However, since then, protests have grown to over 1000 cities in 82 countries across the globe. In an extremely short period of time, the Occupy Wall Street movement has elevated issues of corporate greed and economic inequity to the very top of the global debate. As a result, criticism from the top 1% of income earners has shifted from mocking condescension to accusations of “class warfare” and an ‘apparent’ lack of clear demands.
What this disproportionately small upper class ‘apparently’ fail to understand is that first of all, a movement of this size has to be taken seriously. Secondly, a concrete list of demands is not what they should be looking for. Rather, the movement should be seen as a red flag of mass discontent and unrest, with focus placed on understanding the nature of the movement itself and its root causes. As with the current international economic woes, the masses are not looking for bailouts and band-aid fixes. They want the causes of the economic and financial distress to be addressed, and in many cases, simply a better more stable future for their families.
There are many claims dismissing the protests as having ‘spontaneously’ manifested in cities all over the world. However, the bottom line is that people do not do anything ‘spontaneously’. In most, if not all cases, there are always motives to every action, whether they are underlying, subconscious, or explicit. Particularly when protests involve millions of people protesting in solidarity, explicitly outlining their sources of unrest all over posters, banners, chants, twitter, Facebook, Youtube, blogs, interviews, etc: They are unhappy with the current system that is built on maintaining and expanding economic inequality and injustice. Thanks to current social media and communication technology, it takes no more than a few seconds on Google to figure this out.
It also takes only a few clicks of the cursor to access the CIA’s own global economic ranking, to see that the United States, the primary focus in the global Occupy Wall Street movement, is actually more economically unequal than its Egyptian and Tunisian counterparts! So why are the top ‘1%’ ignoring and indeed mocking these blatant cries of unrest? Because as the slogans say, the injustice and inequality is built in to the system, and clearly the top 1% who have profited the most from this injustice have a vested interest in maintaining the status quo.
However, even the most complex of systems can change.
In fact, they have changed many times in the past, and will continue to change in the future. The main problem today, is that the nature of the unjust economic system in question is more pervasive than it has ever been throughout history. Previous protests that questioned, revolted against, and overturned unjust and unequal systems had a distinct advantage in that the subject of their focus was contained geographically and maintained power through specific relations, strategies, and symbols.
In the French Revolution for example, the public and lower classes revolted out of hunger. While the upper class and royalty were bathing in jewels, feasting, and throwing large elaborate parties flaunting their wealth, they could not feed their families. Sound familiar? The political, economic, and class systems at the time were designed to maintain status quo where the rich lived lavishly with untouchable and unquestionable wealth and status. Again, the only difference that comes to mind is that their system was held in place through birth rights and the idea of a divine plan for all, whereas today it is held in place through the myth of the capitalist American Dream.
So regular everyday people protested en masse in the streets proclaiming their unrest and their demand for change. They too, did not have the power to change the situation or system themselves, nor a list of specific demands, but rather a wealth of grievances that made the cause of their discontent blatantly obvious.
The main distinction between the two uprisings, is that the French Revolution challenged a monarchic system held in place by religion and divine right, whereas the Occupy Wall Street movement is focused on a complex economic system that engulfs every aspect of modern life. While religion in the day did touch on almost every aspect of life, it was removable by destroying the symbolism that held it in power; in this case arresting and killing the royal family.
Today however, particularly in the Western world, the system in question is so deeply entrenched that it lies at the core of both the global economy and our daily lives. It is ubiquitous, pervasive and omnipresent. There is no way around it, and worse yet, there is no particular symbol to destroy, person to arrest, or institution to overtake. Refusing en masse to take part in the system is an alternative. However, it is not only near impossible, but it would decapacitate the already broken lives of the lower and middle classes, leave the wealthy untouched, and more than likely, catalyse another global recession that would again, hurt those who are most vulnerable and have done the least to cause the problem in the first place.
The only non-violent recourse the masses seem to have left, is to exercise their Constitutional right to assemble and protest. Protest for a just system that ensures the fair and equitable redistribution of wealth and resources. Hoping that if their numbers are large enough, and they resist long enough, that perhaps the wealthy and powerful elites will be moved enough to listen and make changes.
This is the one distinct advantage that today’s masses seem to have relative to the masses of the French Revolution. In the late 18th century, where human rights and good governance were foreign concepts, violent and bloody revolt was the only option for catalyzing fundamental change. But it was a means that ultimately led to the dark and bloody years of the guillotine and several wars. However, today, as we saw in North Africa, thanks to remarkable progress in human rights and technology that infiltrates every aspect of our lives, without recourse to violence, we are able to instantly and globally communicate, proliferate, articulate, and demonstrate the ideas, grievances, and strategies that underlie a movement and coalesce global solidarity in a matter of mere weeks.
The masses today may not be wielding torches, blowing up buildings or arresting prominent figures in order to topple the regime, however, they are just as serious and outright impossible to ignore. The non-violent nature of their actions and demands should not be mocked. Quite to the contrary, if appropriate attention is paid, this could be seized as an opportunity to demonstrate that as a society we have learned from past mistakes and are capable of progress, evolution, and fundamental reform without the need for a world war or bloody revolution. That is, if the right people are willing to listen.
