The Occupy Wall Street movement seeks to protest the greed of the one percent. In the words of Professor Cornel West (one of the protestors), “We are tired of seeing Wall Street’s greed getting rewarded…anytime they make any profits they are privatized, and when losses come up the government decides to socialize them (through the bailouts)…Obama has failed working class America.”
We believe that the Occupy Wall Street is a movement that has grown due to the crème de la crème of the United States. It is rumored that George Soros, Forbes richest man having made his money from Wall Street, funded Occupy Wall Street in its preliminary stages. Most protestors, namely the ones ‘in it for the long haul,’ are direct beneficiaries of the corporate forces that Occupy Wall Street condemns. The Movement is thus hypocritical because they are protesting against the hand that feeds them; it goes without saying that most of these protestors going to Occupy Wall Street, much like Occupy Middlebury, are ‘trustafarians’ who have little to no first hand experience of what they preach. Rather, it is merely a call for solidarity that is fun and exciting to attend and worth experiencing.
The truly overlooked by corporate forces should to be the protesters. Where are they? They are most likely working their nine to five jobs, making ends meet and, unless they sacrifice their vacation time used for loved ones, family and friends, they will have no time for around the clock protesting. A recent article comparing the Slutwalk to Occupy Wall Street put it perfectly, “To get people to join your movement, they need to see themselves reflected in it.” This idea brings us to our main argument: The movement is taking away agency from the people who really need to be protesting and as a result, perpetuating marginalization and powerlessness. Mahatma Gandhi was once asked by a well-meaning British citizen what he could do to help the Indian independence movement. Gandhi asserted, “Nothing!” He understood for independence to be realized for the Indian people they needed to do it for themselves. This same critique is applied to the “in it for the long haul” protesters who are benefactors of the system they criticize.
Have you actually explored the site we are the 99 percent? Those who have been subject to the greed of the few, upload a picture of themselves, with a hand-written statement about what they have suffered and must make sure they write, “I am the 99 percent.” The protestors are perpetuating what Zizek refers to as ‘cultural capitalism,’ explained with a brief story, “in the morning he grabs the money and in the afternoon he gives half of the money back to charity.” In the case of the protesters, they have “grabbed” the leisure of time and money that in turn they put towards a protest. Occupy Wall Street is a pat on the back for those attending and supporting.
This façade of a people’s movement might actually hinder the potential for a successful movement consisting of the proletariat toppling the corporate greed that is controlling their immediate lives. The Declaration of Occupy Wall Street cites, “We write so that all people who feel wronged by the corporate forces of the world can know that we are your allies.” Occupy Wall Street protesters are indeed allies and are not all people. Banality of evil can help us explain where to go from here. We are all accountable. We have all used the oppression of marginalized groups in order to achieve success. We must acknowledge our role in the white noise we created and use our privileges accordingly.
Co-written by Janet Rodrigues ’12 and Mugo Mutothori ‘12
I am curious as to for whom it "goes without saying" that protesters at Occupy Wall Street are largely made up of "trustafarians"? I am curious as to how the people weathering the elements and the armchair criticism of late are "benefactors of the system they criticize"?
ReplyDeleteI visit "We are the 99 percent" and I see people grateful to work upwards of 100 hours a week for disingenuous benefits because they feel lucky just to have a job. I visit "We are the 99 percent" and I see people who have been dropped from health care insurance and overloaded with debt for educations that will do little to increase their potential for gainful employment. I visit "We are the 99 percent" and I see the very people for whom the system does not work; the victims of corporate greed, the military industrial complex, the prison industrial complex, and the various other debased institutions we direct our massive capital flows toward.
Certainly, as we all are, these people are the beneficiaries of roads, clean air and water (in some cases), rule of law (in some cases), unemployment benefits (in some cases) and other public goods that the system does provide. But to claim that they are somehow disrespecting their privilege is to mistake merited criticism for disrespect, and victimhood for privilege.
Your George Soros point is fair, but your characterization of the people on the ground is misinformed and misanthropic. And while your argument might hold for the various Middlebury students who have made the trip down to New York lately, I urge you to consider the legitimacy of the elite expressing solidarity with the idea that we live in a broken system, and that it needs repairing. I cite white abolitionists and male feminists as examples that I hope speak for themselves.
