THE SECRET HISTORY OF OCCUPY WALL STREET

How Anarcho-Puritans Sabotaged Occupy by Demanding that No One Made Demands

Dear Nevermorons,

I should probably write a book about Occupy Wall Street. I probably won’t do it, but I probably should.

Why, you ask? Well, because I’ve found it an incredibly fruitful line of inquiry.

Nevermore started as part of deliberate attempt at political reorientation in the wake of the COVID pseudo-pandemic, which basically marked the end of the aboveground anarchist movement in Canada.

Since beginning this process of political reorientation, I have been auditing my belief system. I have been carefully examining my assumptions about politics, linguistics, human nature, psychology, and just about everything. And I really feel like I’m getting somewhere.

Which brings me back to why I’ve found it so fruitful to analyze the Occupy Movement. It’s a lot easy to project my new ideas onto Occupy than onto some imaginary revolutionary movement situated in some amorphous future.

I think it’s a very productive thought experiment to think about Occupy and to ask questions such as:

• What went wrong?

• What should people have done differently?

• What are the lessons that we should learn from Occupy?

One especially helpful essay in understanding Occupy Wall Street was written by an academic named Susan Kang, who participated in many General Assembles at Liberty Plaza (Zuccotti Park).

I found this essay in a book called Occupying Political Science.

It explains why Occupy Wall Street refused to make demands, which is something that I have previously identified as the movement’s fatal flaw.

This essay is extremely illuminating as to how a revolutionary political movement basically agreed on a strategy of refusing to be strategic.

Enjoy!

Solidarity,

Crow Qu’appelle

DEMANDS FOR THE 99%

by Susan Kang, excerpted from Occupying Political Science

"WHAT IS OUR ONE DEMAND?" read the Canadian magazine Adbusters’s now-iconic poster of a ballerina atop the Wall Street Bull, calling for an occupation of Wall Street. I attended the inaugural event of Occupy Wall Street on September 17, 2011, in Lower Manhattan after friends suggested that this could be an interesting event. Along with hundreds of others, I ended up in Zuccotti Park, where the first Liberty Square General Assembly was held. Many participants made suggestions about the question of “one demand”: ending corporate personhood, stopping city cutbacks, getting money out of politics.

When I left the park that evening around 10 p.m., there had been a lot of discussion but no consensus on any proposal. By the time the national media began to focus on the movement weeks later, many news outlets focused on the question of demands. This resulted in a now-common idea: Occupy Wall Street was a movement with “no demands.”

To study the New York City-based Occupy Wall Street Movement (hereafter referred to as OWS) from a political science perspective requires one to consider how political science assumes the centrality of the state and public policy. Political scientists most often study and even define social movements through their relationship with the state. Thus, as a political scientist, activist, and participant observer during the early months of the Occupation, I was fascinated by the movement’s apparent lack of demands.

Certain activists at OWS claimed that OWS, as a radically democratic and inclusive movement, necessitated no demands. Yet my participation and observation during the early months of OWS revealed that this identity was a fragile, contested one that reflected the standard social movement conflicts over the appropriate strategies, identity, and membership within new movements. While many in the national media continue to understand Occupy Wall Street as a movement with no demands, or in need of making demands, this chapter seeks to contextualize the internal dynamics within the NYC-based occupation regarding demands.

I consider how different theoretical approaches to social movements can help us understand the demands question. While OWS’s focus on economic distributional concerns and political inequality suggests “conventional politics,” the politics of OWS’s demands controversy is best explained by sociological theories focused on internal movement identity politics. The “no demands” position was a contingent one that resulted from a confluence of institutional dynamics and political conflicts within the movement. I argue that OWS’s “no demands” narrative reflected the identity preferences of a group of activists, influential early in the movement, who used the General Assembly’s high-threshold requirements to maintain the status quo.

Political scientists interested in the public presentation of contemporary social movements and protests can thus gain insights from the literature on strategic models of internal social movement dynamics, particularly in understanding an organization as diverse, diffuse, and supposedly decentralized as OWS.

