Occupy Wall Street supporters march calling for universal healthcare in New York, 26 October 2011. Photograph: Emmanuel Dunand/AFP/Getty Images

In her column earlier this week, author and activist Naomi Wolf wrote about her hopes and fears for the Occupy movement, now that it has been evicted from most of its visible manifestations:

"Occupy – a movement I love and respect, and which represents our last best hope – also fills me with distress because of how difficult it is for a movement committed to "no spokespeople" to get their message out."

She suggests that there are valuable lessons to be learned from a series of powerful documentaries, recently screened at the Sundance Film Festival, about protest movements of the recent past. Her conclusion is that for Occupy to keep its momentum now, it can no longer afford to be such an amorphous, anarchic movement. In effect, it needs to get organised, in more conventional campaigning ways.

Media exposure, a clear message, smart soundbites, clearly stated demands, and, most importantly, tasked, empowered negotiators working on the inside in concert with mass disrupters applying pressure from without – this equals political life.

Do you agree this is the way forward for Occupy? Has its moment already passed – if so, what has it achieved? How do you see its future?

The webchat is now at an end, but commenting will remain open to discuss issues raised. Thanks for your interest and participation.

luigivampa asks:

What do you think about the lack of cooperation between the American centred Occupy movement and the European/global Take The Square and Democracia Real Ya networks? (As exemplified by the recent OWS plan for a 'global strike' on the 1st May despite TTS' plan for the same action on the 15th May). Do you think the message of "real democracy now" of the DRY/Indignados movement has been lost in the Americocentric Occupy movement?

Naomi Wolf responds:

I think that this was probably due to people working two jobs, being overscheduled etc rather than any strategy.But it certainly goes to the need for a good strong global Occupy communications hub. We are also really in a media bubble here and miss a lot of globali nformation. I have heard a rumor of new global Occupy communications hubs being created and promise to report as they emerge.

RicardoFloresMagon asks:

Why do you want to turn Occupy into a same-same safe liberal professionalized and institutional political movement?

Naomi Wolf responds:

Well, if this is the impression you have of what I am saying either I was not clear enough or you may be misreading me. Act Up was NOT SAFE.They were highly confrontaional, they did things like lie down in churches and shout 'murderer' -- they threw the ASHES of their loved ones over the White House fence and brought a DEAD leader in his COFFIN to the republican campaign headquarters. They were radical and cnfrontational but they were also highly organized and on message and did not see a problem with talking to the media to get their message across. Gandhi too was radical, MLK too -- same thing.

Also: if I urgently (to the point of being annoying) keep pleading with Occupy (and ding what I can in postingmedia training, going to ZuccottiPark to give media training etc) to addmessaging, any number of spokespeople (it can be zillions!) and agenda items (they can change!) to their practice, it is because I do not believe we have the luxury of time for the movement to'find its feet'or even maybe behave in ways that might be most comfortable for it. I believe the powers that be will start cracking down in ways we cannot even imagine even in advanced democracies -- they will use baton rounds on Occupy London they have PROMISED, and those killed people in Northern Ireland -- and that in ourlimited time to act to stabilize democracy and get the people's voices heard, we have to take drastic action that may not be comfortable for everyone but that history shows WORKS. I aldso disagree that clear messaging is 'liberal', MLK is the most lucid writer and speaker in US history.

bastiat90 asks:

The top 1% pay just under 40% of all federal taxes, and the top 10% pay 70% of them. In Britain, the top 1% pays 25% (with a higher tax rate) and the top 10% pays 50%. Why does Occupy think that the rich do not pay their fair share when the tax and spend system of government is almost exclusively reliant on the rich to fund social welfare programmes? I know it's pointless to have cake and not eat it, but aren't you guilty of trying to?

Naomi Wolf responds:

Well you are leavig out an im[ortant part of the math, which is the amount of wealth the one per cent own -- in the US thetop ten per cent own the MAJORITY of the wealth. So the issues is proportionate taxation. Also cporporations in the US and I believe increasingly the UK are as I wrote cycling their profits offshore, perfectly legally, so that corporations like GE and FedEx that make vast profits pay often zero or less than one per cent.

Rochester8 asks:

Naomi, thinking especially of the States, Canada, and Europe, are there any organizations (e.g., faith-based organizations or NGOs) that you believe might serve as powerful allies for the various "Occupy" movements; in particular, for helping to communicate key messages?

Naomi Wolf responds:

Great question. I think radical Christians and Catholics are naturals -- liberationn theology is right up there with this message -- but many Tea Partiers and Libertarians are also worried about liberty issues and crackdowns on constututional rights -- the beauty of liberty and economic justice movement is that it can have alliances across -political segments if only we learn the power of coalition-building --ie tea patrtietrs and Occupy can unite today to push backagainst the NDAA (whic gives the US the right to detain people forever) but don't have to agree down the line on other issues....

Longrigg asks:

Does Ms. Wolf think that it'd be a good idea for one of the key questions that the Occupy Movement to ask more focefully is whether, on a finite planet, the goal of society (both left and right) should be continued economic growth?

Naomi Wolf responds:

I think they (like any citizen) should ask whatever they wish but THAT is a radical and crucial question in my opinion. And even MORE than most needs good explainers.

LakerFan asks:

Seems that OWS is embracing some rather no-traditional and novel foundations. This is a great departure from more traditional Youth Movements, yet retains the same fervor and purpose. I find it very unique. Are the traditional (nee Victorian) ideas of Social Change Through the Guidance of Leadership no longer relevant?