Your article makes a lot of assumptions about the people participating and the people who go to this school. Not everyone at Occupy Wall street is a college student not is every student from Middlebury who attends a "trustifarian".
ReplyDeleteI find it interesting (since you talk about hypocrisy) that this article is co-written by one of the founders of the social justice collation. which is the group leading the Occupy Middlebury front....
ReplyDeleteThis article seems flat out ridiculous given that both of you attend Middlebury College, benefit from the the same processes you seem to abhor, and yet are doing nothing in particular to change your position within that given system.
ReplyDeleteJanet- Didn't you spend your summer "volunteering" at a Bronx public school without having to work a job, having been funded by donations and grants that stem from the accumulation of wealthy institutional donors?
Mugo- Am I wrong or did you not work as a consultant advising businesses that include Coca-Cola, Glaxo-Smith-Klein, Geico, and Lockheed Martin???
I see no need to repeat the criticisms of your argument that have already been mentioned, but there are parts other than your HUGE assumptions that keep your argument hanging on thin ice.
The truth is that the most marginalized individuals in the world capitalist system are the various brown/black/asian citizens of developing nations who provide the cheap labor and suffer environmental damage from exploitative and/or extractive industries. By your set of logic, it should be ONLY these people who have the right to participate in such protests, which under a world system analysis of privilege and wealth would exclude almost all Americans (except native people of course).
I guess we should just sit around and wait for the exploited Bangladeshi workers to hop on that airplane and fly to NYC to organize an extended peaceful protest. Or should we just continue to gawk at our TV sets as these populations of voiceless workers rise up in their own countries which are for the most part LESS DEMOCRATIC and MORE DANGEROUS spaces to exercise dissent, where "rights" don't exist as they do in the U.S.A (at least marginally).
I find your argument not only wrought with assumptions but also complacent to a largely ambivalent/escapist mentality
Thank you Janet, Mugo and all of the anonymous posters for sharing your views on this divisive issue.
ReplyDeleteAnonymous 3, your point about hypocrisy is lost on me. Is Janet or Mugo (I’m not sure to whom you allude) a hypocrite because they founded the Social Justice Coalition and now disagree with that group’s actions toward creating change? I assume they are no longer active in this coalition, no longer responsible for coalition politics, so what makes their views hypocritical? The fact that they now disagree with an independent group they helped create long before Occupy Wall Street began?
Anonymous 4, speaking of ‘flat out ridiculous’, how can you state that Janet and Mugo “are doing nothing in particular to change their [your] position within that given system”. You seem to miss the point of this article. What they are doing in this post is being critical of how they use their privilege and power as Middlebury College students to create change. You support your argument by calling attention to the fact that Janet and Mugo have benefited or are participants in the system they write against. Is this productive? I know I am guilty of enabling the continuation of the inequalities Occupy Wall Street protests against. Are you? Is anyone at this school free from blame? Absolutely not. Introducing personal attacks to this conversation, playing a tit for tat game that has no end, is extremely unproductive.
I think what this article asks us, as Middlebury students, whether we be ‘trutstafarians’ or of another socioeconomic background, is to critically consider our tools for change. If this article is correct, and even 50 percent of the 99 percent occupying Wall Street are more privileged than their narrative of victmization suggests, is this really the best we can do? Anonymous 1, in their fight to end slavery, did white abolitionists pretend to be black?
I understand how their argument can be viewed misanthropic, escapist or defeatist in the context of this movement but fail to view it as such when placed in the larger fight to end injustice.
Mugo and Janet, how do you suggest these privileged people use their free time? Is it better for them to be holding an admittedly imperfect protest focusing on the voices of everyone, or to be acquiescing to the current system, reveling in their privilege, and not even attempting to affect change? No one is denying the privilege of some there, but I'm not sure how you would rather see that group use its privilege. It is also marginalizing to discount all participants and the OWS movement as a whole because some of its members are quite privileged.
