Collective Action analyses the experience and draws lessons from the Occupy movement
almost a year after the establishment of the first Occupy camps in the UK. ----
Introduction ---- The global Occupy movement (often referred to as #Occupy) has been
popularly presented as the beginnings of an organised, popular resistance to austerity.
Although all but dissolved in organisational terms in the UK, the rhetoric of the ?99%?
still retains strong resonance within both corporate and social media as representative of
the conditions of proletarianised workers, students and sections of the middle strata
faced with the increasingly brutal logics of capitalist accumulation and the social
disparity between themselves and the ?1%? (more controversially largely represented as the
CEOs and big financial firms continuing to benefit from the crisis).
While for our counterparts in the US, Occupy still appears to have some mobilising
potential, in spite of continuing contradictions of the organisational model (at least
that is our perception as outsiders), in the UK Occupy was a largely geographically and
temporally fixed phenomenon ? being largely represented in a few cities over a time-scale
of approximately late 2011 to early 2012.
In spite of this, the experience of Occupy UK illustrates a number of critical concerns
for British anti-capitalists. Strategic conclusions can be drawn from analysis of the
camps themselves, there are questions left open by the general lack of a sustained
anarchist presence (and the subsequent drift of already quite politically plural camps
into wholly liberal reformist positions) or whether it is possible to ?camp? popular
opposition to austerity (all of which are addressed below). Occupy UK, or to put it more
concretely the failure to actualise of the popular anti-austerity movement that Occupy UK
was premised upon, also raises a broader concern for us ? what, if any, will the shape of
popular resistance to capitalism take in the UK in the 21st Century? Occupy UK indicates a
two-fold failure in this respect ? failure to mobilise a popular movement around
anti-austerity positions (and win a broader public debate concerning austerity) by Occupy
itself and a failure of anti-capitalist intervention to expunge anti-austerity positions
of the illusions of liberal reformism or to offer meaningful analysis and orientation of
the barriers experienced in building that movement (in terms of a class-based approach to
social change).
We should be honest about this balance sheet. There has been a tendency within the wider
anarchist movement, and we were witness to this at the recent international gathering at
St. Imier, to champion Occupy as a demonstration of the ?victory? for anarchist ideas. Not
only does this show a misunderstanding of the content and composition of Occupy itself, as
well as being misplaced in terms of the general absence of clear anarchist involvement and
influence, but shows an unwillingness to really take stock of the genuine position of
disorientation that many libertarians find themselves in the current context. The state is
determined to plunge the working class into ever deeper conditions of poverty and
insecurity, and this is a situation replicated across Europe. In the face of this
escalating onslaught resistance does not appear to be forthcoming. In the wake of the
burning passion and creativity of the student occupation movement we have been offered
only the disorientating and muted action of the Occupy camps on the one hand, and the
disconnected and tired politics of (trade union led) anti-cuts coalitions on the other.
More importantly the ultimate ineffectiveness of Occupy UK is not something we should wish
to claim as a mantle for our tradition. Such a position only bolsters the arguments of the
authoritarian Left who locate the weaknesses of the movement in its commitments to
autonomy and self-organisation and the absence of a centralised leadership ? elements that
we ultimately celebrate.
The questions to which we turn in this article and the analysis developed from them are
the product of collective and self-critical discussions between Collective Action
militants as well as drawn from our own experiences of the camps as participants in this
movement.
Occupy UK: origins and aims
On October 15th 2011, the first incarnation of the then international ?Occupy movement?
established itself in the UK when a coalition of activists and organisers occupied the
forecourt of St. Paul?s Cathedral. The original intention, following the Occupy Wall
Street model, was to create a visible presence of anti-capitalist activity within the
economic heart of the capital; in the case of London, the Stock Exchange and the ?Square
Mile? where the majority of international financial and banking services are based. Like
its American cousin in Zuccotti park, Occupy the London Stock Exchange (?Occupy LSX?),
initially fell short of ?reclaiming space? directly from financial institutions (attempts
to occupy Paternoster Square were quickly thwarted by the police) and was instead based at
St. Paul?s Cathedral nearby.
