Doug wrote a week ago: "I mean, the kids are all right, but this sort of thing isn't going to interrupt Lloyd Blankfein's train of thought for a nanosecond."
Of course -- and they all knew that, which is why they wisely denied having goals. In any case, with rare exceptions demos are not primarily intended to have an immediate effect on state policy, and do so even more rarely. (The November 1969 Moratorium was an apparent exception. Andie N suggested it may have saved the world.) Demos are primarily to attract the attention of others who agree with the protest (in this case that bad shit is happening) to in those in active opposition -- to expand the conversation. The Wall Street Occupation apparently has been rather more successful than most in achieving this central goal of all demonstrations.
Why did the Mayor turn loose the cops? THAT calls for analysis.
Carrol
On 9/25/2011 7:08 AM, SA wrote:
> On 9/24/2011 10:27 PM, Carrol Cox wrote:
>
>> the decision someone made to turn the cops loose on the protesters.
>> That will go far towards providing follow-ups to this weeks protests
>> with a more precise "goal": The Occupation is now a struggle for Free
>> Speech, a protest against the ongoing attack on democracy in the U.S.
>> over the last 40 years. That links the Wall Street Protesters to other
>> actions around the nation.
>
> Don't know about that, but it does offer an opportunity for vivid
> agitation around the theme: Who runs the city, Wall Street or us? In
> other words, all the apolitical or semi-political people who are angry
> at the idea that Wall Street seems to run the country, but wouldn't
> normally join a demo like this, can now demonstrate that feeling by
> joining the protest - if only to make the statement, "I don't accept
> that Wall Street should run the city."
>
> SA
> ___________________________________
> http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/mailman/listinfo/lbo-talk