Like big enough to create real positive change

September 26, 2011 5:04 PM

Seriously, what could people do to make the #occupywallst protests bigger soon?

I don't think they're big enough to really force a change with the powers that be and I'm curious what ideas people have that would make it easier for people to attend, incentivize it to new people, or help it expand otherwise.

I am not interested in the political back and forth about whether or not it is right or wrong.

posted by history is a weapon to society & culture (24 answers total)

They could um, actually Occupy Wall Street? No offense, but I work on Wall St. The protestors are NOWHERE near Wall St.
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 5:13 PM on September 26, 2011 [10 favorites]

I'm not sure. This is a critical moment and nothing (relatively speaking) is happening, unlike in the rest of the world. Only 55.3% of Americans age 16-29 even have jobs, which is the lowest since World War II. They would be your target audience for a protest and they don't seem to care, which tells me the first step has to be a massive education and outreach program.
posted by 2bucksplus at 5:21 PM on September 26, 2011 [1 favorite]

Forget about occupying Wall Street. Wall Street will not reform or change.

Build the alternative. For example. For example. For example. For example.. For example.
posted by beagle at 5:29 PM on September 26, 2011 [6 favorites]

I actually think that a more clearly stated set of goal and/or agenda and/or philosophy might help. I spent just a bit of time down there the first day, but left with the impression that it was totally disorganized, chaotic, etc. Hopefully it's gotten better since then. I'm not trying to be harsh, since in theory (I think) I agree with their agenda - it's just a bit hard to tell what the point was. I think that in trying to be a movement of the masses, they missed the part about leading the masses.

re: roomthreeseventeen - I think the problem is that they never applied for any permits to be anywhere near Wall Street, and the police are arresting anyone who tries to protest there rather than in the park.
posted by lab.beetle at 5:59 PM on September 26, 2011 [2 favorites]

The protest as of now seems completely amorphous, with many people participating at cross purposes: libertarians pushing to abolish the Fed, liberals pushing for wealth taxes, communists hoping to spark revolution from below... if there's something to build on besides anger, I haven't seen it.
posted by StrikeTheViol at 6:21 PM on September 26, 2011 [2 favorites]

Wall Street, the physical location, is a tourist attraction for all intents and purposes. I'll be impressed if protesters manage to occupy 270 Park Ave.
posted by mullacc at 6:22 PM on September 26, 2011 [4 favorites]

From outside NYC, it seems to lack a single, unified message. It's occupywallst.org and october2011.org. Also, the 99 percent project. Also, the Day of Rage (and it's peaceful, but the name brings to mind the the Weatherman and the Days of Rage, which were not peaceful). Also, the US Tahir Square. Also, antibanks. Also, NY City General Assembly. And somehow Madrid is involved, and Anonymous too.

When they are interviewed, the protesters say they want peace and justice, or to take out all banks, or to show dissatisfaction with unemployment, or to protest bureaucracy, or to show support for hacktivism or libertarianism or anarchy. Also corporate greed.

I think they had a good thing with the 99 percent project. It was inclusive and focused on one issue that, hey, 99 percent of us can understand (and I even saw one or two photos from 1 percenters).
posted by Houstonian at 6:27 PM on September 26, 2011 [4 favorites]

There needs to be a single, discrete, obtainable goal for the protest, like "bring back appropriate taxes on the top 1%" or "create government work projects to rebuild the nation's infrastructure" or "bring back Glass-Steagall".

As it stands, the protest is an amorphous ball of angst. Libertarians rub shoulders with distributivists and 9/11 truthers and Troy Davis supporters and anarchists and socialists and, I think, the AFL-CIO.
posted by Sticherbeast at 6:30 PM on September 26, 2011 [1 favorite]

Houstonian, that is what it is like in NYC as well.
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 6:35 PM on September 26, 2011 [1 favorite]

They need a message and an understandable and obtainable goal that is something other than "Hey look at us we're angry and disenfranchised."

I have some friends who are involved and I don't think they even know what they want to achive. There are many people, myself included, who think the system is fucked up but who will not get involved until it seems there is a point other than being disruptive.

