In attempting to find an answer to this question, I realized I didn't quite know what change it is that the movement wants. In looking for answers I decided to go right to the source. On the site http://occupywallst.org/ I found this statement:
Occupy Wall Street is leaderless resistance movement with people of many colors, genders and political persuasions. The one thing we all have in common is that We Are The 99% that will no longer tolerate the greed and corruption of the 1%. We are using the revolutionary Arab Spring tactic to achieve our ends and encourage the use of nonviolence to maximize the safety of all participants.This #ows movement empowers real people to create real change from the bottom up. We want to see a general assembly in every backyard, on every street corner because we don't need Wall Street and we don't need politicians to build a better society.Let's take a closer look, shall we?
1. "Occupy Wall Street is a leaderless resistance". This sounds good in principle. No leader, so everyone has an equal share in the direction of the movement. Everything is decided by consensus. But who organizes? Who chooses the issues to be decided upon? Do they have an agenda? How do we know that all the issues have been appropriately presented to the body for consideration?
2. "We are the 99% that will no longer tolerate the greed and corruption of the 1%". Since the start of the movement, I haven't been fond of this. Where did these numbers come from? How accurate are they? Also, there appears to be this notion that because people share a common demographic they must share the same opinion, and therefore one person can speak for all. I feel this an offensive and counterproductive group-think tactic that leads people down the same paths as the establishment that OWS wants (I think?) to overthrow. It also sets up a simplistic "us vs. them" scenario that I'm not sure really exists. I think the situation is orders of magnitude more complex, with overlapping social issues that cannot possibly be so easily expressed.
3. "We want to see a general assembly in every backyard and on every street corner... we don't need politicians". Except that we already have these things in some form. Even if you tear down the established political bodies and build new ones you will still end up with politicians who have agendas. There is no way around this. I would love to believe in the ideal of selfless people all contributing to the greater good, but my experience with human nature says it's just not possible.
So what we have is lots people who are angry because they feel like they have been treated unfairly by (the man?) who want... what? New government? No corporations? Change? It's not clear, and beyond the message that everyone is really mad about something, and they blame the government and "Wall Street" for it, I'm not sure anyone else knows what's going on either.
Let's set aside for a minute the fact that we have a leaderless movement with no goals. Why protest on Wall Street? by making noise and marching and blocking subways you aren't hurting the guy with the diamond underwear and the private jet, you're hurting the people who work for that guy. You're interrupting the middle class office worker who more than likely sympathizes with the anger on some level, but is really much more interested in getting to work on time so they can do their job and make a living to feed their family. Blocking the subways doesn't stop the 1% from getting to work. Harassing people on the sidewalk and making noise around office buildings doesn't make the money stop flowing.
On a similar note, Occupy Hobart, Indiana (or any other small town for that matter) doesn't do a whole hell of a lot of good (sorry B). The businesses and corporations that exist there are more likely to be owned by the "99%" than the "1%". Protesting in these areas does not get your message across to your target audience either. It just blocks traffic and might hurt those local businesses.
The same is true, though perhaps to a lesser extent, in places like Providence RI and Seattle WA. The cities are bigger, and there are corporations with holdings there, but again, you're likely just getting in the way same citizens you're trying to speak for. Providence is at least worth while because it's the seat of the State's government, but they don't have any money either.
I don't think that complaining about a thing without offering up suggestions for improvement does much good, so I can't just lest this post end here. Here are my suggestions for improving the Occupy Wall Street movement:
1. Find leadership. I know, some of you are saying, "But Mat, leaders got us into this mess." But I said find leaders, not politicians. They are not the same thing, and I would argue that few if any of the current politicians are really leaders.
2. Decide on some actionable goals. What is it that the movement really wants? Find something that the majority can get behind that can be enacted. You will not likely end Wall Street and you will never ever get rid of politicians. However you can push for reforms that minimize corporate influence and corruption in government and you can strive for better equality in government funded education regardless of social or economic background (though that one might actually be more difficult).
3. Occupy Washington DC. That's where the people who can change things are. The politicians, if nothing else, respond to pressure. The faceless corporations and their boards have no reason to change things. Instead, go to the politicians. Focus your anger on them and let them know it. They are the ones who make policy and they are the ones who most directly rely on the people for their jobs.
Think critically, and then speak with your votes. Right now, that's still the most powerful tool you wield.