This was a decision, perhaps unforeseen at the time, which was to later cause a great deal
of difficulty in terms of clarifying the message of the camp with a particularly zealous
campaign by the right-wing press to ?clear the cathedral? and the majority of the initial
negotiation for the space taking place in relation to the Canon of St. Paul?s. That is not
to say that action against religious institutions is necessarily an exercise detached from
campaigns for social justice ? in Sheffield it was joked that the Occupy camp closing the
cathedral may have been the only perceivable victory the camp there could claim ? but in
terms of building an explicit anti-austerity message it certainly contributed to the camp
failing to make substantial gains as the debates it sought to provoke were often
overshadowed by arguments about the camp?s location and disruption to the cathedral. It
also immediately threw up some difficult issues for organisers to grapple with in terms of
religious tolerance and co-operation with the church.
In spite of this, Occupy LSX did coalesce around a specific set of aims, to be followed in
the months after by camps set up across the UK. On October 16th, a gathering of over 500
Occupy London protesters collectively agreed upon and issued the following 'Initial
Statement':
Quote:
1. The current system is unsustainable. It is undemocratic and unjust. We need
alternatives; this is where we work towards them.
2. We are of all ethnicities, backgrounds, genders, generations, sexualities dis/abilities
and faiths. We stand together with occupations all over the world.
3. We refuse to pay for the banks? crisis.
4. We do not accept the cuts as either necessary or inevitable. We demand an end to global
tax injustice and our democracy representing corporations instead of the people.
5. We want regulators to be genuinely independent of the industries they regulate.
6. We support the strike on the 30th November and the student action on the 9th November,
and actions to defend our health services, welfare, education and employment, and to stop
wars and arms dealing.
7. We want structural change towards authentic global equality. The world?s resources must
go towards caring for people and the planet, not the military, corporate profits or the rich.
8. The present economic system pollutes land, sea and air, is causing massive loss of
natural species and environments, and is accelerating humanity towards irreversible
climate change. We call for a positive, sustainable economic system that benefits present
and future generations.
9. We stand in solidarity with the global oppressed and we call for an end to the actions
of our government and others in causing this oppression.
This was later synthesised by Occupy LSX to:
Quote:
Reclaiming space in the face of the financial system and using it to voice ideas for how
we can work towards a better future. A future free from austerity, growing inequality,
unemployment, tax injustice and a political elite that ignores its citizens, and work
towards concrete demands to be met.
It is fair to say that a great deal of what Occupy claims, or claimed, to be about lies in
its processes ? movement-building, participation, direct democracy, collective living, etc
? and as a result it is perhaps unfair to judge it on the basis of its objectives alone.
It was also very clear that many participants considered objectives to be secondary to a
far more inclusive process of uniting progressives under the banner of anti-austerity (a
commitment which will be discussed in more detail later). Nonetheless, in spite of this
the camps clearly did, initially at least, have a driving rationale, and however embryonic
in practice this may have been after a little over a year since the occupations, media
coverage and public attention, it is necessary to reflect on these aims, their viability
as means of struggle and whether future incarnations can be successful. It should also be
emphasised that even in an embryonic state the content of these initial aims had immediate
practical effects in terms of the processes themselves. Many, for example, cite the errors
of a failure to include a more concrete ?safer spaces? policy (a commitment to create
spaces free from discrimination and prejudice) within the Occupy platform as a
contributing factor to the incidents of sexism and rape reported at certain camps.
Occupy UK: a balance sheet
As already stated the actions of the police, along with the fact that Paternoster Square
is private property and, therefore, was easily granted a High Court injunction, meant that
Occupy LSX was not able to follow its initial plans of a camp in the centre of the
financial district. This was later, at least partially, rectified by the ?public
repossession? of disused offices owned by UBS and their conversion into the ?Bank of
Ideas,? which hosted teach-ins, seminars, film screenings and, probably most widely
covered by the media, a free gig from the bands Radiohead and Massive Attack (the site was
evicted January 30th 2012). The picture across the UK, however, was much the same as the
London camp with Birmingham, Brighton, Cardiff, Edinburgh, Manchester, Sheffield and many
more cities and towns failing to occupy a financial space and being based in public
squares and parks instead. Following the religious building trend, Occupy Sheffield
squatted the ?Citadel of Hope?, an empty Salvation Army Citadel, for the Occupy National
Conference, but this ceased to be operational after the event and is now only used by a
circus training group.
