The Metropolis

Occupy London: It's not the beginning of the end, it is, perhaps, the beginning of the beginning

Josh Hall | Tuesday 18 October, 2011 13:51

Neil Cummings photo

OccupyLSX is a remarkable, amorphous thing. In 72 hours it has passed through at least four distinct iterations.

It began as catch all broad left spectacle, in the Stop The War mould; groups of upper middle class recent retirees picking at their packed lunches, flanked by doe-eyed SWP foot soldiers on one side, and the Love Police on the other.

Then it became the backdrop for the archetype of 21st Century protest policing, with peaceful demonstrators flung onto stone by helmeted men, as if in some neutered, semi-farcical Odessa Steps. The tentative, baby steps towards entrenchment that followed constituted the third phase, with small groups beginning to hash out the basics like shelter, food, and protection.

Now in its current, fourth form the camp at St Paul’s seems firmly dug in – but it has maintained a distinctly fluffy streak. It runs the real risk of limiting its (as yet abstract) demands to the taming of capitalism; the development of new checks and balances to build a ‘fairer’, ‘greener’, ‘more sustainable’ capitalism. That is to say, a version of capitalism that can never, will never exist.

The Occupy movement must reject capitalism entirely – or else it is nothing.

There are also serious concerns about elements of the decision-making process. In yesterday’s General Assembly a member of a working group appeared to suggest that the occupation statement, published the previous day, was to remain the group’s only guiding principles. She said that the document would not be added to, and that it was important that people do not stray from it when speaking to media. Perhaps more worryingly (and somewhat confusingly) she also said, to widespread apparent agreement, that the will of the assembly “should be free from political influence.” Frankly, if there is no opportunity for political influence we might as well pack up.

The process and the principles patently need work – but despite this the occupation should clearly be a cause for optimism. As I left last night I counted almost 200 tents. More seem to appear on something like an hourly basis. Around 300 people attended the evening General Assembly – the agenda for which encouraged suggestions for specific demands, and concrete actions to get those demands met. Why pass up the opportunity presented by a large and growing number of people willing to listen to alternatives to capitalism?

Those who are already weary of the liberal tendency amongst some occupiers should remember that many will simply never have conceived of any such alternative. The people with whom I’ve spoken can be split into two broad categories: those who are keen to see the group develop a truly radical agenda, and those simply know in their gut that something is wrong in the world. Those in the second category seem excited to hear new ideas. It would be absurd if the people who have those ideas choose not to share them, in some petulant retaliation for others not having emerged from the womb as fully formed insurrectionaries.

It should also be noted that this will be many attendees’ first experience of prefigurative politics. The consensus process and the general assembly format can seem tortuously unproductive to those for whom it is familiar. But for those new of this form of organising it can be an inspirational experience; a glimpse of the possibility of building “a new world in the shell of the old” – however indistinct or insufficiently well formed that new world may yet be.

There can no longer be any doubt about the depth of feeling at St Paul’s. If Saturday was characterised by fluffy photo-op aimlessness, Monday was more heads-down strategy. Those who turned up for a nice day in the sun are long departed. Those who are left can only be motivated by a deep, acute sense that we, as a country, as a species, should be doing better.

In the spirit of optimism, then – some suggestions.

• The process must improve
Truly democratic decision-making must be the foundation on which the group is built. This will require more, better-trained facilitators.

• The 99% schtick really needs to go
Yes, it’s catchy – but the target should be the system that produces such revolting imbalances, not just the people who benefit from it.

• The occupation is a means, not an end
A camp outside a cathedral isn’t going to throttle capitalism – but it can be a uniquely productive staging post. The focus should now shift towards direct action outside the boundaries of the camp.

• No rock stars
…and particularly no suspected rapists.

Finally, it has been easy thus far to reject the predictable criticism that the group has no proposal; that it knows only what it is against, but not what it is for. Clearly, this argument has only limited impact. A movement this nebulous isn’t even really a movement yet; it’s more of a feeling. Perhaps just as importantly, opposition is an entirely valid political stance.

But as the increasingly apocalyptic rumblings of economic collapse draw nearer, we need to consider the fact that, as unlikely as it may seem, it is not inconceivable that we could soon find ourselves holding a more impressive hand. That means we need to begin thinking more carefully about (or articulating more accurately) the world we might want to see. St Paul’s is one of the places where we should be fleshing out that future.

This writer may be contacted at josh@joshhall.net

---