Occupy Wall street. What’s it all about?
I’ve had a few chats about the Occupy The World movement lately. Although it seems like a broadly positive campaign, most people I’ve spoken to seem to have the same problem with it: they have no idea what it’s trying to achieve.
Well, I might be a little wide of the mark, but having read a few articles about it recently (particularly this excellent one by the ever-brilliant Matt Taibbi of Rolling Stone) I think that I now understand it well enough to appreciate it.
Occupy Wall Street’s Wikipedia ‘Goals’ section says:
While the Demands Working Group favored a fairly concrete set of national policy proposals, others within the movement prefer a looser, more localized set of goals and they have put together a competing document, the Liberty Square Blueprint,[58] a wiki page edited by some 250 occupiers and still undergoing changes. The introduction to the draft document read: “Demands cannot reflect inevitable success. Demands imply condition, and we will never stop. Demands cannot reflect the time scale that we are working with.”[50]
Which to me seems as clear as mud, but the idea that demands imply condition is what appears to be most relevant here.
If its intention is to bring the overprivileged to their knees, OWS is obviously failing (so far), but what if it’s only there to show us, peacefully, in the heart of Mamon, another way to live? Rather than suckle on the ‘inevitable’ teat of corporate Western Democracy, maybe we can live in a society where there is free healthcare and education (as is provided at many of the Occupy sites). People who can afford to give money do so and services are provided. No giant banks create unworkable schemes where they sell mortgages to people who can’t afford them, then bet against those mortgages, then coin in hundreds of billions of ‘quantative easing’ (some of which, in a stunning display of irony, comes from those whose homes have been repossessed in the aforementioned mortgage fuckaround) so they can do the same thing in a few years time. No governments see to the comfort of the super-wealthy before the education of the poor (Bush tax cuts for the wealthiest 2% come to $690bn; special education, student aid and assistance to poor schools comes to $650bn) .No pharmaceutical companies are using billions to lobby the government, creating an unworkable healthcare system requiring insurance which 50m Americans can’t afford.
If you were to strip away all the useless crap that exists only to make very, very rich people a bit richer (see this other excellent Rolling Stone article on the subject; by the way, I don’t get all my current affairs from Rolling Stone, but they do have a lovely turn of phrase) then we might have a more workable society, one which doesn’t exist purely for the expansion of wealth for the wealthy.
I’m also fully aware that a worldwide extension of the OWS site is not exactly what is being proposed here, but as an illustration of alternative principles it’s doing a pretty good job.
As Matt says:
That, to me, is what Occupy Wall Street is addressing. People don’t know exactly what they want, but as one friend of mine put it, they know one thing: FUCK THIS SHIT! We want something different: a different life, with different values, or at least a chance at different values.
The thing I love about writing this blog is the ongoing conversation I might be able to have with people on subjects like this.
Do comment/correct/cajole/clarify.
A few weeks back I read a comment on OWS that continues to resonate – they don’t have a strategy, they are the strategy.
Maybe overly pithy but I think that sums it up pretty nicely for me. The media’s mass wringing of hands at the movement’s nuances and its lack of outright demands just illustrates how childish debate has become.
Comes the moment, when the space occupied by ideas should be space in a bookshelf, space on a front page, space in a news bulletin, or in a classroom, or space for parking the asses of supporters on congressional chairs….. fighting to retain control of physical space (in this case a park) is the beginning of the slippery slope of differentiated property rights that got us where we are today. Surely these OWS/OLSX guys are smart enough to know they have to raise their game rather than letting this degenerate into a street brawl?
I think to support OWS is to support the ramifications of what happens if they succeed.
I feel a bit sick when I see people saying they support them while taking home massive cynical capitalist wages and saying “oh, it’s not me, it’s the bankers”
But it’s not. It’s the whole fabric of morality of which we are a part. The problem is that I doubt even any of the bankers think that they are the bad guys. There is something strange about the human conscience in that it is *always* clear.
The only people I know who have guilty consciences are the innocent.
But I digress.
OWS is vital inasmuch as it is keeping the issue in the limelight. This is its most important purpose IMO. Remember the papers refused to report on it for the first week? The exposure of what is going on is half the battle.
The changes they are looking for must be generational. You cannot simply unwind the system overnight. Not by using peaceful democracy anyway.
