Occupy Everywhere

In this year of protests, is it really fair to compare the grievances of the Occupy movement to the courage of the Arab Spring?

BY JAMES TRAUB | DECEMBER 30, 2011

So, yes, the form of protest spread; but what about the content? Is it the deepest aspects of the Arab Spring, or the more superficial ones, that have migrated to the West? It's true that protestors in both cases argued that the system is rigged against them, but that's very close to a sine qua non of protest itself. If you thought the system worked, you would just choose your preferred representative to argue on your behalf and go back to work. Anderson writes that the demonstrators of 2011 objected to "hell-bent megascaled crony hypercapitalism." That is a good description of what bound together activists in New York and Madrid, but not in Tahrir Square or Pearl Square, in Bahrain. In the Arab world, cronyism is rampant but capitalism does not run amok and in fact only barely escapes the paralyzing clutches of the state. The Arab world is pre- what the Western world is post-.

But I won't belabor the obvious. Of course, the Arab world has no democracy and the West does, so the one protest is immensely more urgent, and braver, than the other. Egypt needed a revolution; the United States could use some reform. But it's also true that the protestors in Egypt and Tunisia knew very well what the fundamental solution to their problems was, and those in Zuccotti Park did not. And this persistent, even insistent, vagueness has proved to be a problem. The question of what Occupy Wall Street "means" has always been a chimera. Do protesters want to end "hypercapitalism," or capitalism itself? Do they want to make big corporations behave better, or do they think big corporations themselves are bad? It's impossible to say. Even if we accept that the essence of the movement is that the "99 percent" is getting shafted by the "1 percent," what does that tell actually us? The Tea Party, a leaderless mass movement from the pre-Arab Spring era, loathes Wall Street but also loathes taxes, and so objects to increasing tax rates for the very rich. Do they not count as part of the new zeitgeist?

Perhaps the real problem with Occupy Wall Street is less that it is indistinct as that it is inadequate. What gets people into the streets is rank injustice -- a brutal dictator, a pointless war. Bankers getting away scot-free after helping to wreck the economy is a pretty gross injustice, too. But that doesn't go to the core of America's economic problems. The United States, unlike Egypt or Libya, does not have a true bad-guy problem, although it would be gratifying to see the con artists high and low discover the inside of a jail cell. The United States doesn't even have an injustice problem, though of course there's injustice aplenty. The U.S. problem is that it can no longer find the political will to muster the resources it needs to be competitive in the world. It cannot, or rather will not, make serious investments in infrastructure, research, education, and training. And it cannot do this because it raises too little revenue -- thanks in part to the anti-tax mood sparked by 2010's grassroots revolutionaries, the Tea Party and broadly embraced by mainstream Republicans -- and because it spends too much of that shrinking pool of revenue on entitlements, thanks in part to the Democratic party and its special interests. The grotesque spectacle of the recent budget negotiations shows how deeply the U.S. is stuck.

Occupy Wall Street has already done some good by stiffening President Barack Obama's spine on taxes, and giving some muscle to his rhetoric on the economy. It may even tip the presidential election in his favor. So far, however, the movement has not had an effect on American politics that begins to approach that of the Tea Party. Recent polls have found that Occupy Wall Street's popularity is fading, and has now sunk below that of the Tea Party. If the movement is ever to deserve being mentioned in the same breath as the Arab Spring, it will have to find a language that appeals to a broad swath of Americans, while its leaders -- there will, alas, have to be leaders -- must devise a more coherent and pragmatic program that actually promises to help pull America out of its funk.

FILIPPO MONTEFORTE/AFP/Getty Images

 

James Traub is a contributing writer for the New York Times Magazine and a fellow of the Center on International Cooperation. "Terms of Engagement," his column for Foreign Policy, runs weekly.

WALTSWRONGWITHTHISPICTURE

9:31 PM ET

December 30, 2011

oh please...what a stupid article

ows? a bunch of lazy pot smoking degenerate losers...looking for handouts...

next!

 

JAC323

3:45 AM ET

January 1, 2012

So what is a diluted fool?

