The Occupation of Wall Street Spreads

[Simon_Jester]

The problem I perceive, Zentai, is that your criticism is detached from the practical realities.

Let us state facts. Occupy Wall Street began with miniscule expectations (anyone remember the original title of this thread?), put together on short notice by a single relatively minor group. Then it went viral, people started occupying all over the place, with startlingly similar messages across the country.

There was no plan. This could not have been planned, there was no existing organization to plan it. There was no Brotherhood of Occupation who could spend the months before the protests working out logistics and compiling manifestos, because the demonstrations were spontaneous.

Occupy is a "movement" in the sense that people are moving, that there is a collective desire to achieve certain goals. Like a Völkerwanderung, only without the Vandals. There is no one man standing above the crowd with a megaphone saying "do this, do that."

If your criticism of the movement is that this paradigm for organization makes it hard to say things like "we want election reform NOW!" in a way that demands that the establishment listen, then yes, your criticism is well-founded. That is a real problem Occupy faces. On the other hand, your criticism is also unrealistic, as the thing you desire is literally impossible.

For Occupy to have done what you wanted, there would need to be some organization working out the manifesto and logistics for the protests in, say, August... and there was no such organization at that time. It did not exist, and going on endlessly about how it should have existed is like saying Napoleon was a fool for not calling for air support at Waterloo. In August no one knew there was anything for it to exist for, no followers yet rallied to the cause. The rallying had to come later, and so it did.


So if you're going to keep going on about how Occupy "has no message" and should have had one before they started protesting, I think I feel entitled to ask: who should have composed this message, and when? Be specific. Who is failing on the job here?

[Lord Zentei]

Who should have had a message before protesting started? Obviously the ones who started protesting. There is no reason why they couldn't have make a few simple ideas part of their platform initially - more points can always be added or refined later as more and more people join in. And they certainly knew that they were going to protest by themselves, regardless of whether they knew how successful the movement was going to be.

Regardless, my point stands: the movement has been going on for almost three months now, so how exactly is it going to "come of age"? It seems that whenever the issue is brought up, then people react angrily and say that that's not the point, that the movement is young and these things take time, and blah blah. Well, these things won't happen magically either.

[Simon_Jester]

Who should have had a message before protesting started? Obviously the ones who started protesting.

Which ones? I asked you to be specific.

Adbusters, who kicked the whole thing off, never showed any sign of having planned a protest on this scale. They just spun the idea out there into the ether: "We should occupy Wall Street for what they've done to screw us over," and it caught on.

So that wouldn't make sense. Or do you mean the specific groups of protestors in particular cities? If so, which ones? Should each city's Occupy group have settled on a manifesto to hand out before coming together to demonstrate? Wouldn't that lead to the same cacophony of multiple messages we have now? And wouldn't that be a disservice to other groups that joined the ongoing, existing protests?

Would the manifesto come from some kind of national Brotherhood of Occupiers that would have worked all this out ahead of time, or very early on? I can't see it happening, myself.

The Occupy movement just didn't happen in a way that would make it practical to write up an organized list of demands the entire movement approved of ahead of time. There was no one to compose the list...

Regardless, my point stands: the movement has been going on for almost three months now...

...though you have a point that by now, it's not unreasonable to expect some kind of structure to spring up between the Occupy groups that could at least issue statements, if not publish a single document and say "we all believe this."

...so how exactly is it going to "come of age"? It seems that whenever the issue is brought up, then people react angrily and say that that's not the point, that the movement is young and these things take time, and blah blah. Well, these things won't happen magically either.

Zentei, remember the time scales political movements occur on. They don't reshape things drastically in a matter of weeks, unless the system is profoundly brittle. Even when it is, the movement will have to keep struggling for years to actually get what it wants: ousting Mubarak only took weeks, but the struggle for a democratic Egyptian constitution is nowhere near over yet.