I think that those who are involved should sit down together and come up with talking points, or even a manifesto, and spend time twittering/facebooking etc about why what they're doing is important and how people can help/participate in a concrete way.
posted by SpaceWarp13 at 6:43 PM on September 26, 2011 [4 favorites]

Not necessarily "soon", but everyone interested should read Alinsky. From the summary linked, my italics:

Rule 11: Pick the target, freeze it, personalize it, polarize it. Don’t try to attack abstract corporations or bureaucracies. Identify a responsible individual. Ignore attempts to shift or spread the blame.

posted by Fiasco da Gama at 7:05 PM on September 26, 2011 [11 favorites]

Yeah, add me to the pile of "lots of anger with no clear goal." If you want people to actually get up and go out and do things, it helps for them to feel like they're actually doing something. Right now, it seems like it exists in large part just because there are a some people who are angry enough that they're looking for any sort of outlet, no matter how vague. To people who are angry but have more of a hold on their emotions and *don't* feel any better having a vague outlet, that's actually a big turn off to participating. I'm not saying the entire thing or everyone involved is just grumbling aimlessly, but since you're asking about overall perception, well, not that many rational people are going to be gungho about hanging out with people they perceive to be *only* frustrated and not also pushing a solid, workable goal. Hell, it's tiring to hang out with angry people even when there is a solid goal, but people will do that for progress. I would honestly rather go burn my hand on the stove on purpose than hang out with a bunch of people who are angry and just yelling about it. A person who is interested in changing things is going to have better luck making progress by writing a blog post than joining the protest as it exists right now. If it had clear goals, that may not be the case. So of course people are going to the do the easier thing if it's all the same, and it's a lot easier to yell angrily on the internet to accomplish nothing than do that in person.

Plus, NYC isn't exactly cheap, so those with the most at stake don't have a great way of getting there and staying there to protest. It's asking a lot for unemployed, struggling people to somehow interrupt their job search to travel there. You're going to be relying heavily on people who live nearby. For the time being, the location seems symbolic more than anything, because it's not actually disrupting Wall St operations. So why would anyone bother traveling? If they actually disrupted Wall St operations, well, I think most people would take it more seriously, though it would depend on how they did it. I wouldn't be able to get behind anything violent, for example.
posted by Nattie at 7:07 PM on September 26, 2011 [2 favorites]

Last I checked they were pretty far from "wall street" over in Zucotti park. If they want to disrupt that area they need to get somewhere people will see them getting off the train in the morning. They are pretty hidden over there in that park. Maybe shut down the wall street 2 3 stop and the closest 4 5 6 stop. There is a steady stream of people walking to work between 7-9 am.

That being said, they should really occupy midtown, the only people who actually work downtown are schlubs like me that don't rate space in midtown. Maybe shut down grand central and Penn station.

Of course they don't want to disrupt operations, what they want is media exposure so maybe Zucotti park is fine.
posted by Ad hominem at 8:05 PM on September 26, 2011 [1 favorite]

Seriously, what could people do to make the #occupywallst protests bigger soon?

Those of us who largely agree with some of them (as people note above; no coherence) don't have any interest in being arrested, being unshowered or hanging out downtown. So, not much. Maybe I would have twenty years ago! Instead I'm demonstrating in my own home. But good news! The cops, since some of them are behaving so bizarrely, are helping the protest grow, at least in scope or visibility.

I don't think they're big enough to really force a change with the powers that be...

Uh yeah. That would take a couple million people. (Although, consider marches on Washington: even then, with millions, not so much.) Still, it's important to show up where you think you should show up and be counted.

