An Idea for the Occupy Movement

Let me be pretty upfront about this: I don't know very much about the Occupy Movement. Here are some things I know about it.

1. There have been a lot of Occupy demonstrations in different cities lately.

2. They use a human bullhorn, which is annoying and awesome and brilliant (since you'd expect the social movement of the social media generation to be hamstrung by restrictions on electronic gear).

3. The NYT is treating them like a font of adorable Style section content.

4. They don't have a set of political demands.

This last part seems to be annoying a lot of people, including some folks within the Occupy Movement. It annoys me too, a little bit. I agree with them (I think) but I have some fears about this component of the movement. Fears include:

1. A lack of coherent platform along with sporadic violence and the presence of Naomi Klein suggest a WTO/Seattle riots anarchist movement that could backfire on sympathetic Dems.

2. It's easy for this to get boring and stale and marginalized.

3. So much energy being wasted on committees for basic life functions has doomed other movements.

There's an article on this particular conundrum (Protesters Debate What Demands, If Any, to Make) in today's NY Times (see above). I tend to agree with the sentiment expressed, "“Like Frederick Douglass said, ‘Power concedes nothing without a demand.’ ”

So how can the Occupy Movement make demands (as they probably must) without undermining the core element that make it unique (it has no demands)?

Let's look at Douglass's maxim, and ask, "who does the Occupy Movement see as having power?" The first and more obvious answer is, "Wall Street." But a second, almost as obvious answer, "The People," since they are mobilizing people to assert their critique, and believe it is "The People" or "the 99%" who should rule our country. They do NOT think that "the Government" has power right now. Or if the Government has power, it is being mobilized by Wall Street against the interests of the 99%.

In this view, demands made on the Government are pointless because the Government does not have the power or will to act on behalf of the 99% or against the interests of Wall Street. That's why the Occupy Movement does not have political demands of the Government. Demands made of Wall Street are being made, but are not being acceded to: agree to be taxed, be prosecuted, be redistributed. These are not demands to which Wall Street will willingly accede, and the Government will mobilize in Wall Street's favor to ensure no other means are used to press those demands (i.e. the police would not allow violence by protestors).

I'm just guessing here. I have spoken to no actual Occupy movement participant and have not read any of their literature or websites or anything like that. That said, . . .

The best and most original course of action would be for the Occupy Movement to make its demands of "The People". A good first one is, move your money to credit unions. I will accede to that. They should demand that people vote, that people shop at farmer's markets, and local stores. Vote their stocks. If they can explain to me how to do that in concert with other shareholders, I am totally in. If this is a people's movement, than it should be about the deconsolidation of wealth via the (buying and saving) power of the people. They should set up a Kiva or Kickstarter for people's mortgages and student loans.

Just as none of their protest techniques are unique (except maybe that bullhorn), none of the "demands" that they should be making of us are unique. Their use and development of these and similar ideas as a platform for a new movement would be, though. And I think the 99% are listening. Or at least a majority of them are.