The impact of a more normal political movement is felt over multiple election cycles. Look at the timespan between the anti-war protests of the Vietnam era beginning, and the point where opposition to the war had a serious impact on American politics (1968 at the earliest, with Nixon asserting that his leadership would end the war quickly). Look at the timespan of major civil rights protests- which kicked off in the late 1950s or earlier and got major action in the early to mid-1960s.

These things do not happen fast. A protest happens when the weak want to make their opinions known to the strong. Naturally, that never gets them what they want in a hurry. If they had the power to effect great change in a hurry, they wouldn't be the weak in the first place, and they'd already have what they want without needing to go through indirect means like protests to get it.

[Lord Zentei]

Which ones? I asked you to be specific.

No, you did not. You asked me to be specific about who should have delivered the message and when, and I answered that. As for what message, that depends on WTF it is they want, specifically. Income inequality seems to be the main beef, and big money in politics, they can start working with that.

Adbusters, who kicked the whole thing off, never showed any sign of having planned a protest on this scale. They just spun the idea out there into the ether: "We should occupy Wall Street for what they've done to screw us over," and it caught on.

So that wouldn't make sense. Or do you mean the specific groups of protestors in particular cities? If so, which ones? Should each city's Occupy group have settled on a manifesto to hand out before coming together to demonstrate? Wouldn't that lead to the same cacophony of multiple messages we have now? And wouldn't that be a disservice to other groups that joined the ongoing, existing protests?

Of course it would make sense. If Adbusters started a protest, then they could have formulated a specific set of things to protest about, rather than just be there to troll. Why the hell would that be a "disservice"? And if you don't mind my pointing it out, the message is already suffering from a cacophony of voices, it could hardly be worse.

Would the manifesto come from some kind of national Brotherhood of Occupiers that would have worked all this out ahead of time, or very early on? I can't see it happening, myself.

The Occupy movement just didn't happen in a way that would make it practical to write up an organized list of demands the entire movement approved of ahead of time. There was no one to compose the list...

I did not require that the entire list be approved ahead of time. I said that they should have had a set of specific point or overall goals, and that people could refine and add to that list as more people joined in and contributed their ideas. In any case your counterpoint is a load of bullshit. If the Tea Party could manage to formulate a simple set of demands early on, then why can't OWS? The "Tea" in "Tea Party" stands for Taxed Enough Already. While silly, it got the point across. Moreover, the Facebook revolution of the Arab Spring was also spontaneous like OWS, and they had very clear demands "The Dictator Must Go! Democracy Now!" Very clear demands as to what they want, as opposed to simply that they don't like the current system.

Zentei, remember the time scales political movements occur on. They don't reshape things drastically in a matter of weeks, unless the system is profoundly brittle. Even when it is, the movement will have to keep struggling for years to actually get what it wants: ousting Mubarak only took weeks, but the struggle for a democratic Egyptian constitution is nowhere near over yet.

And as I pointed out above, the ouster of Mubarak and move toward democracy were achieved because the principal demands were crystal clear from the word go.

The impact of a more normal political movement is felt over multiple election cycles. Look at the timespan between the anti-war protests of the Vietnam era beginning, and the point where opposition to the war had a serious impact on American politics (1968 at the earliest, with Nixon asserting that his leadership would end the war quickly). Look at the timespan of major civil rights protests- which kicked off in the late 1950s or earlier and got major action in the early to mid-1960s.

These things do not happen fast. A protest happens when the weak want to make their opinions known to the strong. Naturally, that never gets them what they want in a hurry. If they had the power to effect great change in a hurry, they wouldn't be the weak in the first place, and they'd already have what they want without needing to go through indirect means like protests to get it.

These things don't seem to be happening at all right now. And all the examples you cite involved clear messages: the civil rights movement demanded equal rights and respect for people of color, the anti war movement demanded an end to the war in Vietnam. There was no lack of clarity of purpose with any of them.

[K. A. Pital]

"Stop lobbying" is a rather clear demand in my view. It is there on any OWS site you can imagine. And it didn't take them ages to voice it.

