Norm criticises the Occupy Wall Street movement for not having articulate, concrete demands. I sympathise. But shouldn't older leftists like him and me take some blame for this omission?

What I mean is that we have not bequeathed to today's protestors the intellectual, cultural or political resources with which to challenge capitalism effectively.

By this I don't mean merely the far left's decades-long sectarian obscurantism. I mean three other things:

1. From the 80s onwards, the left lost interest in economics and class, and diverted its attention to cultural issues. This meant that some were shocked - shocked! - when class power was exercised to enrich bankers at the expense of others. It also means that interest in alternatives to capitalism has been lacking.

2. The dominant strain of leftist thinking - especially within the Labour party - has regarded the state as the solution, not the problem. So when state power is used to subsidise bankers whilst harassing protestors, the left is thrown into confusion.

3. Partly because of the decline of class-based politics, protest since the 1960s has been a peripheral activity - a few hours of narcissism and then a return to everyday life. This is not a significant challenge to the existing order. Instead, as Marx recognized, revolutionary activity must spring from everyday economic life.

Given this lack of foundations, it is harsh to criticize OWS and its international counterparts too much.

Instead, it deserves praise for (at least) two things. One is its 'we are the 99%' slogan. In trying to claim majority support, this helps to shift the Overton window leftwards. The other is that it is trying to create a space in which radical ideas can be discussed.

In this sense, OWS should be regarded as first words, not last ones. It might be the start of something big.