Naomi Wolf responds:

great question again, but ;et me be super clear because I think this is ahard paradigm to wrap our brains around collectively. The top-down 'leader and strategy' is DEAD. But the new world requires that EVERYONE be a leader, ready to speak and write and lobby, and you can have a movement with a million leaders but a voting process that lets everyone have input into then ADOPT a clear agenda that changes over time according to new input. You can get there through majority voting not consensus. That is not top-down strategy it is democracy.

TiredOfGames asks:

I think the occupy movement should support candidates from parties other than the two headed corporate duopoly of Dems/Repubs. Just by getting them more coverage, wouldn't that create more options going forward for real change? For example: I'd like to see the Justice Party's Rocky Anderson and the Green Party's Dr. Jill Stein included in the Presidential debates. How could we make that happen, and how can occupy help gain positive attention for new parties/candidates that aren't bought and sold by the one percent?

Naomi Wolf responds:

So here we see that as we discuss this, GREAT agenda items get brought forward. Great thinnking: so they might say 'you start it'. If you wanted to push a third party candidate the best way is tofollow the steps in the last section of Give Me Liberty (my publishers released it for free on PDF): you would register voters, build support and write op eds for the media. Re press attention the best thing is to BE the media -- write press releases, write op eds and blogs, post your own campaign commercials -- social media (till it is outlawed very soon, judging from recentlegislation like Acta) make that easy. Or run yourself! GML shows you how.

SpinDoctor13 asks:

A more general question: you mention wealth, and the fact it is poorly distributed. The distribution bit is hard to argue but at a high level how do you tax wealth? It really isn't a simple question to answer.

Naomi Wolf responds:

Hm. well wealthy people earn lots of their income on capital gains, which are taxed less than the wages that most working people earn. That seems unfair to me. Romney paid I think ten per cent on his millions cause of this, but i as a self-employed person with way less money am taxed at a much higher rate. Some people in the US call for a flat tax for this reason. These are all worth discussing but a movement like occupy ideally can make real space for real discussio -- these options are off the tanble now because of corporate influence on most media and politicians.

JKMarsters asks:

One of the main problems Occupy faces is public perception. On forums, discussion threads, even radio shows, the main image of Occupy appears to be that they're a bunch of unwashed, lazy benefit scroungers and trustafarians.

This image, of course, is not correct and slightly unfair, but so long as the general public believe this to be the truth, it's easy to not take the movement seriously.

With that in mind, should one of the first steps forward be to show the public that Occupiers come from all different backgrounds, cultures, ages, and different levels of education and employment?

Naomi Wolf responds:

Hooray for this great question too! In an electronic world appearance affects reality and yes this 'image'is not ideal. That is why if you have hundreds or thousands of trained spokepeople we will see -- the housewife, the military guy, the retiredperson etc etc and the scruffy hippie...the face of everyone. But also the civil rights movement told marchers to wear suits and the ladies dresses, gloves and hats for a reason -- it is important to communicate respect for the chance to protest and respect for the chance to speak to one's fellow citizens. People can be "themselves"while still presentig themselves in a way that does not let their opponents write them off. Act Up often wore suits when they disrupted FDA hearings and it was a better visual than torn jeans.

jannerick asks:

I totally agree that Occupy needs clearer messaging to win over non-protesters. I read on wikipedia that the founders wanted it to be the Tobin tax. I don't think that goes very far... what do you think this message might be? Higher taxation? How do you get around the political challenges of this?

Naomi Wolf responds:

I would not want to dictate -- but again let's look at Act Up. They constantly changed their messaging and agenda to address what was nbeeded -- more drug trials, better care for people with AIDS, cheaper drugs in Africa, etc etc etc. But AIDS was theeir umbrella. Occupy's "Umbrella" seems to be inequality and corporate overweening influence society -- I would hope adding freedom is a natural. So week by week they should be --at a local and also a national and international level -- chossing ONE item to address with ONE concrete goal and creating actions to demand it and raise its profile.

akamai42 asks:

Naomi, for those Americans who grasp the magnitude of danger to freedom our current path holds but feel powerless to stop it, please advise. What action steps can we take, especially those with no physical Occupation to seek out, or finding the movement too slow to respond with the necessary outcry?

Also, some have argued that extreme stances taken by Occupy alienate would-be members. The city of Oakland has called for other Occupy groups to denounce Oakland Occupy as inappropriately violent after clashes with police. Is this an appropriate request or would this push the movement in the wrong direction?

Naomi Wolf responds:

Yet another imortant question. It is CRUCIAL for any citizen movement to renounce violence and you can be sure that violence is used against movements. Violence is always counterprodiuctive. The best thing you can do is ORGANIZE -- become a 'democracy team' -- register voters and put pressure on your representatives'district rep (ask for a meeting) to push back on liberty issues and you will get out the vote (in congressional elections which everyone ignores) or promise to take your list elsewhere (politely) ifnot. These have to be registered vioters who vote in congresisonal elections -- they know. This way you become a democracy 'power user'and my campaign mentor Curtis Ellis says that this gives any citizen the power of a lobbyist. THEN you have to make it fun -- have amonthly pot luck for your registered voters to plan the next meeting and what you will demand -- because movements burn out without community and fun -- i love the slogan give me bread but give me roses.

Final word from Naomi:

Thank you all so much for this great discussion! I have heard on my FB page, while we were talking, from Occupies reporting that they are well-attended and well-organized in various cities around the world – so I will ask them to send me op eds about their agendas and their actions and I will shine the light I can on them periodically! Thank you again.