Leadership

[MKS]

Do the masses need to be led. Lets not speculate on future scenarios but concentrate on the present condition of the world, and of people. Do they need leadership in order to motivate them to action, to guide them through a revoltuion (violent or passive)?

All modern movements have had one man or maybe a few men/women that became icons of the movement. Without these men/women would the revolutions have been so successful?

[Janus]

Do the masses need to be led
No.


Do they need leadership in order to motivate them to action, to guide them through a revoltuion
Motivation and guidance are not the same thing as leadership. Leadership implies leading someone as in telling them what to do.

The masses know how to organize and lead themselves and have been getting better at it.


All modern movements have had one man or maybe a few men/women that became icons of the movement. Without these men/women would the revolutions have been so successful?
And that is why they have also failed.

[MKS]

And that is why they have also failed.

Most modern revolutions had initial success. Besides modern revolutions there are examples of successful liberal revolutions that have been tremendously successful; the biggest one being the American Revolution, and that movement could be attributed to the capability and skill of the Revolutionary leadership.

Don’t the people always look for leadership? Can they really be compelled to a massive movement of conscience and action without the guidance of leadership? Hasn't history shown us that the masses gravitate towards a leader or "hierarchical" structure?

[Janus]

Most modern revolutions had initial success
Yes, initial but later failed due to the death of the main leader.


Besides modern revolutions there are examples of successful liberal revolutions that have been tremendously successful; the biggest one being the American Revolution, and that movement could be attributed to the capability and skill of the Revolutionary leadership.
The leadership may have been symbolically important but it didn't do much else besides that. Washington's army was always underpaid and underequipped and it was the militias that did a lot of the fighting.


Don’t the people always look for leadership?
Sometimes but it is growing to be less and less the case.


Can they really be compelled to a massive movement of conscience and action without the guidance of leadership?
Once again, there is a fine line between guidance or motivation and actual leading. Agitation, motivation, and some sort of guidance is needed but an actual elite leadership will only have a negative impact later.


Hasn't history shown us that the masses gravitate towards a leader or "hierarchical" structure?
And it has also shown how this hierarchical structure has failed or become extremely corrupt and acted in its own interests.

[loveme4whoiam]

Originally posted by MKS
Don’t the people always look for leadership?
Interesting question. When I was studying Weimar Germany and the beginnings of Nazi Germany, I remember someone putting forth the theory that it was "the German way" to look towards a strong, dictatorial leader. Personally, I think that it being a national trait is bullshit, but...

I think that it is a personality trait, just like aptitude for leadership. Some people require guidance, but are excellent in carrying forward an idea, whereas others are good at dishing out orders but bad at taking them.

When it comes to mass movements... I would say that initial actions and successes require no kind of formal leadership - the revolutions in the Eastern Bloc, particularly Romania (I think - I would dig out my "Fall of Communism" notes, but I burnt them all once I learned what a load of shite I'd just been taught), show that this is correct. But that initial victory needs to be consolidated and, probably, defended. And for that I think that there must be some attempt at organisation. Not leadership, but a forum for the collective thoughts of the masses to be aired and discussed, policies agreed upon etc.

I would not say "there should be one man/one group of people who decide the course of things", but I would say "an arena for discussion and decision would be useful". I guess if I believed differently I'd be an anarchist, rather than an, er, whatever I am.

[MKS]

Yes, initial but later failed due to the death of the main leader

The USSR lasted several decades and survived the deaths of many leaders, as did the Chinese Revolution. Whether or not these nations retained their original revolutionary intent is beside the point, the people still allowed the "Communist" leadership to rule. When Castro dies (barring any US interference) it is my hypothesis that the Socialist character of the government will be retained by the people, but they will allow for a more democratic and free society.


The leadership may have been symbolically important but it didn't do much else besides that. Washington's army was always underpaid and underequipped and it was the militias that did a lot of the fighting.

You underestimate the American leadership. All the men, the founders and Generals who led the Revolution were highly regarded by the Patriots, and these same men helped define and shape the American Republic, and avoided the division of the tenuous union. Without them the cause for liberty would have failed. Many attribute the fact that the Continental Army did not disband was because of their faith in General Washington, and other men such as General Greene and Gates.


Once again, there is a fine line between guidance or motivation and actual leading. Agitation, motivation, and some sort of guidance is needed but an actual elite leadership will only have a negative impact later

Explain the difference. I don’t see any between guidance and leadership. That is what leadership is, the guidance of a mass of people. The nature of that guidance varies but the fact that there is a person or persons that act as a guide is definite.

An examination of all cultures (European, African, Asian etc.) will find that people always gravitate towards a structured leadership; they always defer something to a power that might not stand above them, but always stands away from them. When any culture triumphs there is a leader to thank, and when any culture fails there is a leader to blame.


I remember someone putting forth the theory that it was "the German way" to look towards a strong, dictatorial leader. Personally, I think that it being a national trait is bullshit, but...

I don’t think the trait is unique to Germany, but it is prevalent in almost all Western European nations. Remember Europe evolved from a tribal system, like most cultures, which relied heavily on a leading person. The deferment to hierarchy can also be attributed to organized religion, the isolation of knowledge and thus power allowed Kings and Emperors to strengthen their claim to rule. I think it is deeply imbedded in the mindset of Europeans to differ to leadership. Obviously modern ideas and theories have diminished this trait, but it certainly has not disappeared and Nazi Germany, Fascist Italy and Spain, as well as the dictatorships in Eastern Europe and Russia prove this.


And it has also shown how this hierarchical structure has failed or become extremely corrupt and acted in its own interests.

Than why do we always embrace or accept leadership? Why do we always submit to government?

[Janus]

The USSR lasted several decades and survived the deaths of many leaders, as did the Chinese Revolution
But look at what has happened. The USSR has collapsed and China went "revisionist" after Mao died.


the people still allowed the "Communist" leadership to rule
They really didn't have much of a choice.


You underestimate the American leadership
The point is that they were working in their own interests and were able to convince a lot of people to follow them with some empty promises and a lot of rhetoric.


Explain the difference. I don’t see any between guidance and leadership.
Guiding is one of the definitions of leading yet another definition of leading basically amounts to telling people what to do. Guiding someone does not mean that.


An examination of all cultures (European, African, Asian etc.) will find that people always gravitate towards a structured leadership; they always defer something to a power that might not stand above them, but always stands away from them.
Yes, that has been a trend that has occured due to the philosophies within the respective countries. We are hoping that it will end.


Than why do we always embrace or accept leadership?
Good question. It's because leaders at first seem promising and their charism is quite infectious. A lot of people soon jump on the train.

[loveme4whoiam]

Than why do we always embrace or accept leadership?
Like I said, and as Janus says, because the charisma of leaders can attract a large number of people. But with the sweeping changes in economy, industry etc, there should be some changes in sociology that follow.

People defer to hierarchy because there has always been a higher body telling everyone else what to do, you said so yourself. With the advent of a socialist society it should dawn on people, very quickly assuming the masses are aware of how such a society works, as they hopefully will be, there will be far less desire to defer to any form of higher authority that does not represent their wishes. It's very likely that the masses, once they have gained their success and overthrown a body, will not look kindly on a simple change of office, and may well respond with more "unguided" action against those who seek dictatorial powers in the wake of a revolution.