The Occupy Wall Street movement is working through its fifth week, despite attempts to have the protesters removed from parks in New York City’s financial district. These protesters have now been joined by individuals throughout the US and various international cities.
There can be no doubt that the protestors have a resolve that is fueled by their sense of injustice. However, a clear sense of direction is something this leaderless movement lacks.
The protesters of New York released their “Declaration of the Occupation of New York City” on Sept 29, in response to critic’s claims that the movement has no vision. The manifesto states, “…our system must protect our rights, and upon corruption of that system, it is up to the individuals to protect their own rights, and those of their neighbors….We come to you at a time when corporations, which place profit over people, self-interest over justice, and oppression over equality, run our governments.” It goes on to cite anger over improper use of bailout money, discrimination, inequality and oppression on the part of corporations as grievances.
The problem is that the Occupy Wall Street movement, embodying the many silenced arguments of the 99 Percent, has not limited itself to a purposeful goal, and while this means that many Americans, fed-up with every perceived injustice imaginable, are willing to join the protest, just as many are reluctant to commit themselves to such a volatile movement. The majority of US citizens agree that there is a problem and it needs to be fixed, but not all of those people believe that camping out on Wall Street is going to do that.
The world is watching, and those who are protesting should use that attention before they lose it. The first step should be to separate themselves from those who are co-opting their movement. The images of sex and drugs that the media has painted for the public are undermining the intentions of those who are protesting because they are actually fed up with corporate greed and injustice.
The next step is to make sure the right people are getting the message. Corporations have an obligation to listen to their stockholders. If none of the individuals involved with the Occupy Wall Street movement are stockholders, who is to say the bankers and investors on Wall Street will listen or care what those camped out in Liberty Plaza or any other city have to say? If the movement is fed-up with corporate lobbying and unfair practices, they need to take their issues to Congress and make legislators listen to them. That is where the power of change lies – in those who make the laws that govern corporations.
And the most important part is having a plan. It’s one thing to complain about a problem, but an entirely different one to come up with a list of solutions. If you don’t tell legislators how you want them to change something, chances are the changes they make will be unsatisfying. If the government has a responsibility to listen to the people, then the Other 99 Percent should realize that they have the responsibility to clearly articulate to the government what they want to happen.
Dissent – by Alysen Wade and Jessica Geyer
To begin, I will agree with the statement, “However, a clear sense of direction is something this leaderless movement lacks.” This seems to be the biggest point of contention among non-supporters, yet for those involved in the movement it is less a problem and more an invitation to garner support and consensus.
The first stage in any movement or social awakening is dispelling horizontal hostility. This requires taking stock of the fact that you have more in common with your fellow man or woman than you do not, and coming to appreciate him or her as your equal. Thereby creating a collective system, people may become aware of the dominating and discriminatory forces that are the actual causes of oppression.
The second stage requires building consensus. In order for there to be a truly democratic process, it is necessary to gauge opinions and work towards setting major goals. The more people join the movement with positive solutions, the more viable options for implementing social change may be discussed and eventually agreed upon.
To date, there are many means to ending the corporate greed and inequitable policies that have contributed to so much suffering. Some suggestions include breaking up monopolies, ending the federal reserve and making it illegal to provide public funding for private lobbyists. All of these solutions (and others) will continue to be compiled as a formula for change presents itself gradually and organically by true democratic consensus.
To assert that the movement is “volatile” suggests discord and chaos. Rather, I would like to draw attention to the amazing organizational and systematic process that has been constructed and consented upon by most of the ‘Occupy’ movements that are taking place in cities all over the United States.
According to the New York City General Assembly website, General Assembly is an “open, participatory and horizontally organized process through which we are building the capacity to constitute ourselves in public as autonomous collective forces within and against the constant crises of our times.” This system has sought to eliminate inconsistencies and has successfully provided thousands of ‘Occupiers’ a forum for which to raise their concerns/proposed solutions.
I agree with the statement, “many are reluctant to commit themselves…” It is difficult to want to join a movement with no clear plan of action. However, if no one adds their voices to construct the plan, there will never be a plan to enact. This is why the movement needs physical people representing their interests (which are admittedly numerous and varied) at this crucial moment in time.
Yes, the world is vigilantly watching and scrutinizing the ever-expanding ‘Occupy’ movement. Major media corporations seek out the less articulate, the vagrants, the vandals, the druggies and sex addicts to depict the movement in a negative light. It is unfortunate that these individuals come to represent the group as a whole.