ReplyDeleteThe enormous strength of this movement is the lack of leaders. This isn't a bunch of "trustafarians" telling the exploited what is best for them. This is a movement demanding dialogue in the voices of the people, demanding justice, and opportunity for everyone. How do we get there? I don't know, but let's figure it out all together. While all groups might not be down at Zuccotti Park, the call is clearly for a wider dialogue that does include everyone.
Finally, your reference to Ghandi smacks of Malcolm X's "Little Blonde Co-Ed." Similarly, a privileged, white, Southern, female college student asked Malcolm X what she could do to help the movement and she was told "Nothing." Malcolm X later deeply regretted his answer and acknowledged there was plenty the "Little Blonde Co-Ed" could have done. Yes the privileged, bourgeois classes have often interfered with and co-opted movements. But there are ways for privileged people to help without necessarily co-opting a movement.
privileged or not, does that mean they shouldn't be socially conscious?
ReplyDeleteReposting what I wrote on the facebook event:
ReplyDeleteI think you both bring up some very important points, and it is awesome to have students who disagree with the movement trying to engage in some sort of conversation about it.
Some thoughts/opinions I want to throw out:
I think a lot of the criticism you bring up is criticism that is commonly associated with popular movements. Yes, there are a bunch of people who are "in it for the long haul," are those who have the privilege to do so. And it is just because of that, they have the privilege to do so. But this is also a HUGE generalization. Lets not ignore the homeless who are involved, the students in debt, public school teachers, small political groups, people who are coming after work and when they can, etc. Additionally is it bad to have individuals involved who are beneficiaries of these systems? Or is this a useful and powerful statement? I agree that in all movements, those affected should be playing a major and central role in the direction and shaping of the movement, and this is not happening enough in OWS.
But it is problematic to completely deem the thousands and thousands of protesters not worthy of standing up for those suffering from our failed economic system.
.....
It seems obvious to me that you would both agree that there are serious issues in the way the economic/political systems operate in this country and there are many people and groups of people who suffer as a consequence of this. But, I disagree with your notion of dismissing the protests/movement altogether. How often are thousands of american citizens (and now people across the globe) this loud and this fed up while at the same time having this much media attention and public discussion? Not as often as many of us would like. Therefore wouldn't it be more useful for us to try to mold and move this imperfect movement in the right directions rather than not taking part in it at all? Shouldn't we work to get more americans involved, americans from all walks of life? I refuse to believe that what is happening now is a more damaging force than beneficial force for those who suffer from the economic and political forces in this country.
I write not because I am whole-heartidly behind the OWS movement, there are obviously SO many issues with the movement and how it is operating (remember movements are comprised of human beings who are imperfect therefore movements are the imperfect). But as the "left" and as those who want to work toward sweeping change in this country, lets focus our energy not on dividing ourselves but rather figuring out to make this movement better and stronger. As I said earlier, a lot of what you bring up is criticism that is brought up about many movements, movements that we look back on in our history books today and glorify. Perhaps we should use our privilege as students, privilege as "educated" individuals to stand in solidarity with the movement. Work to get a wider range of people involved, work to get our voices out and move the protest/movement in the direction we want, rather than using our privilege to refuse to join.
Thanks!
alex jackman
Tellingly, this article fails to define "success" in any meaningful way. The question of success is entirely based on the position of the movement within the context of the long-term dynamics of social change--dynamics of which these authors clearly have no understanding. The Occupy movement is the first popular American struggle to articulate itself in class terms in more than 40 years, and it is doing so in an age when attacks from above (in the form of austerity) are about to escalate. If you don't see the birth pangs of a longer class conflict here, then you're either ill-educated on the subject or too caught up in your ultra-left image ("an infantile disorder," to quote Lenin) to care about what you claim to.
ReplyDeleteWithout getting into a full-scale debunking of the theory of privilege--which would be warranted--I'll only point out that when you throw around those ideas, you do the work of the ruling class. You create false divisions among working people and perpetuate a constant aura of social hypervigilence and paranoia.
I suggest that if you want to see this movement become something more than you claim it is, you get involved instead of throwing around harmful and socially-baseless generalizations.