Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

In a way it makes sense.

The authorities are really well-organized and have a hierarchy. To do the same would be trying to play to the opponent's strengths. As a military man, you know that is not sound strategy, you try to get your foes to play to your strengths.

Therefore, one of the OWS' strengths is lack of clear targets. No clear leaders to be debunked or arrested. That includes the OWS message too. No clear target that the opposition can shoot for rhetorically. Anyone sympathetic to it, can all ready hear it.

Of course, such a stragey has other dangers associated with it, and isn't guaranteed to work.

Easy E wrote:
In the past you needed a centralized authority, but now you only need an idea and a direction. Loose networks of individuals working broadly together towards the same idea cna drive the agenda forward more. We see a similar idea with irregular warfare networks. They have an overarching theme, but lose netowrks do all the work towards the greater idea with little or no direction from anyone else.

The irregular warfare analogy is poor, as you've phrased it, because groups predicated on the offensive use of irregular warfare almost always have a centralized hierarchy, or a series of hierarchies competing against one another for control; and only when one group comes out on top do they generally succeed. You saw this with the Sandinistas, the Viet Cong, the Cuban Revolutionaries, Mao, and basically every other such force in history. Irregular forces, when not controlled by a central authority, are capable of only one thing: harassing the enemy (the early stages of the rebellion against the Somozas is a good example).

You can talk about only needing an idea and a direction all you want, but that's all you've ever needed to generate discontent with the state, and subsequent protests. But, if you want those protests to be successful, you need some form of hierarchy, whether formal or not. Where that hierarchy does not exist, there is no organization, and the absence of organization necessarily means the absence of a coherent agenda.

I understand that a lot of people want to see telecommunications as a magic bullet for the spread of democracy, and equality, but the evidence, empirical and reasonable, simply doesn't support that idea. The internet doesn't change how people communicate, it simply lets them do it faster and more easily.

Easy E wrote:
I agree with you up until the direct disruption of access. If that were the case, we might as well simply outlaw groups we don't like while in powe rand thus "disrupt their direct access". I think we can all agree that we then no longer have a democracy (Republic or otherwise).

Well, we would still have a democracy, it simply wouldn't be one with universal suffrage.

Flash Mob driving a NASCAR car.......waiting for the crash....skidding for the wall now..driver left hand is not cooperating with the brain and the right hand giving the "bird" to any driver, official, authority, and people who were "required" to drive for him. Oh..the brain is buried on tweeter already to get the next nascar wreck

CptJake wrote:There are clearly leaders in this 'leaderless' movement. They even give themselves fancy titles like "counselman".

They may have their General Assemblies, but those again have clear leaders and followers, though often they are run in such a way that the followers get to think they are on equal standing with the leaders.

Some animals are more equal than others eh?

Lets debunk the animal idea or PETA will get in on it

Jihadin wrote:Lets debunk the animal idea or PETA will get in on it

Dachshunds, first among equals. Now with AAA.

Easy E wrote:Therefore, one of the OWS' strengths is lack of clear targets. No clear leaders to be debunked or arrested. That includes the OWS message too. No clear target that the opposition can shoot for rhetorically. Anyone sympathetic to it, can all ready hear it.

Yes, if you don't actually SAY anything, nobody can debunk the things you SAY.

But back in the real world, you want to actually ACCOMPLISH things.

Rented Tritium wrote:

Easy E wrote:Therefore, one of the OWS' strengths is lack of clear targets. No clear leaders to be debunked or arrested. That includes the OWS message too. No clear target that the opposition can shoot for rhetorically. Anyone sympathetic to it, can all ready hear it.

Yes, if you don't actually SAY anything, nobody can debunk the things you SAY.

But back in the real world, you want to actually ACCOMPLISH things.

I would say, things have all ready been accomplished. The fact that we are even discussing OWS means they have accomplished something. They have accomplished their primary purpose. Allow people to give voice and talk about something they have felt for a while. The system is not working for me, let's change it.

Thanks for your support Rented Tritium, Frazzled, and all by talking about OWS.

Easy E wrote:In a way it makes sense.

The authorities are really well-organized and have a hierarchy. To do the same would be trying to play to the opponent's strengths. As a military man, you know that is not sound strategy, you try to get your foes to play to your strengths.

Therefore, one of the OWS' strengths is lack of clear targets. No clear leaders to be debunked or arrested. That includes the OWS message too. No clear target that the opposition can shoot for rhetorically. Anyone sympathetic to it, can all ready hear it.

Of course, such a stragey has other dangers associated with it, and isn't guaranteed to work.

I never said leaders were not identifiable, in fact quite the opposite is true. From a targeting/intel gathering perspective this is actually a very easy organization to map out. I guarantee the NYPD and the police forces from each city being 'occupied' have already done so.

Easy E wrote:

Rented Tritium wrote:

Easy E wrote:Therefore, one of the OWS' strengths is lack of clear targets. No clear leaders to be debunked or arrested. That includes the OWS message too. No clear target that the opposition can shoot for rhetorically. Anyone sympathetic to it, can all ready hear it.

Yes, if you don't actually SAY anything, nobody can debunk the things you SAY.

But back in the real world, you want to actually ACCOMPLISH things.

