WHAT'S IN A NAME?
In present day political discourse, the terms democracy, capitalism are used to label policies, candidates, issues and societies, in order, to either support or condemn all of the aforementioned. Labels are either convenient rally cries or condemnatory statements on anything, anybody and everything. The assumption is that we all know what these terms are and what they mean. These are not any old terms - these terms represent the very basis of what we believe should be the way our lives and our living should be based upon.
These labels also have an immediate historical perspective. Democracy / Capitalism triumphed over Totalitarianism / Socialism and Communism and therefore is the triumph of good over evil, right over wrong and what works and what does not work. (This so particularly in the USA where if you can, for example, successfully attach the label of socialist to Obama's healthcare proposal, then that is that).
THINGS DON'T MEAN WHAT THEY USED TO.
Firstly, although Communism failed in Russia and Capitalism took over the regime is still totalitarian. Similarly, in China where Capitalism has been embraced, totalitarianism reigns supreme. So unhappily the linkage no longer applies.
Firstly, although Communism failed in Russia and Capitalism took over the regime is still totalitarian. Similarly, in China where Capitalism has been embraced, totalitarianism reigns supreme. So unhappily the linkage no longer applies.
Secondly, in America, although Capitalism still reigns supreme there is an ever-increasing belief that Democracy has taken a big hit. The argument is that the immensely wealthy, together with their corporations, Political Action Committees and their lobbyists have taken control of the system making the process of Democracy meaningless.
While, there is no doubt that Capitalism has lead to a higher standard of living for literally 100's of millions in America, never before has the disparity in the mean wage between a CEO and an employee been as great - nearly 450 times. Also the 1% are earning 40% of the total USA income. Whereas in prior times, as a result of checks and balances, everyone was a winner now the rich are literally getting richer and the poor poorer. Also the perception is that the institutions of the rich gamed the system to create the financial mess and that the political infrastructure favor the 1%. This in a time of the severest economic circumstances since World War 11.
While, there is no doubt that Capitalism has lead to a higher standard of living for literally 100's of millions in America, never before has the disparity in the mean wage between a CEO and an employee been as great - nearly 450 times. Also the 1% are earning 40% of the total USA income. Whereas in prior times, as a result of checks and balances, everyone was a winner now the rich are literally getting richer and the poor poorer. Also the perception is that the institutions of the rich gamed the system to create the financial mess and that the political infrastructure favor the 1%. This in a time of the severest economic circumstances since World War 11.
Nowhere was this more clearly articulated, when Michael Moore joining the Occupy Wall Street movement, opined, that Capitalism had lost it's way and that just because we can vote for someone does not mean we have a Democracy. He opined further that the reason they were occupying Wall Street and not Capitol Hill was that Congress was the servant of the 1% that Wall Street symbolically represented. The protest had to be with the paymasters not their servants - Congress.
THE 99 PERCENTERS AND THE POLITICAL SYSTEM.
Thus the" Occupy Wall Street" essentially maintain that 1% control the future of America. (See Blog- The American Future - May the Best 1% win). Politicians have been caught of guard by this movement. The Left have not fully embraced it and the right "understand it". Even Ben Benanke, the Chairman of the Federal Reserve - the very guardian of capitalism as we understand it - recognizes the group's "frustration". Both Pelosi, more vigorously, and Boehner, more guardedly, have recognized their "concerns" So the protest group, which under normal circumstances, would be called the left wing lunatic fringe on the one hand, and the social conscience of the nation on the other, is garnering half - baked support all round. At present they are peripheral to mainstream politics and are not the center of the media's attention. Previously, the movement could have not have grown without media support but they don't need it anymore - they have the social media.
THE MOVEMENT'S POTENTIAL
The protestors are amorphous, unfocussed and leaderless but they have only being going a few months. While students are thought to be the majority of this debate there are other groups that are either participants or potential participants - "the workers", the unemployed - all 5 million of them, the homeless, the environmentalists, the foreclosed and those home owners that are under water, not to mention more than a smattering of 1 percenters.... Thus this is not similar to a predominantly student based protest with narrow objectives such as the anti draft Vietnam War protests. Nor can they be compared, as often as they are, to The Tea Party. The latter have a strict political agenda and definite political objectives. They wanted smaller government, minimal taxation and had a social agenda and their modus operandi was to take over the Republican Party.
Thus this group is out there gaining momentum. The movement is growing and growing in all sorts of states and locations. As many as 600 different communities are said to be involved. Recently, they scored a major success by closing down one of America's largest harbors, Oakland, for a day.
There is another more powerful example of the impact of this movement. Bank of America, the largest bank in the USA, introduced a $5 per month charge on debit cards. The latter are used instead of checks and are regarded as cash. Normally, this would have been accepted with a moan and as a fact of life. Other major banks followed. However, the outcry was spontaneous and devastating. Bank of America withdrew their charge but not before large numbers of their clients withdrew their business. In no time the social media was awash with exhortations to join local small banks and credit unions. A Bank Transfer Month was announced on the Internet and the Credit Unions added 650,000 members and $4.5 Billion in new deposits in a month. That was 50,000 more new accounts in one month than the whole of 2010. In every local newspaper in the US the Credit Unions are advertising, as are the local banks. The impact on the major institutions should this continue could be paradigm changing especially if insurance companies, for example, are similarly hit.
THE ANATOMY OF A PROTEST MOVEMENT
At the end of the day no one can predict where this is all going other than it is snowballing. This type of movement is difficult to stop, especially with the social media it won't fizzle out. The movement consists of many heads and is undisciplined. It is hard to keep it non violent like the Civil Rights Movement or the Indian Independence movement. There is no King or Gandhi or central focus. The "trouble makers" among them either provoke violence or the undisciplined amongst the police or politicians resort to violence. Then there are protests about the violence of the law enforcers, which inevitably provokes more violence, arrests, injuries, court appearances and more momentum. The violence increases the public interest but never the cause unless it is blatantly suppressive as we have seen in the Arab Spring.
A natural mobilization of this energy would be for Obama to say, "What you are saying I am trying to enact". He cannot do it because the movement is directionless and leaderless and what happens if an unacceptable agenda gels or the movement gets destructive and he is identified with chaos? Likewise the movement is not going to identify with Obama because he promised to change "politics as usual" and look where we are 4 years later.
At the moment the spokesperson has to be Michael Moore who has already expressed his disappointment with Obama. However Moore may be a celebrity but he is no politician. He is, unashamedly, a bull in a China Shop. So some one has to step up to the plate and channel this frustration and anger at the current system. History has a knack of producing someone who might lead this growing mass of malcontents into a cohesive political force and policy focus.
If and when this happens one can begin to measure their impact. For example, what if a charismatic leader said it was time to change the constitution so that financial political contributions are not defined as free speech? Or that the articulated focus be that all elections no matter where or what could not have any contributions at all and should be centrally financed? With the social media and some of the 1 percenters money what would have been a pipe dream 10 years ago could become a reality.