What they are doing brilliantly is making the world think. And that is always the first step in any historical dialectic.
Amazing, though, isn’t it? The nature of power. The similarities to the ‘tyrant’ countries.
Interesting stuff.
And the cop with the spray needs a fucking leveller.
I’ve filmed at both at St Paul’s and at Liberty Park and I agree the Occupy protestors are the strategy. Deborah Orr wrote a pretty good article on that here:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/global/2011/nov/05/london-occupy-protests-greater-significance
NY was interesting because of the broad range of people at the camp. Unlike London, which seems to be staffed mostly by stock protestors.
OWS is way more focused on talking about the financial system. However, London just seems to co-opt any ‘right on’ subject – such as Dale Farm.
That’s my biggest problem with London. I don’t think anyone really expects a large group of people to come up with a focused set demands, but they should at least stick to one area of protest.
The most interesting thing about OLSX is its at least got some bits of media talking (for a bit) about the undemocratic and nefarious nature of the City of London.
Anonymouse, I think that when it comes to Capitalism there are degrees of complicity.
It’s like the people who say that the people at OWS who drink Starbucks or use iPhones are hypocrites because they are using products that are part of the corporate/capitalist system. But producing and consuming products isn’t bad in itself – that’s how the human race has been doing things since it began – but the massive exploitation of the poor to enrich the wealthy for their own sake is pretty disgusting.
And you can choose to participate in what Starbucks and Apple produce. No one needs a Starbucks coffee or iPad, but if you buy either you have to realise that you are not just buying what’s in your hand but also the profits that will go to R&D, rent, heat, light, advertising etc. that mean you are able to buy another if you so choose.
Banking is the creation of wealth for its own sake. Nothing is produced, especially now they are so reluctant to lend to people who need to get their businesses going. They create a massive mess and do nothing to clear it up.
And yes: I 100% believe they all think they have done nothing wrong.
And as there is no right or wrong, they are correct.
Powerful film. (The first one.)
Another gold for Droga5?
Don’t get me wrong, Ben. I’m as complicit in capitalism as the rest.
I suppose what I was trying to say was that the protests give us all a reason to look at ourselves and our behaviour within that system.
Who among us would have withdrawn our labour in 2007 if we were given a huge budget to sell subprime mortgages for a client desperate for a Cannes Grand Prix? Not many, I’d wager.
Now, I think, the protests encourage us to ask ourselves which side we are on.
Anon 7: sadly, I can no longer tell if you’re joking.
Anonymouse, I heartily/somewhat shamefully agree.
It’s all just another classic case of a lacksadaisical system being taken advantage of by some pretty unscrupulous people. It’s no surprise to see who are fundamentally complicit in it all.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LMEUrbizyxU
If you work in advertising, then you’re totally complicit in capitalism. Suck it up; deal with it; exhale.
Does that mean you’re responsible for years of increasingly complex/misunderstood investments by messianic bankers who convinced themselves that the good times would never stop and therefore needed no safety net? Of course not.
Alternatively, does it mean you can’t support what the Occupy movement (is it a single movement?) stands for (what was that again? Broadly, the redistribution of wealth.) No again.
Saying dumb shit like “capitalism/banking/no flossing daily (delete as appropriate) is evil” is a bit like saying football is evil because Sepp Blatter is a racist twat. Knee-jerk, ill-informed, unhelpful.
Personally, I would like the Occupy movement to make some suggestions about how they would redress the “1% versus 99%” balance that they shout about. Higher corporate taxation? More rigorous regulation of the financial services sector? I should imagine there are some smart people involved that could spend an hour coming up with 5 demands.
OWS would confound it’s critics by making clear that it is entirely pro capitalist. More pro capitalist that any of the wall street chiefs. What it is against is the rigging of the system.
Which is the reason it finds it possible to both admire Steve Jobs and despise Lloyd Blankfein.
I think you can work in advertising with a conscience.
You don’t even have to lie if you’re any good.
Some people do shit ugly work and become shit ugly people.
Like Damo says. You can be pro capitalist without having no ethics.
Though it does take a little work and courage.
@Damo. Nice idea. That would confuse lazy journalists, too.
Also, apologies for the typo in my last post.
