Forum Post: Who must be our leaders?
Posted 12 years ago on Dec. 5, 2011, 12:02 a.m. EST by FalseFlag
(121)
This content is user submitted and not an official statement
Every civil rights movement has its leaders. Who must be our leaders? Should we find people who are our brain team and our leader team? We need people like Malcolm X and Martin Luther King who can give voice to the movement and lead us. How about if I give a couple of names for start? How about economists like Krugman and Stiglitz. We need a team of leaders who can put all this in a context, voice it to people, and lead the movement.
Look in a mirror. We are all leaders. It depends on the context. This is the most democratic movement the world has ever seen, qualitatively different than any that has gone before it. Which means we are all equal. Everybody has a right to speak and contribute but nobody has any more rights than anyone else. If a political or show biz celebrity shows up at an occupation they have as much right as anyone else to speak, but no more. They must wait their turn to speak like everyone else. If they think they deserve priviledged treatment, they can go home.
nice one. plus in the internet age having a public leader isnt really that important... tends to be more of a detractor than anything else.
No. You need a leader. Without one, you're just an unorganized mob like you are now
What makes you think OWS is a disorganized mob? What makes you think we are leaderless? Have you ever been to an occupation or a GA? I suspect not or you would not suggest we are leaderless. We are the most democratic movement the world has ever see. We are all leaders. Leadership passes from person to person depending on the context. I was active in the civil rights movement. There was no single leader. The leadership of the top six civil rights organizations were referred to as "the Big 6" but none of them were especially more powerful than any of the others. King's leadership was a myth that developed largely after his death. We are striking out on new ground that is the most revolutionary the world has ever seen.
You have no leader. What is their name then?? I'm sorry, you're right, you aren't a disorganized mob. You are many small disorganized mobs. You are not the most democratic movement(do you even know what the hell that means?? Cause that statement makes no sense) You are not all leaders. If you were something would be getting done. Not just sitting in a park. You weren't in any civil rights movement, and you aren't now. If you were, you'd understand how badly this whole "occupy" BS has been beaten down internally and externally. The world doesn't care about you. That why when you sat there and screamed in front of Walmart, we just walked right past you to buy what we needed(and wanted, cause we're still out there making money, while you make stool in a bucket)
We are all leaders. There are thousands, They are too numerous to name. Different people assert leadership in different contexts and as the context changes the leadership changes. There are General Assemblies all over the nation. These are the decision making bodies of our movement. Everyone who shows up has a democratic right to participate in a General Assembly as an equal. We do not just sit in parks. Nearly every occupation has at least one action every day. Working Groups are working on all kinds of projects. Most of the world does not care about the occupy movement because it does not know about the occupy movement. We have a lot of work to do getting the word out about our movement and getting people active in our movement, but that's what movements do.
The world does know about it.Why do you think they are doing it in other countries?? What specific POSITIVE(sitting in a courthouse, disputing business doesn't count. It's not positive) things do they do??I see them going to concerts, not setting up and having meetings with law makers. You can't have thousands of leaders. There is a leader in every organized society that carries any merit. It has been all through history and will continue to the future. Your afraid of not being in charge of something. Who do you ask if you can't find something you need at the camp?? You ask the next guy and the next, but nobody can help you, because there was nobody to allocate someone to that task, and make sure that need was taken care of. Is it like that at all of these events?? No. Most?? Probably. You use democratic terms, which is why I questioned you the first time. This isn't a democrat problem. This also is not a Republican issue, nor black, white, asian, gay, or what ever. Unless you can somehow take away greed(which in itself greed, and envy), which is impossible, this kind of stuff will always be present. Nobody will tell everyone everything right away for nothing. That's what makes us progress as a species. Competition and having the upper hand in something. Take, for example when you hide behind the Bill of Rights. Wouldn't you consider that a form of greed?? Your greed to get off on the feeling you can yell scream, and break the law, just because a piece of paper says so. If you really wanna make a positive impact, raise some money and help the poor families you want to protect and help them get their note paid off. But that goes against you belief.... or because when it comes down to it(and you know in the back of your mind, you know I'm right), the greed of you keeping your own funds won't let you do that. Yes there are rich and there are poor. It sucks,but it is what it is.
Revolutionaries don't sit in meeting with the people they aim to displace. They also don't go off on crazy adventures when they realize that we are nowhere near a revolutionary situation. What they do is organize, which is exactly what OWS is doing.
People in OWS assert leadership all over the place it simply does not fall to one person all the time and around all issues. Occupiers need to be fed. Somebody rises to the occasion to organize a kitchen. Somebody else organizes demonstrations. Somebody else finds warm clothing for people. Somebody else works on outreach to organized labor. Somebody else decides that we need to do outreach to the religious community and takes on that responsibility for themselves.
