Here’s Who To Thank For Our National Obsession With Inequality

Three years ago this week, Zuccotti Park in downtown Manhattan went from being a place bored office workers went for a cigarette break to the center of Occupy Wall Street.

Today the protesters are long gone, and the public disgust with the financial system that the movement inspired and embodied has faded. But Occupy’s effects live on, in the way we talk and think about the American economy, and in the continued work of a core group of activists.

Occupy gained prominence and a following by focusing its efforts on concrete space, but its most obvious legacies are largely ambient and linguistic: Today, 45 percent of Americans are dissatisfied with their ability to get ahead by working hard. In 2008, just 31 percent felt the same way. The ubiquity of the phrase “99 percent” spiked with Occupy’s protests. And it’s hard to argue that the enduring, derogatory use of “the 1 percent” is not the group’s doing.

Introducing Americans to a dramatically different way to talk about inequality is a big achievement. And while much of the change over the past six years in how Americans view the rewards of work is due to the recession (hello, falling household incomes), giving that shift a way to express itself is impressive.

Where you won’t find Occupy’s legacy is in American attitudes toward banks. Despite its initial aim, Occupy did not spark continued, mass disgust with the financial industry among the U.S. public. A Gallup poll shows that American’s now have net positive view of banks:

banking

Occupy Wall Street may have had a short-term effect: From mid-2011 to mid-2012, Americans’ already negative view of banks got marginally worse. The drop was not sustained, and its size was very minor compared to the drop caused by the global financial crisis.

How American’s feel about banks isn’t really even the best way to judge Occupy. Its goals were always both bigger (changing the dialogue about the American economy) and smaller (specific policy proposals and concentrated activism) than just getting people upset at one industry. Occupy could be the rhetoric of the 99 percent and the 1 percent (or 0.1 percent), and it could be Occupy the SEC with a scalpel-sharp 325-page, 301-footnote comment letter on the Volcker Rule.

The wonkier legacy of Occupy can be seen in things like a Senate hearing Wednesday afternoon called “Who is the economy working for? The impact of rising inequality on the American economy.” Or the determined, complex work of Strike the Debt, which just bought and canceled $3.9 million in debt from students of a for-profit college. Since 2012, it has wiped out $15 million in medical debt.

Occupy’s legacy being about something other than the banks may be for better. Popular outrage against the financial system — as cathartic and necessary as it was — may have outlived its use a vehicle for change. Credit to Occupy Wall Street for building more durable forms of activism at the height of its popularity. Occupy’s real but limited success shows just how hard a fight they picked.

10 Iconic Photos Of Occupy Wall Street, 3 Years Later

Wednesday marks the third anniversary of the Occupy Wall Street movement.

On September 17, 2011, demonstrators descended on lower Manhattan to protest the influence of corporate money in politics, income inequality and unfettered capitalism. The movement was quickly met with metal barricades and resistance from police.

Here’s a look back at what Occupy looked like in New York City, from September to November 2011.

  • 1

  • 2

  • 3

  • 4

  • 5

  • 6

  • 7

  • 8

  • 9

  • 10

Activists Plan To ‘Flood Wall Street’ With Sit-in On Sept 22nd

A Day After Historic Climate March, Activists to Gather to Confront Corporate, Economic Institutions Contributing to Climate Change

As world leaders meet for a historic UN Climate Summit on September 22nd, people from across the globe — dressed in blue — will hold a mass sit-in to confront “the corporate and economic institutions” that they believe are causing the climate crisis. It comes a day after the People’s Climate March, slated to be the largest climate change-related march in history.

Flood Wall Street

WHO: Thousands of climate activists including, author-activists Naomi Klein, Chris Hedges, and Rebecca Solnit.

WHAT: Flood Wall Street, demonstration and mass sit-in. Thousands of people are expected to converge in Battery Park for a demonstration beginning at 9 a.m., featuring speeches by author-activists Naomi Klein, Chris Hedges and Rebecca Solnit. Beginning at around noon, participants will march to the heart of the Financial District and conduct a mass sit-in, risking arrest.

