A Comparison of Global Protests: Occupy Wall Street and the 1990s Anti-Globalisation Movement [Part 2: Differences]

Although Occupy Wall Street and the 1990s anti-globalisation protests do share similarities, the differences between them are especially noteworthy. These divergences show what developments have occurred in the relatively new area of global protests. Some of the main differences between these movements are listed below:

• Context:  When the anti-globalisation protestors were agitating for change during the 1990s, the capitalist economic system was booming and employment was high. Although these protestors may have been displeased with the idea of inequality and poverty in third-world countries, many of these unpleasant realities did not directly affect their quality of life (Webb 74-75). However, the Occupy Wall Street protesters faced a far less favourable economic situation. According to the United States Bureau of Labour, the unemployment rate in June 1999 (the month in which the anti-globalisation protesters held their J18 Carnival Against Capital international demonstration) was 4.3%. The number of unemployed persons who were searching for their first job had fallen to 349,000 nationwide. The employment statistics for October 2011 (the month in which Occupy Wall Street’s 15-M synchronised global protests occurred) were far less pleasant. The overall unemployment rate stood at 9%. The number of unemployed new entrants into the job market had climbed to 1,293,000 nationwide. The anti-globalisation protests occurred in a period of sustained prosperity; the Occupy Wall Street protests occurred in the context of a prolonged economic recession. The differences between these environments may serve as an explanation for many of the divergences between the two movements which will be discussed below.

• Size and Scope: The anti-globalisation protests were far smaller in size than the Occupy Wall Street movement, with protests only occurring in a handful of large cities during the decade. Furthermore, these cities, namely Seattle, Montréal, Genoa and London are all wealthy Western cities. By contrast, Occupy Wall Street protests have been held in 951 cities in 82 countries. Lists of these may be found here and here, although it is important to remember this data is user-submitted. Protests have been reported in smaller towns and in cities which do not play a major role in their country’s economy. Additionally, many of the protests occurred in non-Western nations and in developing nations, such as the countries of South America. OWS protests are far more widespread, and have managed to transcend cultural boundaries to a greater extent than the anti-globalisation movement, which remained confined to Western cities with a key role in the economy.

• Strategy: The anti-globalisation protests occurred sporadically and were day-long events in which protestors gathered at a specific location, voiced their dissent, then went home. Occupy Wall Street protestors have typically remained encamped at the location of their protest until being forcefully removed by police.

• Demands: The demands of Occupy Wall Street protestors are not clearly defined, which allows them to agitate for change in many areas. This makes the movement more adaptable, and it has been used as a platform by individuals and groups with many different agendas. OWS demands broad social change, and individuals within the movement have demanded education reform, political change, healthcare reform, immigration reform and many other issues. By contrast, anti-globalisation protestors confined the scope of their protests to economic matters. Therefore, their goals were far narrower, and the movement had more of a unified focus. Within the area of economic demands, the OWS protestors certainly seem to voice more radical demands than those expressed by the anti-globalisation protests. Perhaps this radicalisation is a result of desperation stemming from the economic downturn or, more likely, the large size and visible status of the movement –for, as Bill Wasik argues, a group which perceives itself to be powerful will act in a more extreme manner (Wasik 7). The anti-globalisation protestors opposed the particular manner in which capitalism was being used, not the idea of capitalism itself (Webb 74). However, there are visible elements of anti-capitalist thought among the OWS protestors, such as the Workers World Party.

An OWS protestor in New York City holds a sign reading "Capitalism is Organised Crime! This whole system has got to go."

Workers World Party members protest capitalism at a New York City OWS protest in September 2011

• Opponents: OWS differs from anti-globalisation protests because the movement has named specific opponents. Occupy Wall Street protests against “the 1%” of the wealthy, the Republican Party, banks, corporations and other persons or institutions mostly associated with the conservative establishment. OWS has selected specific targets and made their displeasure with these extremely public. Their hostility toward their opponents is palpable, and many of the protestors want the elites whom they dislike removed from power. In this sense, they are true “revolutionaries” who want to replace one societal order with another (Webb 74). The anti-globalisation activists objected to the manner in which capitalism was utilised, but had no explicitly named enemies and rarely called for leaders to be removed from power (Webb 74-76). Thus, OWS protesters are more strident in their demands and more targeted at their opponents than the anti-globalisation activists.

This OWS protestor has identified a specific corporate target

This OWS protestor advocates a class war, ostensibly with the revolutionary goal of removing current elites from power

• Technology: Although the anti-globalisation protests occurred in the internet age, the 1990s-era agitators did not have access to much of the technology used by OWS in the new millennium. I have not been able to find a website established by the anti-globalisation movement. By contrast, OWS has a tumblr and a twitter account to communicate with its followers. OWS also benefits from an increase in the speed and portability of technology; its adherents can follow the movement’s online presence with laptops and smartphones, and may thus receive updates at a moment’s notice. OWS’s use of technology makes it a more adaptable movement capable of rapid and spontaneous action. The challenge for these more connected protestors is maintaining control and avoiding unwanted mob-like outbursts.

