Occupy Oakland and the Labor Movement - Case Study Example

? Occupy Wall Street Movement Number: Introduction Occupy Wall Street (also known by its acronym, OWS) refers to a protest movement that started on September 17th, 2011, particularly, in New York’s Wall Street financial district, Zuccotti Park. Courtesy of media awareness and publication and the globalised nature of the world, Occupy Movement spread to other parts of the world such as the United Kingdom, Canada, Denmark, Australia, Belgium, Czechoslovakia, France, Germany, Italy, Netherlands, New Zealand, Nigeria, Norway, South Africa, Spain, Ireland and Malaysia (and other states) and thereby taking on a global mien. Occupy Wall Street remains very pivotal in the US corporate, political and financial history because of the implications it brought along, as shall be seen forthwith. 1. Moral and Economic Implications Involved In the Movement So profound are the moral implications of OWS that to sidestep them is to ignore the very factors that anteceded and triggered the movement, since the genesis of OWS stands on moral grounds. The moral implication of OWS is highly positive and tending towards ethical considerations, given that participants in OWS charged that any economic system that compels the majority to shoulder the burdens of the ruling class and rich capitalist owners’ excesses and to settle the costs of inchoately run industries (through the majority’s health or financial values or both) is immoral and unacceptable. Balderston (2012) divulges that it is important to note that the moral implications of OWS are inextricably intertwined with the economic ones. Particularly, the economic implication of OWS was that which voiced and supported ethical concerns of the country’s economy, since OWS was poignant that any economic system that enriched a powerful and well-connected few at the expense of the majority and by using the majority, is unethical, illegitimate and therefore, unacceptable. One of the areas in which this matter was contested is income inequality. OWS protesters rightly argued that income inequality had been widening over the last three decades, with the culmination of this development being the unequal distribution of economic values and economic stagnation. This situation would in turn lead to the assuaging of the workers’ zeal. Again, the consideration of ethical and economic implications is exemplified by concerns that OWS aired, concerning the influence that money had on politics and debts (student loans, mortgages and credit card debts), the inconsistence that characterized the debts of individual borrowers and those of big financial organizations, in the wake of the 2008/9 global economic recession. To propound moral and economic implications of the OWS, the movement affirmed that all flourishing is mutual. The sentiments of the movement continued that since the world is interconnected and interdependent, any damage that would be wrought on any part would undercut the realization of the complex whole. Because of this, every individual, no matter how rich and powerful, has the responsibility to respect affirmative obligations of compassion and justice to future and present generations of all. 2. Analyzing each of the implications identified above against the utilitarian, Kantian, and virtue ethics to determine which theory best applies to the movement The moral and economic implications discussed above also go hand-in-glove with the standpoint that utilitarians take. The veracity of this standpoint is seen in the fact that utilitarianism vouches for the greatest good for the highest number [possible]. The applicability of the moral implication which stated that any economic system that compels the majority to shoulder the burdens of the ruling class and rich capitalist owners’ excesses and to settle the costs of inchoately run industries (through the majority’s health or financial values or both) is immoral and unacceptable to utilitarianism is that the majority who are the economically oppressed and exploited forms the highest number of the country’s population. Conversely, the applicability of the moral implications that OWS advanced is underscored by the fact by its maxim of the greatest good being extended to the highest number, utilitarianism discounts the interests of the oligarchy that are estranged from the interests of the majority. This view is directly applicable to economic implications and concerns that OWS aired, to the effect that every individual, no matter how rich and powerful, has the responsibility to respect affirmative obligations of compassion and justice to future and present generations of all. In another wavelength, Kantian ethics like deontological ethics is predicated upon the idea of moral duty. As such, Kantianism posits that a good will is the sole intrinsic good and as such, actions are only good when performed out of duty, rather than when they are executed out of practical needs or/ and desires. This may merge with the economic and moral implications that OWS movement presented, to the effect that instead of using money to influence politics and debts, everyone (most importantly, leaders) has the responsibility (duty) to respect affirmative obligations of compassion and justice to future and present generations of all. In a separate vein, virtue ethics emphasize the importance of an individual’s character that the individual must embody when determining ethical behavior. Virtue ethics does not however mingle well with the economic and moral implications of OWS since the moral and economic concerns were policy issues, only that some were formal while others, informal. In this light, even if the proprietor of an organization should decide to practice fairness in determining employee’s remunerations, his decision will remain his, and may not suffuse to the rest of the industry. In respect to the foregoing, utilitarianism best explains and conveys the concerns of the moral and economic implications of OWS. Indeed, since the greatest good is that which benefits the highest number, it is immoral and economically unfair that the interests of a few rich capital owners should be superimposed over the rights of the majority and unduly influence politics and governance. 