It is possible to trace the origin of the current crisis back to the United States, the symbolic centre of world capitalism. A few causes are commonly recognized as the triggers to the 2007-08 US financial crisis, the consequences of which have been spreading around the globe ever since. The causes (Crotty 2009) have, of course, been hotly debated, but among the most commonly recognized causes identified as having paved the way for the collapse have been: subprime lending; the existence of excessively easy credit conditions and the consequent housing bubble; the predatory practices of negligent lending; and the after-effects of fraudulent underwriting. Additional causes (Goodchild 2012) are framed in terms of financial deregulation (as occurred under both Democrat and Republican administrations), the negative effects of over-leveraging (which started as early as in the mid 1990s) and the general regrettable aftermath of a heaving over-complex financial management regulatory system. Although no single moment can be pinpointed, these preconditions worked together to create a series of interacting effects culminating in the, previously unthinkable, collapse of Lehman Brothers in September 2008. In a rush to take remedial action, the US administration managed to prevent a wider systemic failure through a massive injection of public money, asking the FED to take unprecedented action. A few financial institutions were either nationalized or bailed out. Although these actions did alleviate some of the local damage, they could not prevent the crisis spreading to both European financial markets and the wider global economy. Other pre-existing factors, such as the global imbalances and the crisis of the welfare state, made the situation worse (Tridico 2012). Similarly, in Europe, between 2008 and 2013, private banks had to be nationalized or bailed out by European governments in Britain, Germany, France, the Netherlands, Belgium, Luxembourg, Sweden, Denmark, Portugal and Greece. As in North America, governments and central banks initiated responses on an unprecedented scale. As the problems spread, however, so too did logistical challenges, particularly those associated with coordination between the two sides of the Atlantic and with delays and mistakes within Europe in terms of creating

a united response between the actions of EU institutions, Euro area institutions and national governments. In Europe, the US-born financial crisis destabilized the common monetary area through the stress it placed on the sovereign debt market. This triggered conflicts between member states and resulted in a very slow and expensive process of stabilization. As we write, in mid-2013, the crisis appears under control, but to get to this point required very unconventional actions by the European Central Bank (ECB) and several high-level meetings between EU member states, Euro area member states and international institutions. The need to lend money to Greece, Spain and later Cyprus, and the need to stabilize the Italian sovereign debt market, pushed forward the so-called ‘fiscal compact’ and the now well-known austerity policies at both national and European levels. Given the explicit nature of corporate mistakes and offences, the American debate reached not only the media, but also resulted in a series of high-profile tribunals and parliamentary inquiries. Great expectations were placed on these events, but sadly, despite the initial clamour and spectacularization, disappointment followed in terms of policies, legislation and court sentences. The scientific (Blankenburg and Palma 2009) and political debates were nevertheless huge in North America and in Europe, receiving extensive media coverage and being widely debated in alternative fora such as social media and also within universities, public meetings and political events. The American debates had originally focused on the excesses of the finance industry and their actors. Protesters typically asked for better regulation and control, protesting specifically against banks and their top executives. Attention was also paid to the conflicts of interest that were highlighted as existing between the financial industry, the government and the legislature. In Europe the character of the debates were slightly different, with the targets of resentment shifting early on to criticize government austerity policies, singling out distinct European and international institutions such as the IMF, ECB and the European Commission, as the responsible culprits. All the so-called Occupy movements, in the United States and in Europe had a common enemy: the market and the corporations. In a context of growing unemployment and government budget cuts, it was not difficult to motivate and fuel public enthusiasm for the cause in the form of massive street protests, which proliferated alongside an increased influx of newspaper articles, books, films and documentaries against the market and its excesses. The market and corporations were blamed for unemployment, the housing bubble, lost savings and properties. More than two decades of market fundamentalism were, according to many, to blame. In the words of Stiglitz (2009, p. 346): ‘From a historical point of view, for a quarter of a century the prevailing religion of the West has been market fundamentalism. I say it is a religion because it was not based on economic science or historical evidence.’ The current crisis of capitalism seems to have also precipitated the emergence of doubts, not only over the modern mess capitalism had got itself into, but also concerning the beneficent effects of returning to the old order. The systems of

power as described by Elias in The Civilizing Process (1939) or within Boulding’s Organizational Revolution (1953) were acceptable during periods of economic growth, but seem to have become unbearable during times of crisis. In a rush for action a series of high-profile head-hunting campaigns were undertaken to satisfy a growing public dissatisfaction over the structural inequalities of the old order. We have observed executives of prestigious financial institutions being publically humiliated live by enquiry commissions,1 we have seen bankers being forced to resign or to ‘voluntarily’ renounce their outrageous bonuses,2 we have seen powerful politicians or businessmen resigning from their positions or being ousted by public outrage.3 The most violent protests took place in Greece; the country most affected by the consequences of the crisis the most. We will now review in details the origin and the nature of Occupy Wall Street (OWS).