Forum Post: Why leaderless and demandless may actually best for now - this coming from someone who thought the opposite a week ago
Posted 13 years ago on Oct. 10, 2011, 10:48 a.m. EST by aswewalk
(104)
This content is user submitted and not an official statement
If you are part of the huge group of people chomping at the bit to see some leaders step forward and articulate a clearly defined agenda for Occupy Wall Street, I used to be in your camp. However, something clicked recently. Someone responded to my post making the case (yet again) for leaderless and demandless for now. All it once it hit me. They're actually right.
I've been resistant to that because: a) I though the movement would miss out on important voices and ideas and b) I thought the movement wouldn't grow or be taken seriously until leaders and demands were specified. I was clearly wrong on both counts. Great speakers like Jeffrey Sachs ( http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H8svbm4WYmU&feature=youtube_gdata_player ) and great articles like the one in today's New York Times http://www.nytimes.com/2011/10/10/opinion/panic-of-the-plutocrats.html?_r=1 are getting the message out to millions and it's a fantastic message.
I think the General Assembly and founders of this movement do want great messages getting to Americans. They just don't want to "bless" the speaker or author as "official" because then the 1% (the oligarchs and their minions) can go into their practiced battle mode to destroy credibility of the speaker, author or list (no matter how wise their words).. So, you or I might actually agree with certain demands, articles and speakers and we might secretly hope they spread like wildfire. But we realize it will actually undermine the power of those messages if they're called official or cited as speaking for the movement.
If I'm understanding this right (and I'm certainly no expert), what is really happening here is very simple (alluded to in the excellent NYTimes piece above): the 99% of the people who have been getting the shaft are finally waking up to the fact that they have the power and that fear was the only thing allowing this unsustainable system to survive. Now that fear is falling away like water off a duck's back and the 1% are terrified.
Once the movement matures a bit that idea that the 99% have the power becomes somewhat settled in our consciousness, the great leaders and the great demands will rise on their own because they capture our imagination.
There are details I worry about here. If this movement succeeds, I hope the great leaders and demands have an open forum. Leaders must have the ability to not just report on referendum votes but to help shape what the votes are. There must be real public dialogue. Great leaders (and they're out there I'm sure) could help mold consensus (Martin Luther King, Jr. spoke of this).
I believe that this "thoughtful" democratic process (based on real dialogue where good ideas float to the surface organically) is a much better situation than one where everyone is just clicking on an online survey of ten or hundred possibilities and the item with the most clicks win. Jeffrey Sachs makes that point near the end of the video referenced above.
Cream rises to the top. Everyone should be able to offer their best. Given a little time and lots of dialog it will become obvious who understands the spectrum of issues, can prioritize their urgency and importance, evaluate the best solutions and the appropriate tactics and strategies to support to turn this crisis around. You are definitely on the right track and are persuasive making your case. If the 99% doesn't include some great leaders we are in more trouble than we thought.
I hope those potential leaders continue to feel comfortable speaking out. It really helps the movement by making it feel safe to speak out loud. I also hope the 1% don't get the one thing they're counting on right now: violence. Trust me. In every board room of the big firms, every country club and at every private island resort there is one sentence that is being uttered over and over again: "Don't worry. Sooner or later there will be violence and then we can easily turn America against this movement.". They dream of that, hope for it. Pray for it. We absolutely must remain non-violent. That's where our power lies. The 1% doesn't know what to do with non-violent groups. Any response to a sit in with peaceful activists looks overly harsh.
What I'm really worried about are those who will come in from the outside and pretend to be part of the group and initiate violence. We can't kid ourselves. It's just around the corner. I agree with fellow on another thread who mentioned we should practice for this so our reflex is to say "They are not us. We are non-violent.". We really need to practice this so this is our automatic reaction. Otherwise, the 1% will have the last laugh over martinis and cigars as they read the headline "OWS Protests Turn Violent". We have to be ready for agent provocateurs. They probably will be hired by private security firms serving the elite rather than police forces. This means they'll be really good at acting and dressing the part. We can't stop them from being a part of this. But we can practice and thereby control our reaction to their inevitable acts of provocation.
I deeply share your concern. Violence is the one thing that causes this to fail. Planted supporters causing violence is the one thing we can't afford nor prevent.