[Stark]

Protesting itself is a message, and it doesn't have to be organised by the central protest committee to specified timetables or media talking points to be valid. It doesn't even need to be 'effective' at 'political change' to be valid.

Its fun to play 'culture warrior' and be upset that a given movement isn't doing it 'right' or getting 'results' according to your 'winning strategy', but in the end it starts sounding more like a personal problem than a problem with an organisation or culture.

Frankly, the heterogenous nature of the occupy movement is fascinating, even as Great Leaders like Zentai would despair. Different people with different and even contradictory beliefs coming together to protest something that affects them all, and that they know they have literally no power to ever change? That's immediately powerful, even if they aren't following the Internet Playbook to Take Power Just like In Egypt.

[Lord Zentei]

"Stop lobbying" is a rather clear demand in my view. It is there on any OWS site you can imagine. And it didn't take them ages to voice it.

That's something, of course*, though it's too bad it gets lost in the cacophony.

* Of course, it's not terribly realistic. "Lobbying reform" might work, though that does not have the same ring to it. I guess that might be achieved by demanding more than what you expect to get of course.

Protesting <...> doesn't even need to be 'effective' at 'political change' to be valid.

Really? Then what's the point? Venting frustration?

Its fun to play 'culture warrior' and be upset that a given movement isn't doing it 'right' or getting 'results' according to your 'winning strategy', but in the end it starts sounding more like a personal problem than a problem with an organisation or culture.

Frankly, the heterogenous nature of the occupy movement is fascinating, even as Great Leaders like Zentai would despair.

Go fuck a blender, Stark.

Different people with different and even contradictory beliefs coming together to protest something that affects them all, and that they know they have literally no power to ever change? That's immediately powerful, even if they aren't following the Internet Playbook to Take Power Just like In Egypt.

No, if it doesn't change anything, then it is ipso facto not powerful at all.

[Stark]

Really? Then what's the point? Venting frustration?

I think the most frustrated person here is you. You should look into that. Do you always get frustrated when other people don't obey your commands or expectations?

Go fuck a blender, Stark.

Go push your tin soldiers around a world map some more, Zentai.

No, if it doesn't change anything, then it is ipso facto not powerful at all.

This sums your entire contribution to this thread up in a single sentence. The only wonder is why you keep repeating it, when its clear that you are (intentionally or not) selectively ignoring whole swathes of political or cultural activity. OWS does 'nothing'. Nothing at all! Zentai said so.

PS 'doesn't fix the US political system' or 'doesn't achieve any pie in the sky hippy crap' does not equal 'nothing'. Its almost like you are projecting your own expectations of political success onto this situation.

[Lord Zentei]

I think the most frustrated person here is you. You should look into that. Do you always get frustrated when other people don't obey your commands or expectations?

Go push your tin soldiers around a world map some more, Zentai.

Ah, you're basically trolling. I wasn't quite sure until now, but whatever. Also, learn to spell.

This sums your entire contribution to this thread up in a single sentence. The only wonder is why you keep repeating it, when its clear that you are (intentionally or not) selectively ignoring whole swathes of political or cultural activity. OWS does 'nothing'. Nothing at all! Zentai said so.

And learn to read. If you think that this sentence summarizes all I have said, then... oh, right. Trolling, never mind.

[Zablorg]

I imagine that if nothing else, OWS has raised considerable awareness about the issues it is protesting because of all the discussion it's generated. I'd consider that a fairly powerful effect.

[ComradeClaus]

I wonder, w/ the onset of winter & the migration of hippies & college students to warmer climes, could the homeless in NYC be convinced to take up the occupation duties? There are thousands right? & as locals, it'd be an even bigger embarassment to the Bloomberg Regime.

Hopefully, next years movement will have better logistical planning & less weird hand signs.

