File Name: this changes everything occupy wall street and the 99 movement .zip
This case study chapter looks at Occupy Wall Street OWS , another contemporary social movement but one emerging from the left rather than the right. It, too, seemed to erupt out of nowhere.
- The Tea Party, Occupy Wall Street, and the Great Recession
- What can we learn from Occupy’s failure?
- Occupy Wall Street
- This Changes Everything; Occupy Wall Street and the 99% Movement
Be the first to write a review. Has a small black line on edge of pages.
The Tea Party, Occupy Wall Street, and the Great Recession
Occupy Wall Street was the first mass movement in many years to raise the issue of economic equality and political corruption. It spread rapidly through hundreds of American communities and changed the terms of political life.
The reasons for its initial success, and for its ultimate failure, are profoundly important for political affairs and for the American left. Occupy Wall Street was that movement.
But its ultimate failure was a function of its initial strength. Drawing power from a utopian and anarchistic impulse, OWS refused to engage with the established political system. Fearful of being coopted and of engaging with power, its leaders articulated three guiding principles that made it impossible for the movement to follow through on its original positions.
Horizontalism, abstention from politics and prefiguration were decidedly antipolitical positions that were rooted in a moral stance and refused to engage with the established institutions of practical life. Having raised the issues of inequality and corruption in a particularly urgent and compelling fashion, OWS deliberately refused to do something about them. In the end, this refusal made common cause with the same forces that it had been denouncing.
There is no substitute for organization, discipline, and authority in public life. Like it or not, existing institutions provide the only context for meaningful public action. Deliberately provocative in his campaign as well as in office, Trump has managed to alienate, offend and irritate significant sections of the population while simultaneously appealing to others. A candidacy organized around jingoism, militarism, sexism and racism has produced a broad pushback that is grounded in time-tested experiences of American democracy and the language of social science.
He noted a remarkably open and fluid society in the New World and tried to explain to his French audience how American individualism and acquisitiveness could be turned to the service of a moderate democracy that would reconcile plebeian strivings for equality with bourgeois property and hierarchy.
A preference for voluntary local activity would temper the levelling impulses of the modern state and resist the egalitarianism that had brought the French Revolution to a close with Bonapartist centralization. A consensus soon developed among social scientists that too much political engagement had produced both Soviet communism and German Nazism. A retreat from the big questions of justice, state, equality and the like signaled a new embrace of localism and voluntarism that made Tocqueville popular again.
Pluralism became the language of a moderate Americanism that married gradual change to stability and institutions. Mass politics and political engagement were replaced by pluralism and periodic elections.
This happy celebration of continuity and gradualism could not survive the great upsurge of the Civil Rights Movement and the associated activities of the Sixties.
Broad political movements were marginalized as the market came to be the judge of all matters public and private. The long retreat from the New Deal was well under way by the time the United States became the most unequal society in the industrialized world.
The massive upward distribution of wealth and income had been actively encouraged and organized by political authorities for more than thirty years when Occupy Wall Street burst upon the scene in September Inspired by powerful anti-austerity and anti-globalization efforts in several countries, OWS raise the issue of economic inequality in a particularly compelling way.
This is the major reason it spread so rapidly; within 3 weeks, protests were ongoing in over 95 cities across 82 countries and in over American communities.
It was as if an entire generation had decided to wake up and take to the streets at the same time. The suffocating silence that had masked economic inequality and political corruption was shattered, the Tea Party was kicked off the front pages, people started talking about social justice in entirely new ways, and millions of young people suddenly took heart.
Politicians, newspapers, religious leaders and almost every institution in the country were compelled to address the issue that they had studiously ignored for decades. But it was not long before the realities of politics and power had to be confronted, and here is where OWS proved unequal to the task it had set itself.
A rejection of hierarchy, decision-making and majority rule meant that discourse replaced politics, an obsessive concern with process replaced a concrete engagement with power, and the demand for unanimity meant that nothing would ever get done. Everyone should have a right to speak about everything, no one should be bound by any position with which one was in disagreement, and majority rule was discarded in favor of a consensus that almost never materialized.