This chapter draws on a wealth of qualitative data gathered through four months as a participant observer at OWS. I attended and took the minutes at over 25 Demands meetings and attended the Visions and Goals Working Group and “Solutions Cluster” meetings. I recorded and transcribed three General Assemblies and attended several others. I also conducted 16 semi-structured personal interviews with individuals whom I met either through the Demands Working Group, General Assemblies, Teach-ins, or through their public statements in the media about the question of demands. I also attended other group meetings unrelated to the demands question to learn more about the dynamics of OWS’s internal politics. This chapter draws on my own notes taken at meetings, publicly accessible information on the Demands Working Groups’ Yahoo group, and minutes/recordings of various General Assemblies.

Social Movement Theory and the Question of Demands

Social movement theories can help us understand different aspects of OWS, including both grievances and organization, but OWS in many ways defies standard theoretical explanations. Most political scientists assume that social movements’ goals involve policy concessions from the state or another powerful institution, such as corporations, and thus include such assumptions within the definition of a social movement.

Tilly defines social movements as a “sustained challenge to power holders in the name of a population living under the jurisdiction of those power holders by means of repeated public displays of that population’s worthiness, unity, numbers, and commitment.” McAdam, who made “political opportunity structure” (POS) approaches prominent, defines social movements as “rational attempts by excluded groups to mobilize sufficient political leverage to advance collective interests through non-institutionalized means.” While there are a variety of political science approaches to social movements, they share in common the assumption of state-centrality. Political scientists and other state-centric social movement theorists have often been characterized as having Marxist understandings of politics because of their focus on political and economic grievances as the basis for social movements.

In contrast, the “New Social Movements” tradition argues that social movements do not necessarily engage with the state, nor do they necessarily focus on political or economic grievances. Rather, New Social Movement theories claim that many contemporary movements emphasize identity, internal organizational forms, and culture as key goals, rather than policy objectives. These contemporary movements are often “prefigurative” in that they seek to “replicate in their own structures the type of representative government they desire... that avoids the dangers of oligarchization.” This cultural/identity-focused literature defines social movements as “collective action with some degree of organization and continuity outside of institutions or organizational channels for the purpose of challenging or defending extant authority, whether it is institutionally or culturally based, in a group, organization, society, culture, or world order of which they are a part.” In contrast to state-centric social movement scholars, New Social Movement theory argues that social movements can also target nonstate actors, often seeking to create cultural change and new norms rather than policy outcomes. The organization of OWS and its non-engagement with the state in many ways reflects the claims of New Social Movement approaches.

Both “conventional” approaches and New Social Movement approaches can inform our understanding of OWS. The Declaration of the Occupation of New York City focuses more on structural economic and social marginalization, emphasized by state-centric political science models. The opening statement declares, “We come to you at a time when corporations, which place profit over people, self-interest over justice, and oppression over equality, run our governments.” In addition, OWS’s “We are the 99%” identity was general, broad, inclusive, and strongly suggested mass-based class politics. Moreover, the consensus-based organization of OWS and its non-engagement with the state reflect the concerns of New Social Movement theory.

However, both New Social Movement theory and state-centric social movement theory understand social movements to have clear goals. Yet OWS in its early months did not articulate clear goals or demands, whether geared toward larger society or the state. To understand this, it is necessary to apply internally focused theories of social movements, which seek to explain internal, strategic dynamics of social movements around identity building. While many within OWS had personal goals, whether political or culturally focused, these were never clearly articulated because of the institutional internal structure, which reflected the ideological and identity commitments of the early OWS activists.

The Demand for Demands? Contesting Identity and Strategy in Early Occupy Wall Street

According to the literature on social movement internal politics, activists must consistently reinforce an existing or emerging identity within a social movement. This process provides insight into OWS’s position of “no demands.” Identity-focused social movement literature has observed the role of boundary reinforcement and policing as fundamental to movement identities. While boundary setting is typically understood as geared toward outsiders, it is also important within movements. Different groups within a social movement engage in a variety of actions to differentiate between those within and outside of the group. Studies have also found that activists engage in disciplining efforts to maintain such boundaries to fit the movement’s social narrative. By movement narratives, Benford means the “myths, legends, and folk tales, collectively constructed by participants about the movement and the domains of the world the movement seeks to change.” Activists engage in a host of social control strategies to protect the movement narrative, in competition with group “outsiders” who might seek to challenge an early identity. These acts of “social control” can include gossip, ridicule, censorship, and ostracism.

