that reflected it heart, and direction. Without a single voice to give a united a direction, Is a Leaderless Movement Self-Defeating?
Not that it matters. but I have advocated from almost day one on this forum that Occupy should have a leader or leaders. They should primarily be a leader for banking/WS reform, which is still the core mission of Occupy. In addition, I would like to see a social leader emerge as well, if for no other reason than to provide a counter-force to the Tea Party fanatics and their dangerous and relentless Holy War against sanity, for there is nothing more dangerous than a fanatical religious extremist, whether they be Muslim or Christian.
I'm writing a small article on the subject, it's my first. But it talks directly with what you just posted.
You might get some useful ideas from this Liberal Manifesto.. I have been thinking more and more lately how, in order to grow Liberalism in the US, a formal platform or manifesto document needs to be drawn up that presents the strongest case possible in defense of Liberalism. Ideally, it should logically stand up against all assaults by Paleo/Neo-Conservative arguments by exposing the inherent flaws in logic associated with the Conservative mind. In the end, I believe any successful Liberal argument must clearly demonstrate a superior moral high ground of Right vs. Wrong, not Left vs. Right, and I also believe this can be derived from an axiomatic assumption of "the greatest good for the greatest number", not "the greatest good for the smallest number". I believe that Liberals believe the former and Conservatives believe the latter. Additionally, I am coming to the conclusion that
Conservatives/Republicans do not really believe in Democracy and would do away with it if it were within their power to do so. The (R)ich view themselves as the Aristocracy and loathe the common man/woman.
Conservatives/Republicans do not believe in a secular civil government and would impose a Fundamentalist Christian Theocracy were it within their power to do so. The Fundamentalists fear Muslim extremists but fail to comprehend that their Theocratic dream would be essentially the same as any Muslim Theocracy (such as Iran) that exists today. But these people are blinded by fanatical zeal for their God and cannot understand the danger of mixing God with Government. They are imbalanced.
Very good ideas. THanks for the post on this topic. I bet most people here want better leaders who focus on pr, education of public and congress action.
May need a political action director too if it can help us get more influence.
Also a pr guy or group.
Yes it is a rudderless ship. Here on this forum, it seemed that many posters were hoping that the OWS positions and strategies would evolve naturally. There were many many suggestions on what issues to focus on but the conversations all petered out. No list of demands or issue priorities were developed. It seems that would have required leadership (even if by a committee) to push forward.
Seems some people, the old liberals, and new liberals, who would like to win for once, still have faith.
Keep the faith I have to tell myself.
There may still be hope for some leader who can summons the sentiments, solidify legislative action or political means of moving forward in a way that can capture the imagination of nation in a positive way, or slog out old fasioned slow way, one vote at a time, like with civil rights, women's rights, 8 hour work week and unions.
It seems Obama has a new spark, not that I have much faith in system to fix much for workers. Businesses still want cheap workers, and they can claim China and the rest argue for offshoring.
Cary-on for the good of the planet, kids and grandkids. Hey, at least there is yerbabueana coming in the future, here, maybe. Might attract more youth here. That probably gives hope to youth.
It does seem there is a bit of a new spark for action emerging, from some here, encouraged by the sentiment of the voters, to raise revenues with help of wealthy for good work of the country.
Ok I'll give a direction:
Starting now occupy your state capital the first Sunday of the Month at 12:00.
Bring everyone.
http://occupywallst.org/forum/if-enough-people-said-wtf-change-the-aura-of-ows/
(it is not an order. just a suggestion of a path forward)
(if capital is too far, go to your city or county govnt.) (bring something fun to do and some food to share ie dominoes, chess, hobby or something interesting) (bring a sign too; and some pamphlets) we can at the least walk around get some fresh air and a little bit of exercise.
What not go over your local budget with the community, while the kids play. That's the more of a completed direction.