Elaborate rituals accompanied endless meetings and hours of talk. Principles were never articulated, demands were never formulated, and allies were never sought in any serious way. A refusal to make demands became all the more mystifying as allies began to wonder if posing was substituting for making decisions, formulating goals and developing tactics.
Not many people knew what Occupy Wall Street wanted, but a lot of people knew how it worked. The problem is that process is not the same as politics, and OWS often acted as if it really believed that the future could be created by proclamation. Structurelessness and egalitarianism do not translate automatically into moral authority or broad acceptance.
Making decisions, taking positions and engaging in sustained action do not have to mean oppression and dictatorship. There are ways to combine the strength of local initiative and authoritative leadership. Movements that make a difference find them Freeman, Occupy Wall Street was convinced that the only way to confront a game whose rules are stacked was to reject the system tout court and work to create alternative institutions.
Only a radical withdrawal could redeem a world deeply injured by economic inequality and political corruption. This terror of cooptation fed a rejection of institutional politics altogether. No good would come from any attempt to reform a system that was beyond repair. The terrible thing about all this is that Occupy was really on to something important.
It was the first mass movement to raise the issue of economic inequality in many years, and it did so in a particularly compelling fashion.
People who had despaired of any counter to American plutocracy welcomed its appearance and hoped that it would lead to an engaged movement for systemic change. Occupy was right in its central claim that inequality was polluting American society root and branch.
The problem was that it did not do much about it beyond talking about it. The talk was certainly important, and OWS played a central role in putting economic inequality at the center of contemporary political discourse. But its talk did not amount to the revolutionary transformation that Occupy claimed to embody. A great opportunity was lost because OWS refused to recognize that the political institutions of a democratic state give movements the opportunity to protest against the conditions that call them into being.
The consequent abstention from politics prevented an indignant, righteous cry of protest from developing into an engaged, effective democratic political movement. There is no escaping from political engagement because there is no escape from power and authority in modern life.
Renouncing political activity in the name of ideological purity can have no other effect than to drive people back into the arms of the status quo. It was right that the obscene level of American inequality was the result of years of conscious state activity combined with the normal actions of capitalist markets. Occupy Wall Street did raise important issues about equity and democracy in a direct, urgent and confrontational manner that resonated powerfully with millions of people.
But more was required. It failed to recognize that the political system that had helped produce the problem in the first place was also the path to a resolution. In a radical reversal of its transformative potential, its antistatism led Occupy into a de facto alliance with the same elements that have been systematically dismantling American democracy for a generation. The one percent against whom it ranged itself are always probing to weaken the welfare state, hollow out its public functions, and paralyze its capacity to provide for the common good.
In its unwitting way, OWS never really challenged this most basic feature of the past 35 years Zucker, This was the real tragedy, for Occupy was really on to something important. It crystallized a level of resistance that had been silently building for years, and when it broke out it changed the way people thought about inequality. It thrust fundamental questions of justice and equity onto the front burner of American politics, it mobilized many thousands of people to take to the streets, it dominated media coverage for a time, it forced people to confront what had been developing for an entire generation, and it had a dramatic effect on the way people thought about economics and politics.
But the sorts of changes that Occupy demanded cannot be accomplished by serving as a moral example, refusing to have leaders and renouncing political activity. No one knew that better than the leaders of the most effective democratic mass movement in recent American history.
The Civil Rights Movement understood the importance of seizing and holding the moral high ground, but that understanding was part of the political and strategic thinking that Occupy rejected in principle.
Its bold proclamations of revolutionary changes notwithstanding, the sorts of things that Occupy demanded require the application of force and coercion. Moral indignation is a crucial element of successful movements but must be reinforced by the application of power and the capacity to get things done. And power implies compulsion and force. No one knew that better than Doctor King. From the very beginning of the Montgomery Bus Boycott until the Civil Rights Act and Voting Rights Act of and , it was clear to anyone who cared to look that Jim Crow could not be broken without the sustained support of the national government.
For all of its very real failings, Occupy Wall Street was right about the important thing. Deepening inequality and gigantic concentrations of private power constitute a dangerous threat to democracy. It was right that political, economic and social affairs are as mutually dependent today as they have always been.