The following piece was published at http://ipfw-applied-ethics.posterous.com/ on October 14, 2011. It was written by Corey McLaughlin for the IPFW Human Rights Institute.
Giving Voice to the People: Defining the Occupation
The Wall Street protests, and the social movement that they have sparked, will be one month old on Monday. Most Americans, according to Reuter’s / NBC, are aware of the protests that are being organized in hundreds of cities. Many citizens view the movement favorably. Support is strongest among democrats, moderate among independents, and lowest among republicans – although a recent Fox News poll reported over 60% approval for the effort among their traditionally conservative viewers. Over the last month, Americans have become aware of and formed cautious opinions about the Occupy Wall Street (OWS) protests and the offshoot protests in other cities. What the electorate lacks, however, is clarity. What exactly are these people protesting again?
The participants of the event are mainly protesting against social and economic inequality, corporate greed, and the influence of corporate money and lobbyists on government. To be certain, Occupy Wall Street’s chief complaints center on the corruption within the financial sector that is seen to have triggered the economic collapse of late 2008. They are pro-regulation reformers, opposed to the corruption on Wall Street, and by extension, opposed to the undue influence of K Street lobbyists in government.
We can best understand OWS as people giving voice to their grievances, as our forefathers did to good King George all those years ago or, more recently, as we saw in the Civil Rights movement of the 1960’s. In the beginning of such democratic social movements the masses generally awaken to the fact that a narrow faction of interests has somehow acquired a disproportionate portion of power, but they come to this realization in a decentralized and unfocused fashion – much as we have seen occur over the past month with OWS. The people, having realizing they are not alone in their beliefs, begin to organize, evolve, and grow. Only then do they formulate remedies, solutions, and calls to specific action. This is the process. This is the way it works in a grassroots democratic process.
This type of process seems especially foreign to many conservatives who are familiar with the Tea Party movement, which was promoted as grassroots and democratic while in fact being something quite different. There were localized grassroots responses to the Tea Party movement, but they were reactions to top-down calls to action, with specific goals predetermined by lobbying groups like Dick Armey’s FreedomWorks and the Koch brothers’ many groups, like Americans for Prosperity. These are two very different approaches: one being handed down from corporate-funded think tanks, the other rising up from an idea first proposed by a tiny little activist website from Canada. The contrast of these top-down vs. bottom-up social movements – one artificially democratic, one genuine, but both powered by the vast sense that the elites have acquired too much influence and the system has been corrupted – can be jarring.
Some voice disdain for the decentralized nature of the demonstrations, not realizing that this is not an entirely uncommon aspect of American protest. Gary Gerstle, professor of American History at Vanderbilt and a scholar of social movements, says “One can find precedents for decentralized movements in the New Left of the 1960s, which promoted participatory democracy and critiqued bureaucracy and centralization. But in developing a historical perspective, it may be useful to alter the frame we use to analyze the present moment by asking these questions: Did past insurgent movements happen in unexpected ways and at unexpected moments? Did they take established structures by surprise? And were those established structures slow to adapt, resist or incorporate these insurgent movements? I think the answer to those questions is yes.”
By focusing attention to their complaints, the protesters created a national discussion. As Americans formed their opinions, many discovered that they shared the same complaints, and the Occupy Together movement began. Organizing began in almost 1000 cities. The conversation that OWS started has leapt into the local arenas, and individual communities are deciding for themselves how best to express their own sentiments. The specific “demands” that will be formulated by Occupiers in Boston, for example, will necessarily differ from those in Los Angeles. This is good. This is what democracy looks like, when it wakes up.
What happens next is anyone’s guess. Occupy Fort Wayne for example, is scrambling to find legal avenues to facilitate their peaceful protests. Things could go sour quickly here, and elsewhere. Counter-protesters from local opposition groups have organized, and plan to create mischief. The potential for good or bad seems great, and that is true of the national movement as well.
As columnist Joaquin Godoy writes, “[t]his could very well be the beginning of the change for which people have yearned for a long time. We are up in arms about economic inequality, greed and job losses, followed by the existence of hunger in many parts of the country; the poor quality of our educational system; the lack of fundamental health-care coverage for every citizen; and being out of sync with world realities. We have spent trillions of dollars for the past 10 years in an unwinnable war that was started on lies.
Let us pause and remember our fiery patriotic marches against the Vietnam War; our bloody struggle against race discrimination; and the battles between workers and bosses. Marches, sit-ins and fearless fighting against injustices always have played an important part in American history.
We need an awakening. Once in place, it will become unstoppable.”