What Did Occupy Wall Street Achieve?

The first anniversary of the Occupy Wall Street movement was the occasion to bring the movement, whose visibility in the media was in free-fall for the past several months, out of the shadows. This lack of visibility was normal, though, since, according to the protesters, it was a movement of punk anarchists and unemployed students. For these people the Zuccotti Park takeover only had a symbolic meaning, despite the support of fiery director Michael Moore.

One should remember that the movement is much less structured than its terrible enemy, the tea party, as a result of evolving outside arcane politics. Even if the tea party isn’t a political party in the traditional sense of the word, several dozen members of the House of Representatives are self-proclaimed members. It uses national outlets and is overseen and directed politically by the Koch brothers, as well as championed in the media by the Fox News Channel.

OWS and the tea party share certain characteristics, such as their local focus, communitarianism and social interaction via the Internet (Tea Party Patriots website versus the InterOccupy and OccupyTogether websites).

Just like the tea party, the members of OWS hate Washington and the crony capitalism associated with it. But while the former denounced a federal state extensively assisting its citizens (see Romney’s recent statement on the 47 percent), the latter denounced the collision of politics with those in power in other sectors (bankers in particular) and the progressive destruction of the middle class.

Of course, the two movements are characterized by their rejection of “the system” and their detachment from the political process and traditional institutions which are, in their eyes, responsible for the present situation. The established system’s manner of action is judged inept and counter-productive.

The tea party’s main goal is to reject the norm, and not, like their predecessors the Libertarians (Ross Perot, for example), to more or less make strong alliances with established parties in order to meet their ends. It’s no longer a question of opposition and obstruction with filibusters or deadlock.

For OWS it’s sort of the same thing. In the early days, the big fear was a potential takeover by the great political machine or unions. OWS refused to associate with institutions judged as complicit with the social status quo. OWS wanted a spontaneous movement, reflecting a general boiling-over of a population facing unemployment and an increasing precarious situation. After several protests in California and Chicago, the movement hardly could develop to its advantage, hence its notable absence during the presidential campaign and its lack of influence on the middle class.

“Middle class” is a key word here. It is an unobvious divisor of the American population. And yet, the Pew Research Center published a revealing poll on the nature of American social conflicts. Well before the problems linked to immigration or minority rights, the principal dividing vector is the conflict between the rich and the poor: for 66 percent of people questioned, the gap doesn’t stop widening. The perception of a class conflict spreads and intensifies.

Contrary to the social movements of the 1960s, America is divided on economic problems: The demands are social and no longer political or racial.

In 1958, John Kenneth Galbraith published “The Affluent Society,” in which he presented a double image of America: an abundance of goods and services at the disposal of the private sector and the flourishing middle class, but insufficient public services and infrastructure. Today, public assets are in bad shape, and the middle class shrinks away.

A generation after his father’s book was published, James K. Galbraith wrote “Inequalities and Instability.” In it he notably points out the differences between the treatment of the savings and loan crisis in the beginning of the 1990s and the sub-prime lending crisis. During the savings and loan era the federal government conducted investigations and engaged in judiciary prosecution which resulted in prison sentences. The Department of Justice showed itself to be much more discreet in what followed the investigations of lies and frauds associated with a vast securitization market of bad debts.

In an interview with Bloomberg Radio on Dec. 14, 2011, he affirmed that “in Europe, where a tradition of public protest exists, you will have less manageable disruptive movements. In the United States, people tend to internalize their stress, to be excluded from the work force and to receive the little public aid they have a right to.”* Is this maintainable?

OWS’s lack of legitimacy is explained by its manner of operation, its potential to attract urban violence and its lack of coverage from political outlets and media (MNSBC at best). Seen as a “parasite” (according to The Wall Street Journal) it nevertheless influences local actions which redefine, although modestly, the American social spectrum.

In 23 states, mainly the South and Western states, “right to work” laws exist which forbid the hiring of union members. But the right to strike, on a national level, is much more regulated. In particular, the National Labor Relations Act stipulates that an employer cannot fire a worker on strike for economic reasons but can “replace him permanently.” The line is so fine that caution is needed and, ultimately, strikes are generally modest. This is what OWS is all about.

After certain actions of a communitarian nature (Occupy Our Homes, which locally helps households avoid eviction) and political nature (Foreclose the Banks, which exerts political pressure on local representatives and boasted about having raised awareness of the Libor scandal this past summer), OWS finally has associated with the institutions (unions, associations or the Democratic Party) it distrusted from its inception.

After having succeeded in uniting around May 1, the movement developed a particularly worthwhile strategy in new locales. Facing little room to maneuver around labor laws, it tends to follow local social movements: bringing logistical support, people and protesting skills. Now OWS serves as a springboard for other movements.

For a movement that made a lot of noise at its start, it’s modest and lacking substance. But the multiplication of local actions shouldn’t be ignored in a country where social movements and strikes are increasingly present. Though unions have become the defenders of certain interests (see, for example, the conflict which took place during the automobile company bailout in 2008), OWS gave a voice to individuals whose confidence in traditional institutions had disappeared.

*Editor’s Note: This quotation, accurately translated, could not be verified.