Definition: In this task, you are given a text of many news articles seperated by special token "|||||". Your task is to summarize them.
Input: Story highlights It's been a year since the Occupy Wall Street movement sprang up 
  
 Stephen Zunes: The movement has fizzled, but it affected our political narrative 
  
 He says Obama has taken on populist issues such as income inequality, unfair tax policies 
  
 Zunes: If concerns of the 99% are not addressed, new versions of Occupy will emerge 
  
 It's been a year since the Occupy Wall Street movement sprang up . Since then, it has fizzled, but this does not mean that the underlying issues that gave rise to the protests have gone away. 
  
 Until last year, mainstream political discourse did not include nearly as much emphasis on such populist concerns as rising income inequality, tax policies that favor the rich, growing influence by large corporate interests in elections and the reckless deregulation of financial institutions that resulted in the 2008 crisis. It is hard to miss them now. 
  
 These concerns still impact 99% of Americans. Even if Occupy protests have petered out, the movement has affected the political narrative in our country. 
  
 We can see Occupy's impact in the current presidential campaign. Whereas Bill Clinton's 1996 re-election strategy focused on the idea of "triangulation" -- taking centrist positions on key economic issues to isolate his Republican opponent on the right -- President Barack Obama has taken on much more of a populist stance, mobilizing his Democratic base and economically stressed independents against an opponent whom his campaign is depicting as the quintessential representative of the 1%. 
  
 Stephen Zunes 
  
 Occupy activists justifiably express skepticism over how much to trust the president's left-leaning rhetoric when his actual economic policies have been decidedly centrist. Still, the fact that Obama's re-election campaign recognizes the advantage of decrying unfair tax laws and similar policies that affect middle class Americans is indicative of how the tone has shifted. 
  
 Unfortunately, much of the decline of the Occupy movement can also be attributed to the distraction from this year's election campaigns. Despite the Democrats' mixed record, the unions and many other potential allies necessary in building a real movement have felt obliged to focus their energy on re-electing Obama and helping other Democratic candidates. 
  
 Some police repression and serious violations of civil liberties by city authorities certainly crippled the Occupy protests as well, as did the media's tendency to focus too much on its more violent or flaky elements. 
  
 But, this does not mean that all is lost. 
  
 The Egyptian Revolution and other unarmed civil insurrections that have swept the world recently did not start and end during a few dramatic weeks or months when millions of people were on the streets. They were the culmination of many years of struggle, often initiated by young radicals engaging in small but creative demonstrations. 
  
 The Occupy protesters, even at their greatest numbers, were never able to do what successful movements must do in terms of developing a well-thought-out strategy, clearly articulated political demands, a logical sequencing of tactics and well-trained and disciplined activists who don't vandalize property or fight cops. Indeed, the Occupy protesters never developed enough of the structural elements necessary to truly be considered a "movement." 
  
 Most importantly, those involved never recognized that colorful protests are no substitute for door-to-door organizing among real people. 
  
 The United States has a long history of popular social and economic struggles, from the abolitionists to the Populists to the suffragists to the civil rights movement and, throughout much of that history, the trade unions. As Thomas Jefferson once beckoned his fellow Americans: "crush... the aristocracy of our moneyed corporations which dare already to challenge our government to trial and bid defiance to the laws of our country." 
  
 If the pressing concerns of the 99% are not addressed, don't be surprised if new incarnations of the Occupy movement emerge in the near future. 
  
 Follow us on Twitter @CNNOpinion ||||| The protests shook the world—then faded amid internal struggles and worries about being co-opted. At its first anniversary, can Occupy Wall Street come up with a second act? 
  
 As Occupy Wall Street protesters geared up to mark their first anniversary in Manhattan on Monday, they found themselves operating almost alone, without much of the outside support from celebrities, labor unions, and other progressive groups and leaders that had helped to create a palpable sense of momentum last fall. 
  
 When Occupy began on Sept. 17, 2011, many of the core activists were veterans of Bloombergville, a series of encampments set up in Manhattan earlier that year to protest New York City Mayor Mike Bloomberg’s budget cuts. These folks were committed to open, consensus-based dialogue and angry about the wealth and power of the nation’s richest 1 percent. 
  
  
  
 They staged a dramatic occupation of a park in the backyard of America’s major financial institutions, and the combination of tepid labor sentiment toward the Obama presidency, massive student debt and unemployment, and a widespread feeling that the bad actors behind the financial crash had slipped away unscathed helped bring out tens of thousands of people to New York and cities across the world. 
  
 A year later, just a few hundred hard-core occupiers were on hand for the first two days of celebration leading up to Monday’s anniversary action, which will include what organizers called “an historic act of civil disobedience,” a sit-in demonstration in the streets surrounding the New York Stock Exchange at around 7 a.m. 
  
