Jochen, it seems like your question is generating a variety of types of answers, maybe you want to clarify your meaning in the context of the answers given so far? That said, this would be an excellent Quora <http://quora.com> question/set-of-answers.
I think (from my very tangential experience, I am perhaps the least informed in this matter of the answers so far) that the intent of the Occupy movement[s] is something that both Eric and Nick have mentioned but not directly addressed: the diversity of agenda (already a plural of agendum [something that embodies agere - past participle, I believe?], by the way). If one is communist, part of the attendant ideology is recognizing the tend towards imbalance that capitalism engenders, but there are many other conclusions drawn in Marx/Engels and subsequent works: that the way to break the cycle of power via wealth is to have a [violent] revolution of the proletariat leading to a unified party guiding collectivisation (of resources, labour, et cetera) and other activities, for example. If one is socialist, one may advocate more (perhaps opt-in) social programs provided by the government. If one is anarchist, one may advocate localised individual decision-making within communities. And so on. However, this specialisation will lead to predictable reactions: if one is communist, one may expect (at least in the modern-day United States) a 'Red Scare' - a dismissal of ideals due to political alignment. This goes for any philosophy. So such an association with an 'old wineskin', though perhaps not disdained or frowned upon, might not help one's arguments to be heard. So the Occupy movement seemed to decide that only one axiom would be required: the statement that corporate interference in matters of governance leads to inequality (via pork and vested interests and many other systemic phenomena). As this was a common observance among much of American society anyway, it was not likely to be too controversial. However, by marking this statement with an officialised movement, and making this movement publicly visible in prominent places (like Wall Street) made (or attempted to make) it the Main Issue up for public discussion and analysis, which (one would expect) would naturally lead to it being dealt with as an issue more easily/quickly/effectively. Thus Occupy served as a forum, rather than an organisation or individual or faction or party to be ignored, or cynically considered. Indeed, I have rarely heard even opponents of the movement describe it in terms of being untrustworthy - it just does not apply to this kind of social structure. The criticisms have concerned whether or not Occupy will fail in it's goal of popularising social change. While it may be just lust for revolution/rebellion, it is not produced restlessly or without forethought. Anyway, this openness of aims is why there is a spectrum from 'reformers' to 'radicals' (a word much abused, and best used in context of etymology: anything dealing with the 'root' of a problem/issue) or between '1/99' and 'Occupy' as noted by Eric. I hope this helps. Sincerely, Arlo James Barnes
============================================================ FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org
