Forum Post: Who should be the leaders of OWS?
Posted 13 years ago on Nov. 1, 2011, 9:37 p.m. EST by RealDemocracy
(12)
This content is user submitted and not an official statement
We need leaders to become a more powerful movement! What qualifications should a leader of OWS have, and who are possible people to lead?
It should be the people with the most rapes under their belts by the end of the year! Or maybe the guys with the bandanas on their faces and the Che Tshirts! Oh wait you already have leaders (masters) in SEIU, Acorn, and the Emperor George Soros.
EVIL Emperor George Soros. The Debt Star will be completed on schedule, my master. Turns around and force-chokes Joe Biden
Funny stuff! I haven't laughed that hard in a while!
Why are you even responding to this post if you don't care?
Just trying to point out the obvious and ridiculous. I'm not sure how we should select/elect leaders of a leaderless movement. I personally believe that there are already leaders and organizers behind the scenes who are pulling the strings and moving the money!
Yeah, there are certainly people of power, like the admins of this site, and as you said, the people moving the money.
I did write a response to this below (the longest one). I have been around OWS for quite some time now and see the obvious need for a group that can make "executive decisions" when the movement requires. There was a specific instance a few days ago, where the media said OWS was proposing a tax that we didn't. We need some executive body to take care of these situations.
Have elections of representatives to speak for the group. That is what democracy looks like!
That would help. I like the idea of a "constitution" sort of document for a leadership body (written in my long post).
Bylaws. There needs to be some order brought to the perceived insanity coming out of the this movement so far.
For sure. It's totally the media's fault for portraying us that way. I think we need a "go to" group to report media presence, or to respond to media requests. Otherwise it's like yelling "fire" in a movie theater when an emergency comes.
The media will report on blood in the water. Unfortunately there are a large number on "sharks" in and around the movement. The message needs to be agreed upon and then presented by a public relations committee. If it is redistribution, tax the rich, loan forgiveness or whatever is agreed upon, then the front men need to stick to the story and not let the uber crazies take the mic.
I agree. I keep thinking of a simple way to do this: we take a vote on the issues, and if an issue gets, say, 97% "yes" votes, it is officially part of our agenda. I honestly think we need to focus on 1 issue alone, getting money out of politics, as it ends our corpocracy/corruptocracy and makes our lawmakers consider the people before the corporations. I'm pretty sure that would get 99.9% yes votes.
Maybe, but the feasibility of removing money from politics is zero. Politics is money and vice versa. If the goal is to remove corporate money from politics, then there should also be the removal of union money from politics as well. If private citizens are the only ones who can donate to campaigns, would there be a limit on contributions? And how would that be fair? My view is that money is not all their is to a campaign, but it does buy the microphone that projects the message. I believe that the best message should receive the largest microphone but that's not how it always shakes out!
They don't want a representative democracy. They reject that. They are anarchists.
I support representative democracy and I'm one of "them".
Are you part of the decision making group? Because they have definitely rejected representation.
Well, I'm not part of the nyc general assembly if that's what you're asking, or even an active protester. In my mind, the protesters don't even speak for the whole movement. They're just the ones without jobs who are able to protest. And probably a bit less informed than the average supporter, who has a job and responsibilities and life experience.
The people who started the movement are proponents of direct democracy: ie everyone votes on everything every 10 minutes... I think the Greeks tried (Ancient Greeks I mean. The contemporary Greeks are having a problem with their democracy too.) and they soon discovered that no one had the time to do anything else but assemble and vote. Needless to say lots of baby diapers went unchanged because parents were assembling to vote and learning each and every issue, and a plague of baby rash broke out all over Athens. (Sparta of course did not have such a problem because all their babies were sent to military and camp and died in war not long after, and beside if you're going to die in war on short notice, what does baby rash matter?)
They then had the brilliant idea called representative democracy.... one end result of which is the US government. However, the US government no longer seems to represent large portions of the American people (not even those who are of voting age and not only middle school kids, though some would argue the Congress is very representative of middle school kids) because people got tired of voting because their vote doesn't matter because a small group of people and corporations ( about 1%) have so much money they can pretty much swamp the debate and effectively buy the vote.