Is the Occupy Wall Street movement strong because it constitutes a reaction against an unfriendly economic situation? Is the movement’s open platform more appealing to the public? Or does the movement owe its larger spread to the significant technological advancements which have occurred since the 1990s?

Global protests are a relatively new phenomenon, and their nature is still evolving. Clearly, the face of global protest can undergo a great deal of change in a short amount of time. What differences will another decade bring in the methods of global social movements? I’d love to hear your thoughts!

Emma

A Comparison of Global Protests: Occupy Wall Street and the 1990s Anti-Globalisation movement [Part 1: Similarities]

Although uprisings are by no means a new phenomenon, global social movements are a relatively recent development. Before the advent of globalisation, uprisings and revolutions were often confined to one country. During the Russian Revolution of 1917, many Marxists anticipated a world revolution and eagerly awaited the collapse of capitalist régimes. A Soviet propaganda image shows Lenin sweeping kings and bankers off the earth; its caption reads “Comrade Lenin cleanses the earth of filth.” Unfortunately for Lenin, this never came to fruition, and the revolution remained in Russia.

As such, very little precedent exists for the global spread of the Occupy Wall Street movement. Furthermore, in the two decades between the fall of the USSR and the start of the Arab Spring, revolutions of any sort had been quite rare. So rare, in fact, that many scholars writing at the dawn of the 21st century considered them to be a thing of the past. Writing in 2006, Adam Webb disputed this claim. He argued that, although revolutions within countries would be rare, a global revolution of hitherto unseen proportions could easily erupt if the capitalist system suffered an economic downturn (Webb 74). In 2011, Webb’s argument was proven correct; revolutions returned stronger and more vocal than ever. Most importantly, they now have the potential to quickly spread throughout the world.

Lenin would likely support Occupy Wall Street's stance against corporate and governmental greed.

Although it may be the most well-known, Occupy Wall Street is not the first global uprising. In the 1990s, an international movement agitated against corporate-driven globalisation. This anti-globalisation movement bears some similarities to Occupy Wall Street; a comparison of the two will serve to contextualise the importance and extremely far-reaching spread of Occupy Wall Street.

Occupy Wall Street protest locations around the world

The anti-globalisation protests were staged by left-leaning individuals, primarily in Seattle, Montréal and Genoa. These agitators opposed what they saw as corporation-led globalisation, instead calling for a “globalisation from below”, which would do far more to correct global inequality. Their main complaint was that investors and elites were growing wealthy at the expense of the average person. Despite their dislike of heartless neoliberal globalisation, these protestors did not want to overturn capitalism. Instead, they hoped for a fairer distribution of the wealth it brought to a few. The protestors saw such a redistribution as necessary for a healthy democratic society. Furthermore, the movement’s grievances were rather vague; specific individuals or groups were not designated as enemies. Concerns were very broadly articulated using a discourse of human rights and environmental obligations. Political parties were not singled out for blame, and the protestors did not want to remove their current governments from power, even if they felt the politicians contributed to their grievances (Webb 74). This movement, therefore, was rather mild; it neither placed explicit blame nor desired a new world order. These protestors, agitating during an economic boom, merely wanted a restructuring of the existing system.

Note that for the purposes of this comparison, I will focus only on those anti-globalisation protests which occurred during the 1990s. I begin with the similarities between the two:

• Origin: Both of these movements originated in wealthy Western nations, in cities which played a major role in the economy of their country. Although Occupy Wall Street later spread to other areas, it began in New York City.

• Ideology: Both movements are majority left-leaning and opposed to what they perceive as the morally bankrupt neoliberal world order.

• Methods: Both protests were conceived as non-violent movements.

• Structure: Both groups were decentralised movements lacking formal leadership. The protestors functioned as a network, not a hierarchy.

• Constituencies: Both movements speak for an average majority marginalised by an elite minority. Bill Wasik describes modern social movements as spurred by the emergence of a mega-underground, a group which is ignored despite its vast size (Wasik 10). In the age of mass communication, these groups were able to coalesce in a way which would not have been possible during Lenin’s time. Thanks to the internet, these protestors were able to connect across oceans.

• Desires: Both movements seek to increase fairness in the economic system through more equitable distribution of resources and more ethical codes of conduct for corporations and elites.

• Co-ordination: Both movements used modern communication to co-ordinate a specific day on which they would hold protests in all their locations worldwide. The anti-globalisation movement organised the J18 Carnival Against Capital, which was held on 18 June, 1999. Occupy Wall Street participated in the 15-M Movement, also referred to as the Indignants movement, on 15 October 2011.

• Response: Both have met with violent opposition from law enforcement.

Both movements represent a new type of uprising, one which came as a surprise to many; the global revolution. Although it may not be a communist insurrection, Occupy Wall Street has achieved the global spread Lenin hoped for, almost 100 years after the Russian revolution.

Although perhaps some OWS protestors would welcome a communist insurrection?

Note: Although there are several similarities between these movements, there are also important differences between them. I will explore these in my next post. Thank you for reading!

Emma