General Discussion
In reply to the discussion: Revolution anyone? This is for those among us that think we can always fall back on revolution. [View all]daredtowork
(3,732 posts)I hate to put air in the windbags of any the arrogant (usually white male) elitists who screech on about the need for "Leadership". (Usually proposing that they or their cronies be in charge).
But if you do take a look at history and what people actually do, revolution is often guided in some way. Many factors go into it. There are leaders and interests - intellectual as well as political. The "groundswell" isn't spontaneous at all.
One thing the leaders have to do is understand and work with the actual needs and aspirations of their followers and realize that, while leadership might be necessary, "political will" isn't merely imposed from above. One of the things that killed the Oakland Occupy movement was the way multiple "leaders" tried to hijack it for their own revolutions. First there were the people who kept trying to provoke the police to turn it into an anti-police revolution. Then there were the people who kept dragging us down to the Port of Oakland to support a labor strike there. Then it merged with some International worker's holiday and somehow became about Immigration issues.
All of these splinter issues were important domestic policy matters in the U.S., and I don't want to downplay them. But people had come out on the streets because of the financial meltdown and mortgage problems - and fear of losing their housing had raised the visibility of the homelessness problem. These problems had given the movement enough *focus* to get people out on the street. But then the "leaders" with the bullhorns failed to acknowledge and attend to these problems. Instead they said: "Hey, can I borrow you crowd of people for this Revolution over here while we haven't actually done anything about YOUR problem yet?"
That's what dispersed the Occupy crowds. That's why the Revolution failed.