[Phantasee]

Hey Zentei, you can't just dismiss Stark's comments as "trolling". He made some points, and you haven't acknowledged them or refuted them. Covering your ears and pretending nobody has answered your points is pretty dishonest.

[Lord Zentei]

Hey Zentei, you can't just dismiss Stark's comments as "trolling". He made some points, and you haven't acknowledged them or refuted them. Covering your ears and pretending nobody has answered your points is pretty dishonest.

He made no points whatsoever in that last post beyond appeal to motive, ad hominems and reductionist bullshit about what I had posted in this thread. His previous posts were addressed.

[Bakustra]

Uh, no they weren't. Let me quote:

Protesting itself is a message, and it doesn't have to be organised by the central protest committee to specified timetables or media talking points to be valid. It doesn't even need to be 'effective' at 'political change' to be valid.

Its fun to play 'culture warrior' and be upset that a given movement isn't doing it 'right' or getting 'results' according to your 'winning strategy', but in the end it starts sounding more like a personal problem than a problem with an organisation or culture.

Frankly, the heterogenous nature of the occupy movement is fascinating, even as Great Leaders like Zentai would despair. Different people with different and even contradictory beliefs coming together to protest something that affects them all, and that they know they have literally no power to ever change? That's immediately powerful, even if they aren't following the Internet Playbook to Take Power Just like In Egypt.

The main point is that you're presuming that all protest falls into a specific endgoal, which he pointed out to you again with

This sums your entire contribution to this thread up in a single sentence. The only wonder is why you keep repeating it, when its clear that you are (intentionally or not) selectively ignoring whole swathes of political or cultural activity. OWS does 'nothing'. Nothing at all! Zentai said so.

PS 'doesn't fix the US political system' or 'doesn't achieve any pie in the sky hippy crap' does not equal 'nothing'. Its almost like you are projecting your own expectations of political success onto this situation.

You're projecting your beliefs about what constitutes political power, success, and effectiveness onto the OWS movement as a means to dismiss them. Stark pointed out that these are not the be-all end-all definitions, which you dismissed first with insults and then with accusations of trolling. Responding to his points would require elaborating on why your beliefs/definitions are the only valid ones, in this instance or in general.

[Lord Zentei]

The insults were in response to insults. But it seems that you failed to read the rest of the response:

No, if it doesn't change anything, then it is ipso facto not powerful at all.

And as for this:

You're projecting your beliefs about what constitutes political power, success, and effectiveness onto the OWS movement as a means to dismiss them.

A clear case of appeal to motive.

[Bakustra]

The insults were in response to insults. But it seems that you failed to read the rest of the response:

No, if it doesn't change anything, then it is ipso facto not powerful at all.

And as for this:

You're projecting your beliefs about what constitutes political power, success, and effectiveness onto the OWS movement as a means to dismiss them.

A clear case of appeal to motive.

The second quote is, in fact, a response to the first. You are taking a definition of power that you have, projecting it onto the OWS movement, and declaring that therefore, they are "ipso facto not powerful at all". So I guess I was subconsciously hoping that you were doing this deliberately, rather than being so arrogant and stupid as to presume that your definition is the sole definition. I would like you to defend that, but that would be particularly difficult for you, wouldn't it? But maybe you might like to try to examine your axiomatic beliefs about power?

[Stark]

I imagine that if nothing else, OWS has raised considerable awareness about the issues it is protesting because of all the discussion it's generated. I'd consider that a fairly powerful effect.

Bringing the different groups together in a situation where they have little to do but talk to each other is a pretty big deal. In the US a lack of political activity on the left has been something SDN complains about, and here are some people actually meeting their ideological opponents in the face of something they both oppose.

If OWS disappears tomorrow (and it may well) it will still have filled the media with discussions (one-sided or not) around the issues they opposed. This could enable these issues and make them political bullet points for years, or colour the way people's internal expectations work.