I wish they'd stop with the classic radical organizing discussion group meetings every day. That is really off-putting to me, at least. Did that in the 80s; it is so pointless. Consensus is overrated (at least in part because it tends to hammer out minority opinion, instead of being held hostage by it, as you'd expect). The way around all that? One unified agreement, an overarching conceit. Then everyone can be for it or against it; people can join you clearly or not.
posted by RJ Reynolds at 8:06 PM on September 26, 2011 [3 favorites]

[folks, maybe answer the question or email asides directly to the OP who is not anonymous? Thanks]
posted by jessamyn at 8:28 PM on September 26, 2011

First thing they need to do is set a goal and an agenda. Then they need to enlist people who agree with that goal. Maybe the issue is that there are not enough people in NY who support the vague anti-capitalism message.
posted by JohnnyGunn at 9:40 PM on September 26, 2011

I will echo those who say that the protests need focus. I am someone who is very sympathetic to (some of) their issues, and to the notion of protest in general, but when I read about the disparate aims and ignorance on the part of the protesters, I am very turned off. I think many of these people could actually be united under a few goals, and with some leadership the cause could be marketed well enough that this could grow into a movement, but right now, it's a joke.

And honestly, if you want to look to a successful movement with a populist story (though the credibility of that story has been called into question), you have no further to look than the tea party. Figure out what they did and do that (maybe start by coming with a catchy name that evokes a more idealistic time.)
posted by !Jim at 9:43 PM on September 26, 2011

By the way, the phrased I used was "market themselves well," and marketing is exactly what I mean. Marketing is about telling a story and projecting an image. It should be clear what image and what story you want to present: that this is a large and united group of people with broadly similar goals. Just like with marketing in the business world, it doesn't really matter if the story and image are only lightly attached to reality. The media look for a story to tell, and in the absence of one being fed to them by the protesters, they have no choice but to tell the truth.

Holy shit, I swear I'm not actually this cynical.
posted by !Jim at 9:47 PM on September 26, 2011

Tl;dr Find people and convince them to go.

Let's plan backwards. You want people. Okay, how will they get there? Maybe on buses. Or no, let's say they'll all take the subway over at approximately the same time. Okay, where will you find them? Maybe churches? Or no, let's say at Brooklyn College. Maybe you could contact all the progressive student groups there and ask them to send an email to their groups. But why would they do that? And why would their members go? Well, you're going to have to get good at explaining that. You could start by writing an email (maybe later make a poster or write a speech). You could explain how the protest accomplishes something students need and/or the goals of their organization. But really, how are they supposed to believe their time will have results? Well, at first, it's just you and your inspiring and articulate words, and their own interest. But let's say you've gained a few groups who signed on already. And they each have about 30 members. And maybe you have friends doing this at the other CUNYs. Maybe you all pooled your lists and went to the protest organizers and said "hey we have a list of 400 students here and we are planning to start really trying to organize turnout for at least one major surge. But we want you to announce that this upcoming surge will be students, and that the students are occupying Wall Street because they want subsidized student aid restored to 1990 levels (per student)." They agree, you pick a day, you advertise it heavily to all those groups, you create a handout with three key facts and a headline that is your main message. You keep all of your messaging extremely consistent so that any student will tell the media that you're there because in 1990, spending per student on aid was [twice] what it is today. And you get organizing volunteers to make calls such that as many people as possible commit to going and then gets one or two reminders.
posted by salvia at 10:06 PM on September 26, 2011

Hmm, I just read a bunch more, and I take back the bit about trying to shape their messaging. But my basic point holds that if you want more people.... find some and convince them to go.
posted by salvia at 10:56 PM on September 26, 2011

who cares? you're asking the wrong question. the question shouldn't be "how to make the protests bigger?" The question should be, "how to achieve our goals?" And then once the right question is asked, then we can take a look at whether occupying Wall Street is even the best objective and if not, then why simply try to make a bigger protest?

Let's say that the goal is to achieve some measure of economic equality. Now, I can't speak for the people on the streets of NY, but I'm going by the 99% vs. the 1% rhetoric, so I'm probably not too far off.

So, how about some specific policy changes we'd like to see:

1. Tax the rich fairly. In the Mad Men days, wealthy people paid a huge chunk of their income in taxes, and they were still able to be rich jerks and we had a booming economy. And in the evening of the Reagan days, after the slashing and burning and union-busting, the rich still paid a higher percentage than they do now. No more freebies, raise taxes on the wealthy and end corporate tax loopholes so we can bring back the American standard of living that people used to be proud of.