Don't think so, you have totally missed it. Let them eat cake?

 

BGVFYDFDSHJ

7:54 PM ET

January 2, 2012

very good web: ===

very good web: === http://www.plzzshop.com

The website wholesale for many kinds of fashion shoes, like the nike, jordan, prada, also including the jeans, shirts, bags, hat and the decorations.

All the products are free shipping, and the the price is competitive, and also can accept the paypal payment., After the payment, can ship within short time.

We will give you a discount

WE ACCEPT PYAPAL PAYMENT

YOU MUST NOT MISS IT!!!

=== http://www.plzzshop.com

thank you!!!

Believe you will love it.

We have good reputation, fashion products,

come here quickly== http://www.plzzshop.com

Opportunity knocks but once

 

ARTIC SLAYER

3:19 AM ET

December 31, 2011

hmmmmmmmmm occupy!!!

"Mentally challenged" in place of "Retarded"...
"African American" in place of "Black," "Negro" and other terms. (However, "Black" is used in English-speaking countries other than the U.S.)...
"Native American" in place of "Indian"...
"Caucasian" in place of "White".....
"Gender-neutral" terms such as "firefighter" in place of "fireman"...
Terms relating to disability, such as "visually challenged" or "hearing impaired" in place of "blind" or "deaf"...
"Persons of color" in place of "ethnic minorities" or "non-whites" in countries populated predominantly by people who are white.....
"Holiday", "winter" or "festive" in place of "Christmas"....
"arab spring" in place of "muslum takeover".................

 

SW3457

11:25 AM ET

December 31, 2011

WTF

"The United States doesn't even have an injustice problem" -- You kind of disqualify yourself with that, man. Rich vs. poor, black vs. white -- there can't be this much inequality without injustice. It needs to change.

 

ERTDFG

7:54 PM ET

December 31, 2011

Are you kidding?

"It cannot, or rather will not, make serious investments in infrastructure, research, education, and training. And it cannot do this because it raises too little revenue — thanks in part to the anti-tax mood sparked by 2010?s grassroots revolutionaries"

So in the 1950's we spend 15-20% of GDP, in the 60's and 70's we run 20-21%, in the 80's and 90's we ran 20-22%...

But now the evil no tax crowd is only allowing expenditures at the 25-30% range... how dare they.

We can't do anything with a measly 30% of the GDP, not the stuff we used to do with 20% of the GDP anyhow.. .we need more. Lots more, because 30 is a much lower number than 22 or 18 or 15...

Is this your argument? Ok.. how much is enough? 40%, we're working on it.. but not enough? 50%? More?

In the early days of this nation some people came to this country as "bond slaves" who had to work off the cost of their transport.

I always thought liberals opposed this because it was a form of slavery... was I wrong? Do you only oppose this because it allowed the workers to still keep 505 of their earnings and that was unfair? Or is the opposition because they could eventually pay it off and quit paying 50% of their income?

We need to force the entire nation into bond slavery for life... in order to have the money you think we need? Or is there some other way to consider taking half of the entire income of the nation as people not giving you enough?

Yeah, you're perfectly reasonable rational people who just want more than half of the entire earnings of the nation for your own designs.

I've learned from the Occupy there are three categories.
The "evil" rich 1%.
The protesting "whiny-nine percent".
And the remaining 90% who you can't understand why they won't let you take 50% of their earnings as well in your quest to destroy capitalism.

Is there a point at which your hunger for the earnings of others can ever be sated? Or would you still be unhappy with 100% and the centrally controlled economy that this would bring?

Somehow I suspect there is no "high enough taxes" to get you the revenue you think you require. First figure out why the highest level of spending to GDP since WW2 still isn't enough before you complain that the people paying somehow aren't paying enough.