It was right that extending democracy to the economy, the state and civil society is the central challenge of contemporary life. Its failure to understand that this requires comprehensive political activity and an integrated ideology was its most important obstacle to developing a sustained movement for political, social and economic democracy. But all is not lost. High-minded appeals and moral exhortations are not going to reverse thirty years of relentless assaults on social justice.
Political power will Ehrenberg, None of this is new. More than two thousand years of political, social and economic theory have recognized how important it is to seek power and use it wisely. In one of those strange moments that can transform weakness into strength and failure into success, there is reason to hope that the near future will be more productive than Occupy. Democracy depends on it. Palgrave Communications. Little, Brown: Boston, MA.
Google Scholar. Arendt H The Human Condition. Truman D The Governmental Process. Knopf: New York. Zucker G "Occupy wall street and the challenge of the 'new'. Logos ; 14 1. Download references.
What can we learn from Occupy’s failure?
The Occupy Wall Street movement named the core issue of our time: the overwhelming power of Wall Street and large corporations-- something the political establishment and most media have long ignored. But the movement goes far beyond this critique. Attempts to pigeonhole this decentralized, fast-evolving movement have led to confusion and misperception. In this volume, the editors of YES! Magazine bring together voices from inside and outside the protests to convey the issues, possibilities, and personalities associated with the Occupy Wall Street movement. It offers insights for those actively protesting or expressing support for the movement--and for the millions more who sympathize with the goal of a more equitable and democratic future.
Because the book is always talking about people. You can get this book on our website by download or reading online. There we provide a wide selection of eBook formats, so you need not worry because you can choose according to your wishes. It's packed with amazing content and totally free to try. Set in the near future,
Occupy Wall Street
Sarah van Gelder is co-founder and executive editor of Yes! Magazine and YesMagazine. She is a frequent guest on radio and television, commenting on current affairs. Account Options Inloggen.
The Occupy movement was an international progressive socio-political movement that expresses opposition to social and economic inequality and to the lack of "real democracy " around the world. It aims primarily to advance social and economic justice and new forms of democracy. The movement has had many different scopes, since local groups often had different focuses, but its prime concerns included how large corporations and the global financial system control the world in a way that disproportionately benefits a minority, undermines democracy and causes instability.
Nils C. It helps us understand OWS and the Tea Party by reconstructing how ordinary citizens made sense of the nameless disruption of capitalist crisis with the instruments of class-specific moral categories, their myopias included.
This Changes Everything; Occupy Wall Street and the 99% Movement
Вы хотите приделать к Цифровой крепости черный ход. Его слова встретило гробовое молчание. Хейл понял, что попал в яблочко. Но невозмутимость Стратмора, очевидно, подверглась тяжкому испытанию. - Кто тебе это сказал? - спросил он, и в его голосе впервые послышались металлические нотки. - Прочитал, - сказал Хейл самодовольно, стараясь извлечь как можно больше выгоды из этой ситуации. - В одном из ваших мозговых штурмов.
Панк. - Да, панк, - сказала Росио на плохом английском и тотчас снова перешла на испанский. - Mucha joyeria.
The Occupy Wall Street movement is not just demanding change. It is also transforming how we, the 99%, see ourselves. The shame many of us felt when we.
Ты сказал - в два ночи. Панк кивнул и расхохотался. - Похоже, ты облажался, приятель. - Но сейчас только без четверти. Двухцветный посмотрел на часы Беккера. Его лицо казалось растерянным. - Обычно я напиваюсь только к четырем! - Он опять засмеялся.
Выходит, выбор оружия был идеальным. Сьюзан смотрела, как Танкадо повалился на бок и, наконец, на спину. Он лежал, устремив глаза к небу и продолжая прижимать руку к груди. Внезапно камера отъехала в сторону, под деревья. В кадре возник мужчина в очках в тонкой металлической оправе, в руке он держал большой портфель.
Сьюзан повернулась к. - Так скажите же мне .
Сьюзан положила руку на мышку и открыла сообщение, Это решит судьбу Хейла, - подумала. - Хейл - это Северная Дакота. - На экране появилось новое окошко. - Хейл - это… Сьюзан замерла.