What's your opinion of the "Occupy Wall St." movement?

[Two Espressos]

As the topic title states, I'm curious as to how you all view the Occupy Wall St. protests, which have purportedly now spread worldwide: with disregard, ambivalence, opposition, support?

I personally find myself somewhere between ambivalence and support. I am certainly opposed to gross financial inequality, but I feel like some of the Occupy Wall St. protesters are "rebels without a cause," so to speak.

What are your thoughts?

[ktel]

Disregard/ambivalence. I feel like there's nothing to support. They have no clear goals and are mostly just a spectacle. I was listening to the radio on my way to school this morning, and Dick Gregory was being interviewed. Here's an 80-year-old social activist who has lived through the civil rights movement and he basically, politely, described the movement as a bunch of spoiled white kids who desperately want to create some sort of 60s-70s type movement. He laughed at those who compare it to the civil rights movement, and cautions the group to try not to do so, because they don't know how good they really have it.

http://www.cbc.ca/thecurrent/episode/2011/10/17/death-penalty-dick-gregory/

[Two Espressos]

Disregard/ambivalence. I feel like there's nothing to support. They have no clear goals and are mostly just a spectacle. I was listening to the radio on my way to school this morning, and Dick Gregory was being interviewed. Here's an 80-year-old social activist who has lived through the civil rights movement and he basically, politely, described the movement as a bunch of spoiled white kids who desperately want to create some sort of 60s-70s type movement. He laughed at those who compare it to the civil rights movement, and cautions the group to try not to do so, because they don't know how good they really have it.

http://www.cbc.ca/th...y-dick-gregory/

Yeah I definitely see your point of view. I think describing the movement "as a bunch of spoiled white kids who desperately want to create some sort of 60s-70s type movement" is apt. I actually laughed when I read that. At the same time, I feel like financial inequality has grown, and that protesting this inequality, even if it is largely misguided, is better than nothing.

I guess I'm more ambivalent than supportive.

[Behavioral]

What ktel said. As it stands, it's a group of people who are angry at generally everyone. They started off being angry at bankers on Wall Street, and now they're angry at "the 1%" (including those in the top percentile that didn't contribute to the economic recession; i.e., physicians); and now they're angry at government in general.

Until they get their argument at least somewhat coherent, I'm just ignoring the movement.

[Behavioral]

And though I don't necessarily agree with some of the statements in the article, this is a fun read nonetheless.

Edited October 18, 2011 by Behavioral

[runonsentence]

I fully support the occupy movement. I see the repeated accusations that the protestors don't know what they want as manufactured by corporate-sponsored media as an attempt to discredit and dismiss the occupation.

I mean, it seems pretty simple to me. OWS is looking for a system where accumulated capital isn't just for the few and isn't built on the backs of the bottom rungs of society. It's looking for, in the words of N. Katherine Hayles, "fair capitalism."

http://www.businessinsider.com/what-wall-street-protesters-are-so-angry-about-2011-10?op=1

[long_time_lurker]

Though I'm for a return to higher income tax rates for the rich, and for capital gains and dividends to be taxed at the same rate as work income, I'm 100% opposed to this Occupy Wall St. It's obnoxious, even bordering on tyrannical, in that they are using a park for their private use, making life hell for their neighbors, marching without permits, and creating not just inconvenience but danger by unilaterally shutting down streets and bridges that people rely on to get to work and more importantly when lives are on the line (e.g. fire trucks, ambulances). Bloomberg should have done what Chicago and Denver did and never let them "occupy" that park to start with. The NYPD (God Bless them for dealing with all this crap, 99.9% of whom have done so with tremendous restraint) cleaned out Tompkins Square Park in the 80's the old-fashioned way with "hats and bats" and it's time to do the same today. Give everyone fair warning and then return our city back to us. I'm just thankful that these people haven't destroyed my commute yet.

[Behavioral]

Yeah, Rahm shut down an entire protest at a park after curfew hours (when the protesters lacked a proper permit). Protesters were warned of the law and were told that they'd be arrested if they didn't leave -- they didn't leave, and 175 people were arrested; the city is considering fining the arrestees up to $500 each, too, but it's up in the air whether or not the city will seek fees.

