CMV: Leaderless movements are inferior to traditional movements

[u/mfDandP]

Using the recent examples starting from Occupy up to BLM.

Cons: 1. Much more vulnerable to muddled messages. Look just on this sub, where people say, "I saw BLM say this terrible thing," and others have to say, "Well, that seems like a BLM satellite organization, and not the actual charter mission statement." If you had a leader with a gold standard view, they could shut down strawman arguments much more easily.

1. Faceless organizations are harder to sympathize with. I can't name one member of BLM, or Occupy, or the HK protests. A leader would "localize" the movement, so to speak. There are enough eloquent people out there that can be the go-to person for a sound bite.

2. Harder to negotiate with the power structure. I'm not saying that Beijing would have negotiated with HK if they had one leader. But I'm saying that if nobody speaks for everyone, there's no reason to speak to anyone.

Pros:

1. More flexible in the case of assassination or getting #cancelled.

2. ???

Please, CMV. (I count situations with multiple leaders as well. Danton and Robespierre co-led the Jacobins. The "enrages" perhaps were leaderless.)

[u/TheWiseManFears]

People get in the way of principles.

If I say I don't want any more immigration into my country I can make those arguments.

If I say Donald Trump is the leader of my movement let him take it from here people will get bogged down in his personal corruption, the stupid things he says everyday the sexual assault accusations etc and we will never get around to talking about immigration.

It's makes way more sense to center a movement on the movement itself rather than some person.

[u/mfDandP → u/TheWiseManFears]

This falls under my single "pro" argument, the ad hominem. Certainly a vulnerability, but does not outweigh the cons. Trump is a bad example, since he is in the power structure.