Occupy Wall Street and the History of Social Movements

Again, most of these notes come from class at NYU with Robby Cohen yesterday.  He was referencing a book called "Marching on Washington: The Forging of American Political Tradition" by Lucy Barber which I haven't had a chance to look at, but would like to and recommend it!

I think it's important to look at OWS in the historical context because it can really inform us about reactions, the people's and the government's, to social movements can shape their success.

The first ever march on Washington took place in 1894 and was known as Coxey's Army, and was led by Jacob Coxey (!) who wanted the government to create roads in order to better link cities around the country to facilitate trade. He also wanted the government to sponsor the project in order to create new jobs, as there was a serious economic depression taking place.  He led a large group of unemployed workers who marched to Washington from Ohio.  (This is the march that inspired L. Frank Baum to write the Wizard of Oz.  Dorothy's walk along the Yellow Brick Road represented the unemployed group's march to Washington). 
While the demands of Coxey's Army were never met, they made an important (and lasting) cultural impression nonetheless.  At the time, public protest or demonstration wasn't really seen as a legitimate act.  In a democracy where people could vote, should they need to march and protest? This is the first ever social movement to take place in the United States and is the predecessor of all those to come.

The next march took place in 1913 as part of the women's suffrage movement.  This was a protest with narrower demands so I won't go into it in more detail here.

The Great Depression was the period when the next major marches took place.  The movements of the 30's had a much wider demographic than those of the 60's.  Thus they resemble the OWS movement more specifically.  This makes sense since economic troubles tend to affect a much greater number of people than other issues, and thus the widespread support for OWS.

In 1930 and 1931, there were Hunger Marches in numerous cities around the country as the poor were desperate and had few options.
There was a major march on Washington known as the Bonus Army, which was a group of WWI veterans who wanted to receive their bonus pay earlier than scheduled.  This sounds like a small and insignificant demand, but when you consider the hardships of the Great Depression it is more understandable.  Congress was not willing to agree to this, and President Hoover was not supportive of any sort of public aid, believing that it was the responsibility of the individual to better his or her situation.  The veterans were encamped (with their families) on the outskirts of Washington, and there was a panic among the government when they began to fear that they were led by Communists. While this was untrue, it may have led to Hoover's decision to send in the army.  He unleashed the army on their camp, who burned down the tents and evicted the protestors.
Obviously the demands of the Bonus Army were never met either, but they also had an enormous social impact. Their protest showed the problems of unemployment as well as the callousness of the government.  President Hoover became increasingly unpopular, and to show their discontent people went so far as to boo him during public appearances (which was shocking in those days). 
This protest is a perfect example that the demands of a social movement are not always as important as the ultimate impact.  Movements can have all sorts of different impacts and our government should think carefully on their reactions to OWS if they don't want the protests to have unintended results.

In 1963,  Martin Luther King, Jr. made his famous speech at the March on Washington.  The interesting thing about this march is that we've all learned that it was only about civil rights.  However, it was about much more than this.  We can see by looking at flyers from the march (click here) and also from a program ( www.crmvet.org/docs/mowprog.pdf ) that they actually had economic demands as well, including "A National minimum wage act that will give all Americans a decent standard of living. (Government surveys show that anything less than $2.00 an hour fails to do this)."  and "A broadened Fair Labor Standards Act to include all areas of employment which are presently excluded." This is a perfect example of how the impact of the protest isn't always necessarily what the protestors intend.  This was also a protest which was quite tightly controlled by the leaders, but despite this there was still an understanding that the thousands of people involved all had their own slightly different versions of what they were there for.  At the bottom of the program is the addendum: "Support of the March does not necessarily indicate endorsement of every demand listed.  Some organizations have not had an opportunity to take an official position on all of the demands advocated here." I wonder if OWS would benefit from such a disclaimer... or whether it would weaken their position and give ammunition to those claiming they are disorganized and not unified.


Martin Luther King, Jr. died before leading the Poor People's Campaign, but he had quite different goals for this movement.  It had far less specific demands, because MLK was most interested in changing the mood of America. 

Over the course of the 1960's, movements changed and the anti-Vietnam war protests occurred.  By the end of the 60's mobilizations were very different from earlier ones.  The signs held by protestors were rife with marxist and radical slogans.  By the end of the movement, it had become much more anarchistic as the anti-war protests were less organized and controlled by a unified leadership than the civil rights protests had been.  Many of the same criticisms have been made of OWS, but this is a situation where the lack of leadership might actually be a benefit.  Having strong leadership would force the movement to focus its goals and might change the feeling of inclusion which has led to its success.

Finally, it is very difficult for mass protest to succeed (though that depends on how you define success, of course).  There is a degree of resentment of it.  People are taking time out of their regular lives to be political, and it's a kind of politics that is unconventional.  Those who do not feel motivated or included by the protests' message can feel alienated and annoyed, as they don't understand why people feel the need to take the time out of their lives.

