" Tahrir succeeded in large part because the people of Egypt made a straightforward ultimatum – that Mubarak must go – over and over again until they won. Following this model, what is our equally uncomplicated demand?"
That assertion may or may not be factually correct, but it does suggest the influence of military theorist John Robb's concept of "open source insurgency" and its emphasis on a plausible promise.
After Adbusters issued the original call, there was a planning session with 200 participants. That's when USDOR and the General Assembly also became involved, and probably when the California-style "no demand" tactic made its entrance.
When the editors of Occupywallst.org published a entire list of demands last week, there was a kerfluffle in the comments section in which some commenters suggested that the protest should remain focused, while the editors asserted that "one demand" was just a rhetorical device.
Also see David Graebers piece in the Guardian:
" The form of resistance that has emerged looks remarkably similar to the old global justice movement, too: we see the rejection of old-fashioned party politics, the same embrace of radical diversity, the same emphasis on inventing new forms of democracy from below. What's different is largely the target: where in 2000, it was directed at the power of unprecedented new planetary bureaucracies (the WTO, IMF, World Bank, Nafta), institutions with no democratic accountability, which existed only to serve the interests of transnational capital; now, it is at the entire political classes of countries like Greece, Spain and, now, the US – for exactly the same reason. This is why protesters are often hesitant even to issue formal demands, since that might imply recognising the legitimacy of the politicians against whom they are ranged."
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/cifamerica/2011/sep/25/occupy-wall-street-protest
On 9/26/11 9:16 AM, Eric Beck wrote:
> On Mon, Sep 26, 2011 at 7:50 AM, SA<s11131978 at gmail.com> wrote:
>> On 9/26/2011 8:43 AM, Eric Beck wrote:
>>
>>> The lack of demands
>>> is intentional and there are lots of good reasons behind it. If you
>>> don't understand those reasons, you should probably educate yourself a
>>> little bit, not just engage in cheap irony.
>> Okay, so educate us. What's it about?
> I said educate yourself. ;-)
>
> A sampling:
>
> http://wewanteverything.wordpress.com/2009/09/24/communique-from-an-absent-future/
>
> http://anticapitalprojects.wordpress.com/2009/11/19/anti-capital-projects/
>
> http://uclaresists.blogspot.com/2009/11/communique-from-ucla-occupation.html
>
> http://anarchistnews.org/?q=node/11570
>
> http://occupyuci.wordpress.com/2010/01/14/new-flier-occupy-everything-demand-nothing/
>
> By the way, because I don't think I was clear, I don't mean to say
> that it's wrong to criticize the strategy of not having demands; I
> meant to say that you can't criticize them for not having demands
> because that is the strategy.
> ___________________________________
> http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/mailman/listinfo/lbo-talk
>