Of course many pointed to the successes of Tahrir Square as a precedent for public
occupations that did not rely on such a direct, physical confrontation with the ?spaces?
of power. However, sentiments to ?Take the Square? - aiming to recreate the scenes in
Egypt - marginalised the significance of wider social mobilisations present in these
events, for example the April 6th Youth Movement which supported striking workers. More
profound ideological changes such as the newly found solidarity and confidence within the
Egyptian working class was absent from spectacular media coverage and this led to the
emphasis on the form, as opposed to the content, being reproduced in many of the copycat
protests that followed.
Confrontation with financial and political institutions, leaving aside the role of the
church, actually largely occurred on a terrain in which activists were weakest ? through
the courts. This was where the City of London Corporation was able to secure a forcible
eviction of occupiers in a move that was replicated by councils and local authorities
across the country. It also forced Occupy into a position in which it had to adopt
bourgeois legalism ? freedom to assemble, freedom of speech ? to justify its activity.
What then of the politics?
In many ways it is difficult to judge the goals of Occupy here even on its own terms.
Certain positions are barely distinguishable, particularly in terms of the call for ?a
positive, sustainable economic system that benefits present and future generations?, from
the language of Westminster (this may have been appropriate given the presence of MPs such
as Caroline Lucas and John McDonnell within the London camp) and, therefore, makes it
difficult to gauge what objectives are actually being proposed here. It would be fair to
say that Occupy did not necessarily talk about ?an? alternative but of the need for
alternatives. So to what extent was it successful at building and mobilising others
towards a political spectrum of progressive currents against austerity?
It is impossible to create a complete picture of every camp across the UK here but it is
our aggregate experience, particularly outside London, that praxis was largely limited to
creating a camp site and creating a community within it. These are the immediate practical
tasks which arise from forming an ad-hoc community with very loose over-arching values, in
often quite adverse conditions (exacerbated by poor weather and anti-social elements). In
all cases the priorities of refining and developing political positions were secondary to
the cohesiveness (or lack thereof) of the camp as a whole ? the lowest common denominator
being a liberal pluralist position of hoping to keep everyone happy at the expense of
following any specific initiative in a sustained way. The camp environment also threw up
other issues in this respect. The longevity of the camp site is unclear, making long-term
plans uncertain. Such an environment may be familiar territory for activists but may
alienate other members of the working class. Many camps did hold public assemblies as a
means of opening up the processes and forming a more inclusive space for those unable to
camp, but when the principle agenda items are the practicalities arising from camp life it
would be easy to question what relevance such a gathering has to the wider public. In
light of this it is necessary to reflect on whether camping is compatible with the
original Occupy aim of mobilising alternatives to austerity (if alternatives can be said
to exist in the Occupy platform).
In this respect the British Occupy movement could perhaps learn from aspects of the North
American Occupy. Under strong influence from revolutionaries in organisations such as the
Industrial Workers of the World (IWW) the movement has made tangible links to the working
class and local communities. For example, they joined in on the struggle against the
foreclosure of homes, made common cause with labour struggles, while in Oakland they shut
down the docks there. Like Occupy in the UK these were ultimately limited in both duration
and scale, although less so, but they were important added dynamics in two senses. First
that it showed the potential of Occupy as a tool for broadening social struggle in terms
of using the model to build and solidify links within and between otherwise stratified or
partially stratified sections of the class. Secondly, it set the course for moving the
occupation tactic away from spectacular assemblies and public protest to occupation in the
true sense - seizures and appropriations. These are tactics that are not only more
economically disruptive in practical terms (and therefore a stronger and more sensible
basis for promoting the use of Occupy as a means of fighting austerity) but also orientate
strategy towards the true location of social power ? collective struggle driven by class
unity.
It is hard to say as outsiders what the key to Occupy US?s increased size and radicalism
was. It could be speculated that a) the US camps contained more united elements than the
UK?s loosely networked and multiple anti-cuts groups, b) that there existed a degree of
self-reflection and criticism lacking in the UK, c) that Occupy US was more successful in
reaching out beyond the physical camps; or a combination of all these things. Perhaps the
experience of Occupy UK simply stands as an indictment against the willingness of British
anti-capitalists to fight for their ideas in a comparable way to their US counter-parts.
Whatever the weaknesses of the camp model, elements within the North American occupiers
have at least acknowledged that to be effective anti-capitalists you have to disrupt the
flow of capital. Hence the moves towards the ?General Strike? as the principle demand
there. In the UK no such connection has been made on any organisational level. Occupy can
barely be described as anti-capitalist in most UK incarnations with many campers
displaying open hostility to anti-capitalist ideas and practices. In the case of Glasgow,
for example, statements were issued on behalf of the camp that argued for more ?ethical?
capitalism.