 But it would appear that, some tepid local union supporters in the city notwithstanding, the broader progressive coalition—including organized labor—is sitting this one out, having seen the Occupy movement descend into internal squabbling in recent months over how, and whether, to engage the political system directly. 
  
 "Occupy was so concerned about not being co-opted that it deterred people from trying to fill any leadership or organizational gaps that emerged,” a senior labor official in Washington told The Daily Beast. “If Occupy were stronger now, labor’s support for it would be greater. From an earned-media standpoint, Occupy got off of its message of critiquing the economy and got bogged down in process. And it’s not obvious how to support it now.” 
  
 Which is not to say that the movement failed to have a lasting effect on American politics, including this fall’s ideologically charged presidential race. 
  
 “The difference between Obama’s 2012 messaging and the messaging of the Democratic Party in the 2010 midterms is considerable,” the labor official said. “There’s a significant element of congruity with Occupy’s message that you would not have predicted a year or two ago. The idea of Obama trying to make a grand bargain in the summer of 2011 to undermine the safety net, to now running such a populist campaign is a great turnabout.” 
  
 But occasional massive outpourings of support for the big marches last fall, usually in the wake of police violence, masked the fact that Occupy never grew past a few thousand committed activists spread across the country. 
  
 “The movement has had a hard time coming up with a second act,” said Michael Kazin, a social-movement historian at Georgetown University. “The May 1st demonstrations largely fizzled, with the usual suspects coming together. If there’s any guiding ideology of the leaders of the movement, it’s a kind of soft anarchism, and that’s not going to capture the country.” 
  
 The concern about co-optation by the political parties or other outside groups has always been central to internal dialogue. For instance, when MoveOn.org, a liberal political-advocacy group with close ties to the Democratic Party, and Van Jones, a former White House official, tried to invoke the rhetoric of Occupy Wall Street while essentially asking activists to help reelect President Obama, many veteran Occupiers recoiled. 
  
 “MoveOn was closest” to doing anything that could be called co-opting, said the labor official. “Many people at Occupy derided MoveOn’s efforts in that regard. It’s telling that when a group did try to make some of those themes and structure work in a more sustainable way, what they thought was a more sustainable way, they got a ton of backlash.” 
  
 But some on the left suggested working with groups like MoveOn, and especially with an activist like Jones, would have represented a massive capitulation. 
  
 “If there’s any guiding ideology of the leaders of the movement, it’s a kind of soft anarchism, and that’s not going to capture the country.” 
  
 “He worked for Barack Obama, helping to increase inequality, and then he turns around and berates everyone else for not forcing Obama to do the right thing,” Matt Stoller, a former financial-services staffer to former Rep. Alan Grayson (D-Fla.), said of Jones. “He’s not a leader, he’s funded by the Democratic establishment to channel liberal dissatisfaction into helping Wall Street. You work for Obama, you work for Wall Street.” 
  
 Looking ahead to the morning, Occupiers I spoke to—clustered in the vicinity of Foley Square in Lower Manhattan—said Monday wasn’t about demonstrating broad support so much as getting back in touch with what Occupy was about. 
  
 “It’s not like May Day, where there was a huge labor rally with a lot of other groups and organizations,” said Ian Williams, a graduate student at Hunter College who lives in Brooklyn. “It’s an inwardly focused day.” 
  
 And therein lies the problem: so long as Occupy remains a symbolic phenomenon that exists only to sustain its own subculture—to speak to its own members—it won’t be able to tap into the broader economic anxiety that is still festering across a battered, wary electorate. |||||
Output:
Occupy Wall Street celebrated its first anniversary today not so much with a bang as with a whimper—police and press outnumbered protesters. Reactions from both sides of the fence: In the Daily Beast, Matt Taylor says the movement has "fizzled" as organizers, too worried about being "co-opted" by a political party, started to fight internally. "So long as Occupy remains a symbolic phenomenon that exists only to sustain its own subculture—to speak to its own members—it won’t be able to tap into the broader economic anxiety that is still festering across a battered, wary electorate," he writes. But on Salon, Rebecca Solnit insists the movement is far from over. Today's protests may not be as attention-grabbing as some of the first events, but organizers are meeting regularly in cities across the US and even abroad. Those meetings have resulted in many "little victories," like a foreclosure being prevented or a restaurant chain unionized, and some big ones, too—but more important is "the less tangible spirit of Occupy and the new associations it sparked," which will continue to have an impact for years to come. Stephen Zunes is with Taylor—the movement has "fizzled"—but it has undoubtedly had an impact on the American "political narrative," Zunes writes on CNN. Just look at President Obama's "populist stance:" Occupy made the 99% a force to be reckoned with. One thing is for sure: Occupy has been good for the markets. Since the movement launched, the S&P 500 is up 20% and financial stocks are up 25%, according to MarketWatch. Ironically, the six biggest banks on Wall Street are all doing better, too.