There are many protests and demonstrations going on now, mainly centered in NYC. Right now it is being called the occupy movement, and it seems to be fueled by the anger against wall street after the economic collapse of the banks and major financial institutions and their subsequent bailouts. Also, it seems, there is growing frustration at the joblessness situation as well as the noticeable and steadily growing economic inequalities in the country today. There seems to be an attitude of growing discontent among many people about the government, towards corporations, the richest upper class, and the state of society today in general. What do you guys make of this whole situation? Are there going to be riots in some US city such as occured in London back in early August, or will this current movement just die down eventually?
I am a New Yorker and a Progressive. I love everything that is going on right now. It is about time the sane people got their heads out of their @$$ and become proactive. You can't have the greedy and the nut jobs running this country.
I think the OW movement will collapse under it's own weight. I think it's largely overhyped by the media and will be a blip on the radar screen in a short while.
I don't think it's as important for you to know what I think of it, as for you to get as close to it as possible--given that it intrigues you--and find out for yourself. If you're not around a major US city where there are demonstrations going on, you can still find a lot of vid clips and so forth out here on the interweb, so you can listen to and see protesters yourself and find out what they are about. Back in the 1960s/70s when there was a lot of protesting and rioting going on, it was hard for the average person to get a complete sense of what was happening given the limitations of media coverage then. Today just about everybody can not only take stills and audio of events, but video too. (Isn't technology great?) The best way to do it is just to go to a protest and check it out; walk around and talk to people, carry a sign if you sympathize, and have the experience. And, no: I don't think these protests are going to be as catastrophic as the London riots.
The main thing that occurs to me about it is just how new it is to everyone. When I was at university, there were a faction of hard left students (mostly SWP and anarchists), who would occupy lecture halls at the drop of the hat. It always used to be our lecture hall, too, so our lectures were moved to woefully inadequate rooms. I know for a fact, that in the aftermath of the tuition fees debacle last year, that students at other universities in England did the same. I'm not sure if I agree with the occupy movement's methods, but I agree with what they're saying.
And the British police failed to respond with an appropriate force level. They instantly ruled out using riot control tactics that had worked so well for them in North Ireland. Sad and negligent, they put lives and property at risk by refusing to use the best tools.
I think they're going about it the wrong way. Stuff like that, you just get a mob full of weird people just attracted to social movements. Basically a circus. I think it's embarrassing to anyone who feels strongly about wanting credible change. It's like having a clown go to congress and address your grievances.
I think many times protests like these (and like those of the 60s) serve the purpose of pulling the 'everything's fine, nobody cares anyway' types up short. It gets attention and reminds those in power that not everyone likes what they're doing, and that the opponents may not be so lazy or complacent as they think. In other words, it gets people thinking and talking. And that's how change comes, however slowly.
I don't understand how people can claim it's overhyped...if anything, it's under-hyped. It isn't just a protest in New York now, it's spread everywhere. Even in little, isolated New Zealand there are thousands of people involved in an occupation in the Auckland CBD, same with Australia, Europe, etc. I don't think it's going to be effective in the long run, and least until they realise that there's no peaceful way to bring an end to capitalism.
The only way the protesters could get what they want is through blood, and that won't happen. They simply will not go that far. It really is under-hyped, by the ones they protest against.
I love the movement. Democracy at its finest is people standing up and taking action for what they believe in and against what they don't like or agree with. The Occupy Wall St. movement is an excellent thing -- it's getting apathetic people, or people not interested in voting, to pay attention and take action in the things happening in their country. How is that a bad thing? Point blank, it's not overhyped, and it's not going to be inconsequential. This can be, might be, the beginning of something incredible. You never know.
Gigi has the right idea. I have been down there and most of the people are coherent and dedicated to utilizing their rights to bring more awareness about the socioeconomic inequity and gross abuses by the fed and corporatism. They are organized, have different stations that address everything from first aide, sanitation, media, food, etc and most understand clearly what they want; unlike the eccentrics and anarchists that the media focus on when they choose to interview someone. Even with winter coming, they are ready to stay, admirable really.
See, I don't think it is doing that. They are getting some play in the media (newpaper / television news / talking heads). People who are apathetic and not interested in politics and the like aren't watching and/or listening to that stuff. The more sensational, popular media seems to be focuses on tangential issues, like what a certain celebrity says about it, or highlighting the most bizarre behavior that takes place at a given rally, etc. The movement has yet to draw in nearly enough from the population at large to matter, or even to be self-sustaining (which is why unless something changes it will fizzle out). Part of the reason for this is that it is seen popularly as a protest movement with no solutions. You hear plenty about what all they're against, which sometimes runs the gamut, but nothing about what they're for. The latter is the message that needs to get out if they want to draw in enough people to be serious.
It's not the protesters' job to provide solutions, it's their job to highlight the problems, which is what this movement is about. People talk about how they're unfocused and don't have a clear message as though it's the protesters' fault, but when there are so, so many things going wrong, a movement like this is essential. It's not their job to deliver a convenient set of demands or some dogma that people can decide whether or not they subscribe to, it's about expressing dissatisfaction. Ultimately, the movement itself isn't going to create the answer, but that's not what they're trying to do. They're trying to force the people with power and responsibility to acknowledge the colossal failures of neoliberal capitalism and free-market economics and to correct them. In America, it's doomed to fail, because capitalism has basically inserted itself as the ideal form of 'the American dream', but elsewhere in the world the possibility of change is real.
I'm not saying it is their job, I'm just pointing out the reality that they'll be less effective and ultimately be taken less seriously. Most people couldn't care less about them at this point. It will most likely continue that way a bit longer and then ultimately fizzle out.
Seems more like they are protesting Corporatism and crony capitalism then free market capitalism. We might be reading different papers however.
I think that is generally true, James. Other elements in there as well, but that seems to be the thrust.
Yeah, I'm not getting the 'anti-capitalism in all forms' myself, but... Just to note, many people who don't follow the regular news outlets are hearing about it via social mediums. And again, that's one of the benefits of this type of protest - it gets people talking, thus developing and expressing their opinions. Even those who appear apathetic when in reality they're only frustrated or discouraged now find themselves with a voice. Not a perfect voice, not one they necessarily agree with 100% - but one that is at least being heard. It's a baby step.
Well, yeah, I guess at this point they're mostly just anti-corruption rather than anti-capitalism, but in the long run, there's no way to divide the two. The money always wins out. They should be more anti-capitalism, and in places like NZ and Australia, there is a pretty strong socialist agenda in the protests, but I can't imagine socialism ever being taken seriously in America.
It is the nature of many humans that is corrupt, and that corruption surfaces in socialism, capitalism, or other types of societies.