The experiences surrounding the Demands Working Group at OWS illustrate these social control and boundary protection strategies. Yet social control actions of boundary-setting activists can be difficult to reconcile within social movements that make inclusivity and openness key identity traits. Studies of early feminist organizing have demonstrated that while organizations may idealize and identify with participatory and non-hierarchical values, their realities often lead to “hidden, informal hierarchies and suppressed difference and dissent in the name of consensus.” In fact, several of my interview subjects discussed a “key clique” of OWS insiders who orchestrated much of the opposition against an official demands list.

The early history of OWS explains this tension between the OWS ideals and the practices geared toward protecting an identity. The pre-occupation organizing began in the summer of 2011 when a group called “New Yorkers Against Budget Cuts” responded to Adbusters’ ad. The group publicized a “People’s General Assembly” to “Oppose Cutbacks and Austerity of Any Kind” for September 17, 2011, at Bowling Green, a small park in the Financial District. Initially, the group followed more traditional models of political organizing. David Graeber, an anthropology professor often dubbed by media as the anti-leader of OWS, criticized the “top-heavy” organizing models of certain “vertical” unions, NGOs, and socialist organizations, as they set up banners, megaphones, and engaged in speeches. “Lena,” an artist, characterized these “other” activists as “Stalinist left parties” who want a “protest [where] a guy with a microphone... speaks and [then] people clap their hands and... march.”

Frustrated with the “vertical” organization of the August 2, 2011, meeting, “Lena” took the microphone and stated, “This is not a GA. We are going to have a GA here in the back. If you want, you can participate. But this is... representative politics.” The “horizontals” began their own meeting nearby, operating under a “modified consensus” (which, according to two interviewees, was 75% at the time) decision-making process and created working groups to divide tasks. We see strong evidence of boundary setting within Graeber and “Lena’s” accounts, as they repeatedly differentiate the “horizontals” (including themselves) from the “verticals.”

During these August organizing meetings, Graeber stated the organizers decided to ignore Adbusters’ suggestion that they focus on “one demand,” because, “from an organizing perspective, it made no sense at all. We put that one aside almost immediately. There were much more fundamental questions to be hashed out. Like: who were we? Who did we want to appeal to? Who did we represent?” In response to these questions, the group reached consensus on the identity of the “99%,” which would appeal to the overwhelming mass of people excluded from economic gains and political participation.

While Graeber’s account recalled the “no-demands” position as an easy decision, other interviewees characterized it as a contentious one. “Lena” claimed that the “old left” wanted to make anti-austerity demands, although this was rejected. “Lisa,” a graduate student/artist with previous experience in anarchist organizations, stated that people were convinced to abandon Adbusters’ call for “one demand”:

“[People] came [to the General Assembly] with their idea about... demands [but when the] discussion came up, it was tabled. There wasn’t enough movement around it. People weren’t interested, for the most part, in making any kind of demands on the existing system because they wanted to replace the existing system... Demands didn’t make sense in that paradigm.”

“Lisa’s” account suggests that there was general agreement to abandon existing political institutions.

Other organizers at these meetings presented different accounts. “Aaron,” an organizer who had been involved with New Yorkers Against Budget Cuts, argued that “no demands” was only a temporary measure, not necessarily a point of agreement. Rather, “we felt that we could not articulate the demand for the movement until the movement started to grow.” According to “Scarlett,” a graduate student and demands advocate, many people at the early organizing meetings did not share the radical, separatist politics of Graeber, “Lisa,” and “Lena.” “Scarlett” advocated for demands or a mission statement as a way to promote effective outreach. In response to demands resistance, she and other activists proposed a three-sentence mission statement. The proposed mission statement included a criticism of corporate domination of politics, culture, and social life, promoted greater democracy within major institutions, and urged others to join in occupying Wall Street. Unlike the narrative presented by “Lena” and “Lisa,” “Scarlett” argues that this mission statement had majority, but not sufficient support:

“It got voted down by one vote [shy of 75%]. With just an endorsed statement, we could have done more outreach. It became clear... that the main goal was purism to a fault. It did not allow for outreach, diversity, compromise for people who needed help now. It kept it elitist and niche-y. [It made] the 99% sound like bullshit rhetoric.”

“Scarlett” contrasts the OWS narrative of “the 99%” with the practical difficulties of maintaining a collective identity during a growing movement.