I completely agree. Gotta somehow spread the word on this even more than it's already be spread. Millions of people need to discover / rediscover the power of non-violence and need to expect provocateurs. We all need to train for this. It is ESSENTIAL. Somehow the history of Gandhi and King's wins needs to spread again throughout the land. Needs to be restated simply and clearly by good leaders. Like right now. This would essentially inoculate the movement against the disease of agent provocateurs who will attempt to incite violence. It's coming. We need the vaccine. The vaccine is knowledge that we can win (in fact we can ONLY win) via non-violence. If someone reviews the wins of King and Gandhi and how they did it and a one page version of that info went viral around the country, we'd be about as inoculated as we can be.
I agree. The tentative (to be sure) success of the Egyptian Spring was their discipline in maintaining a nonviolent character. There refusal to be baited eventually discredited the Amy and the goons portray them as a mob. We are being called a "mob" by Paul Ryan and others who are scared as hell and will contenence extreme tactics to bait us.
The good news there are friends on main stream media calling us a "movement" and praising our "maturity" in calling for a recognition of the plight of the 99% rather than over simplistic, comic book demands. We are winning as long as we are perceived as a true cross section, with adults and yes understandably, some children as well.
I agree. I was worried there for awhile whether this thing would spread and how it would be perceived without official leaders / goals. But it is actually proceeding quite well!
agreed. this is the bits i saved arguing against demands.
ultimately, you are not in a position and nobody is to brainstorm up mere demands. demands are stupid and infantile. complaints and then problem defintions and then detailed problem solutions are great. that requires time and homework to generate, not bong hits and then a brainstormed imagine yourself as emperor of the world Scrawl. this kind of thing does not help the movement, it just gives the powers that be ammo against us and prevents meaningful conversations which have depth or open source research and problem solving because you and everyone else imagines we can just skip all the steps and churn out "demands." Listen to the other people in the movement who are wisely saying NO to demands lists. I have demands, they are to the movement itself- thats where the real game is.
"Would you rather have war in this land? Do not confront me work with me...Civil unrest could very well lead to civil war... This list will prevent civil war.... Infantile, we are all infants in conciseness, which explains your poor choice of words.... You should be telling me how to make the list better not how it will never work."
? gawdoftruth (Santa Barbara, CA) 1 points 0 seconds ago
no, you need to drop making lists of demands. period. until you do open source research and science centered problem solving with other people, you have nothing to say worth repeating. your brain storming in ignorance. it sounds really really awesome to you- but for many people your tone def. Making demands is itself a sign of infantilism. period. Take responsibility and start working the problems in a deep and real way. I should not have to run through this further with you. This is a ludicrous sense of direction, it is not helping the movement and its not useful or meaningful for long term strategy in fact all it is is a giant set of red rings to give the pundits a clear target.
I don't want war. how i stop the war is to work the problems in a deep way and address the war. Not make demands. I'm an adult, not a seven year old, not a hostage taker, not a terrorist. I don't make demands, i communicate evolutionary truths. If ten thousand people follow my example we can have an evolution. If you run around like a bunch of punk alpha dominant azzholes, i promise you, all of your demands will lead to nothing but scorn and alienation.
but i can expect that we will find good solid means to that end instead of self sabotaging means to that end. Change your communication strategy. These are main political issues which you find to be critical. Now ask people to join you in reasearching them and working on these problems open source. You think you have the end product. instead you have a starting point. remove the "demands" from "demands" and replace with "these are the issues i want to discuss which seem critical to me." There you go. Thats the real process. "Demands " is itself what big Bruddah wants precisely because that makes us the ones holding wall street hostage. Domestic terrorism even when called non violent is still in essence domestic terrorism. Terrorists issue demands. Evolutionary patriots form think tanks.
Well, I do think it's OK to discuss demands and discuss leaders. I don't see any problem with discussing it. It's just that we don't want any of them to become official. I actually think it's smart to discuss demands and tactics because once the movement matures we're going to need them. So, I don't think they're infantile. They'll soon be necessary as the weeks and months click by and the movement becomes strong enough to negotiate from a position of strength. That could take many forms obviously. And we could and should discuss that too. I'm all for discussion. Very healthy. Feels good for each of us to say out loud what we've been feeling for so long. This movement has made it safe to talk about the big lie that it's ok for 1% to thrive while the 99% lose more ground each day.