 

BLUE13326

8:18 PM ET

December 31, 2011

I think you give the

I think you give the "Occupiers" too much credit. This movement (started ironically by a leftist advertising agency) is compsed of Obama voters who were suckered into believing his absurd promises. They are feeling let down and because they are not willing to engage in the hard self-analysis of what psychological need believing in him served in them, they are misdirecting their rage. This is not to say there isn't some merit to their movement, and that some of their targets do not deserve to be tarred and feathered, but rather that ultimately underneath it all they are angry at themselves for being so easily fooled.

 

INJUNTROUBLE

2:31 AM ET

January 1, 2012

Next year will be the year of the Occupy Movement

Next the economy will collapse further starting with Europe, unemployment will rise and many more will join the occupy movement. Once the complacent middle class gets pushed into the lower class, they too will join the occupy movement. Then it will finally be the entire 99% against the 1%. The stupid Tea Party is part of the 99% and fights for the 1 % (like Joe the Plumber).,

 

ELLIOTTWOODS

11:03 AM ET

January 2, 2012

Dismissal is easier than admitting the scope of our problems

I was in Tahrir Square for the demonstrations last year that brought down President Mubarak, and I had lived in Egypt off and on since 2008. It's true that Egyptians were demanding a democracy in place of a dictatorship, but first and foremost they were demanding the end of the dictatorship (al nas youreed usqat il nizam / the people want to bring down the regime)—democracy was a secondary consideration. Many of the protestors in Tahrir Square with whom I spoke had no real understanding of democracy at all; they were facing off with Mubarak's policemen because they were tired of the rampant corruption in Mubarak's administration that came down in a rushing flood from the president's family all the way down to the traffic cops on the street who harassed poor Egyptians for bribes to augment their pathetic salaries.

With this last point in mind, you ought to consider the real similarities between motivations of the Occupiers and the protestors in Tahrir: normal Egyptians—from small shop owners to taxi drivers—were sick of getting robbed left and right by the government and having no recourse to a political process; similarly, Occupy protestors are fed up with the collusion between the federal government and the nations' largest corporations that results in state money being diverted away from things like infrastructure and education, and toward things like bank bailouts, three-trillion dollar wars, and other assorted bridges to nowhere. We may not suffer from the sort one-party nepotism and corruption that a place like Egypt suffered from under Mubarak, but we certainly suffer from a form of institutional corruption in which legislators serve the American corporations more than the American people, and in which lobbyists have more access to elected officials than constituents.

It's easy to write off the Occupy protestors as delusional idealists, lazy youth looking for handouts, liberals who are illiterate when it comes to matters of economics. But to do so is to deny the real and fundamental problems our country is facing as private interest runs amok over the political process.

All the best from Baghdad,

Elliott Woods

 

ERIC ANGELES

1:19 PM ET

January 2, 2012

Good comment, poor article

Mr. Woods provides a much needed corrective to this half-baked article, which never should have made it past the editors' desk.

I won't count the ways that the article disappoints, but let's just say that it belongs to the dominant attitude toward Occupy, typical of but not limited to the older generations in this country. Whether conservative or liberal (and the baby-boomer liberals are a far worse threat because they are wolves in sheep's clothing), these Occupy skeptics ask for a set of definite demands and descry the vagueness of the movement because it's motivations don't fit neatly into the grade school diagram of a 3-branched liberal democratic nation-state. "They should have demanded a reinstatement of Glass-Steagall," they grouse over a plate of Christmas turkey dinner -- and turn to the younger heads at the table for obedient assent.

But the issue at hand is far more challenging and complicated than an erosion of basic financial regulations, consumer protections, social solidarity, and welfare state provisions. These are manifestations of something deeper that we have only begun to understand and for which there are certainly no quick fixes: the decline in profitability first of Western and now of global manufacturers that marks the end of the post-WWII Golden Age in the 1970s. Just as the tremendous expansion of the welfare state in the postwar era was inextricable from the largest boom in the entire history of capitalism, so the erosion of those so-called 'entitlements' (which should not be called such because they were in fact concessions, or even bribes, offered to a strong labor movement across the Atlantic world in exchange for its acquiescence), the financialization of advanced capitalist economies, the attendant relaxation of regulations, and Keynesian deficit spending were all responses by Western governments and companies to the long downturn from the 1970s to the present.

