Occupy Wall Street: Post-political protesting or waste of time?
November 3, 2025 7:01 PM
The roar of the people
Lewis Forward
I feel really helpless, sometimes, when I look at the state of things in politics, especially in the United States, which was once the Land of the Free. How can reason and humanity compete with the machinations of a self-regulated financial industry with an increasingly pervasive control of society? Can they?
Politicians in the West have become increasingly isolated from the desires, frustrations and dreams of the people they represent. When the goals of government have branched off from the citizens they are elected to represent, history shows that these citizens rise in protest and use their numbers to show that they can command the change they seek once the official channels become impotent.
The Occupy Wall Street (OWS) protests began on Wall Street in central Manhattan, and spread in less than a month to over 1600 cities and towns. The marchers come from many backgrounds. They are the young who have no employment prospects but huge student debt. They are the friends, family, and countrymen of those who are old or sick and have no way to pay for necessary operations, medication and care.
They are homeowners who have been forced out of their homes by the millions, because they were sold unhealthy mortgages by banks (which, due to de-regulation, are also investment firms) that turned their livelihoods into capital and gambled, passing their losses down to their customers.
Their neighbours are there too. They are millionaires and heirs to fortunes who see the wrongness in such concentrated wealth. The marchers think something is wrong with the financial system that governs the West. It turns out that’s quite a few of us.
When there are hundreds of thousands of people on the street, there is a problem. When funding is cut for the arts, the protection of the environment, social programs, policing, fire departments, healthcare, education, and regulation, while corporations and the wealthy pay the lowest taxes they ever have – if any – shouldn’t something be done?
That’s what all these people think. That’s what they’re doing: forcing change.
In the modern day, though, when everyone, including the protesters themselves, depends on the products of the corporations that they rally against, renovations rather than revolutions occur.
Those who occupy do not protest capitalism in itself, and they do not wish to revolt against the government. Many of these men and women like their iPhones. They like their supermarkets, their public education and other government programs, and they like the idea of the American Dream. These things will not be destroyed; these people aren’t demanding a revolution but a return to the rule of law.
The men and women of the occupations just seek to rein in the excesses and bad habits which have put Western economies into a dark and downward spiral, led the earth’s ecosystem on a death march, and put the wealth of millions in the hands of several hundred.
This isn’t unreasonable, and it doesn’t require dismantling systems that keep products flowing. On the contrary, if law and order are restored to the financial industry, competition, small business, and entrepreneurship will flourish. These people are protesting for the revitalization of the American Dream.
The people who have spoken out in support of Occupy Wall Street have been surprising: Vikram Pandit, CEO of Citigroup, has offered to speak with them, calling their goals “completely understandable.”
Ben Bernanke, chairman of the U.S. Federal Reserve, spoke of how OWS protesters “blame, with some justification, the problems in the financial sector for getting us into this mess and they’re dissatisfied with the policy response here in Washington.” His comments from Capitol Hill reflect the growing political support for the concerns of the protesters.
Politicians who initially denounced and underestimated the protestors, like House Majority Leader Erik Cantor who referred to the rallies as “growing mobs,” have been quick to correct themselves as they begin to understand the widespread support for the movement. This thing is big and seems to make sense to almost everyone. It’s beautiful.
This isn’t a far left-wing protest of hippies and anarchists. This is the everyman rally; a loud, defiant roar let loose from throats that have held roaring in for too long, thinking roaring is only for lions. Well, it turns out we are all lions when backed into a corner. And this lion is fearsome enough to take on a rampaging bull.
