Sorry, I just don't get it

John Cassidy on the Occupy Wall Street protests:

The protesters appeared to be a motley assortment of slackers, students, environmentalists, socialists, feminists, and hippies. It is easy to lampoon such folks, just as it easy to poke fun at the retirees, gun lovers, and pro-lifers that man the Tea Party information booths. But like the conservative enragés that have taken over parts of the Republican Party, these protesters have a serious issue that motivates them: the purported takeover of the political system by the richest one per cent of the population, as symbolized by Wall Street. “The one thing we all have in common,” says the protesters’ site, “is that We are the 99% that will no longer tolerate the greed and corruption of the 1%.”

Apart from my general tendency for contempt at the sight of demonstrations such as these, I must say that I have significant doubts as to the possible effectiveness of such a protest. I think Matthew Yglesias put the point rather well a couple of days ago in saying that protests are more effective if they have specific goals in mind. As I look at the Occupy Wall Street demonstrations, I'm left wondering what, exactly, will bring them to an end. That is, I'm unsure as to what they plan to achieve.

Unlike protesting a war or the introduction of a new, unjust law (in which case the end goal is to have that war stopped or that law repealed), this seems to lack any concrete demands whatsoever. Instead, we see a myriad of abstract goals – chief of which being the end of the greed that, in the eyes of the demonstrators, appears to be personified by bankers. So, the end result is...what? Is it expected that the bankers, frustrated with the inconvenience posed by the demonstrations, will eventually emerge from their palaces of serf-funded opulence and announce – grandly and to much applause – that they are officially bringing Wall Street greed to an end? Surely you understand the absurdity of such a demand. Apologies: I just don't get it.