Thus, despite the language of “99%” and claims to horizontal, participatory organizational structures, OWS was not immune to the dynamics of collective identity creation/policing observed in other social movements. Key influential activists wanted to avoid demands because they saw OWS’s identity as anarchist, radical, revolutionary, and in contrast to the drab and demands-making “old left.” They were thus willing to engage in methods of social control to protect this identity. This dynamic is not unique to OWS, as Gamson argues in his study of LGBT movements, “[S]ocial movements... are thus in the business, at least sometimes, of exclusion, [for reasons at] both the strategic and expressive levels.”

While the early OWS leaders embraced the “horizontal” and “consensus-based” identity partly in opposition to conventional left movement organizations, they soon faced the dilemma of wanting to expand the movement while maintaining the oppositional identity.

Demands Belong to the 99%?

“[Demands] would have strengthened the hand of mainstream progressives and labor unions [to] stake out what seemed like a more realistic policy position... Occupy was an opportunity to change the parameters of the debate and reopen possibilities that had been foreclosed for a long time.”

—Jack, OWS participant

Jack saw the initial period prior to the eviction of the Zuccotti Park occupation as a critical juncture for radically shifting what was possible in American politics. He believed that the dogmatic dedication by some at OWS to the non-demands identity hurt the Movement’s effectiveness.

OWS participants outside of the Demands Working Group (WG) also wanted conventional demands for the Movement. One prominent activist, “Curt,” who led the “Occupy Homes” anti-foreclosure campaign, bluntly stated, “I try to be pragmatic. Change within the system is possible. It’s likely to be more efficient... I am not an anarchist. I don’t believe that people can do it themselves.”

“Martin,” a member of Facilitation, said, “I wish we did have demands. The public would relate to us so much better. At this point, we just look like a bunch of angry crazy people.”

Because of concerns with ideological integrity and the insistence on no demands, he contrasted OWS to the people at his workplace, claiming that “Occupy doesn’t connect to the people [who live in the South Bronx] at all.” Similarly, “Allie” argued during the October 30 General Assembly (GA) that “it is great to have marches and get angry and get arrested, [but] closed mouths that do not ask for demands do not get fed. Are we hungry or do we just want to throw temper tantrums? I think we need demands.”

“Aaron” believed that despite the vocal presence of anarchists, the anti-statist attitudes in OWS were “[not] widespread... I think many more people have a more pragmatic and nuanced view of interactions [with] the state.” “Sean” felt that many who worked in OWS were frustrated with the lack of conventional political engagement. He hoped that OWS would eventually “campaign to get certain laws [and] amendments passed, [regarding] Citizens United and corporate personhood. We have to work politically, not just sit in a park... we need demands.” These supporters outside of the Demands WG shared utilitarian and mobilization concerns similar to those of members like Scarlett and Jack.

The Anti-Demands Perspective

The anti-demands constituency in OWS also presented a diverse range of arguments. These activists often self-identified with anarchist political ideology and worked within the Facilitation Working Group. Their concerns were both substantive and procedural. However, some activists who opposed demands were not necessarily against making conventional political demands. Rather, they viewed OWS’s identity as inclusive and non-ideological, thus unable to make definitive central demands.

Anti-demands activists often claimed that the Demands WG was not a valid or legitimate part of the Movement. For example, “Lisa” believed that:

“[Scarlett] recruited all these Democratic Socialists... to work with [Demands]. Most of them were older men who just didn’t understand what the movement was. They [were] old left... [They sought an] organization with a platform and a spokesperson... they couldn’t understand how a movement could happen without that. But it’s a different time and it’s a different movement.”

The activists within Facilitation heard gossip that the Demands WG was “created by white men.” (In actuality, a young Latina woman announced during the October 30 GA that she had created the group.) “Piper,” another activist in Facilitation, believed that Demands WG members were outsiders as “none of [them] went to the GA. They weren’t involved in any other way.” As a result, “many of us viewed demands [as] a co-opt... since the particular group wasn’t following the [OWS] process [and] none of these people were sleeping in the park.” Rather, the few hundred activists who stayed in the park since the Occupation’s beginning had built a community of “true believers.” These activists discussed demands in the park but ultimately decided against them. In other words, OWS’s values and identity were created by legitimate members/campers of OWS who agreed that demands conflicted with the non-hierarchical, consensus-based values of those who had participated the most in the Movement.

