What do the kids want, and how can they be bought off? Some Occupiers shot back in defiance, Demands are for terrorists!
But as the movement has growntaking in veteran organizers and garnering declarations of solidarity from labor, progressive community groups, left-leaning intellectuals, think tanks and even members of Congressthe question has become more insistent. Some pressure has come from these allies, who have been happy to grab onto Occupys unexpected coattails or collaborate on a series of direct actions but who approach politics from a more constituent-based, results-driven model. No doubt, elected officials would also like to see demands made, as everyone from President Obama to New Jersey Governor Chris Christie has comically tried to both sympathize with and distance themselves from the Occupations primal expressions of frustration and rage. With approval ratings at 43 percent and climbing (thats almost five times higher than Congresss 9 percent), the movement has intruded upon electoral politics, and a list of demands that could be rejected or accommodated would certainly help the pols fill out their dance cards.
But the push for demands has come from the inside too. A Demands working group took shape in early October, largely outside Liberty. A hasty New York Times article almost exclusively quoting its members provoked fierce criticism at that nights General Assembly, which released a statement saying that the GA has not reached a consensus regarding any statement of demands
and the demands list submitted to the NYT was never presented to the GA. Likewise, on October 21, OccupyWallStreet.org posted a disclaimer saying that the Demands group is not empowered by the NYC General Assembly, is not open-source and does not act by consensus and only represents themselves.
But a movement that claims to be open to all isnt in a great position to exile its dissidents, so since that dustup, the Demands group has been absorbed into the process. It now posts its documents online and uses modified consensus rules, although some question the groups fidelity to such procedures and consequently also the groups legitimacy. These issues flared up at the October 30 General Assembly, when the Demands group presented its first proposal, a call for a massive public works and public service program that would create jobs for all. After a heated and messy deliberation that failed to get past even the first round of questions, the proposal was tabled until the next week, allowing Demands to conduct more meetings and outreach.
That General Assembly exposed a clear ideological schism between anarchists, on the one hand, and Marxists, progressives and liberals, on the other, with the former predisposed to reject any demands (like jobs for all) that appeal to the state instead of directly to the people. But the meeting wasnt particularly well attendedas many Occupiers at Liberty were milling about reading, singing or kibitzing on other matters as were clustered around the human micand away from the fray, in the working groups themselves, the issue seemed much less polarized and much less significant. Most organizers I spoke with were open to demands at some point but preferred to focus on movement building for now. I think one day there could come a time for demands, says Katie Davison, but right now I think demands would fracture and divide people
. We need a movement of solidarity that is about values first, and were still coming together and finding out what we all agree on.