I think they’re just saying, “This is broken. Fix it.” How they’re doing it is by annoying people at a very local level and depending on nuisance to be their leverage.
I don’t think it’s working.
People – most of your everyday people – have a specific list of things they want changed (whether they make actual sense or not). This “they are the strategy” thing is a bit rubbish because if you can’t understand a strategy, the only way you produce something useful is by blind luck.
The Occupy movement, at present, is just a vote on whether or not something is wrong and a way of pointing a finger at who they think the culprit is. Here’s how it goes: Is something wrong? If no, go home. If yes, who do you think is causing what’s wrong? Occupy them.
They’re not hypocrites for using technology or money because technology and money aren’t the problem. In all honesty, they should all get together an occupy politicians’ lawns. See if the Republicans and Democrats will get their asses in gear once they see a few hundred people crapping on their lawns.
Would it help if Blatter and Merkel swapped jobs?
Nice use of the semicolon within parentheses Ben.
Really that’s all I have to add.
Cheers, Vic. I aim to please.
I’m optimistic about OWS. Clever people can’t get more stupid but stupid people can get more clever.
the strength of ows is that is has no defined global agenda at this point. that it is somewhat diffuse. http://tinyurl.com/butwhatareyourgoals
as far as im concerned, we dont have any form of capitalism other than crony capitalsim (hi china, youre not so different after all) and corporatocracy. now thats alright as long as one doesnt pretend we live and breath democracy.
the thing about conscience is that you either have one or not. if you have one you can only so far disconnect yourself from it. and, im pretty sure that an emphasis on competition brings out the worst and gives rise to people who will do anything to win whatever there is to win. usually money and power. not saying competition is wrong per se, but as with everything, its about how its done.
and also, i think that from an advertisers point of view, it is very healthy to acknowledge occupy wall street as a sign of the times. even if the people will go away. there is a mindset that will prevail. and they are very likely in many marketers target groups.
and since im getting stuff off my chest here, i cant help to note little amused: since years, there are blogs in the marketing/advertising universe that have done nothing but make a dance about collaboration and people power and shit and what came off it were miraculous techy concepts or some deck for blatant self-promotion. theyre pretty quiet right now? it is hilarious. phonies. x
We send armed drones into other countries in support of their protesters. Here, we send police and pepper spray. At least we know where our boys in blue will stand come the revolution.
i loved how, over here in usa at least, the corporate owned media (FOX, CNN) whose job it IS to investigate and report, at least nominally, let’s face it. I loved how their only story was to point video cameras at the protesters holding up signs that various demands, and because it wasn’t soundbiteable, the media got mad at the protesters for not being media friendly and having a press release they could parrot and not have to exert their brain cell. populist movements are invariably messy and usually started by the fringe. you’ll note there was no mystery about the Tea Party loons over here. Oh no, Fox News was behind them all the way. Tea Party “patriots” they were. Rupert fucking Murdoch. Spreadinging light wherever he goes.
I think what OWS and OLSX both stand for is nothing more than the propagation of the very real and (based on the evidence) very fair assessment that somehow or other we all got royally fucked. While we were working hard, paying taxes and trying to keep society ticking over, the top 1% of the super-rich gamed the system, inflated their own wealth, gave nothing back at all and drove everything we worked to maintain into the ground, then flitted off to the Cayman islands on massive yachts. They’re not against wealth per se, or capitalism, they’re against the manipulation of capitalism for the benefit of the 1% at the expense of the other 99. They’re against this socially crippling widening of the gap between rich and poor. They’re against gross inequality. And in all that, they have a point. Now, what to do about it… er… who knows?
I was born in the 70s. Where did it all go wrong?
That was bliss.
I ate findus crispy pancakes and all sorts of processed shit and laughed at the ads that sold them.
Now it’s fucking Terminator.
Our world lost its smile.
“All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing.” – Edmund Burke
Better regulation & some redistribution through a cleverer tax system is probably in order.
For instance, I can’t for the life of me see why we can’t separate interest rates. One to countenance the over inflated housing market and one to encourage business growth. The one size fits all approach is delusional.
I’d like to see different tax rates for people who make things and people who make financial transactions. I don’t see why that would be so hard to implement. Obviously making things would include adverts as this would play to my advantage should I ever actually make one.