This is no different from a lot of social movements. People want to ascribe leadership to single individuals probably because it makes things easier to study in a high school history class.
it sounds sort of personal for you...you okay man?
I'm perfectly fine. I'm just asking questions. Do you have any answers??
Actually, necropaulis, a quick parse of your diatribe turned up one question and a whole lot of negative statements that indicate a series of phobias.
You should see a doctor. They have pills that will make you feel better.
Heres the deal
in every big system shift like this, There is the establishment, and the rebels
usually what happens is that a leader emerges from the rebels to help lead a decisive victory over the establishment...
But more often then not, when the Rebel Leader takes his place over the masses, he get's put on a pedestal, and eventually becomes the new establishment.
and this isn't always a single person. Look at G.B. and U.S.
the colonies revolted against Britain because of Taxation without representation and other issues as well, we beat them out, took control, and started doing a very similar thing down the road.
If we let someone dictate how the mass moves, you'll get results, but only temporary ones, I beleive you'll be playing by the rules of the government.
we set ourselves apart from those that have tried playing that game before. and I think that it's both a good and bad thing. It will either lead to a better world for us/our children, or end in a bloody reign of terror [similar to the french revolution]
or both.
Okay. short answer. Name one single society anywhere on the planet that is internationally known and traded with, that has no single figurehead. You need a representative of your group. You need a pedestal, or else you're just a screaming mass, and nobody wants to deal with that. What credibility would 12 people walking up, saying they're the leader, and making decisions for the group,, when next week it could be 3 other people?? It makes no sense. This is why the governments of the (civilized-and please leave it at that) world are structured the way they are. You will not have a French Revolution. I promise you, the first time a police officer sees a gun, your camp will be shut down, and that person will be arrested on site. This will occur in under 10 minutes. Plus there aren't as many like minded citizens out there, as we have other things to take care of(house, family, car, fun-stuff that costs money), and go to work to do so. And trust me, the people(the proper 99% you keep screaming about) could care less anymore. These are also the people who would not stand up for your cause if it came down to it(vis a vis your revolution). Unless it's a story about the cops doing their job, or the horrible conditions the children some of these idiots dragged into this have to live in(assholes), you hardly even get any press. Now you start building shelters, and breaking into the empty homes of the people you defend, because you're getting cold. Don't you think that's not just a little counter-productive?? I know I'd like to be able to just break back into my foreclosed home and live there because me and my family had to move out(especially when I knew I could afford that bank note if I lived to be 110 years old.).
don't think I don't partially agree with you.
I understand the risks of not having a leadership system, but the reason why Occupy Wall St. is so cautious of such a system, is because of the possible corruption that comes along with the power of leadership. be cause that's what leadership is: Power, power of influence.
What OWS is saying is that, by everyone being equal, influence is negated...unfortunately in this case, it also means that the power of the group as a whole is somewhat diluted as well.
but my contention is that though progress is slow with the amount of power that the collective conscious has now, it's still progress, and if we have to move slow in order to avoid corruption, then that might be a good solution,
because sometimes, while it sounds great to say, hey lets all be adults and get with the program, I believe sometimes one needs to take a fresh approach, take baby steps, and constantly ask the question "WHY?" until it gets unbearably annoying.
does this make sense? sry, sometimes I ramble..
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/michael-moore/occupy-winter_b_1133128.html
The KTC
http://occupywallst.org/forum/make-a-stand-join-the-clan/
The Revolution starts here!
We don't want a leader. We want a "FOLLOWER".
"WE" are the leaders ( or should be by right ). We need the correct employees. The employees of "THE PEOPLE" to take "OUR" direction not to formulate their own.
I have read here that people wan to boycott the 2012 elections...Why can OWS not field a presidential candidate..like Elizabeth Warren??? Boycotting the election does nothing... winning at all levels send not only a message but real people to duke it out with T-partyers and whomever else
Once leaders arise then you get led. Everyone has a price and can be turned to the dark side.
I used to watch Star Trek long ago and one of the story lines that resonated with me is the BORG. I could see this happening to humans very easily. We already have various prostheses that are implanted and soon we might have our "smart phones" implanted as well. Anyway, the reason I brought this up is one of the things the BORG would say is "You will be assimilated, resistance is futile." Once we have leaders then that saying would begin to effect their motives.
OWS is a world wide movement- for human freedom- it is not just for the usa Its for the WORLD. ows is a brand name, nothing more. In every city in the united states and every country, on earth, they will choose someone to lead them-
activst page http://url2it.com/jsne
I think we've all come to the conclusion that leaders are assholes by now.