WHEN:  Monday, September 22, 2014:

9:00 a.m. – Gathering at Battery Park for breakfast and music from the Rude Mechanical Orchestra

9:30 a.m. – Speakers including frontline community leaders of the Climate Justice Alliance, Naomi Klein, Rebecca Solnit and Chris Hedges

11:30 a.m. – March begins

12:00 p.m. – Flood Wall Street and mass sit-in near New York Stock Exchange

WHERE:  Battery Park, NY

VISUALS:

  • Flood Wall Street participants will all be wearing blue. There will be marching bands, large puppets, a 300-foot Flood Wall Street banner and other large-scale art pieces throughout the demonstration. Hundreds will be risking arrest at the mass sit-in.
  • Viral-ready images are available through the Flood Wall Street Tumblr and Instagram pages. They are being shared on the hashtag #FloodWallStreet.

Flood Wall Street: A response to non-violent direct action

“Flood Wall Street” is a response to a call for non-violent direct action made by the Climate Justice Alliance, a coalition of people of color and working-class organizations. “Join us as we meet the scale and urgency of the crisis,” says the call, “by standing in solidarity with all frontlines of resistance and resilience around the world, and taking non-violent direct action against the corporations driving the extractive economy.” Organizers include Occupy Wall Street veterans, student divestment activists, housing activists, artists and more.

“Runaway climate change and extreme weather events, such as the extreme flooding that we saw here in New York City with Hurricane Sandy, are fueled by the fossil fuel industry,” says Michael Premo, an organizer of the action who was also a driving force in the Occupy Sandy recovery effort. “We are flooding Wall Street because we know that there’s no greater cause of runaway climate change than an economic system that puts profit before people — and before the planet.”

Flood Wall Street: An opportunity to call for an end to the abusive economic systems

The action represents a significant escalation from the People’s Climate March, which is not expected to include civil disobedience. “As so many people come to New York to express their concern about climate change, this sit-in is an opportunity to call for an end to the abusive economic systems that enable corporate polluters,” says Sandy Nurse, an environmental activist based in the Bushwick neighborhood of Brooklyn. “It’s time to stop funding fossil fuels and to hold the institutions fueling this crisis accountable.”

The Flood Wall Street action is also meant to highlight the leadership of people most impacted by climate change — indigenous peoples, communities of color and low-income neighborhoods. “Communities that are first and most impacted by storms, floods and droughts are also on the frontlines of fighting the dig, burn, dump economy causing climate change,” said Michael Leon Guerrero of the Climate Justice Alliance. “We are flooding Wall Street to stop its financing of planetary destruction, and make way for living economies that benefit people and planet.”

Share on StockTwits

Occupy Wall Street Just Made $4 Million of Student Loan Debt Disappear

All the students whose debts were abolished went to the for-profit Everest College

An Occupy Wall Street campaign says it has abolished almost $4 million in student loan debts, in a Tuesday announcement marking the third anniversary of the Occupy protests that brought renewed attention to the issue of income inequality.

The Rolling Jubilee Fund, an initiative of the Occupy movement, has been accepting donations and buying up student loan debt for pennies on the dollar from debt collectors, and then forgiving the loans altogether. The group has spent about $107,000 to purchase $3.9 million in debt, organizers said.

The debts were held by students who attended Everest College, a for-profit institution part of the Corinthian Colleges network. The fund called Everest College a “predatory” institution that is helping fuel the $1.2 trillion in total student loan debt in the United States.

“We chose Everest because it is the most blatant con job on the higher ed landscape,” the organizers said. “It’s time for all student debtors to get relief from their crushing burden.”

The debt belonged to 2,761 people who had taken at loans at Everest College. The group is only able to purchase private student debt, not the majority of outstanding U.S. student debt that’s backed by the federal government. Corinthian Colleges told CNN it stands by the “high-quality” education it provides and denied charges of predatory lending.

Three Years Later, What Has Come of Occupy Wall Street?

This week marks the third anniversary of protesters descending on Wall Street to protest the havoc wrought by the 2008 Financial Meltdown, which had hit all Americans hard, except for the ones who had caused it.

What began as an open call from Adbusters to show up with a tent grew from dozens to hundreds, to thousands, to tens of thousands. Far from rejecting the extended sit-in, area businesses plied demonstrators with food and support. Those who could not make it to New York started their own hometown Occupy protests in solidarity, hundreds of them, across the country and around the world.

