Sympathy for Occupy LSX?
In Egypt, they endure the bullets; in Syria, they risk torture and summary execution; in China, they are immolating themselves in ever greater numbers, directly giving their lives for an ounce of equality. In the West, they sit in tents and paint funny signs. It’s not because they’re uncommitted, but because that’s all they need to do. They endure the taunting of the right, the chilling weather and the risk of arbitrary arrest but they stay … and many of them even smile.
In the early days of mass media, the disaffected found that peaceful but irritating acts of protest gain the exposure that spread their message and damaged the reputation of those they targeted. While the Suffragettes were widely scorned for their tactics of disrupting public events and chaining themselves to railings, ‘right-thinking’ man and woman alike cheering the arrest of each, the freedom fighters earned themselves the reverence of history.
And so it continued throughout the last century, through strikers, hippies, anti-war protesters, miners, Poll Tax rioters, animal welfare and green activists – all were ridiculed, feared and punished for their disturbing of the public mores. They dressed untidily, made lots of noise, blocked the public highway and failed to engage in a sophisticated way with the establishment. Yet, I would argue, the messages of each one enlightened the political debate and shifted public opinion in their favour.
Britain remains such a psychologically conservative nation that we have an inherent distrust of radicalism in all its forms. Paradoxically, by allowing a society where free debate and protest are allowed, we open the floodgates to the radical movements that much of the world has generally been able to suppress. Whereas marches and strikes were once met with sabres and rifles, November 30th will be little more than a family day out for the lower-middle classes.
And now it’s happening again. When it became clear that the Occupy protesters were not going anywhere, the public’s first reaction was to get ticked off. They were accused of spoiling St Paul’s for the tourists and wedding parties; of sophistry with their lack of fully considered demands; and the news that some of the protesters were leaving their tents abandoned for the odd night at home was met with incredulity as if they were trying to dupe the public to undeserved sympathy.
More recently, they’re being perceived as engaging in some sort of squatters party, endlessly drinking in public, urinating in alleyways, filling their veins with heroin and infecting one another with AIDS in an orgy of leftie pleasure. It’s become so de rigueur for the chattering classes to mock them that even the apolitical millionaire entertainer, Chris Evans, strongly stated his distaste for them on his otherwise bland Radio 2 breakfast show.
But now their stamina to withstand weather, legal threats and time has been demonstrated, they are starting to get plaudits from among the radical edges of the establishment. Celebrity campaigners, the Archbishop of Canterbury, the Opposition Leader and now the Business Secretary have all added their sympathy in recent weeks, each bringing a small drip of credibility to the movement. This support is more powerful than jeers from bores like Boris Johnson and it makes it that much harder for the police to move against them.
What much of the right-wing press is unwilling to admit is that there is something impressive about the creativity and responsible nature of the protesters. Unlike the self-serving public sectors workers about to engage in the most disruptive strike action the UK has seen for a generation, the Occupy movement are not blackmailing the nation; unlike the destructive anarchy that has accompanied recent protest marches, their methods have tiptoed the minefield around the confusing web of criminal offences that would allow the police to sweep in and arrest them; unlike the petitioners and rally speakers and public meeting holders, they aren’t just in the news one day and forgotten the next.
Of course, the ill-conceived and unrealistic demands of the protesters mean that they will be judged by popular history as a failure. There will be no ending of greed, no destroying of capitalism, no removing of the profit incentive while simultaneously funding evermore social welfare. But their language and their arguments are already sneaking into our consciousness and our vocabulary, even in Westminster. They may be young, naive and economically illiterate but even those of us who realise markets are a mostly reliable force for good tend to agree that things have gone badly wrong and the system must be amended.
Unlike those striking for others to pay for the masses to continue generously funding their pensions, Occupy will win because their message resonates: the system is broken, the bankers got away with it and the innocent were punished. The next month is key: if they survive eviction, snowfall and the draw of a family Christmas, then their credibility will be assured. They will serve to remind us not to be distracted by the Eurozone and the credit agencies and all the foreign things we can do little about and they will serve to remind the bankers and politicians that the country is still awaiting justice.
David M Gibson is a classical liberal and a member of the Liberal Democrats. He is currently interning at Lib Dem HQ for the campaigns team. A collection of his writings can be found at davethedystopian.blogspot.com, as well as on the Freedom Association website. David recently posted “the stupid 100%” here on LV.
November 28th, 2011 at 2:20 pm
Absolutely brilliant post. 100% spot on.
November 28th, 2011 at 3:56 pm
A really interesting article David – and a nice companion piece to your last one on “The Stupid 100%”. Thanks for taking the time to think about it and write it.
