Ah, okay, I wasn’t sure who was saying what! But the point is that I don’t see that any of these is a better action than what OWS is doing right now. While I was there I did see banners calling for more taxes, more teachers. In that sense, they are making demands all the time. But that’s how it has always been. Every rally I attended always had demands. Making demands, even if they resonate with the needs of a vast majority, doesn’t seem to have achieved much. Strong unions can back up demands with threats.
>
>> Or is it better logic to come up with a list of demands? What then? Negotiations? With the government? Obama? Wall St CEOs?
>
> Then you try to enlarge the number of people who are in your movement. This is already starting to happen, by the way. See today's OWS demonstration at the Harlem police station demanding (!) an end to stop-and-frisk. Or the planned march with 1,000 Verizon workers demanding (!) whatever it is the CWA is demanding. Those actions are constructive.
So, that’s what they are doing, then. And without 10 point demands and strategery they have managed to draw the CWA, other unions, members of the military, etc into the “movement”. Seems like a pretty good progression to me. And I am sure that progression is informed by the feedback of those who choose to participate in their deliberations, in their “process”.
Note that unions joining the action is not happening now. It happened weeks ago, when the Transit Union “joined” OWS or when OWS protestors joined the postal workers rally.
It seems to me that OWS is reaching the same sort of milestones or intermediate goals you (and others here) have in mind, but using a different approach. They have been making demands (but lowercase ‘d’), they have been enlarging the movement, they have been carrying out demonstrations aimed at particular issues. Etc. But they are doing it using an underlying process or approach - a prolonged occupation - that is, for now, proving stronger, more resilient than what has been done before.
>
>> IMHO, the focus on anarchists or process or some particular element of OWS misses what is interesting.
>
> Who cares what's interesting? The question is what might be effective in changing the larger society - you know, the 300 million or 7 billion people outside of the park.
>
That’s what I mean by interesting. What is interesting about OWS is that they might be more effective in changing larger society than the attempts that preceded them in recent history. In awakening and bringing in the 7 billion people outside the park.
—ravi