It seems to me that if OWS was more 'organised' or militant or clearly focused on bringing down the system (or whatever pipe dream rubbish people expected) that resistance would simply be higher and even more people would dismiss them as lunatics, domestic terrorists, irrelevances, etc. Its not a civil war; it's a public advisory. Anything that helps people feel ok about being a part of the political process is good, especially in Western nations where there seems to be a culture set against it. When even people like Chocula can find things they support in a platform of hippies and liberals, this is hardly 'nothing'.

[Lord Zentei]

The second quote is, in fact, a response to the first. You are taking a definition of power that you have, projecting it onto the OWS movement, and declaring that therefore, they are "ipso facto not powerful at all". So I guess I was subconsciously hoping that you were doing this deliberately, rather than being so arrogant and stupid as to presume that your definition is the sole definition. I would like you to defend that, but that would be particularly difficult for you, wouldn't it? But maybe you might like to try to examine your axiomatic beliefs about power?

Obvioulsy the ability to affect change is the essence of political power, since that's what it's for: the actualization of social and economic interests. I wrote that as an invitation to people to come up with an alternative definition that did not involve the capacity to effect change, since people were apparently not willing to accept that which seems obvious on its face.

So, suppose you were to come up with an alternative definition now, instead of ranting.

It seems to me that if OWS was more 'organised' or militant or clearly focused on bringing down the system (or whatever pipe dream rubbish people expected) that resistance would simply be higher and even more people would dismiss them as lunatics, domestic terrorists, irrelevances, etc. Its not a civil war; it's a public advisory. Anything that helps people feel ok about being a part of the political process is good, especially in Western nations where there seems to be a culture set against it. When even people like Chocula can find things they support in a platform of hippies and liberals, this is hardly 'nothing'.

No one here is asking for a militant organization, nor bringing down the system. But it would help OWS if they went with a more organization, nor does it make sense that people would dismiss them more that way. If anything, they're being dismissed on account of being seen as unruly mobs.

[Stark]

I think its ironic that your tiny brain is entirely fixated on 'social and economic interests' when that's pretty much what OWS is opposing. They're a passive demonstration against corruption. Are you sure you're using a useful metric?

Who loves the backhanded 'I posted that so other people could come up with something else, but I don't like it'?

[Lord Zentei]

I think its ironic that your tiny brain is entirely fixated on 'social and economic interests' when that's pretty much what OWS is opposing. They're a passive demonstration against corruption. Are you sure you're using a useful metric?

Who loves the backhanded 'I posted that so other people could come up with something else, but I don't like it'?

I know that social and economic interests is what they're protesting. What does that have to do with the ability to effect change being relevant as a measure of success?

[Bakustra]

The second quote is, in fact, a response to the first. You are taking a definition of power that you have, projecting it onto the OWS movement, and declaring that therefore, they are "ipso facto not powerful at all". So I guess I was subconsciously hoping that you were doing this deliberately, rather than being so arrogant and stupid as to presume that your definition is the sole definition. I would like you to defend that, but that would be particularly difficult for you, wouldn't it? But maybe you might like to try to examine your axiomatic beliefs about power?

Obvioulsy the ability to affect change is the essence of political power, since that's what it's for: the actualization of social and economic interests. I wrote that as an invitation to people to come up with an alternative definition that did not involve the capacity to effect change, since people were apparently not willing to accept that which seems obvious on its face.

So, suppose you were to come up with an alternative definition now, instead of ranting.

Don't be backhanded and don't be pointlessly revisionist. Accept the shitheadedness. Make it part of you.

Stark provided an example in the post above yours. I'll provide two more examples that eviscerate your putrid definition. Firstly, as Zablorg noted, we have publicization. By protesting, they publicize what it is they are upset about, bringing it to the attention of people. Is that powerless? Too, we have another method of publicization. By protesting, they inform the political elite that they are upset and taking action related to it. Is that also powerless? Neither of those forces changes related to the "social and economic interests" of the protesters, so if we go by the definition you are using, they are powerless actions unless they cause immediate changes. Can you see how ridiculous that is?