Thus we are back to square 0: unrepresentative government.
Is the answer direct democracy? Sorry no time to think about that problem. Can someone vote on my behalf on that, I'll pay you if you do a good job.
("unrepresentative government", I must remember this. Better than "taxation with misrepresentation")
I agree that direct democracy is a bad idea. Nobody has time to deal with all these individual issues. The originators of the movement are definitely on the radical socialist side, and seem well-informed enough to make policy decisions. If they want direct democracy, they should be a representative of the people.
And yeah, get money out is the main issue for me.
By the way, did the greeks have diapers back then? =)
Maybe I should have said, "Unrepresentative democracy". That would emphasize the oxymoron.
There is that founder of Lotus Corp (If you recall Lotus came before Excel). I understand he is a proponent of direct democracy too. Can't remember his name.... Mitch Kapor
Greek diapers? Even the adults wore them.. I'm being facetious of course.
Somehow I think the anarchists won't find themselves into the organizational leadership. Hopefully, the better angels of the movement will get a grasp of what's going on before things really get out of control.
If you have the time and the inclination, you might want to read through the General Assembly minutes of the last couple of weeks. They spend a lot of time in there discussing their consensus model, and their process pretty firmly rejects any type of representation or hierarchy. They get pretty vehement about it. In fact, there's a group within OWS called the 99% that has split off over this very issue. It's on the boards on the main page if you get a chance to look it over.
I did notice the general feeling of "we don't want leaders". I just think they're young. Sometimes it takes a leader to suck it up and follow.
I will check out NYCGA's minutes but mostly pay attention to Oakland since it's nearby. Oakland has different rules and it sounds like they have a few committees that come together to make decisions.
There's also the whole internet part of the movement. It's harder for us to vote on things over the internet, but it might be easier to set something up.
somebody who has the intelligence to figure out that people rather bitch than lead...
Democracy, if not corrupted by the influence of money, should not need leaders of any kind, whether presidents or CEOs. citizens and shareholders should determine the directions of their country/company
Hitler
Stalin, Mao, Che ... to name a few
Any leader of OWS would know to be on their best behavior. They know the General Assembly would take them down in a heart beat if they so much as sneak a dollar into their pocket.
It'll be like Biker Law.
although i maintain that no one can really be a leader for OWS
http://knockknockrevolution.tumblr.com/post/11573860774/why-occupy-wall-street-flyers - help convince people to become occupiers by using these talking points!
you can do some research on you-know-who ron lawl, he supports OWS, just youtube him and ben bernanke
David Graeber Bursting capitalism's bubble. http://www.adbusters.org/magazine/97/capitalism-eating-itself.html
http://occupywallst.org/forum/unesco-cuts-and-article-5/
http://www.mlive.com/opinion/flint/index.ssf/2011/11/letter_occupy_movement_has_no.html
Who behind the mask? Businessweek will tell you.
May I nominate myself? I do have great knowledge on the USSR. Perfect match, yes?
Cornel West & Jesse Ventura
We not only need some good leadership, but also a really good document to guide their behavior. Like a constitution. One rule, for instance: they can only say OWS "supports" something if, say, 90% of OWS supports it. Much debate welcomed on specific rules.
They should take Ghandi's strategy: Above all they should facilitate discussion and not attack opponents. This divides people just like our media does. Instead they should respond to serious discussion by listening and responding.
The leaders must be aware of media slander. This is especially important since the news can launch coordinated attacks on OWS. But we can fight back by posting on their forums. Leadership can bring people to action in a situation like this. People should be on the lookout, and have a central place (or two or three) to report it to.
They need to be a bit on the offense as well. A bit of secrecy is good in this regard. It doesn't have to be the leaders thinking of the plans. It can be others plotting ways to bring discussions to the masses. But leadership can get people behind it and call it to action.
Above all, they should be smart and humble.
Could you spread this to others? Spread these ideas to as many as you can, including doing so in person to protesters if possible. I cannot for personal reasons but it needs to be done.