[mandarin.orange]

I have followed this with great interest, largely because it seems to be expressed so differently in each city, with different responses from local enforcement, etc. However, I think the fact that this is pervasive and universally happening in every metro area is telling. The overarching causes are deep-seated discontent at banks and corporations not being held accountable, and for the gov't not demanding transparency from them, despite bailouts and assistance.

If this movement can organize behind that message - and adhere to a strict policy of peaceful protest and rational discourse - this could be very powerful. Check out this excellent article from The Guardian today.

Unfortunately, the movement still seems a "catch-all" for whatever ails you, and it seems this is most true on Wall Street. I checked out my local "Occupy" movement this weekend, and of course saw everything from to "Legalize It!" flags to signs with lolcats to PETA propaganda. These were in the minority, however; most common themes were anger at corporate greed and big banks, and a lack of strong government leadership. My biggest take-away was awe at how well-organized, peaceful, well-supported by the public, and demographically diverse it is, at least here.

As far this being "a bunch of spoiled white rich kids?"Sure, you can find examples of that, but to use it to characterize the entire movement would, I think, be unfair. Before you write this off with such blanket statements, I would urge you to check out your local movement (even just via its website), or even talk to those involved. I met a few who, after months of unemployment and near-clinical depression, feel revitalized for the first time in meeting others and rallying behind a cause...and they didn't fit this demographic at all.

And if Yoda supports it...I mean, who can argue with that?

[Safferz]

Disregard/ambivalence. I feel like there's nothing to support. They have no clear goals and are mostly just a spectacle. I was listening to the radio on my way to school this morning, and Dick Gregory was being interviewed. Here's an 80-year-old social activist who has lived through the civil rights movement and he basically, politely, described the movement as a bunch of spoiled white kids who desperately want to create some sort of 60s-70s type movement. He laughed at those who compare it to the civil rights movement, and cautions the group to try not to do so, because they don't know how good they really have it.

http://www.cbc.ca/th...y-dick-gregory/

I listened to the same interview on CBC, and that's not what he said at all. He said they could bring down the system, and when the interviewer asked "you think so?" he said, "I know so." What he said about the movement being white-dominated is to point out that it won't be the same as the 60s Civil Rights Movement (even though many of the Occupy WS activists think of it that way) because this is not a historically oppressed group demanding their rights, but people with "400 years of white privilege" who feel the system worked and has gotten worse, when black activists have held that it never worked to begin with. He also warned that the police response can't deal with young white people with the same violence it has unleashed on blacks and Hispanics.

[natsteel]

I think describing the movement "as a bunch of spoiled white kids who desperately want to create some sort of 60s-70s type movement" is apt.

This is so off the mark, it made me laugh. That quote is merely regurgitating the mainstream media's portrayal of the events. Is there a protest in or near your town? If so, go before characterizing a protest that is going on all around the world as "spoiled white kids." Living in New Haven, I can say that I see my fair share of "spoiled white kids" and they are definitely NOT the protestors. In fact, it's the spoiled white kids who are trying (unsuccessfully) to organize anti-protester protests. I don't care if I get flamed, but, in some ways, it's sad to see aspiring academics be so easily inclined to swallow the corporate media's party line wholesale without investigating for themselves.

As for there being no "clear goals," I think that is the movement's biggest strength at this point. Obviously financial injustice is the major issue, but if you don't have clearly delineated goals, you cannot be co-opted by the left or pacified by the right, which is exactly what happened to the original Tea Party (not the Sarah Palin/Koch brothers Tea Party). I think it's actually quite prescient on their part not to be organizing some kind of leadership or vanguard and not to be issuing so-called "demands." That speaks to their critique of the economic system as a whole being corrupted and in need of serious re-organization.

It's obnoxious, even bordering on tyrannical, in that they are using a park for their private use...

@ long_time_lurker, how is a public protest using a park for their own "private purposes?" If it was a protest for a shorter commute and the same amount of people were there, including yourself, would that then be public?

They started off being angry at bankers on Wall Street, and now they're angry at "the 1%" (including those in the top percentile that didn't contribute to the economic recession; i.e., physicians); and now they're angry at government in general.

