The Wall Street Protest Generation

Eleven years ago, as we stood at the threshold of the new millennium, our paper featured analysis that predicted that the next 1,000 years would be rife with clashes between rich and poor. These predictions were just in time for the Sept. 11 attacks, which effectively ended the era of protected freedoms fostered by the French Revolution.

Founding Father Benjamin Franklin once said, “Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety deserve neither.” Two centuries later, the inheritors of the nation feel differently. Even the security of the sanctified financial center Wall Street is under threat from the outrage toward the system.

Just before the sounding of the gong that ushered Turkcell into the ranks of Wall Street-traded firms, protesters across the globe demanded the rights that they claim the capitalist system is stealing from them. They are able to do this, however, within the “highest level of security.”

The main question is this: How is it that 1 percent of the population is able to control 99 percent of the wealth? Although most of the protesters may not have been aware of the famous Pareto Principle, which claims that 80 percent of sales come from 20 percent of clients, they are quick to claim that 1 percent of the population controls 99 percent of the wealth.

Although the movement may have started on Wall Street, it has more resonance in Europe. This is probably because the climate is ripe in Europe at the moment to trigger such protests. Everywhere, save for Germany, has seen reduced credit ratings, weakening banking sectors and in extreme cases, like Greece, the threat of national bankruptcy. Within this context, the rich-poor gap is reflected more vividly within protests.

The Wall Street protesters have made a banner out of confessions of the dollar’s former boss, Alan Greenspan. “We were mistaken” and “The free market is incapable of regulating itself” have become slogans of the movement.* Making use of similar “crisis confessions,” the Wall Street movement attempts to gain more structure — essentially becoming more systematic while remaining “against the system.”

They are creating working groups, outlining a platform and inventing a “code language” particular to the movement. For example, crowds can express approval for what a speaker is saying by silently opening two hands and raising them to chest level. Lowering two hands to belly-level, on the other hand, is a sign of disapproval. Intertwining one’s fingers below the chin is a way of saying “I have an objection.” Interlocked wrists and clenched fists are how you say “Let’s take action!”

Watching the efforts of the Wall Street protesters to “organize” is like watching atheists trying to form a religion … they have formed committees to handle health, food matters, direct action and solidarity. As for the reception of this movement in society, no matter how much the Wall Street protesters are against the establishment, they speak out only as much as the establishment allows them to.

Here you find none of the “lynch mob” mentality present in Eastern societies that is seen when “40 individual cowards gather to make a collective display of courage,” as we say. It’s strange that they think differently in the face of all of the blatant pomp and decadence of the banking industry, since they see themselves as so poor.

This is the sanctuary of money, and many think that “because of this place” America is on its way down. So, what is the reaction of the object of these protests? They have long given up denying the existence of the protests. Now they are in the “belittling” phase and moving into “counterattack” mode. They call them layabouts and lowlifes. “Layabout” is meant to say that they wouldn’t work even if there were jobs available, while “lowlife” means they are the poorest people of society. In essence, they mean to say that it’s the protesters’ fault, not the system’s.

History shows, however, that after such a wave of protest has gotten going, no system can remain in place as it once was. Whether large or small, it becomes subject to “ruptures” and is forced to “change.”

What is being asked on Wall Street today is whether there will be a balance between freedom and security and whether or not it will successfully close the current gap between rich and poor.

*Translators Note: Alan Greenspan only admitted to being partially mistaken, and never directly said that the market cannot regulate itself. See: http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2008/oct/24/economics-creditcrunch-federal-reserve-greenspan.