[gaurav_v]

I agree that the movement lacks a coherent message.

That being said, one of the large issues in play is that people feel slighted by rising income inequality, which they perceive to have arisen out of a sort of government-industry feedback loop. Certainly this is what the printed dollar bills seem to be about.

With regard to your comments about the utility of the protest: I don't think it's a waste in any regard. If you feel something about government (in this country), you have several options: wait for an election and vote, write to your congresspeople, protest, etc. I agree that it's frustratingly difficult to figure out what the movement wants, but (even unaligned) protest is a perfectly legitimate way to express (even general) displeasure with your (perhaps even falsely perceived) current government.

[Shenglong]

Shouldn't you have a viable alternative solution in mind, when you express displeasure? I can understand that they're angry - I just can't understand how they want the government to fix it.

[gaurav_v]

It would definitely be a lot easier (and seemingly, effective) if they all just said we want X, where X is some not necessarily even specific reform.

But maybe they just want to say 'we're angry about this rising income inequality and we want someone to do something about it.' I think that's a valid stance to have, and opinion to express. It then falls on the government to either:

1. Do something about income inequality. 2. Explain why they can't or shouldn't or won't.

Failing that either of these things occur, it may inspire someone to run for office with the platform of performing (1) or (2) above. Any of these outcomes seem like a 'successful' outcome of the protest.

[mgunes]

Shouldn't you have a viable alternative solution in mind, when you express displeasure?

Not necessarily; there are times when it's more fit to just walk out into the street, meet others who are as displeased as you are, and try to figure out what to do about it on the spot.

[nhaehnle]

CodeMage provided an excellent analogy to answer this question some time ago: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=3080440 - you should check it out.

Another way to look at it is this: The grievances of the protesters cannot be fixed by individual action. They require a change of the rules, i.e. political action. When such grievances become large enough, you (i.e. the people) use progressively stronger methods to try to tell politicians that you're serious about it.

If the political system is flexible and effective enough to react and address the grievances, then the movement succeeds, e.g. the civil rights movement in the US in the 1960s.

If the political system is too rigid and unable or unwilling to react, and the grievances remain, then the state will ultimately fail, e.g. East Germany in the 1980s.