Responsibility on both sides of the street Margaret Werniuk
I became interested in the Occupy Wall Street Movement when I read about the march down Bay Street in Toronto, not only because I’m from Toronto but because the Occupiers are using St. James Park at the edge of the city’s financial district as their headquarters. For the past two summers, I have worked at the head office of a mining company (which shall remain unnamed) directly across the street from St. James Park. My first reaction to this news was relief: “Thank goodness I’m not there!” I really don’t like the idea of passing protesters on my way to an upscale downtown office where I’ve been paid a good amount of money to spend my time helping the company make more. It’s a very uncomfortable juxtaposition. Beginning in elementary school, our education emphasizes social justice and the righteousness of mass movements. We root for the suffragettes, the civil rights marchers, the Vietnam protesters and the uprisings that have disposed all walks of autocrat from Louis XVI to Moammar Gadhafi. But with age and experience I realized that people who advocate social change don’t have a monopoly on virtue. And, by the same token, corporations are not by necessity morally bankrupt. The scrutiny of the Occupy Wall Street Movement is entirely deserved. It is fair to ask direct questions—What do they want? Is it reasonable?—and expect good answers. Personally, I don’t think the Canadian movement has any longevity. The sense of grievance isn’t as strong here as it is in the U.S. and I suspect that St. James Park will be vacated when the weather gets cold. But poor organization and loopy tactics don’t mean that the Occupiers’ sentiments aren’t valid, especially south of the border. However they express it, a great number of people are being really shortchanged by the status quo. There are many (if somewhat less than 99%) who have watched their share in society shrink because of the actions of more powerful people. They are unemployed university grads with astronomical debt, workers who have lost their benefits or their jobs, seniors whose retirement savings have disappeared, and many other segments of the population. Not all of these people have joined or even support the Occupy Movement. Many have found a very different soapbox for venting their anger: the right-wing wing-nut Tea Party. They blame the wrong people for causing America’s problems and propose wacky solutions, but their existence is born out of very real frustration. And, for better or worse, the Tea Party has political longevity. The reason there are tents on Wall Street and there are Tea Party rallies is that a lot of people are upset, and rightfully so. Whether their tactics are credible or not, they are only window dressing meant to draw attention to the significant problems caused by the governing and economic structures of Western society. So what, if anything, does this mean for university students? For the time being we’re comfortably removed from the real world, spending our time studying these structures rather than actively participating in them. But upon graduation, that passivity will end. We will join society and go in different directions, to both sides of the street if you will. Some will probably be underemployed and saddled with debt, but many graduates—from all disciplines—will end up with good, high-paying jobs. It’s gratifying to have our talents and education rewarded with good salaries and perks, and of course we need to pay the bills. But it would be willfully ignorant to forget the broader implications, and to not examine whether a good job comes at a cost to someone else. Is it right for management to get bonuses while workers lose their benefits? Were there other people who were better qualified for this job but didn’t have the connections? Is a company outsourcing jobs while local unemployment is rising? We should not be complicit in a system that ill-serves a large portion of our society. This doesn’t meaning turning down good jobs but rather bringing a social awareness into them. It involves objecting to bad practices and injustice: unreasonable salaries (high and low), nepotism, mistreatment of workers, and other things that privilege one group at the expense of another. This isn’t radical—it’s just ethics. I know which side of the street I’d rather be on, but shame on me if I ever consider closing the blinds and forgetting who’s outside.
Be proactive, not a protester Leah Feret
Straight up, this piece is going to assert some strong opinions. Is the whole Occupy phenomenon interesting? Yes. Should we, as an academic body, pay attention to it and use it as an opportunity to engage in critical discussion regarding the topics of the protests? Yes. Is the Occupy movement actually going to accomplish anything? No. I wouldn’t bet on it. Is it potentially offensive and degrading to actual genuine efforts for progressive and sustainable change? I say yes. Let me explain: The Occupy protests have spread to cities all across the world and claim that they are “in solidarity with Occupy Wall Street.” Let’s ignore the fact that half of them don’t understand the true concept of solidarity for now. What does Occupy Wall Street stand for? “The 99% against the 1%! Social and economic inequality!” Great, what are you going to do about it? Either these protesters have no idea why they are standing there, or they all have their own concerns and sub-issues that they deem to be important. Those who want social and economic equality do not seem to understand the consequences of what they are asking for, nor do they offer a plan to change things in a healthy way. The Occupy movement has yet to define itself with a common theme or “thesis statement,” if you will. It is disorganized and offers no tangible benefit. Sure, some may find it mentally satisfying or spiritually rewarding to sit outside with a sign and really feel like they’re doing something. The whole romantic notion is very attractive. Yet how is change possible when the movement has no real goal in mind? Not one idea or plan has come from this glorified mess of neo-hippies. And I doubt any will. I guess they could stumble upon something and take credit for it. Crazier things have happened. The whole movement is silly and backwards and makes a mockery of actual worth-while causes that have done their research and are working for change. The Occupy movement is missing two key elements for success: a common goal and a leader. If you study the structure of progressive successes in politics, sources always include a charismatic leader in the definition of the success. The Occupy movement has no leader. Therefore, history has taught us that it will not succeed. Some revolutions with group leaders but no definitive leader have been successful. A group without a definitive leader could still be successful, but those rare examples have succeeded because the members had a clear and concise goal in mind and agreed on a plan of action. The Occupy movement has no singular goal, and there is no plan. James Orbinski, a Nobel Peace Prize winner, said that “solidarity implies a willingness to confront the causes and conditions of suffering that persist in destroying dignity, and to demand a minimum respect for human life. Solidarity also means recognizing the dignity and autonomy of others, and asserting the right of others to make choices about their own destiny.” Call me a DEVS student, but there are over 15,000 children dying from hunger every day, and these protesters are angry that there are people richer than them? There are always going to be people who have more and less than we do. We should be thankful we were born with opportunities. Lasting change has never come from anger; it comes from genuine respect, and a desire to better the world. You are not suffering. I’m pretty sure you’re not dying. So be proactive and change what you don’t like – create a policy or petition a vote – or just stop being a selfish lazy mess and go do something that’s worthwhile. Then, my friends, you may be worthy of using the word solidarity.
