Protesting for Justice
_
During the last few
months the United States has witnessed the birth of a massive protest movement
which has spread all across the country. Beginning in Liberty Square in
Manhattan’s Financial District, the initiative, named Ocuppy Wall Street (OWS),
has managed to cover some hundred cities. However, New York has been naturally
the main location where protesters have concentrated efforts, enlarged networks
and attracted wider attention. So far, OWS has undertaken several activities
such as civil disobedience, camping, assemblies, etc., so as to generate change
from the bottom up. For them, there is a shared feeling that the economic
system no longer guarantees democracy. Wall Street, banks, and financial
institutions have steered America towards an absurd and unfair concentration of
the income and wealth. It is hardly
surprising, then, that the slogan that embodies the mobilization contends: “we
are the 99%,” displaying the specific purpose of the movement i.e. fighting
back against the rising inequality within the United States where a wealthy 1%
of the population get the biggest slice of the cake.
Still, the economist Joseph Stiglitz highlights the fact that protests are playing out globally. Before taking place in New York, they began in Tunisia, then spread to Egypt, and finally to Spain. All of them seem to share the conviction that the “system” has failed and it has to be improved. Things go wrong and people are not going to take it anymore. Today, the world observes huge unmet needs, global warming, underutilized resources and a widening gap, to list just a few. So what is happening in the US is not an isolated chain of events, but the outcome of a worldwide process.
Stiglitz points out the enormous increase in inequality in the US: 1% of the population controls more than 40% of the wealth and receives more than 20% of the income. In other words, the richest 400 americans have more wealth than 150.000.000 combined. Paradoxically, that wealthy minority is not richly rewarded because of its contributions to society. They are neither “job creators” nor entrepreneurs like Bill Gates or Steve Jobs. According to the economist Paul Krugman, they are, for the most part, corporate executives and wheeler-dealers. That is to say, people who got rich by peddling complex financial schemes which, far from producing real benefits for society altogether, have led the US economy to recession. Worse, this sly elite uses its economic power to affect, either legally or illegally, political decisions and shape legislation in its favour. No wonder Stiglitz views it as a group of successful and sometimes corrupt rent-seekers i.e. people who obtain rents by manipulating the social and political environment without producing wealth or adding value.
Ironically, these are the very groups who were bailed out by the Federal Reserve after the global economic and financial crisis in 2008. The bailout package set in motion so as to rescue the world’s financial institutions and banks was extraordinarily big. The prestigious economist Manfred Max-Neef, lays out that it reached the outrageous figure of 13 trillion dollars. Numbers that sharply contrast with what the FAO (Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations) considers necessary to overcome world’s hunger in one year, namely 30.000 million dollars. After dividing the bailout package with the FAO estimations, Max-Neef comes up with a shocking conclusion. Theoretically, the rescue injection would have been enough to overcome world’s hunger for almost five hundred years.
Gloomily, that is how, by and large, the system constantly renews itself at the expense of the general welfare. As if inequality would have gotten the green light to keep on growing. Hence, anyone may fairly ask: why don’t we combat world hunger instead of rescuing institutions and rich groups who scarcely contribute to society? Why are we helping those who have raised inequality? What are the real benefits of unfettered markets?
Justly, people have decided to pack the streets in the US. They are right to complain about a system that remains stagnated and favours a small portion of the population. Marchers would like a democratic economic system whereby, for instance, those who have more, are taxed more; those who contribute more to society, are paid better; as well as controlled markets which guarantee a fairer revenue sharing in order to assure equality, etc. To put it briefly, they are fighting for a fairer living.
However, all these beliefs have sparked a hysterical reaction of the rich elite that, by no means, will risk its interests. Since long ago, the wealthy minority has strongly stigmatized whoever tries to undermine its privileges. The government of the rich, or rather, the plutocracy, as Krugman calls it, is terrified every time that it is criticized. Thus, unfairly, everyone who speaks out and opposes the system ends up disapproved. If anything, while OWS members have complained on the streets peacefully, pro-government pundits, the wealthy and reactionary forces have cheekily managed to sully the image of the movement, drawing upon smear campaigns or simply turning a blind eye to it. Obviously the favoured are not interested in changing the current status quo.
