Jay of Melbourne,you are right.We have to aware of agent provocateurs at these demonstartions and who is actually funding "Occupy Australia' As Michel Choussodovsky says,many are funded by the elites to confuse and dilute the power of the people.I've heard from many sources that Get Up is funded by Geroge Soros.

If you go to a demonstaration take a camera.Discourage violent protestors, alert police to potential violience,film and post on the web the faces of the violent ones.

They are looking for excuses to stop all demonstrations in the light of this new awakening.

If the banksters lose their powers of money creation,there will be no more wars and far less poverty.The people will finally be free.

I googled the name of the Sydney campaign organiser on this.

All the expected references came up. Socialist Alliance, Marxist
conference speaker, save the refugees, stop the Iraq war, etc.

Its just the same few hundred, plus a few hangers on who want
a day out for amusement, with nothing else to do. They certainly
don't speak for the 99% as they claim to. Facebook and Twitter
just make organising these kinds of events globally, all relatively
simple.

Once something is funded it puts a bias in place. If you are sincere about something, you don't need funding.
In the 60"s a large gatherings were obtained from universities, always looking for spare cash, it was called hire a crowd.

This piece actually outlines my thoughts very well. Yes, it's from a humour site, but that doesn't preclude it from being spot on.

http://www.cracked.com/blog/3-types-wall-street-protesters-hurting-their-own-cause_p2/?utm_source=facebook&utm_medium=fanpage&utm_campaign=newcolumn&wa_ibsrc=fanpage

Arjay, I suggest you give it some serious consideration...

Well, tell me I was wrong.
Both sides just here in this thread and just so far.
Prove this has a big hill to push its barrow on.
We look at the left, best informed of us, UNDERSTAND they infect, every issue.
Try to make it theirs, and do harm great harm to the protest.
Right?
No different.
This issue is a true and just one, should be the middle and the majority driving it.
But the one percent, can ALWAYS rely on us, to best serve its interests.
Banks across the world Socialize debt, [we pay it]and profits are theirs.
And us?
We have more concerns about left or right and white wash the issue.

Jay
It is not really sport in the sense of the 'usual suspects'(a rare beast these days) who are involved in the Occupy Wall Street campaign. The groups seem mixed and include both Republicans and Democrats. While coming from different ideological perspectives there is a collective sentiment of anger which has been building since the GFC. Arjay's point is only one aspect.

TRTL
I take your point but cannot agree that the movement is not worthy of support. It is surprising this modest uprising did not happen sooner in the US. Sometimes it takes a groundswell of disappointment in governments' handling of the economy and in particular threats to democracy experienced by a growing imbalance of influence, wealth and power. The options are pretty clear - governments need to get back to the grass roots and start representing their constituencies.

The sentiment is stronger in the US because while ordinary people lost their homes and/or jobs during the worst of the GFC, banks were being bailed out ostensibly by taxes raised primarily from the tax-paying lower and middle income classes. There is a growing unease with the failure of governments (not only the US) in regards to the burden of taxation. This article is an example:

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/10/16/opinion/sunday/we-thought-they-wanted-to-be-like-buffett.html

While the protests do appear generalist in nature on the basis of the Wall Street focus, I am not sure that is not a bad starting point from which options can spring. Afterall the erosion of democracy happens slowly, suggesting the process can be reversed.