4 ms·

the media belittled Occupy as being directionless Was it not? I called it so from the start; they had a list of something like 29 totally unrelated demands, an

• pnathan 9y ago
  This is my recollection as well. I tried to follow it relatively closely. It was a laundry list of demands and all a bit pie in the sky. There was no specific a,b,c policy actions being requested in order to solve a single linked problem. The leaderless nature of the business made it rather toothless. An example is http://occupywallst.org/forum/proposed-list-of-demands-for-occupy-wall-st-moveme/ http://occupywallst.org/forum/proposed-list-of-demands-for-o... . One person posted it. What was profoundly misunderstood by the Occupiers was that they had no leverage to negotiate with. Their sole power was being visible. That doesn't get much in the way of negotiations. The thing that most bothered me about OWS was the disproportionate response by the police and miscellaneous conservative talking heads. Having a camp of protesters is simply something to not be bothered about except as a public health question. It's just not that big of a deal. All that said, you can unpack the OWS complaints and produce some root causes that might be reasonably addressed. I'm given to understand that the OWS experience produced a network that in 2016 linked with Bernie Sanders' campaign, which was considerably more grounded compared to Occupy.