It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Originally posted by thoughtsfull
reply to post by alomaha
I'm not so sure leaderless is something new... the Luddite uprising (Industrial Northern Britain 1810s)) had a fictional leader called Captain Ludd, While the Swing Uprising (Rural Southern Britain 1830s) had a fictional leader called Captain Swing, both of these sought social and political reforms.. Which could be said to culminate in Chartist movement (late 1830s-1850) that aimed at the political and social reform of Britain.
I do find it fascinating that there are so many similarities between that period (1810-1850) and what is happening today.. especially in what we could call a leaderless pro democracy movement, but with todays tech the time frame for action is much more condensed..
Thanks for the thread.. very interesting to read other perspectives on this topic
edit on 21/2/11 by thoughtsfull because: blooming spellchecker!
Therefore the AFL-CIO-Solidarity Center-NED axis, in conjunction with sundry necons, free marketeers, and Soros networks, recommends an ideological foundation for Egyptian labor based on incorporation into the global market rather than rejection in favor of economic sovereignty. Why do these supposed workers’ advocates recommend an Egyptian workers’ compact with US corporations, the US government, and NGOs which are for the most part creations of Freedom House, IRI, NED, etc.? The same game was played behind the facade of “human rights” in South Africa which ended up not with improved conditions for Black workers but with globalization and privatisation; likewise with the “liberation” of Kosovo which has opened up to international capital the immense mineral wealth of the region.
Originally posted by GoatwolfeWolfgoate
What a great concept, not just for a revolution but for a nation. I believe leaders are part of the problem. Even a good leader. We seem to need to be led, but why? I think it's curious that every nation has a leader. I think we can do things without a leader and I even think it could bring about good qualities to the people living in such a scenario. Do leaders bring about some degree of order? I think it's our behaviour that brings about order, and that we seem to choose to behave better if we know someone is in charge who we generally approve of or fear. It would be a good experiment at the least to try things without a ruling party or leader. Hopefully it would allow those people to decide important things together, and give them the responsibility to make the best choices they are able.
It's just an idea, maybe we will always need leaders.
* I never said it would happen in the ME, I have always kept an open mind as to where the spark will be lit.. having been in the ME and North Africa.. I can say I am not surprised it was there.