2. Strengthen the rights of workers to form unions. You want checks and balances on corporate power? Let the workers in those corporations deal the executives on equal footing. Let workers vote on company practices. We spend 1/3 of our lives at work, so let's not settle for two-thirds of a democracy, lets truly honor the ideals that founded America by bringing democracy to the workplace.

3. Healthcare for all. It's a basic human right. And besides, we can't get this country back to work if the country can't get itself to a doctor to get fixed when it's sick. Corporate greed is at its worst when it says you can't have your health unless you can line someone's pocket. We'll even compromise on this one; instead of demanding an end to all profiteering in healthcare and a complete public takeover of the healthcare system, we'll settle for just expanding Medicare to cover everyone and leave the providers intact. See? We're reasonable people, unlike those reckless radicals in the so-called Tea Party.

Well, that's a start. So, how will occupying Wall Street achieve these goals? I can't see bankers having much of an impact on these policies, at least not voluntarily. And the protests are not stopping the trading floors or anything, so I don't think Wall Street cares. I think a lot of Americans do care or would care if they knew about the protests.

So you could try to articulate the goals above in a press statement & announce a press conference with designated spokespeople at a certain date and time and you might get some coverage, but it would probably help to not only have a wish list, but also announce a plan.

That way the media have a drama they can narrate: such-and-such group wants x, y, & z, and they say they will form their own political movement to take over Congress in 2012 to achieve their goals.

Now there's an idea.

You want to get media coverage, forget about CNN. Go to the local outlets in the smaller markets. Announce that you are targeting the Congressional rep because she is beholden to Wall Street.

Then do it.
posted by univac at 11:29 PM on September 26, 2011 [4 favorites]

I wish they'd stop with the classic radical organizing discussion group meetings every day. That is really off-putting to me, at least. Did that in the 80s; it is so pointless. Consensus is overrated (at least in part because it tends to hammer out minority opinion, instead of being held hostage by it, as you'd expect). The way around all that? One unified agreement, an overarching conceit. Then everyone can be for it or against it; people can join you clearly or not.

Oh, man, this. I stood by a group meeting the other day for a few minutes, and I felt myself becoming a condescending normal adult just by proximity and reactance. They were debating the highs and lows of giant inflatable hands.

So much of the detail at the site is devoted to camping out, details that don't matter, and a cacophony of mutually incompatible anti-capitalist rhetoric. Worse, the vast majority of Americans do, as a matter of fact, support a form of regulated capitalism, so the protestors are marginalizing themselves from the get-go. Of course, if you are genuinely anti-capitalist, then that's your right, but you should know better than to think that sleeping on an air mattress in NYC will turn American culture completely upside-down.

These are problems endemic with a group that enjoys counterculture and enjoys protesting as an act in and of itself. I am completely sympathetic to that mindset, but it's not an effective mindset for social change. You can't treat a protest like a big party or a see-and-be-seen "social event of the season." There has to be a plan.

...

So, what would my counterproposal be? Turn this movement into a relatively straight-laced political campaign for just one important, discrete, realistically-resolved issue, such as reviving Glass-Steagall. Instead of having people camp out in a park, have people devote several hours a week to reaching out to fellow voters.

Have a polished, informed pitch that will get voters to write and call their senators and representatives about resolving this discrete issue. Have a pitch that will play across the political spectrum.

If that issue starts to move, get people more excited. Have informal get-togethers about advancing that issue. And so on.

Like a line-item political party. Steal from the playbook of movements such as the Prop 8 movement.
posted by Sticherbeast at 10:28 AM on September 27, 2011 [1 favorite]

Step 0 was having a great media team.

Step 1 was being targeted by the police for excessive interference and violence.

Step 2 was facing down the property owners and maintaining sanitation in their space.

Step 3 was staging clever actions that resulted in a predictable corporate and police responses.

Step 4 was holding demonstrations at increasingly recognizable NYC landmarks.

I don’t know what Step 5 will be, but I’m excited to find out!
posted by Ptrin at 10:08 AM on October 19, 2011 [1 favorite]

Step 5 is coming up with a goal and an end-game. Otherwise they wasted 5 weeks.
posted by JohnnyGunn at 10:42 AM on October 19, 2011