Good luck with this post. Most of the people have been brainwashed into thinking that things can work well if everyone is a leader, which destroys the power of unity. if everyone leads, no one follows, and the power of unity is gone. And they also think that if there is a leader, then a dictatorship will result.
It's hard to get common sense through...
Unity does not require followers or leaders, it only requires a common goal.
Unity requires more than a common goal. WE ALREADY HAVE A COMMON GOAL. There is no problem there. It's how to get to that goal. Just like a sports team.
Mass Activism. Local Strikes. Corporate Boycotts. Nationwide Issue Protests. Occupations of Dem and Rep Conventions. National General Strikes. And much, much more, far more than you will ever see reported in the corporate media.
Make enough sparks and you get fire. Enough fires and eventually there will be a raging inferno.
There is no escape for either side. The power structure could relinquish but it won't. OWS could fold, but it won't.
I would like to see more than just protest direct actions, I would like to money direct actions, where people do things to actually generate money for the 99%.
"corporate boycotts" + bank action (account closings, investment liquidation and withdrawal, etc.) + tax avoidance (going to cash / barter)
Which is also missing...
Read the OWS declaration, or the declaration from any occupation. The common goals are spelled out quite clearly.
[edit] I was able to find the OWS declaration, and it was a list of wrongs committed against the people. There were no goals listed, just a call to action. Unless you are assuming the goals are to correct all of the injustices listed. There is also a link to a list of proposed demands - but those are not agreed upon by the movement.
The goals are indeed to correct all the injustices listed, and many others that are not.
* This list is not all inclusive.
Those goals are implied, then. And since the list is not all inclusive, there are any number of things that may also be considered goals but are not documented. That's a little broad, don't you think? I don't see that the declaration, as it is written, has any unifying power.
Read the US Declaration of Independence.
I wouldn't characterize The DoI as a list of "goals" - it was the end result of a series of goals. The Occupy Declaration just says "all these things are wrong - we should do something." The DoI says "all these things are wrong, we are separating from Britain." There's a big difference. It was a concrete statement and something people could rally around.
Both are a list of grievances.
I agree with that. But your initial point was that OWS didn't need leaders, only a common goal. And you pointed me towards the OWS declaration indicating that it spelled out the goals quite clearly.
It doesn't.
The goal is to correct the problems itemized on that list. It's really not that hard to understand, unless you are trying to make it fit into a 7 second television "news" segment.
I'd rather "rotating spokes people"...as opposed to 'leaders'.
I'm all for a new leader. But they'll have to get past the existing one's first (the anarchists and their Serbian friends).
Personally, I like Russ Feingold or Buddy Roemer.
http://occupywallst.org/forum/everyone-should-organize-around-russ-feingold-as-a/
The leaders need to emerge organically. You cant go out and "find" a leader.
Through an organic process one will develop, no matter how hard the effort at horizontal is.
I'm your leader.
Now tell me about your name FalseFlag
Cat got your tongue? This is dead thread!!!
Seeeee Yaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa
FalseFlag, don't do it. He's baiting you so that he can call you a conspiracy theorist (ad hominem) without addressing a single one of your points. He's been talked to about it already but has no interest in honestly evaluating his preconceptions. It's not worth your time or effort.
As for your primary question, "who is your leader"
"An-archy" means "without structure", or "without rulers". While some individuals may willfully "follow the lead" of another person, others will remain truly independent and motivated for their own safety and wellbeing -- so no one answer suffices.
It is the second group which I am able to trust. A man who relinquishes his will to the machinations of another can be decieved, mislead to commit the most horrid atrocities, however: the man who keeps to himself and secures his own rights and safety will never premptively threaten yours.
Whether you want to talk to me about leaders or find some other word for it the facts remain that given all else there should be at least two or three things out there that 90% or more of the Occupiers agree need to be done as quickly and comprehensively as possible to fix things. That list generally includes some form of repudiation of Citizens United and a reinstatement of Glass-Steagall, among other things.
The fact also remains that right now these central ideas don't really have any sustained support and tend to get drowned out by the sheer volume of other things going on, both on the forums and in the real world. Somebody (or a workgroup of somebodies if you prefer groups) needs to be tasked with fixing that problem. They need to be given the responsibility to protect that message (and the associated rudimentary platform) and promulgate it among the American people, the right to speak in the name of OWS while promulgating that message, and the resources to maintain an active and positive presence with that purpose in mind both in real life and in all media (Internet and mainstream).
Whether we call such a person a leader, a mouthpiece, or whatever other term you can think of, one can't really deny that someone serving these functions is highly necessary if we want to gain enough traction to fix things.
[Removed]
[Removed]
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4Z9WVZddH9w
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EewGMBOB4Gg