I thought the rudderless approach was a mistake, in the beginning. But I am now seeing the method behind it. This way of doing things does not produce ego-induced individuals, who can also be taken down by press attacks later. It is truly democratic, if somewhat confusing at times. There is no single philosophy, allowing many different component organizations to stand under the coalition umbrella. This is just what the right fears, because it is what they have done with their Tea Party, consolidating the opposition. The progressives can finally approach the fight from a position of strength. http://sibob.org/wordpress/?p=8012
I like that phrase you used "position of strength." That's what really changed my mind about the necessity of having official demands and official leaders. I realized (thanks to many people commenting on my posts) that if we take the cake out of the oven too soon, it won't reach it's potential. If, on the other hand, we allow more people to discuss, propose, strategize and align, we will each feel OWNERSHIP of the movement and it will be OUR train instead of a train we jump aboard.
After dealing with many organizations over the years, I recognize in no uncertain terms how important it is for people to be fully vested in the process. The outcomes are far more positive and successful this way. If we let the movement mature more, we'll be in a position of strength when it's time for demands and non-violent direct action. Right now, we're getting to know each other and feeling, for the first time, what it feels like to say out loud what we've all been feeling for so long. It feels pretty damn good. We're stepping out of our roles and relating to one another as human beings.
To paraphrase James Baldwin: We may not yet know the precise shape of the future, but we know it is ours.
Very well put. It is about time the left came out of the shadows and assumed its rightful place in the full spectrum of political thought. We should at least have the right to have our opinions heard, if not in the mass media, then on the street, (and on the internet). http://sibob.org/wordpress/?p=8026
I agree and:
This movement is about making a course correction in the laws of our country that allow corporations to do just about whatever they want. Democracy is a fine system and does not need to be replaced but every now and then a correction is necessary. We don't need a leader to do this, we the 99% do this with our vote, protests, emails to politicians etc. Will it work? Hell it is working as I type this....look at the anxiety it has created already.
Paul Krugman does an excellent job of explaining the movement.
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/10/07/opini ... .html?_r=1
The last 30 years families with assets over $5 million have been making almost all the real gains. That must change.
the message is clear. It is contempt of the people with the current state of affairs. This is for the moment enough until the point, where a majority comes around and things will have to change! We are not there jet. And as long as Wall Street and corporate America are still calling the shots it is better not to formulate demands what has to be done. I think this movement would be wise to refuse to specify a Positions for "negotiations". I do not wont us to negotiate with Wall Street at this point! They are not scared enough jet ... First we have to stop Wall Street to dominate the discussion ... and one way they dominate the discussion is to force there opponents to make specific demands, so the can respond in there usual way! We do not wont them to do that! They will win, if they are able to push us in this corner! The point is, it is not on us to put forward an idea to change things, it is on them first to legitimize their system against our criticism. And if they fail to legitimize it, and increasingly that is the case, in other words, if their ideas are off the table, than it is time to think about new ways.
We can not submit ourselves to their way of thinking!
I agree that the interview with Jeffrey Sachs hits a lot of the OWS feelings about our government. EVERYONE SHOULD VIEW IT. There was a reporter(D. Leonhandt) on NBC this morning stating he didn't know if anything would become of the OWS movement. I don't approve of some Representatives stating that we're mobs or that were pitting against each other? I agree that polititions need to start listening to the 99% instead of the wealthy 1%. Jeffrey Sachs speech above states Big oil and Big money such as Koch Bros should not be influencing our government.
I agree that the interview with Jeffrey Sachs hits a lot of the OWS feelings about our government. EVERYONE SHOULD VIEW IT. There was a reporter(D. Leonhandt) on NBC this morning stating he didn't know if anything would become of the OWS movement. I don't approve of some Representatives stating that we're mobs or that were pitting against each other? I agree that polititions need to start listening to the 99% instead of the wealthy 1%. Jeffrey Sachs speech above states Big oil and Big money such as Koch Bros should not be influencing our government.
I agree that the interview with Jeffrey Sachs hits a lot of the OWS feelings about our government. EVERYONE SHOULD VIEW IT. There was a reporter(D. Leonhandt) on NBC this morning stating he didn't know if anything would become of the OWS movement. I don't approve of some Representatives stating that we're mobs or that were pitting against each other? I agree that polititions need to start listening to the 99% instead of the wealthy 1%. Jeffrey Sachs speech above states Big oil and Big money such as Koch Bros should not be influencing our government.
