http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bFVR9Nv43J4 (if the embed doesn't show up) One of those kids follows the Rosseauian line to a T and doesn't falter when asked about using force to make people free.
It looks to me as if are having a tough time building much of a consensus. People unite under a cause, but all from various backgrounds and all envisioning different solutions and it brings, what could be an effective political organization, into a hectic crowd slowly meandering into a pen to be arrested en masse all the while, chanting about democracy and what it looks like.
Anonymous has played a fairly relevant role in the protest mindset with their #Occupy(insert) campaign. Some of the protesters are obviously anonymous supporters and I had read in the past about how Anonymous decides where to coordinate their DDoS 'attacks' and found this paper:
It deals with collective democracy, cosmetic flaws (such as having a leader), communication, strength of ideas, and defensive structures. Anonymous has a unique form of decision making and it may be a "means" problem more than an "ends" problem.
Here is an example of the different perspectives of things: http://boingboing.net/2011/02/22/how-anonymous-decide.html
I think democracy is really only a revolutionary thing. Democracy's never last very long and they take different forms all over the world and through out time. Was it not ultimately democracy that brought the world Christianity? Or the steam engine? The market is the truest expression of democracy. It gives people what it wants most; quite literally it gives them what they labor for. If it is a people's job, as Schumpeter said, to produce a government, with no restrictions to entry, and they have a dictator, does a bloody revolution like in France or Russia or Afghanistan, where the people band together to take back the reigns of the state, not count as democracy? Does it have to take the form of an election like we recognize it? What about Libya today? The war corespondents say that there are two main factions of rebels that are receiving western military aid and that, given the opportunity, they will call in NATO air raids on each other in order to gain more influence and exert more control in the emerging government. We can see from just that that the West is going to support another oppressive regime and just call it a democracy to all of people willing to buy it in the U.S. It is never about democracy.
Democracy is the key word to almost every contemporary political ideology and the main theme of every movement. There are no movements saying, "We should only have the highly educated, rich fellows from New England run things" or "We want the people who don't see things like us running the show!", they all appeal to democracy. But who really makes all of the decisions despite the U.S. claims of democracy and all of the "We the People" rhetoric? Is it, in reality, not the rich, "highly educated" elite from New England? Obama, Harvard; Bush Sr. & Jr. / Kerry, Yale; Bernanke, Princeton; Brzezinski taught at Columbia; Bill Clinton, Georgetown; Hillary Clinton, Yale, you get the idea. Although they are not all bankers (I'm reminded of the Dulles brothers in the 50's/60's) we vote for who is put in front of us. We need not get into the banks and the corporate influence over virtually all aspects of our 'democracy'. Could oligarchy not just be the natural state of human social organization? Jefferson called talented people the "natural aristocracy", I think in reference to musical abilities, farming, mathematics, science, etc. not wealth and political cunning, although some philosophers past and present have looked at rhetorical prowess as what defines a leader.
*By oligarchy, I mean corporate, banking, political elite
Keep in mind that "Anonymous" is just a label that literally anyone can use. No one has a lock on it. Anyone who claims otherwise is doing it wrong. It all began from forced-anonymous posting on forums like 4chan.
The keyboard is mightier than the gun.
Non parit potestas ipsius auctoritatem.