How can Occupy generate specific change if it has no demands? How can it avoid getting co-opted? How can it avoid splintering into different interest groups? How can it find a common focus other than dislike of the present system, which not a sufficient foundation for building something better? Like this (leaps the orange chasm of confusion):
Start ongoing discussions in the occupied areas and online on
"What would make a fair society?"
This does a lot of things. It makes "a fair society" a specifically desired outcome. Who can be against a fair society, at least in public? Simply raising the question changes consciousness.
Making "a fair society" a meme for the Occupy movement gives it the moral high ground and a positive identity attractive to anyone who wants a fair society.
Reporting the best ideas online turns the movement into a massive grassroots think tank, a source of real ideas rather than talking points. This is in useful contrast to the Tea Party and will expose the poverty of imagination at the top.
Making a fair society involves many specifics. These all emerge from asking the question.
As viable ideas emerge they become focal areas people can rally around for policy, legislation, projects, etc. without taking over the movement. Rather, they become ways the movement is generating decentralized, synergistic action.
And yes, this is like the consciousness-raising groups of the feminist movement in the 60s and 70s. It worked. Maybe some here who were part of that can share their experience.
Asking "What would make a fair society?" or "How can we have a fair society?" lets everyone contribute, including conservatives, and can put everyone in conversation.
Conversation is important. Quality conversation (with listening, reflection, etc) breaks down polarities and opens closed minds. Changing that dynamic (which serves partisan ideologues) would be a great result on its own. The "53%" (if they exist), would have a basis for connection. Everyone has ideas about what a fair society is, so we can talk about it rather than dividing over it.
Good conversation also produces good ideas. Pursuing answers to the question rather than proving oneself right and others wrong is the most productive way to go on this.
By inquiring seriously into what would make a fair society, no specific demands except that "fair society" (which I think is a fair interpretation of the reality of what OWS is about) limit the appeal of the movement. Yet specific demands that can result in specific actions will emerge, and will continue to emerge over time as things evolve.
What do you think? Or, what would make a fair society?