Adhering to the advertised mantra, “What is our one demand?” the Occupy activists connected with like-minded organizers in social justice and helped paint a portrait of the larger malfeasance plaguing society today: Bankers who had pushed derivatives industry-wide as a credible investment, while knowing they were bogus funds made of worthless mortgages, had led the stock and housing markets into a punishing recession, while using government bailouts to give themselves obscene bonuses despite their negligence. At this same time was an emerging generation of unemployed millennials saddled with unprecedented student debt, as the banks had consolidated the student loan racket with high interest rates and no chance of bankruptcy protection under President Bush.

And who was looking out for Americans in this modern Depression? Basically, no one, because things got so bad in the first place because our elected leaders have become so beholden to their campaign donors. Since the 2010 Supreme Court decision Citizens United allowed unlimited outside spending in elections, candidates had dropped all pretense of serving their constituents, instead shifting their attention (and positions) in deference to billionaire kingmakers and Super PACs.

When beholding such a zero-sum option, it might seem clear why the only option left would be to get everyone you know to go out to the streets and bring this messed up paradox to the attention of everybody. Which is why, for whatever Occupy Wall Street is remembered for at its height, it should be considered an intervention for the country — a staged disruption by those who care, trying to alert an ailing entity to the damage it is inflicting. In this case, that entity with the destructive addictions is our modern political process, where who has the most money makes the rules, at the cost of all else — if it’s a Texas fertilizer plant exploding near a school, a chemical company polluting drinking water for all of West Virginia, or gun manufacturers decrying regulations despite massacred children.

With that is mind, assessing the impact of Occupy Wall Street might be best done by considering the goals of those who camped out in Zuccotti Park. For one, this was a protest, not a political party, so comparisons to the Tea Party are like apples and oranges. While the Tea Party turned outrage at the government into electoral gains (with a lot of help and money from the Kochs), Occupy Wall Street was at the opposite end of the spectrum – the end of the spectrum that views officeholders as courtesans for the corporate class. Asking Occupy activists why they didn’t just start a political party and run for office is like asking an atheist why they didn’t just pray harder.

Another essential in gauging the importance of Occupy Wall Street is recognizing that the Occupy movement did not simply fizzle out or lose steam. The fact is, Occupy encampments were broken up in a coordinated effort led by the Department of Homeland Security working with local police departments. This coordination was reported by Jason Leopold after acquiring DHS documents through the Freedom of Information Act. Far from losing momentum, the Occupy presence had grown so intense nationwide, gaining sustained media coverage, that this had become the biggest threat to the status quo in modern times. In widely documented raids, police drove protesters from public lands with blunt force, tear gas, and arrest, then proceeded to blame Occupy protesters for the mess that was left behind. Young protesters sprayed in the face with pepper spray without warning or provocation, rubber bullets fired at peaceful demonstrators, police charging with batons, this is what oppression looked like in 2011. This marked the era of the militarized police force, which has come under scrutiny in the wake of the Ferguson PD’s effort at martial law in Missouri.

So, besides the realization that heavily armed police forces consider themselves at war with their own communities, what else can we attribute to Occupy Wall Street with the benefit of hindsight? The immediate impact seemed to be how the debate in America changed almost overnight. No sooner had President Obama assumed office in 2009 than Republicans and conservatives began howling about deficit reduction. This sounds like a normal thing you do when you are running a first-world nation, but a more accurate way to look at it is that Republicans and Tea Partiers were demanding that Obama pay off the credit card charges from Bush/Cheney’s trillion-dollar war, as well as their $2 trillion giveaway in taxes to the very rich. And they were acting like these bills arrived with the Obama family in the White House. Without fail, the mainstream media and Beltway punditry wrung their hands about what Obama was gong to do with this mess, that he better do something or we’d go off the fiscal cliff that John Boehner just made up, and it would be all Obama’s fault that Boehner refused to hold a vote on basic government funding like every Congress before him.

But a funny thing happened when a few folks started talking about the richest one percent using their money to work the political system to get even richer. “WE ARE THE 99%” became the rallying cry of a generation. The simplicity and inclusivity was said to be worthy of Madison Avenue. At once the conversation had shifted, and in that discourse, a word started coming up that used to seem unspeakable: class. To at once dispel that American notion that we are so different from other countries while decrying staggering inequality made the struggle of others real. Not like a news piece on a family clipping coupons during a recession. Real, like this weighs on you, and becomes a sense of indignation for your fellow American, the way you were outraged when you saw New Orleans submerged from broken levees and its citizens struggling for days following Hurricane Katrina.

That awareness was more than a narrative, more than a meme, more than a point in a debate. The broad perception was that America wasn’t just on the wrong track, it had been held up by railroad bandits.

