Occupy Wall Street has moved to other areas. There are occupy movements in places like Oakland, California, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania and Portland, Oregon. Rapper Jay-Z has taken the Occupy Wall Street logo and modified it into a new emblem reading Occupy All Streets.
The question is whether these groups have any fundamental idea of what their movement stems from, what it represents or what its ultimate fulfillment would entail. It is highly doubtful. The general message is that the Occupy movement is a protest against American wealth being hoarded by the wealthiest Americans.
However, several observations reveal that the underlying ideas and philosophies are either misunderstood or deliberately ignored. First, the occupy movement seems focused on Wall Street and its symbolizing privileged white male America. Black entertainers and athletes as well as female entertainers who are multi-millionaires are not included in the “one-percent” that is the supposed reason for the protests. Even though the United States President is quite wealthy and privileged, his not being a privileged white male American makes him an alley of the Occupy movement, not a target.
Second, the word occupy is inherently militant. Oxford dictionary defines occupy as “… take control of (a place, especially a country) by military conquest or settlement.” Now it might be argued that occupy merely means to take up space, but that is a passive stance without purpose. To occupy with an intent is a militant action.
These two observations reveal that the Occupy movement is nothing but an extension of the ongoing call for a complete takeover of the United States’ private sector by government for the sake of the poor and unsuccessful working class (to the exclusion of successful working class). The mentality of Marxist revolutionary thought (take from the rich by force and give to the poor) remains in full swing. Whereas politicians and educators may carry out the revolution peacefully through legislation and ideas, activists are still operating on the foundation that there must be some sort of revolution.
The difference between the progress of socialist ideas and a revolution of socialist ideas is that the rich are considered inherently guilty of crimes against humanity and a revolution would require some sort of immediate and unbending justice. Those who join in the Occupy movements have not asked themselves if they are prepared to carry out a violent campaign including the persecution of the guilty rich. In revolutionary movements, the guilty must be held accountable for crimes committed. That is the nature of revolution.
In Oakland, the protests have turned violent and at one point, the occupiers were able to shut down a port, threatening the livelihood of the area. This is the natural and honest expression of what an “occupy” movement means. If the Occupy Wall Street crowds are wanting a non-violent measure then they are either delusional or cowards. A peaceful protest would have been a temporary gathering before government officials.
“Occupy Wall Street” is inherently a call to action against citizens for the sake of the government, not a call against the government for the sake of the citizens.
In the French Revolution, a peaceful transition to equality was the beginning of the movement, in the end, it became a violent bloodbath. The crowds who are happily supporting and participating in the Occupy movements seem woefully ignorant of what they truly stand for. If they should discover it, they will have to choose to either walk away or take a violent stance for the cause.
The Occupy crowd does not seem to understand the inevitability of it all.