The people who started the movement are proponents of direct democracy: ie everyone votes on everything every 10 minutes... I think the Greeks tried (Ancient Greeks I mean. The contemporary Greeks are having a problem with their democracy too.) and they soon discovered that no one had the time to do anything else but assemble and vote. Needless to say lots of baby diapers went unchanged because parents were assembling to vote and learning each and every issue, and a plague of baby rash broke out all over Athens. (Sparta of course did not have such a problem because all their babies were sent to military and camp and died in war not long after, and beside if you're going to die in war on short notice, what does baby rash matter?)
They then had the brilliant idea called representative democracy.... one end result of which is the US government. However, the US government no longer seems to represent large portions of the American people (not even those who are of voting age and not only middle school kids, though some would argue the Congress is very representative of middle school kids) because people got tired of voting because their vote doesn't matter because a small group of people and corporations ( about 1%) have so much money they can pretty much swamp the debate and effectively buy the vote.
Thus we are back to square 0: unrepresentative government.
Is the answer direct democracy? Sorry no time to think about that problem. Can someone vote on my behalf on that, I'll pay you if you do a good job.
[Deleted]
Yes, good question, as I said, "the US government no longer seems to represent large portions of the American"
1) Fire them - ie vote them out, or,
2) Incentivize them to do the right thing: http://www.thepetitionsite.com/1/link-congressional-pay-to-performance/
[Deleted]
Yes, you're right about what happens to CEO/CFO when a bubble burst. Often they have golden parachutes. There is no motivation to consider the risks of failure.
Guys can we have real comments on here. The movement does need leaders. So please mature comments only.
We need a leader that is non-biased and for freedom and equality of all right?
I have a few suggestions, but they're all either no longer alive or live in enemy countries... So, yeah, no one.
Direct Democracy Voting is now online at www.uponlocal.com
UPonLocal Open Source Software - DRupal - We want volunteers for code checkers.
Active voting now - Section for electing OWS Leaders is ready now
http://uponlocal.com/up-on-local-media/content/tom-nelson-supreme-court-judge-united-states-america
I think Michael Moore should lead.
Yes!!
Moore doesn't know the difference between capitalism and corporatism.
but he's still a good person like Obama, I think we need someone who represents the folks who don't have any money. He doesn't make much off those documentaries.
Obama is a war mongering fascist
No he's a good person. :(
No he's not. He's a smoker.
He's a STRUGGLING smoker, he said he'd quit.
Oh. Well then. He's gooder than I thought then. I'd still rather have Michelle be our leader. Her arms are so toned. And she watches her salt intake. Very important when you want to lead.
Michelle is a great lady, I saw her doing jumping jacks with preschoolers
your comments are hilarious =)
While eating a double cheeseburger. Don't tell me there's not real leadership potential there.
Moore doesn't even know what the core problem is ie corporatism and Oblama is bought and paid for by Wall St. but they are good people... sure whatever.
'Good people' is NOT enough anymore.
The government is literally a criminal enterprise accepting donations and doing special favors for those who can pay them enough $$$$$$$$$$$$
But Obama seems like a good guy I can't bring myself to believe he did anything wrong plus I voted for him and that would make me a sucker right?
I really hope you're being facetious.
I don't have enough hours in the day to discuss why Oblama is unworthy of his position as President.
You need to do some research if you think Oblama is blameless.
I believe the answer is no one.... this is a leaderless movement? At least that's what everyone is telling me...
Do any real OWS ppl get on here ?, because what I'm seeing here is comments from ppl that are way too juvenile to be taken serious. What a waste.
Is this a 3rd grade class responding to an adult subject. the comments here are ridiculous.
There are psychopaths responding...
No. This is an adult responding to a 3rd grade movement.
Unbelievable,
You're wrong, it's believable. There are psychopaths responding. By law they are required to be given free access to the Internet at mental institutions. Either that or they escaped, which is more worrisome...
Yes they are... It's hard to have a real conversation sometimes...
Carrot Top
Wait, I know the answer. The tent saleman.
obama
shoot me
No don't use guns they're evil.
Tell that to the drones Obama is using in six countries
No Obama is a good person he wouldn't do that thing you just said