In Defense of Occupy Wall Street

"It has to be one or the other: either admit that the present social arrangement is just and then defend your own rights, or admit that you enjoy certain unjust advantages, as I do, and enjoy them with pleasure," Oblonsky says to his half-brother Levin in Tolstoy's "Anna Karenina."

"No," Levin says, "if it was unjust, you wouldn't be able to enjoy those benefits with pleasure, at least I wouldn't be able to. For me the main thing is to feel that I am not at fault."

As clearly demonstrated by articles posted in The Collegian, namely those of Charles Sabatier and Matthew Ely, the majority of those who disagree with the Occupy Wall Street protests have no real understanding of what, in fact, those protests are about. For those opposed to the protests, it seems, the main thing is to feel that "I am not at fault," and the justification follows.

Let us clarify the following:

In reference to Sabatier's article, Occupy Wall Street is not fueled by an unjust envy of the "success of those at the top." It is not anger toward a system in which wealth is safeguarded from "the hands of those who desire it but do not want to earn it."

Most importantly, Occupy Wall Street is a retaliation against that incestuous relationship between the wealthy and the political elite that affords us the pleasant sight of billionaire CEOs receiving bonuses amid the worst economic climate since the Great Depression. Something does not feel quite right.

And as the wealthy try to deflect responsibility for the current disastrous affairs and angle criticism toward the government, many in D.C. try to seize the air of the protests and divert culpability to those on Wall Street. Occupy Wall Street notes that, at the end of it all, both shake hands and call it a day.

The problem does not lie in Washington alone, as Ely asserts in his article.

Occupy Wall Street is a movement whose members see a crippled health care system, an education system in collapse and rampant unemployment. Through candor to themselves, the protesters proclaim that there is something inherently unjust and strikingly dishonest in our system. Too much takes place beneath too many tables and behind too many doors.

Occupy Wall Street is a realization that, despite whatever un-cited statistics on being 'self-made' Sabatier's article may refer to, one only has freedom of action. One person, however, is not 'self-made' in a way that suggests he or she is responsible, absolutely, for his or her success.

Every person is embedded in a world where an infinite quantity of circumstances takes place in-and-of-themselves. For better or for worse, one is not responsible for those circumstances.

A simple sociology course makes clear that a minority borne into a single-parent home in inner-city project housing effectively destroys Sabatier's argument that everyone has "24 hours a day and seven days a week to learn something that will help us in the future." Certainly a writer of such words was a bit more privileged.

Is the world fair? No.

Does each of us receive the same amount or quality of education? No.

We stop there.

Sabatier is, at best, misguided.

There is a romantic image painted on canvas that sits behind the dinner tables of the wealthy and the powerful depicting a world that is just because hard-work is compensated. Occupy Wall Street protesters observe that, since the message is not satirical and the perspective is not true, it does not hang on the walls of the museums that the public frequents.

Occupy Wall Street is a disillusionment with this "American Dream."

It is a wake-up call that, yes, one has to be asleep, immersed in the absurd logic of dreams, to believe it is reality.