I stand by my assessment that so far Occupy has not been a movement, but rather a set of tactics. As they’ve existed, Occupations could lead by moral and physical example in defying the enclosure of space and redeeming this space for humanity, obstruct specific corporate assaults, obstruct corporatist action in general, force a movement’s existence on the mainstream consciousness, provide an opportunity to publicly articulate a movement philosophy (but not with actual “demands” on the system), force the system to either back down and admit weakness or more openly display its might-makes-right nature and lack of legitimacy.
This set of tactics and instrumental principles could become part of a movement, but it’s not the movement itself. A movement needs a coherent philosophy, goal, and constituency. So far Occupy has lacked these, but has rather professed a vague suite of principles ranging from real rejection of the corporate system to standard “progressive” reformism. It hasn’t articulated an affirmative philosophy, goal, and strategy, nor is it clear for whom it’s taking action.
In the first place all this has to arise indigenously, locally. The constituency and goal will vary from place to place. This intuitive realization in the minds of most participants has served them well in rejecting attempted Democrat Party and NGO hijackings. But in the long run there has to be a comprehensive, organic movement philosophy. Given the facts of energy, ecology, and the proven practical failure and moral malevolence of corporatism, this philosophy can only be total anti-corporatism in its negative aspect, relocalization and positive democracy founded on Food Freedom in its affirmative. Another term for this affirmative is Food Sovereignty.