Occupy Wall Street: point this sinking ship home

[meitachi]

So, Occupy Wall Street has started getting more media coverage. I read an article about it and it devolved into more articles, blogs, debates, and conspiracy theories. It made me thoughtful, so I wanted to post about it, but I'm not entirely sure of the point of this post. Here it is anyway, though.

So, in brief, what is Occupy Wall Street? What do they want? Why does it matter?

"It's really simple. These young people on Wall Street are giving voice to many of the problems that working people in America have been confronting over the last several years," said Larry Hanley, international president of the Amalgamated Transit Union, which has 20,000 members in the New York area. "These young people are speaking for the vast majority of Americans who are frustrated by the bankers and brokers who have profited on the backs of hard-working people," Hanley added in a statement. "While we battle it out day after day, month after month, the millionaires and billionaires on Wall Street sit by -- untouched -- and lecture us on the level of our sacrifice."

"The way our society is now headed it does not work for 99% of people, so when Occupy Wall Street started ... they kept to it and they've been able to create a national conversation that we think should have been going on for years," [Michael] Mulgrew said [President of the United Federation of Teachers].

Over the past two weeks, demonstrations have addressed issues such as police brutality, union busting and the economy, the group said.

source

This is an interesting opinion piece from Forbes on the protest and it makes some thoughtful points about how it was easily dismissed at first and how that's slowly changing. Beware that it then devolves into a bout of ad hominem misogyny about halfway through. So that's fun.

Going into the third week of protests, major media outlets are finally starting to cover the story. Unions are also now backing the protest.

Hailing the power of street protests to shift the dialogue, [President of AFL-CIO, the US's largest civil union, Richard] Trumka said, “I think being in the streets and calling attention to issues is sometimes the only recourse you have because, God only knows, you can go to the Hill, and you can talk to a lot of people and see nothing ever happen…”

source | see also

Here are some conspiracy theories to think about:

Despite protesters mentioning repeatedly that they were inspired by the Arab Spring and that they are making use of social media like Twitter #OccupyWallStreet never trended.

Twitter said there was no censorship: the hashtag simply wasn't as popular as those outraged protesters seemed to think. Also, Twitter has a secret algorithm for determining what gets to be a trending topic.

Bloggers did a little digging and said otherwise: They said, in fact, that Twitter was censoring the trending topic.

JP Morgan invested $4.5 million to Twitter earlier this year.

JP Morgan also donated $4.6 million to the NYPD, the largest donation in history, evidently the day before protests were supposed to begin.

What else about the NYPD? Oh, I remember hearing something about police brutality and hundreds of arrests in response to this Occupy Wall Street protest.

Yahoo also "unintentionally" censored emails that mentioned Occupy Wall Street. Some think it's not entirely unintentional. (Also something about China.) (Tangent: China is sort of delighted to turn around and point media-censorship fingers at the US for once. I am halfway amused.)

So, yeah. Conspiracy may be stretching it, actually, because I don't know if you need tinhats at this point to recognize the fact that corporate powers have a lot of influence, because money talks. This isn't new news. That JP Morgan proactively and deliberately tried to censor is rather doubtful, but there are times when the mere existence of a large sum of money exerts silent pressure.

Anyhow, critics of the protest are basically lambasting the lack of clear and uniform goals. This is fair - and I had a long debate with a friend on this very subject - but I think it's worth it to consider comments like this:

Occupy Wall Street and its offshoots have clear strains of liberal economic populism -- a powerful force in U.S. history during times characterized by economic stress. That said, it would be a mistake to label or tie the movement to a specific agenda, said Susan Olzak, a Stanford University sociology professor.

"It's difficult to classify a social protest movement early on in its history," Olzak said. "Clearer goals could eventually emerge, but there's no guarantee."

She added, "Many movements fizzle out. Others become more organized. (But) "I think we run a risk (by) taking a snapshot at any one point in time and trying to categorize the movement in any one way based on that snapshot. The only way to study these protest movements is to follow them over time."

source

Of course, as soon as any popular movement starts to gain stirrings of legitimacy, politicians jump all over it. Well, some Democrats are, at least. Then you have people like Republican candidate Herman Cain saying things like, "Don't blame Wall Street, don't blame the big banks, if you don't have a job and you're not rich, blame yourself! It is not a person's fault because they succeeded, it is a person's fault if they failed."

Mitt Romney adds that the protests are "dangerous" and "class warfare" and he won't elaborate on his comments because he's only concerned with getting himself into the White House. Good thinking, Romney. What would we do with a president who cared about what the people think and want?

Also. "Class warfare"? Seriously? I just...won't derail this into my commentary on Republican presidential candidates.