The Consensus and Process Debate

Anti-demands advocates repeated the claim that the Demands WG was illegitimate because it failed to follow OWS’s consensus-based process. For example, at the October 16 meeting, several anti-demands activists “blocked” a New York Times reporter from taking their photo. Despite the opposition of 23 participants, the photographer took photos, asking those opposed to turn their backs or leave the frame. According to “Piper,” who was one of the blockers, this meeting revealed that the Demands WG was working outside the bounds of OWS by not following consensus processes. According to an email to the author, she explained that the Demands WG had:

“released a document to the press claiming to be the consensed-upon work of the official Demands Working Group of OWS, which described OWS as a ‘leftist movement,’ among other statements that were not consensed upon by the GA or, as we learned, even their own group. There seemed the distinct possibility that this group would attempt to pass off their work as the work of OWS, thus speaking for the movement, even though none of them lived at camp or had been seen before that night.”

“Piper” reported her concerns to the GA that night. Many GA participants were upset at this development, and in response, “Piper” and others created a “Demands Process Working Group” to start the appropriate process for formulating demands within the Movement. This group eventually met with the Open Source Working Group, which had been working on a possible list of visions and goals. These two groups eventually joined and became the “Visions and Goals” working group.

The issue of whether the Demands WG followed the appropriate process, specifically the correct use of “modified consensus,” became a major dispute. The group had operated under a 75% modified consensus, which they understood as working in the spirit of consensus but with a lower threshold than the 90% rule of the GA. The Demands WG members argued that this was an arbitrary distinction, since the summer organizing operated at a 75% modified consensus, and OWS only changed to 90% within the first few days of the occupation. “Scarlett” believed that the higher threshold provided a way for the “vanguardists” to protect their anarchist-based values and identity established early in the Movement.

This post reflected rumors and accusations that the Demands WG had given false information to the press about demands.

We see similar policing of the Movement by anti-demands activists concerning the Demands WG’s web presence. Multiple individuals contacted the web administrator for NYCGA.net, the central website that hosted homepages for OWS working groups, urging the administrator to delete the Demands WG page because it was supposedly giving out false information. Demands WG members also found their NYCGA.net accounts had been deactivated. Eventually, web administrator “Tony” apologized for this mistake, stating that his actions were based on unsubstantiated information. He noted that “communication inside (and out) of the park is really hard. Also, getting correct information is difficult, and figuring out what is going on at any given time is also a struggle.” Tony later attended the Demands WG meeting on October 23 to apologize for the deletion.

Many Demands WG members expressed doubt about the “transparency,” “openness,” and “democratic” identity claims of the Movement after these incidents. Demands WG members saw the anti-demands activists who attended meetings as engaging in disruption and repression. One member claimed that their hostile actions included “screaming” and “intimidation,” while “Scarlett” characterized these actions as “filibustering.” Another example of this internal social control and boundary policing included the use of the “swarm.” When a Demands WG activist spoke to a reporter, four other activists physically surrounded them to intervene and disrupt.

Other interview subjects confirmed the idea that OWS did not live up to its non-hierarchical identity claims. “Sean,” an OWS activist, agreed that the truly horizontal claims of the Movement were separate from the reality, particularly within the Facilitation WG. He explained that “a lot of facilitators are cliquey. Egos get in the way. They think what they’re doing is the right thing and everyone else is sub-par... Everyone is free to join facilitation, but there’s a free core group.” Similarly, “Martin” claimed that “75% of all decisions made are made by the same group of people, [an] inner circle. They are on Facilitation... When one person in the inner circle doesn’t like something, it doesn’t pass... like an Illuminati thing. [It’s] hypocritical... going on about horizontalism.”

Another objection to demands related to the advantage of the undefined nature of OWS. According to “Dallas,” a young male activist, articulation of demands was impossible. He stated during the breakout group session: “When we start asking the GA... to [endorse demands], then people who don’t support these ideas get marginalized from the process... [But the] beneficial thing about [OWS] is that we’re encouraging as many people as possible to come together and talk about what democracy could look like.”

A friend of “Dallas,” “Jonathan” presented a similar concern that demands would curtail the wide reach of the Movement. In fact, “Jonathan” argued that one should think of OWS as a big tent for information sharing. He clarified: “[Occupy has] become a gateway for information [like the media]... you were speaking to how we can demand action from a gateway? [The] media does not demand anything of anything. It’s not supposed to.”