Until they get their argument at least somewhat coherent, I'm just ignoring the movement.

@Behavioral Wall Street, the 1%, and the government are in many cases the same people and, as groups, control and protect each other. That is the WHOLE point.

It's simply unfair that the financial sector has created a system (in partnership with the government via deregulation) in which gains are privatized and risk is socialized. The movement is not claiming to have all the answers. What they are claiming is that the system itself is in need of serious changes and, most importantly, they are trying to show that there are people all over the country and all over the world who are opposed to the status quo.

Edited October 18, 2011 by natsteel

[Jbarks]

IThe movement is not claiming to have all the answers. What they are claiming is that the system itself is in need of serious changes and, most importantly, they are trying to show that there are people all over the country and all over the world who are opposed to the status quo.

This statement is well-put. I also support OWS. I live in the city, and I try to participate as much as possible. But because I'm fortunate to have a full time job, I can't be there as much as I would like. It's also important to remember that this movement is only 31 days old; it's still in its infancy. In our culture, we expect ultra-fast results and solutions, and, when this doesn't occur, we become impatient and desire something more. I'm excited to see how the movement evolves.

Also, if you live in NYC and are interested, this Saturday from 6-9 OWS is staging an open forum on student loan debt.

[northstar22]

I am 100% for the OWS movement, and I'm taking part as much as I can with my overbooked schedule.

[cunninlynguist]

The wealth disparity in this country is inexcusable and certainly corporations are accountable for widening the gap -- as are many banks and legislators in the pockets of special interest groups. I support some elements, and participants, of the movement, but would not label it as wholly productive or necessary.

We embraced capitalism and the free market system that allows corporations to become bloated with funds and inextricably connected to the government. As a democracy, we failed to pressure our political officials on the important economic issues. I will make a point somewhat tangential to this argument but one that clearly underlies it: the divisiveness of the two parties. Our hyper-partisan nature is hurting the U.S. in many, many ways. It's unfathomable, that in this age of expression and diversity, our political institutions are split with no hope of reconciliation on any major issue. A lot of people call themselves "independents," but independents in legislatures -- at all levels -- are not proportionately represented.

The OWS movement is an interesting one. I find their lack of demands refreshing and pragmatic; however, a fair number of protesters appear uninformed and enjoy being part of something more than advocating for actual institutional changes.

Eventually we may all need to admit times are not as they once were. The population has grown, and some professions and career paths aren't as feasible (and have simply gotten squeezed out, if you're not supremely trained). It sucks that many of us don't come from money and take out loans for advanced schooling, but that's our reality.

And like long_time_lurker, I don't think it's fair to disrupt how a city functions, particularly for many people who are trying to go to work and get through these difficult economic times.

[dimanche0829]

I may not always agree with the message, but I will always support anyone who wants to make their voice heard. For the record, though, I fully support the efforts of the OWS movement, and I think the fact that OWS has gone global speaks volumes to their cause.

I think I'll just stop here.

[runonsentence]

And like long_time_lurker, I don't think it's fair to disrupt how a city functions, particularly for many people who are trying to go to work and get through these difficult economic times.

I agree that it sucks that the movement can't only target those "to blame" and only disrupt their day...but, well, this is how civil disobedience works. You get people to sit up and pay attention by disrupting the daily operations of the system. The movement wouldn't be successful if it stayed out of the way.

Furthermore, if I understand what's going on correctly, the occupiers aren't the only ones to blame in terms of disrupting the city. The NYPD seem to have developed a month-long history of over-reaction and escalation (and here I'm blaming the powers pulling the strings and the whiteshirts, not the everyday beat cops in black shirts who, according to source after source, are largely supportive of the movement). Why, for instance, have they barricaded/blocked off Wall Street, only allowing people through once they've shown a work ID?

And last, I am immensely grateful that the NYPD have not yet [successfully] cleared out the protestors with a "hats and bats" approach. That's horrific. That's what an autocratic police state does to stifle dissent.

[dimanche0829]

I am immensely grateful that the NYPD have not yet [successfully] cleared out the protestors with a "hats and bats" approach. That's horrific. That's what an autocratic police state does to stifle dissent.

Agreed, agreed, agreed.