Likewise no direct, explicit link was made to the student movement, even at a time when
student militancy was reaching escalating levels and the state was employing massive
repression against them. In London, Occupy also failed to make any strong connection in
the sparks? struggle, as electricians shook off the inadequacy of union bureaucrats to
take workplace grievances into their own hands ? an ample opportunity for Occupy to
provide support and assistance. More importantly Occupy didn?t really offer anything
substantial to these struggles in terms of their ability to escalate resistance or offer
alternative means of widening or broadening methods of struggle, other than just a wider
constituency of potential supporters. In spite of the diversity of the camps the actual
repertoires of action offered by Occupy was surprisingly limited ? camping and the
occasional squatting of buildings ? a poor record to even the ?Climate Camps? and summit
camps of recent history, which although also limited in different ways were at least
geared towards facilitating action and interventions beyond the gathering of activists.
Occupy: critical reflections
As the practice of a tactic Occupy is unusual in that traditionally occupations are an
advanced organisational expression of the escalating resistance of social movements. While
the more immediate public memory of occupations is of Tahrir Square and the (seemingly)
spontaneous mobilisations of the Arab Spring, it would be more consistent to think to the
actions of the striking teachers of Oaxaca in 2006 and the APPO (Popular Assembly of the
Peoples of Oaxaca) as well as the occupations of town halls and municipal buildings during
the 2008 Greek riots as better contemporary representations of the practice. In both cases
occupations were not a starting point but emerged both out of concrete necessity of the
struggle and as a practical consequence of the solidification of communities in
resistance. In Greece, occupations provided a base for activity that replaced the
spontaneous communities of insurgents in the streets, as well as reflecting the
ideological evolution of the struggle, e.g. the occupation of trade union offices against
the class collaborationist position of the trade unions. In Oaxaca the public square
occupation was a hub for solidarity with striking teachers bringing together all manner of
social movements against the state?s governor, Ulises Ruiz Ortiz. Barricades in this sense
were indications of the emergence of community bonds and networks of solidarity through
the struggle while acting as a very practical defence of the violence of the state against
militants. In both cases, although ultimately facing some limitations, occupations posed a
direct threat to the resumption of social order on both an economic and political level.
By contrast, occupy camps in the UK emerged as a mild and not very disruptive social or
economic force. Neither did they emerge from a specific struggle but rather a more general
ideological climate of pro-austerity ideas and policies. This is not to say that there
have not been material struggles arising from cuts to public services and declining living
standards, it is just that these particularities are unrelated to the formation of Occupy
camps. The reality is that camps have acted more as "publicity bureaus" or public forums
for anti-austerity organising ? where this practice has been successful. This is not
necessarily a negative thing in itself, but the limitation of the form, political maturity
and the lack of self-awareness have meant a failure to capitalise on this as a specific
tactic. Tailoring Occupy more concretely to the need to build anti-austerity alternatives
could shed new light on the tactics that are used, e.g. is camping the most effective
tactic which can be used? Are there other means of intervention/outreach that can be
explored? Could Occupy be transformed, for example, to form something along the lines of
the Zapatista Consulta, e.g. radicals doing outreach within and amongst communities?
Material struggles carry within them a potential trajectory for a) generalisation and b)
systemic critique (anti-capitalism) by virtue of the terrain in which they are situated
(confrontation within capital along class lines) and, more importantly, the social
location of their participants ? their class. While it is almost always the case that
class struggle finds some form of accommodation within the system, e.g. a pay rise, more
welfare, or is simply defeated, it also carries within it at least the potential for
supersession in respect to the conflict between capital and the class. There is a logic
contained within class struggles that ultimately leads to the constitution of class as a
negation of capital. Occupy was based more on the need for "alternatives" as a reaction to
the pervasiveness of the all-consuming austerity narrative. It is of no surprise in this
sense that unity often devolved to the very practical tasks of maintaining camps (and in
the worst cases an insider vs. outsider mentality amongst some campers). With the absence
of a material condition that brought campers together, e.g. as students fighting cuts or
workers on strike, and the absence of a clear political programme; being an occupier
represented anything from an anti-capitalist anarchist to a reformist liberal or
conspira-loon. This absence of basic shared values meant huge obstacles for the next step
of a radicalising process - assigning the means and methods by which we collectively
tackle the austerity narrative. As opposed to representing a spectrum of radical ideas,
this pluralism simply delivered the base assumptions of the camps ? that campers are
against austerity ? while delivering no practical means to actually act on these assumptions.
