I disagree with this guy's analysis. First of all he behaves as if the all the members of Occupy are of one mind, that they all have a unified idea of what needs to take place, they are not all socialist and they certainly are not all against capitalism. They are asking for social responsibility, fiscal responsibility and a return to the rule of law. Second he assumes that this is a movement of hippie students alone and I have been talking to middle and upper middle class working adults, members of various unions and academics. Third the members of occupy do know that everything that is operating is operating as one state but here's the thing, when Argentina (Varda may know a little about this), was being fucked every which way by all of their government leaders and institutions who had co-opted with the international bankers and corporations, their nation was in debt and then the IMF came in and fucked them a little harder, it was precisely non-violent civil disobedience that brought the government down. I mean you had every man, woman and child out in the streets confronting the uniformed men with guns. What worked? Implementing regulation, unhinging themselves from the dollar, telling the IMF to go to hell and nationalizing their assets and putting the money back into society. This guy seems to think that the same people whom he says shouldn't ask the government for anything because the government is the problem then turns around and suggests that the protestors try and get the government to relate to them peacefully (as if the state would abide by that desire and not others). He is also confused, he says that corporations are there to make money, this is true but that doesn't mean corporations cannot make money and contribute to the common good, Apple Inc being a prime example. They make money through their innovations and they don't underpay their employees and they try and they are open about their carbon footprint etc. Not all business and not all banks engage in fraud. He claims corporations don't engage in war but they do, they did in Argentina and its what Max Keiser calls economic terrorism, its just as brutal as dropping a bomb on a nation. As far as Occupy goes there are many who speak of local economies and turn their backs on state solutions all together. He's advocating understanding the problem but if you really talk to people in Occupy there are varying degrees of understanding and education. He seems to think that if everyone stayed home and 'studied' the cause of the problem that the problem will magically fix itself, this is evident in that he blasts all solution but cannot offer one. He also uses a reductive argument that we 'choose' things everyday, which is only partly true. The poor cannot choose what they want to eat, what jobs they can have or where they can live. The desire to not have one system to rule the group is exactly how Occupy is organized.