[Behavioral]

Why, for instance, have they barricaded/blocked off Wall Street, only allowing people through once they've shown a work ID?

Have you not seen how fast mass gatherings escalate into riots (i.e., G20 summit, Vancouver riots, etc.)? If people can destroy a city like Vancouver without even directing violence towards a certain entity, then I don't blame the city of NY for enforcing the safety of the people working proximal to where the protests are being held.

[balderdash]

I think many would be interested to know that according to firsthand accounts, the median age of protesters is 26, with a mean of 29. That's older than most would have guessed, with many "old" people mixed in. (Do you think yourself "just some young hippie, hoping to live some 1960s fantasy?" Or would you consider yourself a reasonably-informed political actor?)

Also, median income for bottom 90% in America grew at 4.2% p/a pretty stably 1933-1980. Then the Reagan Revolution occurred, neo-liberalism ruled, and it shrank at -.1% p/a 1980-2007 (growing from $10,000 to $30,000 in average annual income through 1980, then stagnating).

The figures for the top 1% are 1% growth p/a, then 4.7% p/a since 1980, tripling average annual income from $400,000 to $1.2m. Source.

We don't just have inequality. We have Ivory Coast inequality. (No offense, Ivory Coast.)

Edited October 19, 2011 by balderdash

[masongurl]

Occupy you must! btw why don't we spread a crusade against swindlers too?

[Sigaba]

If I may, I recommend that participants in this spirited conversation define their terms and tease out their assumptions. What do you mean when you say "fair"? What constitutes "financial justice"? Why should a democratic form of government focus on addressing and resolving economic issues?

@The historians. Please do keep in mind that when you get to graduate school, you'll be brawling over these and other issues frequently and at a level of intensity greater anything you've likely witnessed. Consider the rhetorical advantages of keeping a balanced tone and comporting yourself in a way that advances the conversation rather than escalating the discussion into an argument.

My $0.02.

[qbtacoma]

Have you not seen how fast mass gatherings escalate into riots (i.e., G20 summit, Vancouver riots, etc.)? If people can destroy a city like Vancouver without even directing violence towards a certain entity, then I don't blame the city of NY for enforcing the safety of the people working proximal to where the protests are being held.

I live in Vancouver, and it was nowhere near "destroyed." Nor was Seattle at the WTO protests. And, according to my Canadian friends, Montreal has a riot just about every time they win a hockey game and that city still appears to be chugging along.

In any case, I think it is important to distinguish different kinds of violence. "Violence" at protests is most often directed at property. This is not to downplay at all the fear of being violently attacked, and of course it certainly happens, but when the word "violence" is linked to "protest" without qualification it is often misleading. You have to read to the end of the article to learn that a few store fronts were smashed in - upsetting, but absolutely nothing like harming another human being.

[Behavioral]

I live in Vancouver, and it was nowhere near "destroyed." Nor was Seattle at the WTO protests. And, according to my Canadian friends, Montreal has a riot just about every time they win a hockey game and that city still appears to be chugging along.

In any case, I think it is important to distinguish different kinds of violence. "Violence" at protests is most often directed at property. This is not to downplay at all the fear of being violently attacked, and of course it certainly happens, but when the word "violence" is linked to "protest" without qualification it is often misleading. You have to read to the end of the article to learn that a few store fronts were smashed in - upsetting, but absolutely nothing like harming another human being.

http://www.usatoday.com/sports/hockey/nhl/canucks/2011-06-16-vancouver-riots-follow_n.htm

And this is when the cause of the riot wasn't even attributed to a group of people in general.

[runonsentence]

Have you not seen how fast mass gatherings escalate into riots (i.e., G20 summit, Vancouver riots, etc.)? If people can destroy a city like Vancouver without even directing violence towards a certain entity, then I don't blame the city of NY for enforcing the safety of the people working proximal to where the protests are being held.

[qbtacoma]

http://www.usatoday....ts-follow_n.htm

And this is when the cause of the riot wasn't even attributed to a group of people in general.

I was not claiming that there was no violence against people in Vancouver. Rather, I was questioning your hyperbolic use of the term "destroyed" and then also making an unrelated point that the word "violence" is often used to misrepresent what occurs at protests.