What this really did was set the stage for the 2012 elections.

Through the drifting clouds of tear gas, stepping over the trampled bodies of demonstrators, and grinning into the same cameras that just showed all hell breaking lose, came Mr. Magoo, the most awe-inspiring tone-deaf candidate for president at the worst/best possible time. With Bain Capital affirming his vulture cred, an income so huge he refused to reveal his tax returns, he ran on absolutely nothing except saying what we have now isn’t working, even though it seemed to be working fine for him.

This was the guy with his finger on the pulse of America who insisted, “Corporations are people, my friend,” presumably thinking he was talking to a corporation. Corporate personhood had been a target of ire for Occupy Wall Street since it tends to indemnify financial criminals, and also because Citizens United had granted corporations VIP access to politicians. If Occupy Wall Street had been criticized for calling out how 1% of the people own 40% of the wealth, it sure seemed kinder than insisting that 47% of Americans would never take care of themselves and only live off of the government. When he lost by five million votes, he was the only one surprised, and blamed the weather.

But the disconnect was real, and continued. It seemed every few months there was another tortured outburst in print from some of the wealthiest men in Manhattan about how unfair the scorn was they faced, even though this was years after the protesters left Zuccotti. The people who seemed to be taking Occupy Wall Street the most seriously were the ones that it was intended for.

As I screen my documentary PAY 2 PLAY, I am asked sometimes what happened to Occupy, since it is included in our film about outsiders trying to have a voice in our political system. I will tell them about how I have met others at our screenings that preface their activism by saying they got motivated first from Occupy Wall Street. I met a young woman in Seattle who had mobilized first as a local Occupy organizer, who had since been elected to city council. Some of the very entities hosting our film about the problems with money in politics were off-shoots from local Occupy groups.

But I think more than anything, the point of Occupy was using your voice to speak out and finding out that you are not alone, there are many who feel the same way, and you are energized by this shared recognition. And once that common reality and strength is realized, you can go back to sleeping in bed and still live in accordance to your own mission.

Maybe someday we’ll have a reunion for the Class of 2011. But for now, our gratitude and admiration go out to all who occupied and inspired. Thank you for showing us that we are not alone. Our patriotism and compassion will push this pay-to-play system into the dustbin of history.

John Wellington Ennis’s documentary PAY 2 PLAY: Democracy’s High Stakes is now having an extended run in NYC, LA, and DC.

Hong Kong Protest Group Faces Moment of Truth

HONG KONG—For a protest movement inclined to deliberate, the need to follow talk with action is sinking in.

The prompt for Occupy Central came on Aug. 31, when Beijing said candidates for Hong Kong chief executive will be nominated by a committee it controls.

The decree left little option for a group that has pushed for direct voter…

The DNA of Occupy

Occupy has entered our DNA. It is in our forms of relating, organizing and being. And, just as “during DNA replication, DNA unwinds so it can be copied,” so Occupy has retained its essence while it has multiplied and changed form.

Many people have discussed the importance that the “conversation changed,” and we as a society now discuss class, inequality and power  through the slogan of the 99% and concepts of corporate rule. But it is the meanings and actions behind these discussions that is what has made the most impactful change. People are the 99% and feel it, exclaim it. When we chant, “We are the 99%” it is said with a sense of power, with our heads held a little higher and backs straighter. People have a newfound dignity in being in the majority. And not only do we feel dignity, but we no longer feel shame. Over the past decades in the U.S. (and many other parts of the world) to be poor, to face eviction or foreclosure, to need help, was something one hid. People would get evicted and pretend to their neighbors and even to their friends that they were just moving in with family and friends for a while, as if it was a choice. No longer. Now many of these same people go to their neighbors and together form assemblies to defend against evictions and foreclosures. Instead of hiding the fact that one has debt it is becoming part of a movement—Strike Debt!—turning the issue on the banks and discussing refusal instead of guilt and powerlessness.

