Originally Posted by chunkstyle
I don't know how much you were following the Occupy movement as it was happening but you could hear the distant drums beating all the way in Upstate NY.

My big problem with the Occupy movement wasn't its positions, it was the fact that they insisted they were a "leaderless movement".
Such a thing is impossible, logistically speaking.
So called "leaderless" movements never remain leaderless for very long.

It's another way of saying, "we refuse to focus our message" and "we resist unity", and the result is always the same, a power vacuum, which gets filled sooner rather than later.
And in the case of Occupy, more often than not that vacuum got filled by self-appointed raconteurs either from the anarchist outfits or worse, paid agitators.

All "movements" whether social, economic, religious, or anything else, are by nature a form of leadership, so the notion of a leaderless movement is a contradiction in terms no matter how badly people wish to believe otherwise, and by leaving the position open, Occupy might as well have sent out engraved invitations to people with unsavory cred.

And still, even despite all this, Occupy still managed to do a lot of good. They forced a lot of banks to walk back their zombie loans and scheduled foreclosure evictions, plus they found temporary housing.

"The Best of the Leon Russell Festivals" DVD
deepfreezefilms.com