No, but the mill grinds slowly. Hear a voice of wisdom:
“Too long have the workers of the world waited for some Moses to lead them out of bondage. I would not lead you out if I could; for if you could be led out, you could be led back again. I would have you make up your minds there is nothing that you cannot do for yourselves.” Eugene Victor Debs, from an address on Industrial Unionism delivered at Grand Central Palace, New York City, Dec. 18, 1905
I not familiar with Eugene Victor, but it's beautifully said.
you should google Debs. the struggle is not a 21st century invention.
At first I was inspired by a leaderless movement, but now I can help but know it feels it has no direction. I'm starting to believe a leaderless movement might not be such a good idea after all....any thoughts for or against?
We think for ourselves here. If you don't like it go somewhere else. I'm not going to play follow the leader. That is the beauty of OWS.
There have been good leaders, and in this movement you don't have to follow the leader, but i do feel there need to be a voice.
I think the bigger problem than no leader, are the consensus driven GAs. It's ineffectiveness by design. It allows no direction, no demands and it hobbles intellectual development of the movement.
Unfortunately I believe this was by design. David Graeber is a dangerous fraud. I don't know who he works for but I believe his and his peoples' task was to frontrun popular dissatisfaction and saddle it with an ineffective structure.
Here's the London based social scientist (and social engineer) Graeber and other OWS puppetmasters (or at least they say they are the OWS leaders) on the Assange show, http://assange.rt.com/occupy-episode-seven/ .
The National Lawyers Guild told me that there was no OWS structure that could make the decision to appeal the eviction from Zuccotti. That's insane. Further OWSers weren't even given phrases or unity type principles to say to the press and thus were portrayed as silly. When it was obvious to anyone at Zuccotti that the hidden unity principle was that society should be organized to meets human needs, not corpoRAT thievery and greed.
In terms of leadership, groups or committees could be fine but there would have to be a way to move forward which consensus decision making doesn't allow. Of course, by not having a leader, that leader can't be assassinated. (Don't fool yourself, the 1% is that evil.)
But sooner or later, some individual will speak and say things that turn out to be in accord with the feelings and thinking of the masses. The masses will chose the leader. Someone who says, 'here I stand, who stands with me,' and gets a spontaneous response.
I see what you mean... the last 5 minutes say a lot.... but in all fairness, its' a first global attempt, soft of....
I'm thinking it may be a bit of a comprise, you'll have the leaderless movement perhaps taking "suggestions" from a voice(s)
I haven't read much of this yet, but its another source of information of early OWS leaders. http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2011/11/28/111128fa_fact_schwartz?currentPage=all
"Only one man in a thousand is a leader of men, the other 999 follow women." Groucho Marx
I suspect we are not quite mature enough to thrive under a leaderless movement.
One day we will I suppose, but I haven't been encouraged by the practical affects over the last year.
I would agree and disagree at the same time. I think the heart is there, but it's completely disenfranchised, You have people who want to go out, but it's so scattered, a group here of 12 at there local bank, a another 50 at some company.
But more importantly and honestly, how can we complain about a government when we can't even organize ourselves properly.
I do believe a big part of this battle would be would just by example.
I suppose something will break through because the movement is trying so many approaches.
I stand ready, I am with OWS 'till the end. Today with Occ Sandy. And whatever else they want to get there hands into.
I think the many interests are allowing the movement to grow and shake out the bad processes. Seems confusing but if we can maintain, then something more organized can emerge.
Interesting point of view, perhaps it is premature, it seems more of a cell structure. Do you think one will rise? or will it be multi-leader
I think naturally it would be 1st multi leader then a winnowing down perhaps to one.
Personally I like the cage death match option. NOT!!! just kiddin ;)
Should there be a Leader.... After All? Is Leaderless...Self Defeating?
IMO - leaderless is perfect - no easy target for attackers.
Popular movements are GR8 - because the ideal ( or ideals ) is the leader.
This movement is about shutting down corruption and crime and abuse and neglect.
Leader or not it would still be about fighting harmful corporations. I like your point about attackers.
Nope. But, just for the hell of it, tell me who it is you think should be the leader.
I think it should happen naturally
There is no natural in this game.
romney
Get back to collecting stats, sweet pea.
[Removed]
Considering how irrelevant OWS has become I would say yes it is self defeating.