I think that there is some truth in your piece. There is genuine anger over the way the previous government mismanaged banking regulation…raided private company pension schemes…attempted to buy votes with the biggest government spending splurge imaginable whilst rolling out the mantra that we had seen the end of boom and bust etc…then sold off our gold at the cheapest rate to cover a fraction of its debts… We were also pretty hacked off with both Lords and Commons expenses fiddling, money for access, cash for questions etc ….I think many of us NEVER want to see that kind of behaviour ever again….
But I still need to be convinced that Occupy is as noble/selfless as say the Suffragettes, or as focused as the anti-war protesters. And I certainly can’t agree that simply surviving “cold weather” and “the draw of family christmas” will assure them credibility.
We have to ask the question surely – what is it that Occupy want? Originally they seemed to be asking for an improved system of democracy – though with no credible ideas about how to achieve that – but a reasonable ambition nonethless.
Now they appear to be morphing (probably ununtentionally I should add) into the an extreme faction of the socialist working party. They argue against all forms of Government spending cuts – indeed want government to be responsible for a bigger slice of our hard earned income – despite the fact that they seem to hate all forms of current government – and seem to have no suggestion of how to improve Government accountability. They appear to want the people to have “more power” – yet the one way to give people more power i.e. allow people to have the economic power to spend their own money – they are dead set against.
And whilst you say “Unlike those striking for others to pay for the masses to continue generously funding their pensions.Occupy will win because their message resonates”….. the truth is that Occupy is 100% behind public sector strikes on November 30th. And indeed Occupy plan to go even further – urging people to “to shut down the city” on November 30th. With some pretty unpleasant language on facebook it should be said.
So while I think your post is extremely interesting – I think that is is far from clear that Occupy will create anything new or different as it currently is formatted. Sit-ins and vigils have been around a very long time after all. And the open-democracy of the camp – which I like as a concept – is extremely difficult to sustain and in danger of the allowing those with the loudest voices to prevail.
November 28th, 2011 at 7:04 pm
David,
There will be some change in relation to many things, and perhaps as you suggest the Occupy LSX will be given credit by some quarters but the only correct response to this is “Post Hoc, Ergo Propter Hoc.”
Society will change in a variety of ways but this is because it always has, financial regulation will change because before the last election the largest party of government said it would. There will be better wind down mechanisms for banks because everyone agrees that this should have existed at the time of the crisis.
A bunch of people sitting outside St Pauls who’s current top achievements seem to have been to cost three members of the clergy their jobs are not going to cause any change. I think you are being optimistic to think that they will be given credit for anything.
November 29th, 2011 at 1:57 pm
Thanks, Dan.
Angela, I accept that they’re neither particularly focused, nor advocating the right solution. That’s a failure of economic education in this country that so many people can go through higher education (assuming they are mostly students and graduates) and not understand free market dynamics.
Angela/Psi – The point I was trying to get across is that protest movements set the agenda, not the outcome. As I point out none of there prescriptions will come into effect.
To the end of influencing the agenda, the attempt by the movement to focus on the financial industry and the injustice of the situation is a constant reminder that the factors that turned a bust into a depression began partly at home and haven’t been dealt with. I think this is quite noble, especially compared to the self-serving public sector strikers. If the Met police remove the protesters, as they will try and probably fail, it will be to our detriment.
November 29th, 2011 at 9:39 pm
David,
I agree that if the police were to try and remove the protestors it would be wrong, I have no problem with anyone removing their tents.
My concern is attempting to try and give credit to this “protest” for outcomes that would have occurred anyway.
The reaction to the financial crisis will be driven by voters with a low level lingering anger across the country not a few people who have nothing better to do than sit about in central London.
Parties fear the marginal voters in the marginal constituencies not a few people hanging about outside a St Pauls.
The electorate in Norwich, Crawley and the like are angry, and it is they who deserve the credit for the continued pressure on politicians to ensure that no bailouts are required in future.
Viewing these people who turn up in London as being important is a very London centric (BBCesk) view of the world. Most people I meet don’t see the protestors as a cause to unite behind but they want their politicians to sort out the mess and if they doubt an MP will do that I think the MP should watch their back.
In terms of the examples you site I think you have an unrealistic view of History, do you actually think the miners and Hippies changed the public’s view? For a start I would be interested to know what view you believe the Hippies were trying to change the public view too? As for the miners they went through very different impression in the public consciousness (not that this was uniform either) to a position now where the public don’t have any impression of modern British mining (partly due to open cast replacing deep mining for coal).
November 29th, 2011 at 11:10 pm
As I say, the outcomes are never those intended. The hippies made people question race relations, sexual relations, the necessity of war and encouraged a more creative form of political action, amongst other things. They didn’t do it on they’re own, but neither were they without achievement.
I take your point that the world is not London-centric, but it is largely TV and newspaper-centric and many of the leading politicians, with their nice comfy majorities, are listening to the media, not the country, just like the last government did. The fact that Occupy are getting big headlines (and will continue to do so) brings them back to the debate.