When I typed up this post, I wasn't quite sure what I wanted to do with it other than share information. I hadn't really engaged with the content to know what I felt about the entire thing. Thankfully, that is what debates with friends are for! As thyme_hawthorne said, it's rare that we disagree, but I think in the right circumstances it can be healthy. Fresh perspectives can be eye-opening and educational, right?

It should be said that I spent the lengthy chat arguing in favor of OWS. To attempt to summarize what I think:

It's very possible this [protest] is just pointless emotion-baring and that it'll eventually die out and nothing will change. But every movement in history started because people were unhappy with it and wanted to vent - it's where you take that afterwards that effects change. But you can't know right at the beginning what it's going to be how things will change, if they will change, how people/govt/society will respond. I'm a bleeding heart liberal, I guess. Feelings and speech matter to me, because I think they're at the root of what eventually brings about action.

Sure, I bet there are people who are out there who just want to, I don't know, be in the moment and be edgy. Or want to be part of a "happening" moment in history. But I don't think that necessarily negates what issues they might have.

I don't know that this protest in itself is going to effect real solutions, but i still think it's legitimate if you look at broader picture, in that this could be what ignites real solutions, given time; that it finally gets media attention on issues that haven't, that it invites more nuanced opinions and debates, more than "I hate bankers; they are richer than me".

To summarize some of Michelle's points:

[T]hese were the same people who complained about the Tea Party and derided it for being pointless. But here they are, exactly the same, except more disruptive, but the same terrible spelling, the same comparisons to Hitler, the same unfocused rage and frustration. But they have no goals. They have no idea what they want done. They just know someone must be punished.

I mean, do you recognize the Tea Party as doing something that they really believed in? Because in some respects, I think it was. Those people, corporate backing or not, had a sense of having been wronged. But the problem again, when you are not sure what you are angry at but that you are angry, is that it becomes a defense mechanism, and it is used when the emotional level and complexity is greater than a person's ability to interpret it. So something becomes all evil, while it's opposite becomes all good, and that rage takes away the ability to actually think about real solutions.

It is just that "I hate bankers" and what the kids out there is doing feels like branding. They care a lot about symbolism and the message, but it all comes back to identity.

It comes down to, what is it that you want done; what do you think the problem is.

If they increased taxes on the rich, that's 700 million over the next 10 years, but at the same time, we're spending 3.2 billion per year, so taxing the rich isn't going to come close to solving the problem.

Michelle is a much more pragmatic type than I am; I am all about trying out the empathy for people, which doesn't always equate to an intellectual engagement. There is, I have to admit, a fair share of "liberals on the right side for once" bias. I have to remind myself: Liberals are not perfect. Liberals are not free from -isms or just plain stupidity, even if we tend to be generally aligned on the more major issues. I am not perfect or all-knowing in ways of changing the world through protest (though my MBTI profiles all suggest I should be an activist leader, hah), but I care about people and people's feelings a lot. And feelings are what drive people, aren't they?

There are some things I realize I do when discussing OWS, though, that are not great. In particular, I notice I do a lot of dissociation by using "they" instead of "we" - I'm separating myself from the masses, whether they be those at the protest or those who don't get the economy (like I get the economy?) or those who voted the Tea Party in (okay, I never did that at least). I do this a lot, even with personal entries. I try to be aware of it though, even if sometimes the awareness occurs in hindsight.

I've been reading more criticism on OWS and Esther Choi, in her article on why she is uncomfortable with OWS, makes a point that struck home for me on the privilege of the protesters:

It was shocking to me to see how poorly immigrant communities and communities of color had been included in Occupy Wall Street. I guess the reasoning or justification is that, since all the dispossessed masses and people of color are covered by the “99%”, this protest is all-inclusive. But the fact is that amongst that 99% exist great inequalities of their own and extreme gradations of wealth and privilege, which are inextricably tied to race, despite the general assembly’s blatant attempt to suggest we live in a country “formerly divided by race” (Read this: http://henaashraf.com/2011/09/30/brown-power-at-occupy-wall-street/). To act as if we share one experience and one problem and therefore seek the same solution would be a terrible lie and an extremely weak and superficial grounds for collective action, especially if the voices that have begun to dominate the movement have the least to lose if the movement were to fail. It’s great to feel solidarity with one another against the people who rule over the 99%, but within the 99% are plenty of people who rule over the rest in their own way, and this makeshift solidarity can only go so far. [...]

After the general assembly, we stopped by a dinky little sushi restaurant nearby, where an Asian immigrant woman was working frantically into the late hours of the night to prepare noodles and make the last of her day’s earnings. It struck me that this woman, working around the clock and living a life in the United States that could not have been the life she had imagined for herself, could not participate in, much less lead or help determine, the movement being carried out a block away in her name – a movement which would more readily include her as a nameless point in their argument than a voice in its future.