Maybe I’m just post-rationalising disorganisation, but from the interviews I’ve seen, I’d say the deliberate process could also be called “leaving the monkey on the public’s back” … that’s why the meaning of it all (or absence) is what you make of it all…. or don’t. Very post modern!
Meanwhile in sunny Rio de Janeiro, where the bay is getting cluttered with shiny new oil rigs and there’s a sense of BRIC prosperity for the first time in 40 years, this all seems far far away…maybe those jobless should try their luck down there in the offshore industry which plans to invest USD 250 billion in the next 5 years.
Just in case you were wondering what to do with that £37k windfall bonus you got this morning…
http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/standard/article-24012337-bankers-pound-37000-night-of-lapdancing.do
I agree with Anonymice. I read an article this morning which was stating that even in the financial world, a minority still got the biggest part of the cake over the last 20 years. Apparently the pay of the chief executive of Lloyds was 13.6 times that of the average Lloyds worker in 1980. Today it is 75 times the average Lloyds employee’s salary.
The bankers even managed to fuck themselves.
the financial world, and especially the shadow banking system, is totally disconnected from reality. politics does allow this to happen while whining about the crisis and socializing losses. its a joke. albeit an unfunny one. the monetary volume of financial speculation exceeds the value of real goods and services produced many times. the way it works is just not sustainable. for the serfs.
A friend of mine checked out Zuccotti Park before the cops moved in and was struck by what a disparate group the protesters were – both in terms of background and what they wanted for the future. There was a sizeable contingent of unwashed white Rastafarians, who looked as if they would be camping somewhere else if they weren’t at Zuccotti Park. There were quite a few people protesting fracking, some pro-union construction worker-types, a knitting circle of older women, and some guy who had it in for Singapore. Notwithstanding the spread of OWS and the breadth of anger and resentment it reflects, it just does not seem like a movement. It brings to mind two quotes. One from The Wild One. When asked “What are you rebelling against?” Marlon Brando’s character replied, “Whadda you got?” The other was from Winston Churchill, who once told a server to “Take away that pudding – it has no theme.”
But now that OWS has been kicked out of the parks, which is good for them, because it was the encampments that have lead to the “so what” questions, more creative actions will be required. And as they evolve their methods I’m sure they will continue to demonstrate quite a good sense of political theatre.
The Tea Party, by contrast, just look like elderly morons, reciting the 10 commandments and the pledge of allegiance without giving it too much thought. For example, do they really understand that their central policy call – maintaining the Bush tax cuts for the rich, “honouring” (fully funding) the military and cutting “entitlements” – their pensions and medicare….will drive them into poverty and, for many, premature death? (Sorry, but it makes them seem quite stupid).
All I know is, OWS just won the Battle of Davis in an elegant, deeply moving fashion.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K7PSzGpnW4w
BTW, I know that the offshore rigs are good news for the BMW distributors in Brazil, but Brazil is bulldozing the Amazon and the new oil wealth will result in one of the greatest thefts of natural resources in history. The future of Brazil may look more like Nigeria than it does the United States, no?
At the bottom of page 13 in today’s Times, you’ll see in a 5 paragraph story that “Top bankers’ pay rises 5,000% in 30 years”.
Blink and you’d miss it.
Totally agree with anonymice. you nailed it. and multiply it by ten here in the USA where there is a constant drumbeat in support of the Wall Street system.
And look at Ireland. Fucked yet again. By whom? Bankers. Their obscene profits were privatized. Their obscene losses were socialized.
@Anonymice
The 99% concept is clean, clear and coherent. They are saying they don’t want to stand for it anymore. What makes it seem vague perhaps is in fact what a pervasive claim is being made–how long would it take to list all that must change in order to correct the economic travesties leading to our current state of affairs?
As to particulars, a young journalist affiliated with OWS was on an MSNBC show and articulated that “it’s not that radical to say you want the kind of health care, taxation and educational systems as other industrialized democracies”.
Then, you’ve got the theatrics factor: how disgusting for any American must it have been to watch eleven sitting students being voluminously pepper-sprayed by men in helmets? If images can ever be powerful in public debate, the movement is picking up, not losing, momentum in that regard.
I’m not very politically minded, so please forgive me if this comment is naive.