I would say, things have all ready been accomplished. The fact that we are even discussing OWS means they have accomplished something. They have accomplished their primary purpose. Allow people to give voice and talk about something they have felt for a while. The system is not working for me, let's change it.

Thanks for your support Rented Tritium, Frazzled, and all by talking about OWS.

I'm more than happy to make fun of hippy unbathed any time.

Easy E wrote:
In the past you needed a centralized authority, but now you only need an idea and a direction. Loose networks of individuals working broadly together towards the same idea cna drive the agenda forward more. We see a similar idea with irregular warfare networks. They have an overarching theme, but lose netowrks do all the work towards the greater idea with little or no direction from anyone else.

The irregular warfare analogy is poor, as you've phrased it, because groups predicated on the offensive use of irregular warfare almost always have a centralized hierarchy, or a series of hierarchies competing against one another for control; and only when one group comes out on top do they generally succeed. You saw this with the Sandinistas, the Viet Cong, the Cuban Revolutionaries, Mao, and basically every other such force in history. Irregular forces, when not controlled by a central authority, are capable of only one thing: harassing the enemy (the early stages of the rebellion against the Somozas is a good example).

I agree. Not a great analogy, but it was the best I coudl come up with.

Easy E wrote:
You can talk about only needing an idea and a direction all you want, but that's all you've ever needed to generate discontent with the state, and subsequent protests. But, if you want those protests to be successful, you need some form of hierarchy, whether formal or not. Where that hierarchy does not exist, there is no organization, and the absence of organization necessarily means the absence of a coherent agenda.

I think in the long run, (i.e. within the next 12 months) you are right. Some sort of organization will most likely emerge. In the end, the only way to fight an orgnaization is with one of your own. However, they aren;t at that stage yet. We are still int he generating discontent stage.

Easy E wrote:
I understand that a lot of people want to see telecommunications as a magic bullet for the spread of democracy, and equality, but the evidence, empirical and reasonable, simply doesn't support that idea. The internet doesn't change how people communicate, it simply lets them do it faster and more easily.

Yes, but it also allows different organization methods since communciation is practically instant.

Easy E wrote:
I agree with you up until the direct disruption of access. If that were the case, we might as well simply outlaw groups we don't like while in powe rand thus "disrupt their direct access". I think we can all agree that we then no longer have a democracy (Republic or otherwise).

Well, we would still have a democracy, it simply wouldn't be one with universal suffrage.

True. I started to believe our own American Exceptionalism that our way is the only way for democracy. It simply would be a democracy unlike the one we have come to expect from our own American rhetoric.

If we restrict access to voting too much, we would then simply have an oligarchy.

I can see OWS going the way of ACORN....

Jihadin wrote:Flash Mob driving a NASCAR car.......waiting for the crash....skidding for the wall now..driver left hand is not cooperating with the brain and the right hand giving the "bird" to any driver, official, authority, and people who were "required" to drive for him. Oh..the brain is buried on tweeter already to get the next nascar wreck

This feels like the first drft of a poem

Flash Mob driving a NASCAR
waiting for the crash
skidding for the wall
driver left hand is not
cooperating with the Brain
right hand giving the bird
driver, official, authority, and people
required to drive
for him
brain is buried on tweeter
get the next NASCAR wreck
tell me
will I dream again?

"clap"

Melissia wrote:Unless, of course, that was an additional act of protest against the police's actions, because they believed it interfered with their constitutional right to protest.

But taht would never happen, we all know police would never interfere with the right to protest.

I don't agree with everything the Occupy Whatever movement has done, but blocking reporters and journalists from being able to watch and then going in and beating/spraying/etc protesters and forcing them to leave at the behest of businesses is suspicious to me, and that's exactly what the police did.

I am all for protests, well at least ones that mean squat. Occupy is/was a sham. Nothing they are doing is gonna make a lick of difference. Yes they are screaming a message, one that all of us 99% have known for ages. Take all your money out of the banks, default on your credit, make the banks feel some pain, then maybe something will happen. Camping in a city park is not gonna do anything but cost the city a gak load of money they don't really have to spend on people camping in city parks.

be smart with your protests, not just a mindless fish going with the social current.

Is it not possible to separate our opinions of OWS and the points they bring up? I am absolutely disgusted by our governments willingness to be bought by corporations.

That doesn't mean the OWS crowd hasn't made fools of themselves and bungled up the message along with their own credibility.

Scrabb wrote:Is it not possible to separate our opinions of OWS and the points they bring up? I am absolutely disgusted by our governments willingness to be bought by corporations.

That doesn't mean the OWS crowd hasn't made fools of themselves and bungled up the message along with their own credibility.

Every time I read a post like this I feel a little less alone in the world.

Great Scrabb, please create your own protest group that is better organized and with a cleaner message that people like Monster Rain and I can join!

Monster Rain wrote:

Scrabb wrote:Is it not possible to separate our opinions of OWS and the points they bring up? I am absolutely disgusted by our governments willingness to be bought by corporations.

That doesn't mean the OWS crowd hasn't made fools of themselves and bungled up the message along with their own credibility.

Every time I read a post like this I feel a little less alone in the world.

Same. We are in a club.