Facebook
Twitter
Tumblr
Regardless of how hard one tries, it would be almost impossible to ignore the Occupy Wall Street protests completely. In little time, the demonstrations have not only intensified in New York, but have also inspired countless demonstrations around the world. The movement has attracted both scorn and praise – from people on the left and the right; intellectuals like Noam Chomsky, and vapid propagandists like Michael Moore: sure enough, it seems to demonstrate all the tell-tale symptoms of a world-changing movement.
But I, and indeed others, certainly don't see it that way. Although grand comparisons to the Arab Spring have been made, OWS cannot claim to have waged a war against military dictatorship. There is no corrupt leader to overthrow, no tear gas through which to fight, no violent reaction, and certainly no lack of basic democracy; Zuccotti Park is no Tahrir Square. There are no laws to be repealed, and no specific demands to be made.
Don't get me wrong: people have the right to be angry. You're pushing an open door with me if you're argument is that corporate interests wield too much influence in Washington and government in general, but if you're method is primarily concerned with the forceful occupation of a financial district, you've lost even the slightest semblance of support on my part. Undoubtedly, others will feel the same. While protests can often mean inconveniencing oneself, meaningful change almost never rises out of inconvenience. Change doesn't happen because a group of aspiring dissidents elects to stand on a street corner, but is instead the result of true injustice.
And I suppose this is what I don't see in the movement. One can't help feeling that the anger is a little misdirected, and that the misdirection is based on a misunderstanding of how 'the system' actually works. I understand that the majority of demonstrators don't advocate the dismantling of capitalism, or some such thing, but instead wish to see it reformed so that the crisis we have witnessed over the past few years isn't likely to recur. There's no doubt that the majority of OWS-ers wish to see the influence of the corporation in government diminish, and that I would support that too.
But, then again, who knows that the majority of OWS-ers think. It's hard to gauge the ideological sentiment of a loosely-banded group of protesters: supported by libertarian Republican Ron Paul on one hand, and filmmaker Michael Moore on the other. The movement remains as transparent and as elusive as it was yesterday: with nothing to hide, yet nothing to share.
Now that we all agree that there's a problem with society, the issue is in coming to some form of solution. I don't think, personally, that it will be born of Occupy Wall Street. It's becoming difficult to say with certainty how the true goal will evolve, and I'm certain that there are causes (the gay rights movement would be one) immeasurably more worthy of everyone's time and attention – but now that you've got that attention, how about using it. That is, before it's gone for good.
Don't get me wrong: people have the right to be angry. You're pushing an open door with me if you're argument is that corporate interests wield too much influence in Washington and government in general, but if you're method is primarily concerned with the forceful occupation of a financial district, you've lost even the slightest semblance of support on my part. Undoubtedly, others will feel the same. While protests can often mean inconveniencing oneself, meaningful change almost never rises out of inconvenience. Change doesn't happen because a group of aspiring dissidents elects to stand on a street corner, but is instead the result of true injustice.
And I suppose this is what I don't see in the movement. One can't help feeling that the anger is a little misdirected, and that the misdirection is based on a misunderstanding of how 'the system' actually works. I understand that the majority of demonstrators don't advocate the dismantling of capitalism, or some such thing, but instead wish to see it reformed so that the crisis we have witnessed over the past few years isn't likely to recur. There's no doubt that the majority of OWS-ers wish to see the influence of the corporation in government diminish, and that I would support that too.
But, then again, who knows that the majority of OWS-ers think. It's hard to gauge the ideological sentiment of a loosely-banded group of protesters: supported by libertarian Republican Ron Paul on one hand, and filmmaker Michael Moore on the other. The movement remains as transparent and as elusive as it was yesterday: with nothing to hide, yet nothing to share.
Now that we all agree that there's a problem with society, the issue is in coming to some form of solution. I don't think, personally, that it will be born of Occupy Wall Street. It's becoming difficult to say with certainty how the true goal will evolve, and I'm certain that there are causes (the gay rights movement would be one) immeasurably more worthy of everyone's time and attention – but now that you've got that attention, how about using it. That is, before it's gone for good.
(Image: "A reporter with Russian Television International speaks to Occupy Wall Street protesters who have camped out in New York's financial district on September 20, 2011." Paul Weiskel, via Wired)