The movement of "
Occupying Wall Street" reminded me a lot of the Tiananmen Square in Beijing in 1989.
There
were many similarities and differences. Since I was in college then,
and participated the sit-in for about 24 hours in late May that year, I
have personal memory to abet my analysis below.
First, let's see the still developing and forming movement of the "Occupying Wall Street". According to occupywallst.org, the
de facto online resource for the ongoing protests happening on Wall Street,
Occupy Wall Street is a horizontally organized resistance movement employing the revolutionary Arab Spring
tactic to restore democracy in America. We use a tool known as a
"people's assembly" to facilitate collective decision making in an open,
participatory and non-binding manner. We call ours the NYC General Assembly
and we welcome people from all colors, genders and beliefs to attend
our daily assemblies.
It is fair to say, that the
economic woes, amongst the young people in particular, were the
immediate triggers behind the "Arab Spring" and "Occupying Wall Street"
(OWS), either one blame this condition on ruthless despots in Mideast,
or greedy bankers sucking blood on the nation and the middle class and
the poor in the US, aided by political structures to maintain the status
quo profitable for a handful few - perhaps not just the top 1%, as
argued by economist
Paul Krugman.
The
current unemployment rate is really high and it is much higher amongst
the young people. The unemployed, in general, are not to be blamed for
their conditions. It was the greedy Wall Street bankers, recklessly
drove the nation and the world to the brink of collapse, aided again and
again by the political establishments from both parties and bailed out
by the government who labeled them "too big to
[allow] fail".
In
1989, when Chinese students hit the streets and occupied Tiananmen
Square in Beijing, they were motivated by both a demand for better
economic future for themselves, and an open, democratic system which
would reverse the economic foe they were facing upon graduation. Since
late 1980s, the income amongst intellectuals in China was seriously
behind labors and the resentments amongst college students were
extremely high, since they were confronted with the reality that their
salaries would be much lower than their allowances their parents gave
them while in colleges. Just like here, it was the political structure
created such unstable and unacceptable situation for people, therefore
the youths rebelled.
Thus the similarity.
There
is a major difference. In 1989, the student movement had a clear
leadership circle, who made many concrete demands which could be
implemented, amongst the general calls for democracy, while OWS seems
somewhat headless and made no concrete demands.
The
reason behind this major different is that China had a highly
centralized government and major decisions were made by a handful of
people; while the U.S. is a decentralized government with several
branches and levels, and no domineering political forces which can
dictate an immediate change. Therefore, the tactics the OWS people has
adopted, namely building a movement, not dissimilar to the Tea Party
movement, is more appropriate. It would grow, once more and more people
hear their voices and realized that they were indeed also belong to
that disenfranchised 99% (or 90%, argued by Krugman), and eventually,
some sympathetic but timid, or opportunistic politicians.
This
is not a class war declared on the wealthy or the act of jealous. Just
as in 1989, the Chinese students had no intention to overthrow the
government, but to redress the wrongs in the hands of the lopsided
policies and the political structures allowed no voices from them to be
heard.
Rather, OWS people are pointing out the failure
of the laissez-faire capitalism and the illusion of all people got rich
with the wealth trickles down from the top. In the pass, masked by the
rising housing prices and the easy credits, majority of middle classes
or even lower classes felt they had indeed drunk on the trickled down
spring water. After the economic crisis, some of them finally realized
that they had not been drinking any vintage but bitter pomace juice. What OWS people are trying to do, is to waken the rest up
and see clearly the inequality and unfairness guaranteed by this failed
and failing laissez-faire capitalism and its lackey - the main
political parties, the politicians and the officials, up to current
supreme court.
Some super rich people still jeer at
the OWS protesters. They claimed that what they demand is the failed
socialism. Well? No system or ism is fault free and since the
laissez-faire capitalism is ailing severely, people should not be
deterred by labels from explore good ideas from other forms of
government.
In the U.S., it is one dollar one vote
now. The middle class and the poor have ever diminishing voices. The
political apparatuses are closed to them. Even President Obama was not
willing or able to change the situation. I'd say unwilling.
The
disenfranchised people's anger is pointing at as much Wall Streets as
its enablers. When Obama claimed that those banking institution who
brought the nation to its knees by their reckless gaming as "too big to
[allow] fail", he instantaneously became their partner in crime. His
omitting the word
"allow", disingenuously covered up the fact
that it was the governmental decision to bail these institutions up at
the expenses of the middle class and the poor, to pump blood into them
to keep them alive and continue to exploit and to speculate, and hide
the fact that the government could have demand more oversight of these
speculators and more regulations to prevent the repeat.
People
have no place to go but the street. One only wonders what takes it so
long and if the politician would heed their voices and try to correct
the wrongs.
Occupy Wall Street protesters take part in a demonstration at Times Square in New York. Photograph: Eduardo Munoz/Reuters
Posts