It is worth considering that many of the people at these protests all over the country are there because they are unemployed or under-employed or have different work schedules. Attendance drops significantly during the week because many people do have to return to jobs and attendance swells during weekends. But the point remains, that there are amid the people talking about the 99%, so many remain unheard. There is a wealth of unexamined privilege in the movement and in the way it is presented by the media.

Here is a comment from ontd_political's post about OWS and racial bias that helped me recognize that even though I agree with the general aim of OWS and strongly support the idea of people making their voices heard - one of the very problems with OWS is that people aren't being heard. Unless they're white.

I've been trying to pinpoint for a while what it was about OWS that made squirm, because I think Occupy is such a great idea, and that they're going in there for awesome reasons. But at the same time, something about it all made me very uncomfortable, and this is exactly it. POC have been living in a state of economic unrest for years and yet, we don't see any major protests going on until when? Until the white people get hit by the downturn. POC have been protesting this kind of stuff for years, and yet, it never got as big, because lack of funds, lack of publicity, and a general sense of not giving a shit by others, and a lack of privilege.

They get outraged by the police brutality that happened this week--and rightfully so--and yet, this shit has been happening for years to POC, and very few people care. It's something that gets brushed aside because it makes people uncomfortable to think about. And yet when the same thing happens to a white person, everyone is so up in arms and indignant, and reblogging it on tumblr, and fighting tooth and nail to get those cops brought to justice. Where is this when it happens to the non whites? When it happens to the innocent 15 year old black girl getting beat up in a jail cell? When it happens to the black man being shot to death, or the hispanic woman being called a slur? What these protestors are dealing with temporarily are facts of life for most POC.

These are the reasons why OWS doesn't feel quite right to me.

full comment

As a counterpoint, a black woman makes a comment in response to Esther's article (above) that also made me think about the ability for that diverse and unequal 99% to unite:

I agreed with some of this post, but I was angered by it too. I guess I just hate identity politics in general. I'm a black chick, but I don't like being treated like a black chick. I want to be treated as an American Citizen. And I feel that this movement embodies something that does affect all American citizens-- financial deregulation. Citizens United has diminished every citizen's voice. Jobs going over seas has diminished every citizen's chance of getting hired. So what if it took this long for the middle class people to actually protest? I think this catastrophe, which while it has affected those that have already had a "piece of the pie", has a chance to unite all US citizens in a specific cause. [...]

We, Americans of all races, share a stake in America's decline. While we are not affected in the same way or degree, we are nonetheless affected negatively by what unregulated financial markets did to the economy. I hardly think this is weak and superficial. And I do not think rendering the same solution (better financial regulation/repeal of Citizen's United) is a "terrible lie" to society. No, it will not fix pre-existing racial and sexual divisions and wage gaps. But I hardly think that is what 99% sought/is able to fix. Am I saying Occupy Wall Street is perfect? Heck no! I just think that dragging in existing social constructs threatens the movement's solidarity as a movement of American Citizens. I hardly think this is a flippant "makeshift solidarity"-- it is a solidarity absolutely necessary to the group's existence.

full comment

Maybe, ultimately, I am not in disagreement with a lot of the critics. I do support OWS - but support of its existence and its fundamental sentiments doesn't preclude finding it far from perfect in its methods, or being cynical of some of its motives, or questioning its ultimate ability to effect change. None of this delegitimizes the movement for me, but it's been a really educational period for me, to read and discuss and critically engage with the topic.

Michelle: Maybe the reason to go home is to rethink and reorganize. Come back when they have a manifesto and a list of demands. There are intelligent people in that crowd.
me: Sure. But in my opinion, if they want to stay in the crowd, that's their choice.
Michelle: Everything is their choice~~~ This country is all about choice. And with so many choices, no one has an identity, so it all comes down to branding.
me: Yes, well. I am pretty pro-choice, not gonna lie.
Michelle: It's better than the alternative.

No protest is ever black or white in intention or consequence; there will always be a confluence of factors. They're worth thinking about, though; Occupy Wall Street (and the other cities where this has spread) is important because it's happening. Even though it's disorganized with unformed goals, even though it's far from problem free in many respects, the fact that it exists matters, I think. It's a reaction. It's history. It's expression of speech, and it will have effects. We just don't know what those are yet.

I think a Good Omens quote is relevant here:

It may help to understand human affairs to be clear that most of the great triumphs and tragedies of history are caused, not by people being fundamentally good or fundamentally bad, but by people being fundamentally people.

source

Comments

[celerywench.livejournal.com]

Yes! You hit on my biggest issues with this movement! (Which fwi has also started to dominate my MPA course essay...) OWS has been like a tiny little bug festering under my skin but I couldn't quite figure out what bothered me so much about them since I am (ostensibly... for lack of better options) a liberal and come from their background in a lot of ways. But! "These young people are speaking for"<- and therein, lies almost the entirety of my rage against them. I have no doubt that if and when they actually come up with a cohesive set of ideas/demands/statement of purpose, I will agree with maybe 90% of what they have to say. But I hate hate HATE that they have self elected themselves as the representatives of MY voice, of the voices of every left of center lower/middle/even upper-middle disenfranchised american when their "plights" are so ...small. in the grand scale of how the govt/corporations/political parties/etc. have "wronged" us for DECADES. And the whole, would we be paying attention if it weren't being championed by over-privileged, college educated, white kids?