Occupy Wall Street and Thoughts on Social Movements

Many of these notes are a result from my class today at NYU with professor Robby Cohen.  Therefore I'd like to credit him with most of these thoughts. I'm sure many will not actually read this but I felt that these notions deserved to be shared as broadly as possible for greater understanding of what is going on.

Let it be known that I am in favor of social movements in general and Occupy Wall Street in particular. Let it be known that I am a leftist politically, usually believe myself to be somewhat of a socialist but I am not anti-American, or an anarchist, or necessarily even anti-capitalism.  I am more of a PRO person than an ANTI person.

Points raised today in our class discussion of OWS:

There are some people down at Occupy Wall Street with really questionable slogans. For example the signs that read "Execute the 1 percent" or "No President for 2012" or "Shit is fucked up bullshit."  Yes, this is pretty awful. Yes, this makes the whole movement look bad.
In addition, why don't the protestors have "just one goal"? or even common demands? Why is there such a lack of cohesion?

HOWEVER: It is hard to control a mass movement.  It is in the nature of mass movement to have dissent, and thus people with really really questionable slogans.  If 95% of the people are totally on top of things and coherent, then 5% are nuts and don't know what they're talking about or are radical beyond anyone's level of comfort. One can see that that's clearly the case here with OWS. Prof. Cohen mentioned that he'd see somebody with a sign saying "Google 'Zionist control of Wall Street'" and that one of the other protestors was getting into an argument with the person holding the sign. We don't want people to think that this is an anti-Semitic movement! But regardless, there will be those "out-there" types who glom onto the movement to push their own "out-there" agendas...

Additionally, these outliers are the ones that the media tends to hang on to, especially the conservative media that's trying to make the movement look bad. As Prof. Robby Cohen said, there could be 20,000 peaceful demonstrators and 400 violent ones and the media would only report the violent ones.

The bottom line is, we can't control who speaks...who shows up...who makes signs...what they write on those signs.  Grassroots democracy is for everyone.



People think Occupy Wall Street is a bunch of dirty hippies living in a dirty park. 
I was there on Tuesday, and sure, there are some dirty hippies there. Okay. But as I said in class today, there is also an astounding sense of community there.  The park is clean (and after the cleaning efforts last night, must be SPOTLESS!) and not only is there a communal kitchen, there is a communal library.  People from all different walks of life with different opinions and just lots of DIFFERENCES are managing to peacefully coexist in not so great conditions in a tiny tiny park. Wouldn't it be great if we could all live that way in the rest of the country?

This brings up the point that was brought up by Prof. Cohen today.  The life of a movement from within it "the internal life" vs. the "external relationships" of a movement are very different things.  If you're part of OWS, you are enjoying the library and the communal kitchen and experiencing the community spirit.  But the outside relationships are thoroughly different, where media outlets are viewing only the negative sides and more radical slogans.



In many ways, the OWS movement has more in common with protests of the Great Depression than of the 1960's. 
However, the only historical context offered by the varying media sources are the 1960's civil rights and anti-war protests. There are commonalities, but the current situation is much more reminiscent of the Great Depression.  The economic factor is enormous here and that is a big reason why the movement has spread so hugely. Only when a movement connects with something real will it take on momentum. 



Without going on into the historical context (which I will gladly do if anyone is interested). here are few final additional thoughts.

An "occupation" protest is more likely to take place when people don't have jobs, thus it is most reflective of an economic downturn and economically driven protest. 

Protests can have more impact on political culture than on specific legislation. Yes, the movement should have goals and demands, but rarely do marches, demonstrations and protests actually have immediate results.  Those protesting the Vietnam War or invasion of Iraq did not expect the wars to end the day after their protests. However, they DID want to impact the national mood and demonstrate their dissent.  It's also about motivating the activists who will need to dig in for the long fight ahead, and gathering national support.  As a result of OWS, there is already increased dialogue about the issues being brought up, even if there are many dissenting voices. This is already a step in the right direction compared to not talking about it at all.

Government's responses to movements can also have tremendous impacts.  When WWI veterans protested in the early years of the Great Depression and their encampment (where they were living with their families, women and children included) was burned down by the Hoover administration, public discontent spread widely and people became extremely disillusioned by their government. Likewise, the police repression of the OWS movement has attracted INTERNATIONAL attention and support.  The threat of removing the protestors under guise of cleaning the park raised an enormous alarm among supporters of civil liberties and mass public support managed to reroute these plans.  Even if OWS continues to not have clearly articulated demands, our national political culture is being impacted, even if it is just showing that civil disobedience, public action, and social movements are not irrelevant in our age of Facebook or Twitter. For the right cause, we WILL get off the couch and out of the house-while continuing to socially network. 
 
Finally, many people are resentful of the movement... because people think that protests don't belong in a democracy. Why not? Because we can vote.  It's up to you to decide whether voting is participatory enough for you. Personally, I don't think so.