There is generally an assumption that the "specific purpose" of any movement must first be put forward. Recent research and recent history shows that this is a mistaken assumption.
Instead, to accomplish any change the first step is to provide a forum where every individual has a voice, and the next step is to listen until everyone believes that everyone is heard. This is the basis of the success of the Arab Spring: the belief that with democracy as a forum then every voice is heard.
However, #Occupy is rooted in the wide belief among people in existing democratic states that the voice of the people has been usurped by a minority. In the U.S., for example, approval of the performance of Congress - the legislative branch of government - is at an all-time low of about 9%, which is 2% lower than support there for a communist government.
(
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/mobileweb/2011/11/16/congress-approva...)
And so, while the assertion of #Occupy that 99% of people support change has resonance, in fact almost as many people whom support change disagree over any particular action other than to return power to the people by simply reclaiming their own voice in democratic government. This is probably why #Occupy grew rapidly as an expression of the rejection of any attempt by an individual or group to claim to speak for the people. In essence, #Occupy is an attempt at a forum where every voice might be equal.
Consequently, if #Occupy now focuses on putting forward any specific demand other than being heard, or focuses on defining a direction other than genuinely representative democracy, then it will likely destroy itself. Thus, to prevent the splintering of #Occupy into factions with different specific goals, resulting in the disintegration of the genuine movement, it might be essential that this movement first focus on development of a platform that facilitates every voice being heard, and next that it listens - that we listen.
One example of a universal platform that facilitates every voice being heard is the familiar tournament-style tiered structure, wherein small groups first meet to listen and then each sends a representative on to the next level to relay the ideas presented, etc, until finally one small group genuinely represents every voice. This final assembly might then propose actions that represent the collective voice of the participants, followed by every individual involved in the process voting on those actions.
Any social network, such as Facebook, might effectively serve as that forum. It might not be unreasonable to suppose that Facebook is the best existing forum because it already has the broadest representation of the global population. However, perhaps a social network dedicated to serving as such a forum, such as Occupy Cafe, rather than an existing network that facilitates many unrelated groups, such as the commercial and "government" interests widely perceived to be among the usurpers of individual power, would be most effective because it would be less likely to engender dedicated opposition to it serving thusly.
The structure of Ning networks (the generic platform used by Occupy Cafe at
http://occupycafe.org) can easily host the tiered structure mentioned above because it would permit establishing a category of discussion for each tier and a separate discussion within each tier for each small discussion group. This would also create a transparent and permanent record of all proceedings, and thus serve as a civil forum for all voices and a proof that every voice is heard.
I would like to humbly suggest that we consider this genuinely democratic path to reclaiming our genuine collective voice.
Kevin Parcell
http://reconomy.net 
You need to be a member of Occupy Cafe to add comments!
Join Occupy Cafe