Occupy is far more continuous in respect to existing protest activity than is often
acknowledged. It expressed a model of militancy essentially voluntaristic in character,
not especially distinct from the existing composition and practices of Leftist groups.
Crucially, Occupy offered no sustained or integrated way of introducing anti-austerity
activity into working life. Camping is simply not a viable practice for the majority of
workers, so what to do when you cannot camp? Occupy was largely built and mobilised by the
unemployed, students, the homeless and those off work. This did not necessarily have to be
a point of weakness. If Occupy was to give rise to a movement of the jobless sections of
our class this would be a positive achievement. But a lack of self-criticism and
particularly the need to be seen to be being ?representative? of a wider constituency -
under the rubric of representing the "99%" - meant missing opportunities to develop the
strategy and tactics of camps into a definitive programme suited to the needs of those
involved.
The problem with the 99%
As popular and as useful as the slogan of the ?99%? may have been in propagandistic terms,
from a communist perspective a number of issues arise from the analysis associated with
this slogan. Many of these criticisms have been covered extensively elsewhere, and some
raised in the context of the movement itself, so here we believe it is sufficient to only
provide a summary of key issues as an extension of our critique of Occupy?s inability to
mobilise or extend resistance against austerity. As anarchist communists it is our
position that austerity is only one facet of the management of capitalism and that it
should be understood as a particular manifestation of systemic structures rooted in the
existence of social classes. As a result we argue that the only means of creating a
society based on social justice is through challenging these fundamental structures via
revolutionary confrontation with the state and the capitalist class. The slogan of the
?99%? is therefore problematic to us for a number of reasons.
The ?99%? overlooks important stratifications that exist within and between members of our
class. Those who are, for example, not millionaires and city bankers but still benefit
from capitalism or play a part in its administration, e.g. the managerial strata, the
police, bailiffs, border agency staff. The confusions associated with this analysis led
some Occupiers to claim the police, the likes of the English Defence League and other
reactionary elements as part of the ?99%?. Technically they are correct, but this exposes
exactly the problem with this analysis. Inequality is not simply about ownership and
wealth but relations of power. Class relations often manifest themselves in and between
communities in spite of a very similar economic context, e.g. racism, sexism, homophobia.
In fact these stratifications are exactly the divisions that capitalists periodically
stoke up to ensure that workers are competing against each other and perceive each other
as a threat rather than the power of the bosses. Likewise with the adoption of liberal
policies, the capitalist class has found that providing a little privilege and power to
certain sections of workers, effectively stratifying the class and providing the illusion
of ?social mobility?, allows capitalists to stabilise social order through the creation of
a strata of middle-managers who do not appear so removed from the workers themselves. The
police and the border agencies similarly play critical roles in maintaining class
relations and carrying out the institutional violence that keeps workers in their place.
These forces will inevitably come into conflict with movements that attempt to challenge
the social structures that underpin our society. Confusion on these issues creates obvious
organisational problems some of which were clearly apparent in the camps, e.g.
co-operation with the police, lack of a safe-spaces policy and incidents of sexual
violence against women.
The 99% analysis represents the problem of austerity as an issue of unconstrained finance.
Finance, however, is only a part of the circuit of capital whose influence is, in
contemporary terms, predicated by a number of more fundamental structural changes in the
management of capitalism, including the declining profitability of the ?real? economy. It
is impossible to provide a comprehensive analysis of this here but this does include the
increasing internationalisation of capital, the move away from Fordism (and with it social
democratic corporatism) into neoliberalism and increasing reliance on debt to maintain
standards of living. A more complete criticism should be tied to the organisation of
capitalism as a whole and how finance is simply one aspect of class control that is
exercised by the capitalist class. Critics may point to the way that finance has played a
particularly prominent role in undermining (bourgeois) democratic values and subverting
state accountability. Our critiques of capitalism are, however, far more fundamental than
this. Even a ?democratised? capitalism (should this ever be possible) would be
reprehensible to us given the coercive nature of the system itself ? a system whereby
workers are forced to work to survive and where the full product of our labour is stolen
from us through our work. What is required is not a levelling of the system, raising up
the 99%, but a humanisation of the values which structure the economy away from the
motivation to accumulate profit to one based on human need, where products are
fundamentally social in character (and not present as spectacular commodities) and where
time away from necessary labour is maximised.
