Some activists are critical of too much internal discourse and not enough external outreach, especially to the communities hardest hit by the economic crisis. There are many meetings about coordination, facilitation and a "spokescouncil' that could supplant their open-to-all General Assembly,
Many are aware that the movement's current base may not be more than 1% of the 99% they march in the name of.Maybe even less. They know that their chances of securing the changes they want are tied to creating campaigns and organizing strategies that are less counter-cultural and more political, campaigns that can mobilize workers, communities of color and campuses struggling under the weight of student debt and beak futures in the job market.
This takes may take toning town some of the rhetoric political style that drives the movement.
Can this movement go beyond using the social/media-digital technologies that tend to appeal to the base--the young and the hip-- but also, at the same time, shape a communications campaign with ads in newspapers and PSA's and even political infomercials on Cable TV. This will be needed if the movement is to penetrate deeper into small towns, the suburbs and the "fly over" regions of Middle America.
Can it build organizations that non-political people can join--and identify with?
At the moment, these "leaderless" activists see this approach as more manipulative that participatory but how else can they convince people unlike themselves--people without histories of radical political activism or union militancy to feel comfortable in a youth dominated harder-edge movement with its unique mix of direct activism and small "d" democratic idealism?
Occupy is very strong when it comes to creative tactics, but what is the longer-term strategy? How will it have a change to shape and implement one?
I picked up a copy of scholar Gene Sharp's how to make a non-violent revolution manual called "From Dictatorship To Democracy: A Conceptual Framework for Liberation" at the People's Library in Liberty Square/Zuccotti Park. Now published in 34 languages, it offers a detailed primer on how people's movement's can topple tyrannies. It itemizes the ideas and techniques that powered movements in many countries including Egypt. Tunisia and Serbia.
You can get it online from Gene Sharp's Albert Einstein Institution.
The Serbian movement OPTOR that helped overthrow the Milosovic regime with protests in Belgrade have since become specialists in training activists and orchestrating uprisings. They have advised movements in Egypt, and some of their key people have had conversations and perhaps more interaction with Occupy Wall Street. (The General Assembly of Occupy is now sending one of its activists to Egypt.)
They do have a lot to teach using print, video and videogames.
Their work has also raised eyebrows and led to suspicion, even conspiracy mongering with "revelations" that their actions, which have included aiding the "Color Revolutions" in Ukraine and Eastern Europe are funded or directed by the CIA.
As a veteran CIA investigator, I am not persuaded by the "evidence" since Washington more often resembles "the gang that can't shoot straight" than effective non violent change-makers. Their dismal failures outnumber their few successes (which doesn't mean they don't cause harm or negatively affect political outcomes.)
There is a British-made film, The Revolution Business (Journeyman Pictures), with an unmistakable anti-American orientation that stirs fears of devious covert scenarios all made in the USA.
You can watch it on http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lpXbA6yZY-8 You Tube:
Be mindful that all movements for social change have their own internal contradictions and rivalries, and that when movements develop traction, many forces want to use and manipulate them, including governments, and groups with every point of view. Most don't succeed.
(Note: You can view every article as one long page if you sign up as an Advocate Member, or higher).