If we go by what you're defining as "obvious", which is why I said you were arrogant and stupid, you contemptible fuck, then we must conclude that writing letters to politicians is inherently powerless, as is raising awareness. These two actions don't really force change. We also have the symbolic nature of a broad movement that is genuinely trans-political in nature, rather than being right-wing or left-wing, which is also symbolic in a bitterly partisan atmosphere.

I think its ironic that your tiny brain is entirely fixated on 'social and economic interests' when that's pretty much what OWS is opposing. They're a passive demonstration against corruption. Are you sure you're using a useful metric?

Who loves the backhanded 'I posted that so other people could come up with something else, but I don't like it'?

Believe me, I am loving this shit.

[Lord Zentei]

Don't be backhanded and don't be pointlessly revisionist. Accept the shitheadedness. Make it part of you.

Revisionist? Really.

Stark provided an example in the post above yours. I'll provide two more examples that eviscerate your putrid definition. Firstly, as Zablorg noted, we have publicization. By protesting, they publicize what it is they are upset about, bringing it to the attention of people. Is that powerless? Too, we have another method of publicization. By protesting, they inform the political elite that they are upset and taking action related to it. Is that also powerless? Neither of those forces changes related to the "social and economic interests" of the protesters, so if we go by the definition you are using, they are powerless actions unless they cause immediate changes. Can you see how ridiculous that is?

Now, where did I call for immediate change? incidentally, I specifically said that if people don't define their message and communicate it clearly enough, then they have their message defined for them by their detractors. That was the point that got people's panties in a bunch and led to this tangent - and you now respond by saying that they have power in the form of getting a message out. Good grief.

[Stark]

I know that social and economic interests is what they're protesting. What does that have to do with the ability to effect change being relevant as a measure of success?

Are you nine?

Let me say this in a simple way. Obviously, if OWS was somehow (by direct intervention of god, one supposes) able to effect immediate and obvious change to things like corruption, corporate welfare, regulatory capture and other long-term structural problems, they would be successful. However, simply by making noise and having the authorities crack down and the media discuss them and meeting other groups on a common ground and forming nationwide organisation, this is also a success.

In short, if your brain was large enough to hold two ideas at the same time (and maybe if you were less fantastically arrogant about your political mastermind abilities) you'd see that this is not a binary situation, and like all political or social issues, it requires more than having printed a million flyers before they started to 'fix' an entire system. Having protests and talking about these issues is better than doing nothing at all, and the suggestion that you either start out with a pre-concieved plan to reboot all of politics or STAY HOME is absurd. Given the low levels of political participation by 'regular people' - especially on the lazy left - its good that they're doing anything at all.

Frankly it looks like you understand what others are saying and are just looking for a way to step off the tower you've built yourself, so take this as an invitation to do so. Nobody will laugh.

EDIT - oh man, now it's not about 'success' or 'power' its about message - the message that is as clear as possible when a national media is set against them. Look, Zentai, just take a step back. We all make mistakes.

[Lord Zentei]

In short, if your brain was large enough to hold two ideas at the same time (and maybe if you were less fantastically arrogant about your political mastermind abilities) you'd see that this is not a binary situation, and like all political or social issues, it requires more than having printed a million flyers before they started to 'fix' an entire system. Having protests and talking about these issues is better than doing nothing at all, and the suggestion that you either start out with a pre-concieved plan to reboot all of politics or STAY HOME is absurd. Given the low levels of political participation by 'regular people' - especially on the lazy left - its good that they're doing anything at all.

Read the post above yours.

And cut out the strawman bullshit.

[Simon_Jester]

Adbusters, who kicked the whole thing off, never showed any sign of having planned a protest on this scale. They just spun the idea out there into the ether: "We should occupy Wall Street for what they've done to screw us over," and it caught on.

