3 ms·

Fetish is quite a strange word to use. They put in practice anarchist principles and showed that such principles do actually work in practice as they managed to

Fetish is quite a strange word to use. They put in practice anarchist principles and showed that such principles do actually work in practice as they managed to grab the focus of the world for maybe a month or two and communicated a very focused message, there is a difference between 99% of the people and a tiny 1%.

derefr 13y ago
> they managed to grab the focus of the world for maybe a month or two and communicated a very focused message, there is a difference between 99% of the people and a tiny 1% This... wasn't the goal of the core group going into the "turn Occupy Wall Street into a movement" project, though, which was my point. It's sort of like setting out, in 0 A.D., to turn Christianity into a movement--but everyone who joins you ends up evangelizing for Scientology (or whatever the equivalent at the time was), because that's what they think you're talking about, and that's easier to sell. So, you've spawned a successful movement... to evangelize Scientology. Not a success. Also, the word choice was deliberate; every piece of literature you can find on movements throughout history would suggest that there is a strong correlation between success in spreading awareness/change, and having charismatic leadership: a "face" to put to the movement, and a person that could be looked to--either for guidance, or just as a role-model--when one is confused about what the movement should be focusing on. This is important not for any sort of top-down leadership/command role--it's not a 1% hegemon--but rather the "face" exists so that new members have someone to base their understanding on what the movement "is for" off of, instead of just looking at what the people around them are doing (usually nothing.) To know this, and persist in attempting to use a self-defeating "no one is special; we are all of us together" approach, goes past ideology and into role-playing. They weren't trying to accomplish anything; they just wanted to enjoy the feeling of doing something anarchic, even if it wouldn't accomplish anything.
- Andrew_Quentin 13y ago
  Its far from role playing. As I said they were putting anarchist principles in practice. You say they need a leader, they showed they did not need a leader. I did not see them being hijacked by anything but the police force. They had a message, they communicated that message, everyone heard the message. That the people were unwilling to support them more vocally, but instead were successfully divided by the media, was not a failure on the part of occupy, but an example that propaganda is very, very effective against the masses.
  - mpyne 13y ago
    > Its far from role playing. As I said they were putting anarchist principles in practice. You say they need a leader, they showed they did not need a leader. He said they need a leader to evangelize. You say they didn't need a leader to organize a coherent group. You might be right, but given that Occupy seemed to me to be a political action movement, and there's been exactly zero substantive political action, we have to consider it as a failure. And apparently that means we have to consider 'anarchist principles' as a failure, unless there is some better explanation of why they failed in this case to drive political improvement.

derefr 13y ago

> they managed to grab the focus of the world for maybe a month or two and communicated a very focused message, there is a difference between 99% of the people and a tiny 1% This... wasn't the goal of the core group going into the "turn Occupy Wall Street into a movement" project, though, which was my point. It's sort of like setting out, in 0 A.D., to turn Christianity into a movement--but everyone who joins you ends up evangelizing for Scientology (or whatever the equivalent at the time was), because that's what they think you're talking about, and that's easier to sell. So, you've spawned a successful movement... to evangelize Scientology. Not a success. Also, the word choice was deliberate; every piece of literature you can find on movements throughout history would suggest that there is a strong correlation between success in spreading awareness/change, and having charismatic leadership: a "face" to put to the movement, and a person that could be looked to--either for guidance, or just as a role-model--when one is confused about what the movement should be focusing on. This is important not for any sort of top-down leadership/command role--it's not a 1% hegemon--but rather the "face" exists so that new members have someone to base their understanding on what the movement "is for" off of, instead of just looking at what the people around them are doing (usually nothing.) To know this, and persist in attempting to use a self-defeating "no one is special; we are all of us together" approach, goes past ideology and into role-playing. They weren't trying to accomplish anything; they just wanted to enjoy the feeling of doing something anarchic, even if it wouldn't accomplish anything.

Andrew_Quentin 13y ago
Its far from role playing. As I said they were putting anarchist principles in practice. You say they need a leader, they showed they did not need a leader. I did not see them being hijacked by anything but the police force. They had a message, they communicated that message, everyone heard the message. That the people were unwilling to support them more vocally, but instead were successfully divided by the media, was not a failure on the part of occupy, but an example that propaganda is very, very effective against the masses.
- mpyne 13y ago
  > Its far from role playing. As I said they were putting anarchist principles in practice. You say they need a leader, they showed they did not need a leader. He said they need a leader to evangelize. You say they didn't need a leader to organize a coherent group. You might be right, but given that Occupy seemed to me to be a political action movement, and there's been exactly zero substantive political action, we have to consider it as a failure. And apparently that means we have to consider 'anarchist principles' as a failure, unless there is some better explanation of why they failed in this case to drive political improvement.