They had no immediate demands. People thought it was pointless and the protestors copped a lot of criticism because of it.
Almost ten years later Bernie Sanders rallied millions around a platform that was based on the idea of 'the one percent'. That wouldn't have happened if the idea hadn't already been made popular by the Occupy movement.
So yes, there is a point to protesting - even if you don't have any demands.
Beyond framing, Occupy also created social networks between activists, and those activists gained a lot of experience and developed specific skills. We saw an example of this network and these skills being deployed with Occupy Sandy, where those networks were used to out-organize FEMA and the Red Cross in areas of NJ after Hurricane Sandy.
Occupy also popularized and tested various forms of social organization and social technologies. Thousands of people now know from experience the strengths and weaknesses of permanent encampments as a tactic, consensus decision making, the people's mic, etc. Mass R&D.
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/11/11/nyregion/where-fema-fell-s...
Young people getting conservative as they get older is nothing new. As Douglas Adams wrote:
“I've come up with a set of rules that describe our reactions to technologies: 1. Anything that is in the world when you’re born is normal and ordinary and is just a natural part of the way the world works. 2. Anything that's invented between when you’re fifteen and thirty-five is new and exciting and revolutionary and you can probably get a career in it. 3. Anything invented after you're thirty-five is against the natural order of things.”
And that's for something as neutral as tech. The older people get, the more they get out of the status quo. My dad jokes that he got a lot more conservative when his bank account had something in it.
So while Occupy may have brought the concept of the "one percent" into the public consciousness, did anything actually change because of it?
At this point I'm of the opinion that Trump will ironically cause much more (progressive) change simply because he makes people, even conservatives, angry enough that they swing the other way.
If the Democrats regain control of Congress in 2018 I expect it to be in no small part because Trump is in office. I expect this to be easier than if someone like Kasich or Rubio was sitting in the Oval right now instead.
Assuming I'm right, the major downside is that a lot of less privileged people will be in much worse situations for a while.
Given he won an election, this seems unlikely.
To do nothing.
- https://www.minnpost.com/politics-policy/2017/08/why-bernie-...
- https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2017/07/bernie-...
Sanders' backers are arguably pushing potential 2020 candidates farther to the left than had Sanders not become popular. I think single-payer as a litmus test could be somehing that impacts the race, and Sanders can get credit/blame for that: https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2017/07/healthc...
What? How did you watch him lose the democratic popular race and come To the conclusion he's the most popular?
http://harvardharrispoll.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/08/HHP-...
Now, I can say with some confidence that I’m a left-wing libertarian. Before this shitshow, I don’t think I was really politically aware enough to be able to identify as anything but “anti-Republican”.
The common cause is that people is tired of the establishment. When this happen, some go one way and others the other way.
It's not new, it's a historical pattern.
He was able to have some success on his platform, which would have failed earilier. This most definitely helps with discussion later. He was able to influence a section of society enough to get into politics. He's still able to command attention when he speaks about something. He likely inspired some other folks and made it more OK to be a democratic socialist. (Unfortunately, this has worked on more detestable outlooks with this last election as well).
The aftermath of him not winning the primary influenced the election itself. Some folks voted differently than they might have otherwise and third parties were a real topic of discussion, even though no one actually thought they would win. Heck, even being able to run for president - something most citizens couldn't pull off - is a win in itself. And he did it with that message and on one of the two major parties' tickets.
Not every accomplishment involves a clear defined win or money.