So that wouldn't make sense. Or do you mean the specific groups of protestors in particular cities? If so, which ones? Should each city's Occupy group have settled on a manifesto to hand out before coming together to demonstrate? Wouldn't that lead to the same cacophony of multiple messages we have now? And wouldn't that be a disservice to other groups that joined the ongoing, existing protests?

Of course it would make sense. If Adbusters started a protest, then they could have formulated a specific set of things to protest about, rather than just be there to troll. Why the hell would that be a "disservice"? And if you don't mind my pointing it out, the message is already suffering from a cacophony of voices, it could hardly be worse.

Adbusters doesn't speak for the national movement- they made a suggestion, and that is about it. The fact that the suggestion turned into the first rock of a modest-sized avalanche was due to circumstances beyond their control (widespread dissatisfaction with the status quo).

So I don't think Adbusters can be criticized for not writing a credible Occupy Manifesto before pulling together (what they expected to be) a hundred or so guys with signs on Wall Street for a short while.

I did not require that the entire list be approved ahead of time. I said that they should have had a set of specific point or overall goals, and that people could refine and add to that list as more people joined in and contributed their ideas. In any case your counterpoint is a load of bullshit. If the Tea Party could manage to formulate a simple set of demands early on, then why can't OWS? The "Tea" in "Tea Party" stands for Taxed Enough Already. While silly, it got the point across. Moreover, the Facebook revolution of the Arab Spring was also spontaneous like OWS, and they had very clear demands "The Dictator Must Go! Democracy Now!" Very clear demands as to what they want, as opposed to simply that they don't like the current system.

The Tea Party could formulate simple demands because they're not a new movement, just a new name for an old one. Antitax protests have been going on in the US for a generation or more; the Tea Party is just a new slogan tacked onto the old phenomenon.

So when people showed up willing to finance a new round of antitax protests, there was plenty of rhetoric and plenty of easily assembled slogans that could be put together into a simple message for the whole movement.

Zentei, remember the time scales political movements occur on. They don't reshape things drastically in a matter of weeks, unless the system is profoundly brittle. Even when it is, the movement will have to keep struggling for years to actually get what it wants: ousting Mubarak only took weeks, but the struggle for a democratic Egyptian constitution is nowhere near over yet.

And as I pointed out above, the ouster of Mubarak and move toward democracy were achieved because the principal demands were crystal clear from the word go.

The move toward democracy is nowhere near 'being achieved;' they're still dealing with military government in Egypt nearly a year later. That is because significant political change takes time. If your attention span is two or three months long, you will not see it happening- you will perceive individual events that appear to do nothing, because their effects are seen years down the road. You will perceive coups that have the obvious effect of ousting a tyrant (like Mubarak), but that do not permanently install a reformed government.

You will, in short, perceive nothing. Because the forces at work take too long for you to keep up your attention span.

Fast change is the province of the powerful. People who already have lots of power can change things in a matter of days or weeks, when they put their minds to it- witness 9/11. But people who are disenfranchised are forced into a longer, more protracted struggle: slow change, which it is ridiculous to expect to be over with in a couple of months.

These things don't seem to be happening at all right now. And all the examples you cite involved clear messages: the civil rights movement demanded equal rights and respect for people of color, the anti war movement demanded an end to the war in Vietnam. There was no lack of clarity of purpose with any of them.

Zentei, if you listen to them in good faith, there would appear to be no lack of clarity of purpose in the Occupy movement. They know why they are there, and they have been telling anyone who will listen. All of them agree quite well on opposition to crony capitalism- to private funding of political campaigns, to revolving doors between industry and the regulatory system, to the ability of the wealthy and the financiers to escape with minimal taxation even as they crash the economy and hurt the lives of everyone else in the system.

Anything else is secondary- it may be important, but it's secondary.

The only people who deny that this is what they want, so far as I can tell, are those who are trying to discredit the movement by making up fake lists of objectives for it. Or by pretending they don't know what the movement wants when even a brief period of walking about with one's eyes and ears open would make it incredibly obvious.