The extent to which the ?99%? slogan has seeped into public discourse is impressive and an
indication of how well it speaks to a common feeling of injustice, but as the above
indicates, it also very comfortably lends itself to reformist ideology ? injustices are
seen to need to be rectified. The mobilisation of the Greek movement ?We Won?t Pay? might
be an interesting comparative example here in terms of a popular movement organised in
response to austerity. ?We Won?t Pay?, as its title suggests, is an organisation that uses
direct action to disrupt what it considers to be unfair or exploitative levies on public
services. This has included raising barriers on the toll booths on private roads,
encouraging mass rides of public transport, sabotaging of ticket booths, sharing the
skills to allow people access to free electricity as well as community-based work that
organises the distribution of free food and clothing to those who need it. Like the ?99%?,
the ?We Won?t Pay? slogan is expressed as a statement of outrage and injustice ? we won?t
pay for a crisis we claim no responsibility for! It is also, more importantly, a discourse
of expropriation, of seizure of those necessities that communities depend upon, all of
which is facilitated by direct action. ?We Won?t Pay? gives a clearer sense of the
immediate confrontations that are involved in social struggle, e.g. security staff who
protect toll booths, fascists thugs who roam public transport, while also sowing no
illusions in the state?s ability to mediate the injustices visited upon working people. It
provides a more forthright assertion of the strength and objectives of collective action
as well as a positive vision of the autonomy of communities in struggle, i.e. ?these
things are necessary to my continued existence and I am entitled to them without your (the
state/the boss/the security guard) interference?.
Wot, no resistance? Broader questions
A basic reality that we must face here in the UK, and the experience of Occupy broadens
this perspective, is the collapse of mass-based challenges to capitalism. That is either
in the form of popular, militant trade unionism or as mass workers? parties, however
inadequate these may have actually been in superseding the conditions imposed by capital.
If we are to look to the role (or the absence, as was actually the case) of anarchists in
respect to Occupy this is a perspective that needs to be adopted. Occupy was treading new
ground in many ways in that fundamentally, as inadequate as its answers ultimately were,
we do not know what concrete shape popular resistance to austerity will, if it indeed
does, take in the current context. There have been ongoing localised struggles of both
workplaces and communities against specific cuts and state policies. Both the student
occupation movement of 2010 and the August riots of 2011, without drawing too strong an
equivalence between the two, suggested at least the emergence of a new resistant subject
against the austerity regime ? the newly proletarianised youth. This was only to be
subsumed by parliamentarism and state repression, in the case of the former, and the
absence of any basis for coalescence and the criminality in the case of the latter. The
sparks likewise showed the propensity for the British organised working class to
re-activate resistance, but this seemed to express more the resilience of a long-standing
tradition of struggle, conditioned by black-listing and other cultures unique to the
industry, as opposed to anything emerging against austerity per se. Since then the only
general mobilisations have been in the form of the TUC (Trades Union Congress) ?days of
action?, themselves an exercise in the defeatism of the trade union bureaucracy and their
wholesale retreat from workplace action. These have only served to reinforce the existing
schisms evident during the riots, resulting from the 26th March 2011?March for the
Alternative? when thousands marched to listen to Ed Miliband?s (leader of the opposing
Labour Party for international readers) address in Hyde Park while just a few hundred
radicalised youth rioted through the heart of the city.
In respect to Occupy in particular it was necessary to recognise the continuities, in the
form of cross-class umbrella organising, something very familiar within the context of the
workers' movement, and discontinuities ? the dimensions of Occupy that were "demand-less",
sought to transfer consensus on austerity into an attack on private space and debt and
build popular opposition to austerity ? present within the embryonic movement. This
required an awareness of the underlying structural problems the Occupy project highlighted
(at this point we really don't know the current social basis for any fight back against
austerity, if indeed there is one), while also arguing those positions on which we, as
anti-capitalists, are certain of: resistance has to be rooted in working class unity and
emerging from the politics of everyday life. The management system of capitalism may have
changed but its essential logic - and the transformative role of the proletariat - remains
the same.