3. Determining Who Is Responsible For Income Inequality And Wealth Distribution In The U.S. According to Davenport (2011), the actors responsible for the income inequality and wealth distribution in America are corporate and industry leaders and even industries. Some of the individuals or corporate leaders include Goldman Sachs’ chairman and former US Secretary of the Treasury, Lloyd Blankfein and policy makers. Financial Institutions also fit in this rubric, as these corporate leaders acted through them. These corporate leaders made inchoate financial policies that over time led to the financial meltdown that was witnessed in 2008/9. Some of the inchoate policies and unfair malpractices that were carried out at the corporate level included: speculative trading by banks; the cancellation of debts accrued from student loans; the extension of relief to indebted students; corruption in Wall Street; the unbridled extension of loans for mortgages and housing industries which were not recovered. It is not fortuitous that a leading corporate leader such as Goldman Sachs faced a legal suit for the fraudulent selling of synthetic CDOs which were tied to subprime mortgages. Another factor that exacerbated the income inequality and wealth distribution in the US is the infiltration of money into politics. The problem with this development is that it corrupts national politics and keeps accountability out of America’s business and corporate life. It is against this backdrop that cases of malpractices in Wall Streets largely remain unaddressed (Dirr, 2012). The culmination of these malpractices was the forfeiture of a considerable pool of financial resources at the level of America’s corporate existence and resultant foreclosures, downsizing and underpayment of workers (in the bid to stave off higher remunerations expenditure). 4. Suggesting an Equitable Outcome from the Movement That Would Be Appropriate For Our Capitalistic Society As a follow-up on OWS movement, the most appropriate outcome and response would be to restore principles like accountability in a capitalist society like America. The need for this is not only predicated on the US traditional mode of production being fundamentally capitalist, but also on the fact that some banks and financial institutions have become too big to collapse and have thus privatized profit, while socializing risks. The upshot of this is that banks and financial institutions boost their leverage in their quest for profit maximization and bonuses. Because of this, these organizations pretend their risks are eliminated because they are securitized. In this light, rating agencies accept payments for issuing a meaningless imprimatur. The flipside of this is that it is the taxpayer who is forced to bail banks out, though the folly is not his. The best way of injecting this accountability into America’s capitalist system is by passing and ratifying policies which regulate bank and financial institutions operations. The same amendment should incorporate measures to have the risks privatized, so that banks and other financial institutions can shoulder the risks themselves. It is illogical and unfair that banks should privatize their profits but socialize risks. Another measure that needs to be put in place is the creation and execution of policies to make capitalist ventures more inclusive. For instance, the government may need to make policies that will have corporations being committed to corporate social responsibility at levels that are commensurate with their financial resources. It is only by his virtue that large banks will embrace the need for broad-based job creation, instead of using their profits for parochial ends. 5. Predicting whether the movement will continue, fad away, or turn into something else From a personal standpoint, it is most likely that OWS will gradually fizzle out into inexistence and its participants will go back to their life’s calls and cares. This is because the move has not been able to move from the use of tactics to a broader strategy of effecting change. The failure to use broader and more effective strategy is underscored by its highly decentralized nature. If OWS is to be successful and remain as a sustainable front, it will have to have leaders who can champion for the ideas that it is trying to put forth. Without leadership and organizational structure, there is bound to be an absence of accountability on the side of members. This will leave membership fizzling out into inexistence (Campbell, 2011). The aforementioned dwindling attendance that is aided by lack of leadership and general structures is bound to be exacerbated by the climatic rigors that accompany winter. When it began, OWS got 10% of the US media coverage, albeit it is clear that such coverage has dwindled because of many events such as the October 30th, 2012 Hurricane Sandy, the July 22nd, 2012 Dark Knight Arises shooting, and the 2012 American Presidential Elections, that have materialized in the US. With this dwindling media coverage, OWS and the ideas it envisions are easily forgotten. References Balderston, B. (2012). Occupy Oakland and the Labor Movement. New Politics, 14 (1), 34-39. Campbell, E R. (2011). A Critique of the Occupy Movement from a Black Occupier. Black Scholar, 41 (4), 42-51. Davenport, B. (2011). Occupy Complexity: Using Complexity To Examine The Occupy Wall St. Movement. Emergence: Complexity & Organization, 13 (4), 87-93. Dirr, S. (2012). The Occupy-Labor Partnership in Chicago. New Politics, 14 (1), 40-43. Read More