While in a discussion about new global movements in a friend’s house in Charlotte, North Carolina this week, at a certain moment we realized that there were people in the room from Greensboro, Winston-Salem, Chapel Hill, Raleigh and Ashville. Most all had been involved in Occupy in each of those locations, some had participated in encampments, others not. They all continue to be active, and in various struggles, from immigrant rights and the defense of minors to not be deported, to the fast food workers organizing and strikes, to anti-police brutality and Ferguson solidarity marches and organizing, to abortion and gay rights defense. In the past, this would mean that people were involved in separate groups and organizations, each led by a traditional union or NGO. Now, there is a mix, and each of the groups is infused with a horizontal spirit of organizing, using the tactics of direct action over demands, or together with demands, and all network with one another. It is not about vying for domination of a political conversation or funding, but collaborating. This is new in North Carolina. As Tony Ndege from Occupy Winston-Salem explained, “It is the first nationwide movement in decades to exist outside of the realm of the establishment of either major party and address class. Occupy forged new relationships between new waves of people in various stages of radicalization.”

I am on a two month book tour of the U.S., beginning in North Carolina. Everywhere I go the question arises, what has Occupy accomplished? And everywhere people in the groups discussing the new global movements respond similarly, and with similar enthusiasm. Occupy changed everything. The U.S. is not the same place—there was a before and after. But the word “accomplished” can make people pause. Occupy is not a social or protest movement. Social and protest movements organize around specific goals and generally are comprised of people with similar ideas or even ideologies. Protest movements look to institutions of power as their targets, and look for change to come from those institutions. Occupy, and the DNA infused Occupy related organizing is comprised of many people from multiple backgrounds, with many goals and without one demand. Occupy has organized, as Gopal from Occupy Farms in Albany, CA succinctly put it, with “goals without demands.”  Of course Occupy and its various current permutations organize around specific issues, and a multitude of them, from housing to defense of the environment, but we do so by first organizing together, forming assemblies and talking to one another, then deciding how to answer the question or issue, such as keeping someone housed or preventing the building of a pipeline, then we organize the actions to make that goal a reality—blocking trucks, marshals and oil companies. Then perhaps there are negotiations with those institutions, but first is the action and the assembly. A concept Uruguayan Raul Zibechi put forward: Societies in Movement, when discussing the autonomous and horizontal movements in Latin America seems much more apt. So the expectations that go with the idea of “accomplishments” does not work in the same way. We have accomplished keeping many hundreds if not thousands of people housed across the U.S., paid the medical debt of hundreds of others, stopped pipelines from being built, prevented water from being shut off to hundreds of families, organized the unorganized and on and on. Most of all however, we have accomplished new relationships, reclaiming our relationships to one another and creating new ways of doing things, new ways of being –  horizontally and with direct action.

It is three years since Occupy Wall Street shook the world—and the reverberations are felt everywhere. No longer seen with the occupation of parks, plazas and squares, Occupy has relocated, it is in us, it is in our ways of being, relating and coming together. People are changed—feel more dignity and organize for a different world because of it. Occupy was never about a place or a moment—it was and is about a way of being and doing. As all ways of relating, it changed and changes, and must do so as to thrive. We have created a new generation of organizers/activists who are not part of a movement to win one thing and then declare victory, but a movement that is about changing everything. And little by little this is happening. Slower than perhaps many of us would like, but in three years we have come a long way. As our Turkish sisters and brothers sang in Tencere Tava Havasi in Taksim Gezi Park, their “sound of pots and pans” reminiscent of the Argentine call to the street with the sound of banging pots and pans; we are going “slowly slowly, as the ground is still wet.”

Occupy’s DNA has taken hold.

Why Hong Kong’s ‘Occupy Central’ Movement Has Beijing Very, Very Scared

Occupy Central founders

Founders of Occupy Central—(left to right) Reverend Chu Yiu-ming, academic Benny Tai and academic Chan Kin-man—during a campaign to kick off the movement, August 31, 2014 (Reuters/Liau Chung-ren)

Three years after Occupy Wall Street burst on the scene in downtown Manhattan, the most vibrant Occupy-style movement is no longer in New York, Oakland, London or Madrid, but in Hong Kong. Now, a new phase of the movement, “Occupy Central,” is about to unleash a wave of occupations of public space to demand greater democracy in the city.

Since returning to Chinese rule in 1997, the official policy of “one country two systems” has allowed Hong Kong to continue to operate with its own political and legal institutions. Although the territory never enjoyed full democracy under British rule, the central government in Beijing promised Hong Kong universal suffrage as part of the handover.

But at the end of this August, the National People’s Congress did just what many democracy activists in Hong Kong have feared, ruling that there would be no civic nomination for Chief Executive elections in 2017. Rather, all candidates must first be approved by a nomination committee of political and economic elites, most of which are directly selected by Beijing.

