While researching OWS for the blog posts, it has been difficult for my classmates and me to find any concrete demands from OWS, or what they really stand for. There has been many assumptions made by the media and onlookers pertaining to the “demands” of OWS, while in reality, the movement has made minimal, official demands. This lack of official demands has been a major and central critique of the OWS. After much scrutiny by the media, OWS finally released a list of demands (that can be seen here on their website), but even then it was in the form of a declaration. Finally, after over a month of protesting, a list of demands was turned over to the media. The media then proceeded to scrutinize the list (which will critiqued in a different post). In a previous post, I discussed how OWS is an example of direct action. To recap, direct action is unlike passive protesting because it does not appeal to the system, but defies it. OWS demonstrated direct action by their occupations, demonstrations, and even today’s strike, across the country. What the media, and most of America, misunderstood is that a list of demands is not part of the direct action process. The central idea of direct action is to act as if the current system has no power. By giving the system of a list of demands, it would only solidify the system’s power and it would make the protest an appeal- no longer make it direct action. So even if not having demands is a perceived weakness of the movement, it actually made the movement a true demonstration of direct action by denying the current system. So, in the spirit of direct action, Don’t Fight the Power, Deny it!