“Jonathan’s” vision of the Movement, and the identity it created, was one that was free of politics and ideology. Different from the more revolutionary visions of “Lisa,” “Paulie,” and “Lena,” “Jonathan” saw Occupy as a means of alternative information distribution.

Another prominent objection to demands was a humanist, even apolitical, view of OWS’s identity. “Piper,” in her rejection of demands, argued that “[y]ou can’t demand anything of the 99%.” A similar concern by “Aiden,” an activist from the Housing Working Group, was that demands went against the key humanist values of the Movement: “Demands neglect love, empathy, commonality of needs, brotherhood... it relies on compartmentalized, educated, intellectual, non-human, synthetic explanations for what we all know.”

“Aiden” also suggested that the real oppressive structures were not just the state or economy, but broader and more diffuse. (During the interview, he blamed the author for her role in maintaining oppressive structures.)

A final argument supporting OWS’s lack of demands came from those who supported conventional political organization. OWS created a “marketplace of ideas,” allowing for all kinds of political activism. “Caroline,” a trade union member, supported Jobs For All, but she argued that demands were not necessary:

“I think in the beginning [no demands] was an advantage... As long as they were seen as some kind of response to the 99% against the 1%... you had many different groups coming and speaking in the park and being supported when [we] were in the park that were articulating all kinds of demands... We don’t have any specific demands, but we support all the demands of the 99%. We have infinite demands.”

Similarly, “Aaron,” the former Bloombergville organizer, claimed that the unclear ideological commitments of the Movement were one of its great strengths that could promote conventional politics:

“OWS does not have demands... [Working Groups] have demands... [that] speak to clear groups within OWS... The way things work in OWS is like how Anonymous works. If I have an idea to do actions at the Courthouse because of Citizens United—anyone can say they’re OWS, but [the action] is only real if it works... Someone will [put] out a call for Anonymous to do something, and people will gravitate toward it if they think it’s a good idea.”

For “Aaron,” OWS worked as a political clearinghouse and network for activists. Rather than make demands, activists could organize actions for certain demands. “Aaron’s” approach was very different from the anti-statist, dual-power arguments, as he believed that conventional, state-centric politics fit within the OWS model and identity.

“Tom” similarly argued that OWS could be a conventional political movement with many demands, explicitly engaged with the state. However, because of its decentralized process,

“[o]nly working groups [have] demands. Everyone’s got their own demands, and they’re all equally important... we need a campaign to get jobs going. Instead of getting the GA to demand, just do it... To say there are no demands is wrong. To say OWS needs to take a stance and say here’s a list... [is] also wrong. Otherwise, you’re prioritizing, and then people are feeling left out.”

The advantage of such a decentralized approach, according to “Tom,” was that Occupy could be inclusive, neither prioritizing nor excluding anyone’s political goals. Tom did not oppose Jobs For All because it was statist or not radical enough, but rather because a GA-endorsement strategy was incorrect.

After Demands WG: Continuing Conventional Politics at OWS

Even with Jobs For All’s failure, activists continued promoting demands and goals. For example, “William,” who worried about Demands WG’s legitimacy, created something called “Solutions Cluster” in early December 2011. This was an attempt to bring together Demands, Visions, and Goals, and other “movement” groups to talk about how to share ideas, goals, and draft demands. Here, I learned about proposed demands from the Queer Caucus, the Health Care for the 99% Working Group, and others. However, Solutions Cluster stopped meeting after six weeks. The Visions and Goals group, created by “Piper” and others as an alternative to Demands WG, followed the best practices of consensus-based, transparent “open-sourced” process. However, it was unsuccessful in getting consensus on their Visions statement on February 23, 2012. While the group spent many hours bringing the proposed statement to the GA for suggestions and editing, the statement did not pass with modified consensus, with 25 in favor and 14 votes against. As with the Demands WG’s proposal, blockers expressed concerns about content not being comprehensive or radical enough and doubted the transparency of the process. In fact, one participant complained at a prior GA that Visions and Goals was “exclusionary,” “defensive,” ignored her concerns and blocks, and thus operated outside of process.

