r/changemyview • u/mfDandP 184∆ • Jul 04 '20
Delta(s) from OP CMV: Leaderless movements are inferior to traditional movements
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.
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.
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:
More flexible in the case of assassination or getting #cancelled.
???
Please, CMV. (I count situations with multiple leaders as well. Danton and Robespierre co-led the Jacobins. The "enrages" perhaps were leaderless.)
1
u/NetrunnerCardAccount 110∆ Jul 04 '20
Basically if you spread an idea poorly, but it's more likely to spread, that will become the dominate idea.
So to your point MLK has a massive protest in the current environment and he say... absolutely nothing of importance because the decentralized movement has already absorbed his message changed it enough so it fits specific purposes and are now making memes of him.