There is some element of denial in attempts to rationalize the eviction of Occupy sites as a push to some ambiguous "next step." First and foremost, having a fixed location does not in any way prevent mobile actions - in fact, it serves as an anchor point from which mobilizations can occur and be supported. So insisting that being denied such locations allows OWS to be more mobile or flexible is a nonstarter on its face - the only consequence is negative, in that movements are denied regular contact points with the community, local government, and media that are difficult to ignore. Furthermore, it makes more difficult and far less visible the most powerful process of an Occupation: The General Assembly - a wide-open direct democratic process that functions by high consensus. Make no mistake - having large numbers of citizens routinely engaging in such a process in a public square near institutions of power is highly threatening to that power. Evicted sites must be re-occupied for the "next step" of OWS to occur.
Now, that is not to understate the importance of protest in OWS by saying this - it does indeed have a positive impact by injecting wealth inequality issues into the wider consciousness. So actions like occupying foreclosed buildings (whose specifics call for occupation), marches, and so on should continue and hopefully expand. But at the same time, the most powerful aspect of OWS is being lost if we concede fixed locations - as the saying goes, "the center does not hold."
It would be difficult to exaggerate the emotional power of significant numbers of people being together in each other's physical presence and regularly exercising a thorough consensus democracy. It is a viral consciousness of what democracy means, and it disseminates throughout society the longer it continues. Entrenched authorities may not understand that, but they have the political instincts to feel threatened by it and know how to prioritize their targets. If they can disrupt General Assemblies from occurring, they will. If they cannot prevent them in total, they will fragment them. If fragmentation fails, they will at least drive them to areas distant from economic and power concentration. If my point isn't clear, allow me to state it explicitly:
The democratic process of OWS is far more threatening to power than the specific message.
Neither authorities nor Occupiers generally understand this, but both have some instinctive awareness of it, and the actions of both illustrate it. It may have been a pure accident of rhetoric that this movement is based on Occupying territory dedicated to the oligarchy that rules our lives, but if so it nonetheless stumbled on something fundamental: That regardless of how technology can coordinate across distances, power is still a product of concentration. This is why there is such an obsession on the part of the establishment with eliciting lists of demands - tangible points that the elite can temporarily grant only to later subvert, all while maintaining their own concentration of power. The one and only way they cannot win is if their right to even be involved (apart from their single votes as individuals) is denied, and the public takes power by concentrating democracy.
The 99% do not, in general, understand this matter of process, and as a concept it is much less attractive or socially powerful as wealth inequality, but it is more fundamental - i.e., it is an upstream struggle whose successes profoundly benefit the 99%, and whose failures damage our ability to seek change on any subject. So it is critical that the most active, energetic, and innovative people involved in blazing trails for Occupy Wall Street come to understand this about the movement and about the prerequisites for its future growth. They need to see that it is beneath it all about democracy, and from there realize that fixed, public, central locations for the convening of General Assemblies near corridors of power are absolutely essential.
We have seen repeatedly that power can safely ignore protest - shunt the discontent into a "free speech zone" miles away from anyone with money or power and just let people scream themselves hoarse until they tire and walk away. This displays the evolution of authoritarianism to cynically embrace rudiments of democracy as a safety valve, but still places all the emphasis on disempowering people: Shut up, but if you are adamant about not shutting up, go shout your grievances at the trees and dirt of a festival grounds out in the boondocks. They always reserve the right to still break up your party if it proves too effective - i.e., your rights are merely indulgences granted to you by the grace and equanimity of your masters.
But it is another thing entirely when people simply gather together in large numbers, in a location central to corridors of power, for the routine practice of democracy, and do not take No for an answer. That is not a supplicant's request for an opportunity to speak - that is a citizen's practice of inherent democratic authority, and a direct challenge to the power of the elite. So their brutal response, in their own estimation, is not at all excessive: It is in direct proportion to the level of threat. That is what we fail to understand - they don't see the people engaging in peaceful, constructive speech as most of the apolitical population does: They see armies beating down their doors, because that is the net effect of such a movement to the power of elite interests. So, to reiterate once more, it is not the message or the protest that threatens them, but the process by which it is being disseminated. That process must be protected, succeed, and grow.
No one will deny this has become a tall order, in light of the vast mobilization of paramilitary forces to break up democratic assemblies. But I have seen incredible ingenuity, creativity, and courage on the part of Occupiers, and when informed by an understanding of the situation and focused on the objective, there is nothing beyond the means of a people intent on expressing freedom they already inherently possess. Retake Zuccotti, and all other public squares where Occupations have been forcibly evicted. Do it nonviolently and with calm dignity, but do it - exercise all the intelligence, cunning, and ingenuity you can muster.
And most importantly, keep convening General Assemblies regularly, and thoroughly observe the procedures you've created for them to avoid disintegrating into incoherence. Let nothing stand in the way of these all-important institutions. They are the heart, soul, and dynamo of the movement, the hope of a nation, and ultimately the light of mankind. Convene them rain or shine, sleet or hail; convene them in shifts if necessary; convene them whether there are only two people present or a thousand; convene them in jail while you're awaiting booking; convene them as close to the physical locations of power as you possibly can, and always be scheming to get closer; convene them over electronic networks only if it is physically impossible to coalesce in one place, and even then get as close to a geographic nexus as possible. Behave as if power has gravity, and converge on it relentlessly. Protest when you wish, but always, always, ALWAYS keep the General Assembly as a sacred sabbath of democracy.
As to the "next step" of the movement, there is only one place it can go from here where it will ultimately - down a very long and winding road - find its way to the Promised Land it wants to realize: Its General Assemblies must become so regular, so routine, so indefatigable, so connected to the community, and so reliable as a process that they take on the social weight and political gravitas of local political institutions. And from there, hopefully, they become enshrined explicitly as institutions wielding political power through direct democracy assembly. There are great challenges and procedural issues to work out before that becomes feasible, and I explored them in an earlier diary, OWS Next Step: Change City Charters, Become Official Institutions, but the details are another discussion. Simply put, there is no next step without General Assemblies in fixed locations near corridors of power.
The General Assembly is Occupy Wall Street. It is what differentiates it from all other protests, ever. The 99% theme is powerful only because it comes so close to hitting the fundamental issue that General Assemblies directly confront in action: Wealth inequality is the widespread grievance through which democracy can penetrate into every corner of society for the first time in human history, because it is the only process that can address it. So I say to Occupiers, do not be deluded into accepting defeat and calling it victory, and do not let go of General Assembly no matter how difficult the powers that be make it: Cling to it as the heart of the matter, which is what it is. Do not accept eviction. Be constantly coalescing back into the places you have chosen, because you have chosen them, and make it a full-time job to keep you away. You are The People, and all power is already yours.
7:00 AM PT: Some comments have brought to my attention the fact that Occupying doesn't necessarily equate to camping. The point I've been trying to make is the General Assemblies are the heart of the Occupation, and that they need a fixed, highly visible location near to institutions of power to be as effective as possible. And that isn't the same thing as having an overnight encampment. So perhaps I've failed to articulate that nuance.