IDK. I just feel the need to side eye this movement a lot. If it actually brings the libs/independents to the polls in 2012 - excellent. If a similar crusade against the inefficiencies of elected officials means a take-back of Congress by Democratic leadership and hopefully (doubtfully)a more representative, reasoned, outlook on public policies - HALLELUJAH! But...until then. I side eye you hipster movement. I side eye you hard.

[herocountry.livejournal.com]

i think i'm generally totally okay and for this movement, and i'm planning to go out for Occupy Montreal when it comes. i think my opinion is also like, hugely coloured by the fact that the first thing i saw about Occupy Wall St was videos of police brutality--so obvious i'm like, F THE POLICE, PROTEST ALL YOU WANT, RA RA RA. i think i'm just behind protests in general, and i don't really mind that they don't have 'concrete goals' (this is actually debatable depending on who you talk to), because sometimes it's good just to react over an issue. i feel like my liberal bias is also hugely colouring that opinion too. i DO have caveats about POC inclusion--especially how most of the protesters are white because POC just really don't have as much freedom to protest (see that young black guy who wasn't even protesting, just crossing the street in the same area, and got arrested). all of the racial points you brought up are rly good

[osoreranai.livejournal.com]

Well... hm. You once again display your knack for exploring the grays of the issue.

Truthfully, it's hard for me to think about OWS. It sounds like a good idea - very exciting, very '60s and '70s, but no Yoko Ono, so it's probably better, har - and it also sounds like it's really far-removed from me.

It's like you said: these people go away to their jobs during the week and come back afterward. The greater body of this protest is not affected by the issues they're protesting, which stymies its ability to critique those who are in power for sure. Are they really the 99%? Can they say truthfully that they speak for you in your situation, caught between being over-qualified and under-experienced? Do they speak for me, underpaid and with little in the way of prospects?

There's a lot to think about there, and that's not even getting into the politics of it.

I think both you and Michelle have your points. It is for the best if we all understand each other. At the same time, for that understanding to be effective, it has to lead to some kind of a solution that's practical and lets as many people win as possible.

...

So, um. Yeah. It'll be interesting to see what comes. If anything.

[nyw.livejournal.com]

I've been following the 99% tumblr and I have to say, as many things confuse me as they evoke strong sympathies in me. I kept getting this niggling feeling that at least some of the people on the tumblr might not have life as bad as they think they do... not even as bad as they describe it out to be. Of course I don't have the statistics or anecdotes to prove it, but that's another facet of the Occupation that bugs me. And of course it's not fair for me to judge, since I'm not even there.

I'm frightened though that my own country is going this way. This week the government raised the prices for the certificate that entitles you to buy a car. (Owning a car, so effing expensive here.) It's getting more and more expensive to live here, to build a family here, to maintain a middle-class lifestyle. We haven't quite got to that stage yet, but I think soon prices aren't going to be commensurate to paychecks, especially with the world economy the way it is right now - and I've heard my finance-savvy friends whisper that it's about to take another plunge. I'm frightened that if the government loses sight of what it is doing, my countrymen and I will become part of the 99% too.

[nyw.livejournal.com]

I also meant to say, though, that history! That's the brilliant part about this, I think.

[meiface.livejournal.com]

Yeah, I think on the whole I am behind this movement too - my first exposure and kneejerk reaction was also "fuck yeah, protest!" Generally I believe in protest though, freedom of speech and all that, voicing opinions, but also particularly in this case because I am also pissed about the economy and whatnot. It's hard to say there's a "concrete goal" but, honestly, I think it's crap that you're only allowed to have a protest or be taken seriously if you have, what, a well-organized list of goals and ways to implement them. It's not like the concerns people have or the feelings people have are any less legitimate or don't deserve to be heard simply because they haven't channeled it into a form that someone has deemed appropriate. I'm certainly not against having lists and goals and plans of implementation though - but those things are maybe not in the works, and maybe they're not even possible, given the sheer breadth of fuckery that is wrong with the system. Even without them, though, the protest is still a voice (even if it's a predominantly white, middle-class voice...), and it means something, even if it's not problem-free.

Like one commenter I linked above said: What do you want them to do? Disband? No, not so much. Maybe include more voices, though, in that 99% they are attempting to represent.