This is where anarchists perhaps squandered an opportunity to use the, albeit often quite
limited and even politically hostile, space that Occupy opened to argue for this
orientation and really investigate what mass resistance can and cannot look like in the
current context. As it stands we really didn't learn anything other than those
self-fulfilling prophecies with which we were already aware - that a cross-class movement
with no root in material struggles and premised on a manufactured community of resistance
was likely to collapse into reformism, peter out or get crushed by the state (or often all
three simultaneously). This is while, ironically, many anarchists were claiming the mantle
of Occupy as a vindication of anarchist methods and ideas. Undoubtedly there was a lot of
resistance to genuine anti-capitalist positions among campers, and we experienced these
ourselves, but this was compounded by the failure of anarchists to effectively intervene.
Both factors together allowed the anti-capitalist position to be easily characterised as
extremist, when the intention was actually the opposite in terms of bringing Occupy as a
meaningful thing to the class, and allowed pacifistic and activist methods to dominate. In
London, the camp descended into in-fighting after some campers erected a ?Capitalism is
Crisis? banner, with liberal and pacifistic campers arguing that ?capitalism isn?t the
enemy, greed is?.
Anarchists advocate mass movements against the capitalist system. In the present
condition, these are clearly lacking. The so-called ?labour movement? doesn?t do much
?moving? at all and the UK is as devoid of militant unions now as it has ever been.
Anarchists uphold that mass movements have to be organic in order to create transformative
social change. Why then did so many uphold Occupy as a vindication of anarchist ideas?
Could it be that without any existing mass movements, and without any modern ideas of what
form mass movements today should take, we were simply blinded by a romanticism that
something was kicking off?
Conclusions
While it is possible to muse over whether the downfall of Occupy UK came from its failure
to claim Paternoster Square, or to adopt a more anti-capitalist stance; it should be clear
that even if Occupy had successfully taken the Square, and even if it had outright
advocated ?camping for communism?, substantive change cannot come about through camping.
Yes we should welcome that libertarian modes of organising based on direct democracy are
becoming more popular, however, as previously stated, we should also critique Occupy to
the grounds of what it claims to be ?about?. In this sense, Occupy failed to increase
participation in anti-austerity struggles, and also failed to make links with ongoing
struggles, such as the student movement, the sparks? struggle and striking public sector
workers. Beyond this, Occupy UK also failed to reflect on this and seek to remedy it. Here
lies one area where anarchists could have intervened and attempted to take the
well-meaning organisational sentiments of Occupy to ongoing and organic struggles in
actual communities such as workplaces, neighbourhoods and educational institutions.
Occupy was successful in terms of its ability to express a commonly felt sense of
injustice and outrage towards further shifts of wealth away from the class - e.g. cuts in
public services and to benefits, erosions in living standards, declining wages - and into
private hands. The speed and spread of the mobilisations, something that cannot be
explained by the new role of social media alone, was a strong demonstration of this.
However it lacked purpose and was plagued by many of the issues which continue to alienate
activist cultures from wider communities. Occupy needed to provide more concrete answers,
practical solutions and, most importantly, a more thorough critique of the social system.
It needed to engage more strongly on the issues of practical necessity that are being
thrown up by austerity politics showing how social solidarity is a viable and sensible
alternative to the alienating and hope-less politics of Westminster. It could have done
more to catalyse existing groups in struggle and speak to those groups at the harsher end
of the austerity drive, embracing specificity over the woolly narrative of the ?99 per
centers?. It could also have spoken more about itself, both in terms of the discourse that
emerged out of the camps but also the need to address how composition and experience
relates to the kind of actions a movement can take.
This analysis can be situated in a wider social and political context; a context which
helps to explain the immediate appeal of Occupy (and some of its failures). Principally,
we find ourselves amidst a de-politicised political culture in which organised
anti-capitalism is not a viable alternative to a more pervasive radicalised liberalism,
such as that propounded by Occupy, where class identity has been dislocated by an
onslaught of capitalist realism and where activists, where they are present, often lack
the skills and experience to act as organisers mobilising and strengthening communities in
struggle. Almost a year since the first camp it seems unlikely that Occupy will re-emerge
as a continuing tool for anti-austerity struggle. What we should take from it, however, is
the desire for an alternative to the present system. The only way to achieve this is
through the self-organisation of the class in the communities of everyday life, and if we
want libertarian communism to be that alternative, this is where we have to start.
------------------------------------------
* Collective Action is an association of anarchist communists based in the UK.
Bron : a-infos-en@ainfos.ca