Yet, it is not possible to deny that OWS has risen up as an alternative democratic force and, most importantly, as a democratizing power. The former, because they have acted on the basis of participatory democracy, that is to say, the exercise of power from the bottom up. As a leaderless, nonviolent and multicultural movement, it has been a great example of empowerment of civil society and collective action on the streets. The latter, because OWS has been demanding essential changes in the system. Basically, it has shown its flaws and the importance of finding solutions. Thanks to mobilization, many people now are aware of crucial things affecting their lives. In other words, OWS has shown clearly that democracy is perfectible and how the fate of societies can be built by all. Of course, nobody knows for sure what is going to happen, but justice is a worthwhile end to reach. So protesters must struggle on.
Still, the economist Joseph Stiglitz highlights the fact that protests are playing out globally. Before taking place in New York, they began in Tunisia, then spread to Egypt, and finally to Spain. All of them seem to share the conviction that the “system” has failed and it has to be improved. Things go wrong and people are not going to take it anymore. Today, the world observes huge unmet needs, global warming, underutilized resources and a widening gap, to list just a few. So what is happening in the US is not an isolated chain of events, but the outcome of a worldwide process.
Stiglitz points out the enormous increase in inequality in the US: 1% of the population controls more than 40% of the wealth and receives more than 20% of the income. In other words, the richest 400 americans have more wealth than 150.000.000 combined. Paradoxically, that wealthy minority is not richly rewarded because of its contributions to society. They are neither “job creators” nor entrepreneurs like Bill Gates or Steve Jobs. According to the economist Paul Krugman, they are, for the most part, corporate executives and wheeler-dealers. That is to say, people who got rich by peddling complex financial schemes which, far from producing real benefits for society altogether, have led the US economy to recession. Worse, this sly elite uses its economic power to affect, either legally or illegally, political decisions and shape legislation in its favour. No wonder Stiglitz views it as a group of successful and sometimes corrupt rent-seekers i.e. people who obtain rents by manipulating the social and political environment without producing wealth or adding value.
Ironically, these are the very groups who were bailed out by the Federal Reserve after the global economic and financial crisis in 2008. The bailout package set in motion so as to rescue the world’s financial institutions and banks was extraordinarily big. The prestigious economist Manfred Max-Neef, lays out that it reached the outrageous figure of 13 trillion dollars. Numbers that sharply contrast with what the FAO (Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations) considers necessary to overcome world’s hunger in one year, namely 30.000 million dollars. After dividing the bailout package with the FAO estimations, Max-Neef comes up with a shocking conclusion. Theoretically, the rescue injection would have been enough to overcome world’s hunger for almost five hundred years.
Gloomily, that is how, by and large, the system constantly renews itself at the expense of the general welfare. As if inequality would have gotten the green light to keep on growing. Hence, anyone may fairly ask: why don’t we combat world hunger instead of rescuing institutions and rich groups who scarcely contribute to society? Why are we helping those who have raised inequality? What are the real benefits of unfettered markets?
Justly, people have decided to pack the streets in the US. They are right to complain about a system that remains stagnated and favours a small portion of the population. Marchers would like a democratic economic system whereby, for instance, those who have more, are taxed more; those who contribute more to society, are paid better; as well as controlled markets which guarantee a fairer revenue sharing in order to assure equality, etc. To put it briefly, they are fighting for a fairer living.
However, all these beliefs have sparked a hysterical reaction of the rich elite that, by no means, will risk its interests. Since long ago, the wealthy minority has strongly stigmatized whoever tries to undermine its privileges. The government of the rich, or rather, the plutocracy, as Krugman calls it, is terrified every time that it is criticized. Thus, unfairly, everyone who speaks out and opposes the system ends up disapproved. If anything, while OWS members have complained on the streets peacefully, pro-government pundits, the wealthy and reactionary forces have cheekily managed to sully the image of the movement, drawing upon smear campaigns or simply turning a blind eye to it. Obviously the favoured are not interested in changing the current status quo.
Yet, it is not possible to deny that OWS has risen up as an alternative democratic force and, most importantly, as a democratizing power. The former, because they have acted on the basis of participatory democracy, that is to say, the exercise of power from the bottom up. As a leaderless, nonviolent and multicultural movement, it has been a great example of empowerment of civil society and collective action on the streets. The latter, because OWS has been demanding essential changes in the system. Basically, it has shown its flaws and the importance of finding solutions. Thanks to mobilization, many people now are aware of crucial things affecting their lives. In other words, OWS has shown clearly that democracy is perfectible and how the fate of societies can be built by all. Of course, nobody knows for sure what is going to happen, but justice is a worthwhile end to reach. So protesters must struggle on.