What this disproportionately small upper class ‘apparently’ fail to understand is that first of all, a movement of this size has to be taken seriously. Secondly, a concrete list of demands is not what they should be looking for. Rather, the movement should be seen as a red flag of mass discontent and unrest, with focus placed on understanding the nature of the movement itself and its root causes. As with the current international economic woes, the masses are not looking for bailouts and band-aid fixes. They want the causes of the economic and financial distress to be addressed, and in many cases, simply a better more stable future for their families.
There are many claims dismissing the protests as having ‘spontaneously’ manifested in cities all over the world. However, the bottom line is that people do not do anything ‘spontaneously’. In most, if not all cases, there are always motives to every action, whether they are underlying, subconscious, or explicit. Particularly when protests involve millions of people protesting in solidarity, explicitly outlining their sources of unrest all over posters, banners, chants, twitter, Facebook, Youtube, blogs, interviews, etc: They are unhappy with the current system that is built on maintaining and expanding economic inequality and injustice. Thanks to current social media and communication technology, it takes no more than a few seconds on Google to figure this out.
It also takes only a few clicks of the cursor to access the CIA’s own global economic ranking, to see that the United States, the primary focus in the global Occupy Wall Street movement, is actually more economically unequal than its Egyptian and Tunisian counterparts! So why are the top ‘1%’ ignoring and indeed mocking these blatant cries of unrest? Because as the slogans say, the injustice and inequality is built in to the system, and clearly the top 1% who have profited the most from this injustice have a vested interest in maintaining the status quo.
However, even the most complex of systems can change.
In fact, they have changed many times in the past, and will continue to change in the future. The main problem today, is that the nature of the unjust economic system in question is more pervasive than it has ever been throughout history. Previous protests that questioned, revolted against, and overturned unjust and unequal systems had a distinct advantage in that the subject of their focus was contained geographically and maintained power through specific relations, strategies, and symbols.
In the French Revolution for example, the public and lower classes revolted out of hunger. While the upper class and royalty were bathing in jewels, feasting, and throwing large elaborate parties flaunting their wealth, they could not feed their families. Sound familiar? The political, economic, and class systems at the time were designed to maintain status quo where the rich lived lavishly with untouchable and unquestionable wealth and status. Again, the only difference that comes to mind is that their system was held in place through birth rights and the idea of a divine plan for all, whereas today it is held in place through the myth of the capitalist American Dream.
So regular everyday people protested en masse in the streets proclaiming their unrest and their demand for change. They too, did not have the power to change the situation or system themselves, nor a list of specific demands, but rather a wealth of grievances that made the cause of their discontent blatantly obvious.
The main distinction between the two uprisings, is that the French Revolution challenged a monarchic system held in place by religion and divine right, whereas the Occupy Wall Street movement is focused on a complex economic system that engulfs every aspect of modern life. While religion in the day did touch on almost every aspect of life, it was removable by destroying the symbolism that held it in power; in this case arresting and killing the royal family.
Today however, particularly in the Western world, the system in question is so deeply entrenched that it lies at the core of both the global economy and our daily lives. It is ubiquitous, pervasive and omnipresent. There is no way around it, and worse yet, there is no particular symbol to destroy, person to arrest, or institution to overtake. Refusing en masse to take part in the system is an alternative. However, it is not only near impossible, but it would decapacitate the already broken lives of the lower and middle classes, leave the wealthy untouched, and more than likely, catalyse another global recession that would again, hurt those who are most vulnerable and have done the least to cause the problem in the first place.
The only non-violent recourse the masses seem to have left, is to exercise their Constitutional right to assemble and protest. Protest for a just system that ensures the fair and equitable redistribution of wealth and resources. Hoping that if their numbers are large enough, and they resist long enough, that perhaps the wealthy and powerful elites will be moved enough to listen and make changes.
This is the one distinct advantage that today’s masses seem to have relative to the masses of the French Revolution. In the late 18th century, where human rights and good governance were foreign concepts, violent and bloody revolt was the only option for catalyzing fundamental change. But it was a means that ultimately led to the dark and bloody years of the guillotine and several wars. However, today, as we saw in North Africa, thanks to remarkable progress in human rights and technology that infiltrates every aspect of our lives, without recourse to violence, we are able to instantly and globally communicate, proliferate, articulate, and demonstrate the ideas, grievances, and strategies that underlie a movement and coalesce global solidarity in a matter of mere weeks.
The masses today may not be wielding torches, blowing up buildings or arresting prominent figures in order to topple the regime, however, they are just as serious and outright impossible to ignore. The non-violent nature of their actions and demands should not be mocked. Quite to the contrary, if appropriate attention is paid, this could be seized as an opportunity to demonstrate that as a society we have learned from past mistakes and are capable of progress, evolution, and fundamental reform without the need for a world war or bloody revolution. That is, if the right people are willing to listen.
