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.