By January 2012, it was difficult to call OWS a “movement without demands.” The GA had endorsed and consensed upon a number of resolutions that can be understood as demands. The first was the Statement Against SOPA, which reached consensus at the General Assembly on December 4, 2011. The resolution stated: “We, the 99%, call upon our elected representatives to oppose censorship, and reject the Stop Online Piracy Act and the Protect IP Act.” The second conventional political demand was People Before Parties, a proposal from the Politics and Electoral Reform Working Group. This resolution, which reached consensus on December 10, 2011, “urged” assemblies to discuss alternative electoral systems in a way that would put “people before parties” and promote truly free and fair elections. “We urge the people of states, localities, and general assemblies nationwide to demand the implementation of electoral reforms and begin a series of bold new experiments in democratic self-government, from the bottom up.” Unlike the SOPA statement, this resolution explicitly used the word "demands."

A third demand clearly engaged with the state, making recommendations about the US Constitution. On January 3, 2012, the GA reached consensus on the Resolution to End Corporate Personhood. This resolution urged specific political change, particularly concerning the Supreme Court decision Citizens United. The text of the resolution stated:

[We are] calling for an Amendment to the Constitution to firmly establish that money is not speech, that human beings, not corporations, are persons entitled to constitutional rights, and that the rights of human beings will never again be granted to fictitious entities or property.

We support a proposed New York City Council Resolution calling for such an amendment and urge the members to vote YES.

We further call on other communities, movements, and jurisdictions to join with us in this action by passing similar resolutions.

While these resolutions did not receive significant press attention as “OWS demands,” they operated very similarly to conventional political demands, as discussed by political scientists studying social movements. “Lisa,” who facilitated the January 3 GA, did not believe that GA endorsement made this an OWS demand. As this GA was sparsely attended and the weather very cold, Lisa suggested that this had reached consensus by attrition because the meeting had lasted three and a half hours. She explained, “I think anything would have passed.” Dismissing the “non-demand demands,” “Lisa” considered it a consequence of OWS’s wide appeal, stating: “There are a lot of people who identify with Occupy and the OWS movement... that may want certain kinds of demands or negotiations with the existing social and political system. Those elements do exist within the movement. I don’t think because those elements exist that the movement as a whole has that character.”

While the proposal went through the appropriate process, individuals who were dedicated to nontraditional politics did not understand the demand as capable of representing the Movement.

Conclusion

It is not clear how to categorize OWS in terms of its state engagement. Because of its decentralized process and organization, as well as the current inactive status of its major decision-making body—the General Assembly—OWS has not articulated its politics clearly to the general public. However, as “Caroline” notes, there are dozens of active “demands” in the Movement. Groups associated with OWS continue to engage in actions, rallies, marches, and advocacy around issues directly speaking to the state, such as student debt, Stop and Frisk (a preventative New York Police Department policy that targets young men of color), fracking, financial transaction tax, health care, and others. Electorally minded OWS participants have been active in the Democratic primaries through an organization with strong OWS ties called “Bumrush the Vote.” While many of the demands tend to have libertarian orientations (wanting less state intervention, like anti-police brutality), there has been strong support from OWS activists against public school closings and other policies.

Based on my interactions and observations at OWS, it was interesting to see the use of social control and boundary-enforcing behaviors by those in the Movement who claimed to support horizontalism and consensus. Yet it seemed that avoiding conventional politics trumped concerns about non-hierarchical openness and decentralization. However, it is not irrational or surprising, given that many of these activists worked very hard to maintain and protect their Occupy community. While the Demands WG activists expressed interest in expanding support for OWS, their different political orientation vis-à-vis the dedicated horizontals made collaboration difficult, perhaps even impossible. Occupy presents an interesting puzzle and object of study because of its rhetoric of inclusivity and its now-famous slogan of the “99%,” which clashes with the insistence by some influential activists to prevent any movement away from the original vision of the Movement. The 99% identity obscures the reality of exclusivity based on a vision of a particular set of politics and certain processes.

While OWS missed its chance to make a significant and immediate impact on policy debates and outcomes by failing to elucidate demands during the physical occupation, arguably the time of greatest media attention, we can still argue that the Movement itself has made a significant impact on our political sphere. Thus, political science’s study of social movements benefits from further investigating the politics and political influence of OWS and similar movements with strong anarchist, anti-institutional orientations. However, we should consider new frameworks to better understand the internal strategic importance of various anti-statist positions within these new economically frustrated but culturally oriented movements.