The problem that Occupy confronts is therefore too large to reduce to a clean set of demands. Reforms at the level of the nation-state will be futile because the palpable domestic conflicts are in fact the product of underlying global economic pressures. But slogans calling for revolution or the end of capitalism will not only immediately turn away the 99% but are also simply too blunt to stimulate the kind of precise thinking that is required to confront the contemporary global political economy.

Perhaps the problem with the mainstream opinion on Occupy, whether conservative or liberal, is that it expects the diagnosis of political-economic problems to fit with straightforward prescriptions for reform in advance. But the inconvenient truth is that we will have to linger in the problems for long enough to understand and then change the contemporary situation.

Occupy provides the popular-political energy for this project. So long as it continues to serve this function, it should not apologize to those who want it to fit the timetables of electoral politics and G-20 summits.

 

LITTLEMANTATE

2:36 PM ET

January 2, 2012

What contempt for your own people, Mr. Traub.

And here folks it is, liberal internationalism; Americans are lazy, stupid, undeserving peasants who are only useful in that they serve as human resources to fund the Great Work of saving the world, and subsidizing the business interests of their betters and the entitlements of the boomers and the private bank accounts of foreign kleptocrats. Unworthy dogs, do they not know how blessed they are to have the leaders God has given them! How dare they criticize!

We don't have bad guys, we just aren't "competitive" enough, i.e. we need to do more of what we are already doing, and our woes are the Tea Party's fault, not massive spending on a militarist empire or the 30 year decline of a deindustrializing nation.

@elliotwoods,

Excellent rejoinder, but you miss the purpose of the piece. Mr. Traub is engaging in a centuries old rhetorical device, using the example of saintly foreigners to demonize or criticize a domestic target, like those impudent brats in OWS.

I think it very telling that the only presidential candidate who hasn't imperiously dismissed the OWSers (GOP)-often in front of a crowd of medicare recipients-or cynically tried to use them (Obama), is Ron Paul.

 

BGVFYDFDSHJ

7:53 PM ET

January 2, 2012

very good web: ===

very good web: === http://www.plzzshop.com

The website wholesale for many kinds of fashion shoes, like the nike, jordan, prada, also including the jeans, shirts, bags, hat and the decorations.

All the products are free shipping, and the the price is competitive, and also can accept the paypal payment., After the payment, can ship within short time.

We will give you a discount

WE ACCEPT PYAPAL PAYMENT

YOU MUST NOT MISS IT!!!

=== http://www.plzzshop.com

thank you!!!

Believe you will love it.

We have good reputation, fashion products,

come here quickly== http://www.plzzshop.com

Opportunity knocks but once

 

ARRANJOFLORESCOM

7:53 PM ET

January 6, 2012

I think you give

They are feeling let down and because they are not willing to engage in the hard self-analysis of what psychological need believing in him served in them, they are misdirecting their rage.....saude aeronaves

 

HECTORGREG11

12:44 PM ET

January 25, 2012

not even close

Lets not get carried away here. The occupy wall street folks are part of the 1% when you compare them to the rest of the world. The Arab springers are part of the 99% who are fighting for their lives and their freedom. In America, we have a reasonable amount of freedom of speech and that is a lot compared to what some of the people fighting for the arab spring have modern furniture austin tx so lets not get carried away and put our protesters on a pedestal. In fact they are going about this the wrong way, all they would have to do is to move their money out of the big banks and vote with the almighty dollar instead of this sob story that they continually hold onto austin apartments live is good in the west no matter how bad it gets.

 

YARINSIZ

9:23 AM ET

January 27, 2012

Is there a point at which

Is there a point at which your hunger for the earnings of others can ever be sated? Or would you still be unhappy with 100% and the centrally controlled economy that this would bring? Somehow I suspect there is no "high enough taxes" to get you the revenue you think you require. First figure out why the highest level of spending to GDP since WW2 still seslichat isn't enough before you complain that the people paying somehow aren't paying enough.