Occupy in the Sky: A Response to Sid Ryan in CiF

The Guardian published an article in Comment is Free last week written by Sid Ryan; a blogger who decided to cash in on two weeks spent at Occupy by writing a ‘tell all’ hack-job. In his piece, Sid laments the range of views within the movement, and the ‘obsession’ with inclusiveness and openness. Presumably his next feature for CiF will be on the virtues of living in North Korea.

One of Occupy’s great strengths is its diversity of opinion. On any of the four London sites people can be seen and heard having long debates about the banking crisis, our governmental system, or whether we need full revolution or just ethical reforms of capitalism.

This, in itself, is nothing particularly new. Such debates took place long before Occupy (though rarely in Westminster), but what is different is that despite disagreeing on the details, after arguing it out debating partners walk away still both parts of the same thing; still committed to working together, and still under the banner of Occupy.

To reduce the value of Occupy – the first genuine sniff of a social movement in the west for decades – to merely a lobby group, as Sid does, is to entirely miss the point. For the first time in living memory there is a real grassroots movement which even transcends political paradigms of right and left. And this isn’t a nationalised resistance to a single government, either. All around the world Occupy is questioning the brand of democracy sold to us globally while reinstating the concept of equality as a tangible goal rather than naive ideal.

Criticising capitalism five years ago had you labelled an extremist; now they’re doing it in the Financial Times.

Of course, this isn’t all down to Occupy. Capitalism is actually in crisis. Occupy is just an acceptance of that, and a willingness to prepare for the future and identify which pieces of the carcass might be worth preserving.

It’s true, as Sid points out, that another of Occupy’s best features are the cell-like Working Groups bringing people and their skills together to conceive of ideas, and to foster channels to carry them. But beyond the functionality is the zeitgeist for change, and the greater ideal of democratic, participatory politics.

The banking crisis may have been the delayed catalyst for Occupy, but it is by no means the root of the problem. We could totally reform the banking system, but not addressing the reasons which allowed it to develop unchecked would be to treat the symptoms and not the cause. What’s to say a different, equally unjust system wouldn’t take its place? While plenty of bank-bashing goes on at the steps of St Paul’s, there’s another element which could help get to the rotten core of our political system: GAs.

As citizens, we are totally disenfranchised from the political system. Every four years we’re given a slip of paper amounting to a lucky-dip of neoliberals who can be trusted only to lie to us. Since Cameron’s privatisation of the NHS after no mention of it in the Conservatives’ election manifesto, and Clegg’s broken promise not to raise student fees, does anyone take this sinister pantomime seriously anymore? The idea that we currently have any agency in decisions moulding our environments through traditional political avenues is, quite simply, a delusion.

The beauty of GAs is that they are the total opposite. While Sid envisages a lobby group comprised of three Working Groups, we imagine GAs taking place across the country in every village, town and city borough. Rather than local councils doing a centralised government’s dirty work, they could be mandated to facilitate the decisions made by the people. Of course, many would doubt the ability of mere citizens to make important decisions, like whether to invade Iraq, bail out banks instead of holding them to account, or introduce bills to steal benefits from disabled people.

But could we do any worse? And do we have any choice?

For anyone still harbouring hope in our political system, Ed Balls’ acceptance of the Conservatives austerity program as unavoidable last Friday must have come as a shuddering moment of clarity. There can now be no doubt that we are left with no choice of political representation. Balls’ admission that Labour will not even attempt to undo the Tories brutal cuts means we are on our own. Either we – the people – do something about the neoliberal agenda adopted by both political parties, or it will make no difference whatsoever who wins the next general election. Occupy is an acceptance of our predicament and an attempt – however naive and imperfect – to do something about it.

It is also true that physical occupations suffer a myriad of problems passed on to them from the wider society. As Noam Chomsky has pointed out, occupations are a tactic which should only be utilised in so far as they help you achieve your goals, and not to be clung onto out of sentimentality. But it’s important to keep some perspective here.

Sid lambasts horizontal organisation, inclusivity, openness, GAs and a lack of hierarchy, while speaking about Occupy’s failings with an alarming (considering the Guardian published it) lack of understanding of how social movements work. They aren’t ready-made quick fixes. They are slow processes of analysis and shifting perspectives. They can come in waves, and reincarnate themselves multiple times before achieving goals.

Occupy is still at an embryonic stage. It isn’t perfect, but at least it isn’t selling out.

By Steven Maclean