But… the US is a democracy, right? As are the UK, Spain etc. So if the 99% really are such a huge majority, couldn’t they win an election?
They don’t seem to, though. All the parties in power are highly capitalistic.
In theory they could, if they organised themselves into a political party. They seem to be taking another route…
This is the back end of the Reagan-Thatcher parabola. Now, you can make a case that the consumer/government and financial industry debt (not so much corporate oddly) that rocketed from 1980-2010 allowed for
blistering and consistently high GDP and low inflation, and drove the collapse of the commies, the IT and biomed revolutions (both driven by
speculative private capital) and the urbanisation/enrichment of Europe
and much of what used to be called the Third World. People are better off around the world.
But we don’t know what happens next.
Maybe the people will come out better for being poorer, or at least less materially-obsessed…
BTW, US Commerce Department (which TP wants to eliminate) released stats yesterday saying US multinationals created 1.5 million jobs in
AsiaPac and 500,000 in LatAm while cutting 900k in the US – just over the past decade.
Well done job-creators of the U.S.A.
@Scamp
David Brooks made an interesting observation on Charlie Rose the other night.
He said this all started happening with the rise of the me-generation narcissistic approach to life in the 70s and 80s. Time was when CEOs would have been embarrassed to collect obscene payouts at huge multiples of their line workers’ salaries.
Now they feel entitled…just like the rest of the 1%.
Ben and Scamp,
As boring and simpleminded as TP has been – God, Guns and Cuts – and notwithstanding (or perhaps because of) their thinly veiled
Koch/corporate sponsorship, they changed the composition of Congress and backfooted the Dems for 2012. That’s an accomplishment.
OWS seems totally clueless in this regard. Elizabeth Warren is the only candidate willing to be seen in the same frame as OWS.
Everyone else is keeping their distance.
Try to imagine an OWS caucus arrayed across from a TP caucus in Congress.
Impossible. Could not and will not happen.
That’s the sad reality.
@Scamp Many people in the US vote against their best interests for cultural reasons and due to moral sideshows, because they are historically brainwashed to fear socialism, are fundamentally attached to the concept of individualism and consistently suspicious of government. And then you’ve got a media that does the corporations’ bidding because they are the corporations.
On that latter point, I’d love to hear the story of why/how your blog was shut down. Care to dish?
The US is a democracy but there are only two political parties. The Democrats, a center right party. And the Republicans, a farther right party. And both are bought and paid for by corporate interests. So in essence you kind of have the illusion of democracy at this point. Which is weird and scary. It has become a sideshow. Like a sports rivalry that doesn’t have much impact on real life anymore.
In theory the OWS crowd could start a third party. But americans are in love with their political system.
who says ‘they’ want to, or should, win an election in the first place. if democracy means an elected government acts in the best interests of its people – the society at large, i.e. everyone in it, ‘they’ should always win anyway, regardless of the party elected, or the economic system in place. but thats a toxic assumption it seems. campaign donations, lobbying, networking – you can buy yourself into decision making, either using money or other means. every individual can be corrupted by their own ego. ideas not so much.
i, for one, would like to see rules and regulations in place that make it harder for individuals to feed off the lives of others (in whatever form that might be the case) without their consent. and thats, in essence, what a democratic government is for – to protect the freedom of each individual. but thats just my, not even tax-deductible, two cents.
talking about tax deduction and financial shit, i quite enjoyed inside job. they could have used another title, tho. sounds too much like a 9/11 truthers wet dream.
The US people worship money and loathe intelligence a little too much.
The all american dream of being rich is considered admirable, just don’t be too smart… especially if you’re a politician.
Maybe we are all a little too romantic and have been watching too much Capra.
We don’t need Mr. Smith to go to Washington we need Mr. & Mrs. Smith to go and do their biz!
@Vinny
Actually, somebody told me a friend of theirs has just started a centrist, third way to transform presidential elections by crowdsourcing a candidate, called AmericansElect.com.
Here’s Newsweek/TheDailyBeast’s recent take on it: http://www.thedailybeast.com/newsweek/2011/11/13/americans-elect-bids-to-transform-presidential-contests.html
Here’s Tom Friedman’s take in the NYTimes: http://www.nytimes.com/2011/07/24/opinion/sunday/24friedman.html