Successful leadership

[Mitch Flo]

Recently I purchased a political science book, by Robert A. Heinman. And I decided to show you what the books definition of a successful leadership is.

It says that there are at least three factors that seem to play a role is such a success.

1. The Individual must be able to sense the mood of the nation.

2. The leader must have the skill to control the policy agenda for the nation. He or She must be able to keep key issues at the center of debate and the focus of citizen concern. This leader must must have interpersonal and rhetorical abilities and the resources to deal with the issues raised.

3. The individual must understand how to utilize what Charles Lindblom has termed, "Reconstructive leadership." Effective leaders know that their most important goals may not be immediatley or directly attainable. What they must do is move the public's preferences gradually to the point where the leaders' ultimate goals fit within the preference scale, or values, of the public. Control of the agenda allows leaders to move issues in this direction.

;) hope you find it interesting

[Redmau5]

What ? Leadership and communism ? Surely communist leaders will always be corrupted by the power they possess. <_<

[Mitch Flo]

Well we can hope for the best... heh

[Redmau5]

Well i myself believe we need a strong leadership to guide the masses because i have little faith in any mass organisation&#39;s abiliy to effectivily organise, simply because it would be so hard to co-ordinate the mass energy towards a single goal. In any revolutionary situation the masses know what they don&#39;t want, but after the revolution it would be difficult to decide what the masses do want. I often hear people talking about educating the working class about the faults of class society and this is all well and good, but even after they become class conscious many will still differ from their fellow workers because of the many different sub-categories of communism (Leninism, Trotskyism, Maoism, anarchism etc.).

The February Revolution in Russia in 1917 is the perfect example of leaderless revolution. The masses gathered to protest against food shortages, the war and the tsarist regime in general. With no particular party or group pushing towards reform or wanting power the people of Russia ended up with a government of liberals, who were a small minority.

I could just picture communists and anarchists working together to overthrow a government. Once they had achieved this overthrowal, a civil war would start as one group would wish to create a socialist state whereas the other would be advocating no state at all. This is why we need leadership. Someone to unite people towards a single goal, even if there are disagreements from other sections of the left-wing.

[redstar2000]

Originally posted by Robert A. Heinman+--> (Robert A. Heinman)The Individual [leader] must be able to sense the mood of the nation.[/b]

This he does using a special sensory organ -- "mood/nation detector" -- that ordinary people don&#39;t possess...located just below the spleen, perhaps.

Leaders are "mutants". :lol:


Originally posted by [email protected]
The leader must have the skill to control the policy agenda for the nation. He or She must be able to keep key issues at the center of debate and the focus of citizen concern. This leader must must have interpersonal and rhetorical abilities and the resources to deal with the issues raised.

Back down on earth, we find "the resources to deal with the issues raised". If you want to be a "leader", you need to dominate the media. Get your ugly mug on enough dummyvision screens and behold&#33; a leader emerges.


Heinman
The individual [leader] must understand how to utilize what Charles Lindblom has termed, "Reconstructive leadership." Effective leaders know that their most important goals may not be immediately or directly attainable. What they must do is move the public&#39;s preferences gradually to the point where the leaders&#39; ultimate goals fit within the preference scale, or values, of the public. Control of the agenda allows leaders to move issues in this direction.

Quite so...if you dominate the media, then you "control the public agenda".

What&#39;s wrong with this whole summary is the conceit that only a few "special people" can be "leaders".

Anyone could do that...who wanted to.

Most people are mentally healthy enough that they don&#39;t want to do those things. Among the sickos who do, the competition is fierce...and the outcome is determined by chance, and not by "superior merit".

How else explain the track record of all the "leaders", great and small? A parade of fuckups, blunders, and criminal atrocities, right?

Once More Against "Leadership" (http://redstar2000papers.com/theory.php?subaction=showfull&id=1090373295&archive=&cnshow=headlines&start_from=&ucat=&)

http://www.websmileys.com/sm/cool/123.gif

[bolshevik butcher]

In veneuzuela there were small bolivarian corcles that effectivley organized support for chavez and bringing down the coup.