Ah, the glory of this country is its diversity. Thousands of messages, but one goal: to make things better. We have all the ideas to fix these problems, but how to get them 'shovel ready.'
And a reply to LNAB: You're right, we all need to get on the same page - then we can do anything. And that page exists. We just have to find it. I've come up with some ideas - and started a new thread.
Great points! The tea party was co-opted so quickly by taking advantage of followership. No leader = no followers. I would, however, like to see some points of common agreement posted.
This could be in the form of polling, like 98% of protesters agree to this point, and 88% agree to that point. This means all points would be included, and a move toward consensus can evolve. By self polling and publishing, you retain control of the information, avoiding hijacking.
I don't expect to see100% on any item simply because there are already individuals posing as supporters who are instead in opposition to the movement. They will affect the outcome of polling, yet I believe they are a minority and their number will show up as a statistical artifact. Any statisticians out there who would volunteer to take that on?
My belief is that people asking for a single message and a single goal are WRONG. You are seeing a real democracy in action, the kind like never before. I think it doesn't need one goal, it should have thousands each one a singular voice and each on speaks for itself. That's what people don't seem to be getting. It's simple though, they think it has no message, that is wrong it has no ONE message it has THOUSANDS.
No. I disagree. Why march in the streets with no message? The world may be waiting, we may be modeling a new Democracy.
with the speed at which the movement is growing... I think you may be correct. For me, there needs to be ONE goal... the removal of the corrupting forces that own our gov't. By focusing on this single goal, we remain inclusive. If we remove the corrupting vehicles ... good governance, consensus and new protections can emerge for the majority of the citizenry. If they make the mistake of trying to solve the problems of gov't ... the movement will fall apart. Opinion is too diverse (and mostly ill informed)
about time ;)
It took me a while to realize that it wasn't necessarily the leaders, ideas or demands themselves that were being rejected. I was both puzzled and annoyed because I thought that was the case. Now I realize that many may actually hope the words of some of these leaders and demands get out. The smart among us perhaps aren't rejecting the leaders, demands or ideas. They're just engaging in intelligent strategy by rejecting the idea (for now) of making anything official. The 1% and their minions have no idea how to hit a moving target.
All the while, the lists, the leaders and the people circulate. Organic discussion is happening about things that would have felt taboo a month ago (whether it's in the streets, the living rooms, boardrooms or on TV.
Occupy Wall Street has done two big things in my view so far: a) The movement has reminded us, the 99% that there's an odd paradox at play. We really have the power if we exercise it but in our ignorance we've been getting the shaft. And b) The OWS movement has made it safe to speak openly of this great paradox. That's powerful stuff.
If we do this right, hopefully we can encourage civil debate and discourse and heal some of the massive divide this country has right now between opposing ideologies.
Personally, I'm a liberal socially and a conservative fiscally... so I kinda reside in both camps. Both sides want to be heard, it's a matter of keeping everyone focused on issues we all agree on and at the same time finding more of them.
I do think there are some things we need to emphasize... I think we have to take the Gandhi route and build respect. Peaceful protest. Acting with dignity. Civil debate instead of flaming. I'm not holding out much hope for that though ;)
Oh, I completely agree. I think the movement will fail if we don't pay attention to Gandhi and King's words about going at this with a kind heart. Gandhi (and King who borrowed heavily from his methods) thought that one non-violently resisted an oppressor so as to help them find their way. I think King said something like "We love them so much that we want to set them right." It was a radical thing to say to supporters who were full of anger and energy (dangerous mix) but these great leaders did a good job conveying it and it worked. They won. And it was because they remained true to non-violent principles. It exhausted the opposition.
much like the bombing of N. Vietnam that launched full scale and wide spread protests against the Vietnam war... OWS awaits the catalytic event that will move it to the next level.. but with the idiocy of the financial sector and our gov't... it will come
I am like you, when I first started here I thought the movement needed a leader, and I am glad to say i was wrong. the greatest strength this movement has is it's sheer collectivism, there is no leader to discredit, there is no leader to attack. Therefore those who make policy decisions have no idea how to deal with this movement.
That great strength is in someways also it's greatest weakness, because without a leader the movement has no spokesperson, has no one to identify key area's and to make the movement move in a singular direction. This gives the media an opportunity to portray the movement as disorganized and nothing more than a joke.