Can 'Occupy' protests last without leaders?

reply to post by TDawgRex


There's a saying about chickens and eggs, based on (if I recall correctly) an Aesop fable.

"After that?" I don't know. We need to accomplish "that" before making plans for "after." it's hardly inevitable, is it?

reply to post by pteridine


I have always been a advocate of nothing is "Too big to fail."

Could it be feasible that we break up the big banks simialer to Ma Bell/AT&T of the 70's?

End the Monopoly?

Originally posted by TDawgRex
reply to post by pteridine

 

I have always been a advocate of nothing is "Too big to fail."

Could it be feasible that we break up the big banks simialer to Ma Bell/AT&T of the 70's?

End the Monopoly?

The ability of the banks to be both commercial and investment banks was due to a law in the 1990's. The road to Hell [and financial ruin] is paved with good intentions.

I don't think a leader helps per se, but what the movement needs is a clear simple statement of principle that is a little more elaborate than "We are the 99%." I'm interested to see what they come up with, but I believe less is more, and it should be simple, nonpartisan, and focus on systemic points.

It will last until they realize that there's actually only a %100, leader or no leader. If they do start to follow a leader I believe it'll only escalate their movement toward domestic violence and treasonous rebellion.

reply to post by TDawgRex


Last without leaders?

I didnt know they had any to begin with...

OWS just got a leader today !

Last updated: October 16, 2011 9:17 pm
Barack Obama, US president, offered more support for protesters against the global financial system after a weekend of demonstrations in cities around the world, but called on them not to “demonise” those who worked on Wall Street.

Obama extends support for protesters

Oct. 16, 2011, 2:52 PM
The White House continued its embrace of the Occupy Wall Street protests on Sunday, using the strongest terms yet to identify President Barack Obama with the growing movement.

Earnest added that while on the trip, [color=;imegreen]Obama will make it clear that he is fighting to make certain that the "interests of 99 percent of Americans are well represented" — the first time the White House has used the term to differentiate the vast majority of Americans from the wealthy.

Obama Is Fighting For The Interests Of The 99%


I wonder what he really means by "99%"?

The legislation passed by Congress while Obama has been POTUS seems to have impacted the 99% mostly in negative ways with few exceptions targeting small segments of special interest groups.

Most positive impacts have impacted the 99% in minimal ways at best.

Even with a full supporting 111th United States Congress... the negative impacts are astounding to the 99% while more positive to the 1%.

Why change directions now?

reply to post by AzureSky

Leaders are easily corrupted.
Hence why having none is paramount to their success.
Decisions can be made on consensus, and i think their message is more than cohesive enough

They can do without leaders for longer than they can do without a cohesive message. But they are lacking even that.

As for 'consensus', I read a thread whereby some bongo drummers dropped by and played all night long. Neighbors complained but OWS was unable to convince the drummers to stop.

So much for consensus.

reply to post by TDawgRex

reply to post by pteridine


I have always been a advocate of nothing is "Too big to fail."

Could it be feasible that we break up the big banks simialer to Ma Bell/AT&T of the 70's?

End the Monopoly?

Just remember that AT&T was a planned monopoly, a joint venture between the govt and industry. It was necessary because the costs of creating the communications infrastructure were enormous; competition would have been ruinous. And it worked wonderfully.

Just sayin'.

reply to post by TDawgRex


I really think that you have to consider the reality of this situation. The truth is that if you can make something happen without leadership, then you can maintain its presence via the same method. These protests are being attended by people who came together under a banner they all agree on, no matter the differences between the individuals , or sub groups of which they are comprised, and decided to act, with no figurehead to follow.

They have communed in public and private, and with no central controls , organised one of the most prolific and interesting protest waves in the west for some time. This trend , for rapidly put together, widely attended protests can only be sustained BECAUSE of the leaderless nature of the organisations which are carrying them out. There is no head to cut off, there is no figurehead to attack with the media as a weapon, and there is no skeleton in the closet.

That is what makes the Occupy protests ,happening all over Europe and the US ,unique and more powerful than those which have been lead by talking heads, known activists, and the like. Fact is, with no one at the top to remove or smear, the governments against which these protests are being arrayed are having to do battle with the issues rather than individual personalities.

This is why you hear so little reaction from governments (or certainly, we here little in the UK about government reaction to these protests) because they know that the moment the people in general realise they have no answer , no argument , no defence against these protestors, and thier truths, that they will loose thier power completely .

The reality is, that governments CANNOT justify thier actions before thier people, because thier attitudes and priorities are broken. The Occupy movement however, has only fairness and transparancy , things which most everyone can agree on, at its core. That is why the protests can last, and have existed so vibrantly without leadership.

reply to post by TDawgRex


These movements are turning into General Assemblies. You don't need any leaders for something like that. It's the whole point.

The people will now govern themselves thank you very much .

Originally posted by mishigas
reply to post by TDawgRex

 

reply to post by pteridine


I have always been a advocate of nothing is "Too big to fail."

Could it be feasible that we break up the big banks simialer to Ma Bell/AT&T of the 70's?

End the Monopoly?

Just remember that AT&T was a planned monopoly, a joint venture between the govt and industry. It was necessary because the costs of creating the communications infrastructure were enormous; competition would have been ruinous. And it worked wonderfully.

Just sayin'.

I never knew that. Thanks for the education.

Of course I'll verify though.

After all, I hate the phrase, "I read it on the interwebs, it has to be true!"