In response, Occupy Central is now preparing to follow through on its long-standing threat to stage mass sit-ins in the city’s central business district to demand real democracy. Benny Tai, a key leader of the movement, has declared an “era of civil disobedience” in Hong Kong.

In many ways, Occupy Central seems hardly connected to its symbolic progenitor on the other side of the Pacific. Indeed, the movement is demanding an expansion of precisely the kind of electoral system that Occupy Wall Street condemned for being hopelessly corrupted by money and corporate influence. Students in Hong Kong are working closely with established political parties, and the movement even enjoys support from some individuals from the financial sector.

But underlying these important differences there is a common theme: anger over the inability of anyone except the super wealthy to have a voice in politics.

Long hailed by conservatives in the West as a bastion of free markets and free enterprise, Hong Kong in 2011 had a Gini coefficient of .537—making it perhaps the most unequal developed economy in the world. Hong Kong recently crushed the competition to come in first in The Economist’s “crony-capitalism index.”

Like their counterparts in the US or Europe, Hong Kong graduates face a daunting job market. If they are lucky enough to land a job, they can expect to work gruelingly long hours, all while trying to scrape together enough money to buy a tiny flat in the second most expensive real estate market in the world. A recent study found it costs middle class families an average of USD $700,000 to raise a child. And Hong Kong still has no universal public pension, creating major uncertainty for seniors.

Workers have not fared any better. Hong Kong had no minimum wage until 2010 when, after much resistance from employers, the standard was set at a paltry HKD $28 per hour (approximately USD $3.60). Owing to the continual efforts of powerful employers to derail proposed legislation, there are still no collective bargaining rights in the city. Foreign guest workers from places like the Philippines and Indonesia are frequently subject to brutal working conditions and unchecked physical and sexual assault from their employers. With such a lightly regulated labor market, 20 percent of the population in this economic powerhouse now lives below the poverty line.

Please support our journalism. Get a digital subscription for just $9.50!

Not surprisingly, big business is just fine with the status quo, and they have lined up behind Beijing. Yiu Kai Pang, chairman of the Hong Kong General Chamber of Commerce, welcomed the recent decision from Beijing, saying that occupying Central “will not only affect Hong Kong’s social order and economic prosperity, but also undermine our position as an international business and financial hub.” HSBC also warned that Occupy could hurt the economy as it downgraded the outlook for the city’s stock market—a warning the company almost immediately retracted after public outrage.

The Communist Party is counting on such enthusiastic support from corporate interests. In a moment of surprising honesty, Wang Zhenmin, Dean of Tsinghua University Law School and a top advisor on Hong Kong to the central government, said that too much democracy would threaten the interests of economic elites as well as the capitalist system of Hong Kong—and suggested that this was to be avoided at all costs.

Occupy Central is not the first movement in Hong Kong to challenge the powerful alliance between big business and the state. Last year, a strike by dockworkers who had not received a raise in fifteen years shut down one of the busiest ports in the world for weeks. The workers drew a wide swath of support from Hong Kong society, and public anger was only heightened by the fact that the wealthiest man in Asia, Li Ka-shing, owns their employing company.

Earlier this year, protestors stormed the legislative council in an attempt to block funding for a proposed development plan for the northeastern New Territories. Villagers likely to be displaced by the project banded together with students to protest what many see as yet another instance of developers getting unparalleled access to government decision makers.

Occupy Central has in part grown out of this restive political milieu. As was the case for Occupy Wall Street, activists in Hong Kong understand that they will need more political democracy in order to get more economic democracy. Democratic elections may not be sufficient to address every problem in Hong Kong, but it will certainly be necessary.

Unfortunately, it appears as if the Communist Party is completely unwilling to compromise on the question of politics. Beijing’s vision for Hong Kong is to follow in the path of other hyper-capitalist authoritarian states such as Singapore, the United Arab Emirates and Qatar. Since many of the problems in Hong Kong—gaping inequality, crony capitalism, astronomical housing prices and an exclusionary political system—are also rampant just across the border in Mainland China, it is not difficult to guess the source of Beijing’s deep anxiety. If Occupy Central presents a major nuisance, the mere intimation of an Occupy Tian’anmen is a horror that must be crushed at all costs.

Let the era of civil disobedience commence.

 

Read Next: What Occupy Central can learn from history