The Great Debate: Should Occupy be a Single Issue Movement?

Occupy began in the wake of the financial crash, bank bailouts and austerity measures, as a movement opposed to economic injustice. Since then, many other issues have been incorporated into Occupy’s aims and rhetoric. This edition we ask: should Occupy remain focussed on financial questions, or should we broaden the debate and take a more holistic approach?

FOR/DANIEL JELLER

With a view to the stage Occupy is currently in, my answer is ‘yes’: we should definitely focus on economic issues within the movement, but also within our society. Vague and all-encompassing goals and debates are less likely to attract people who would be willing to spend their time and energy working towards specific ends, and we certainly need to reach more people. Whilst it might, at first glance, seem a bit odd to attract new members by limiting our focus, we need to see that most people need a clear understanding of what they are fighting for (and what they aren’t). The feeling of sharing a few fundamental things with your comrades is a huge motivating factor for participating in a social movement.

Whilst there are certainly other important topics that need to be discussed publicly, financial inequality and injustice is what started the movement in the first place. People did not occupy the White House in Washington (which, in my opinion, would have been a good and visible place to occupy) but the Stock Exchange and Wall Street in New York. Clearly, the vision of an alternative economy is the common denominator of the Occupy movement. At the same time, this doesn’t have to limit our focus forever, but for the time being we should try to create a much sharper profile, especially since Occupy will always be measured by what the media and the 99% perceive as our goals.

There are various historic examples we can learn from. One is the rise of the so-called Green movement in European politics, which started as a movement with specific goals and a clear environmental focus (for example, opposing nuclear power plants). In this first phase, those groups with the most precise goals attracted the most followers, and were actually able to change things. After a few decades of participation in mainstream politics, however, and adopting the broader focus essential to attract as many voters as possible, they sometimes seem to lack the original verve, and some even claim that it is difficult to distinguish the Greens from other parties.

Another example is the Pirate Party, which succeeded in gaining publicity and a significant number of followers in a very short time. It faces similar problems to the Occupy movement. In Germany, for instance, they are now under pressure to provide solutions to a broad range of social problems, just like every other political party, and the media has already been questioning whether they will be able to provoke real change.

Right now, Occupy does not have to compete for votes. We can see this as an opportunity to focus on a single important matter, to enlarge the movement and to attract people who are willing to commit themselves to a specific goal, as opposed to those who want change but don’t really know what or how to start. If we work hard enough, this is an area we might genuinely be able to influence.

AGAINST/ PETER COVILLE

I’m talking about the big business interests that own this country. Forget the politicians, the politicians are put there to give you the idea you have freedom of choice. You don’t. You have owners, they own you, they own everything, they own all the important land, they own and control the corporations, they’ve long since bought and paid for the Senate, the Congress, the State houses, the City Halls. They’ve got the judges in their back pocket, and they own all the big media companies, so they control just about all of the news and information you get to hear…they’ve got you by the balls. (George Carlin)

Anger can be a powerful force in politics. It was anger at gross economic inequality that brought thousands of people onto the global street during 2011, and may well bring many more out in 2012, as further cuts and austerity measures begin to bite all over the world. A feeling of gross injustice transforms passive subjects into active citizens and genuine democrats. So it may seem obvious that Occupy’s strategy should follow the people, relaying and amplifying this feeling of anger at inequality. But there is an inherent risk of Occupy focusing on inequality alone. Any government worth its expense claims will simply act at the margins to remove the causes of the anger, as the Coalition government has indeed done, by stripping Fred Goodwin of his knighthood, and trimming those few bonuses which are most visible to the public. The public perception will then be that the injustice – at least the worst of it – has been removed, and the anger will subside.

Even if, say, a reinvigorated Labour government surfs to power at the next election on a tsunami of anger at economic injustice, bringing in higher taxes on corporations and the wealthy for the benefit of the less well-off, this will only be tinkering with a rotten system. Such superficial measures will be reversed when the Tories return to power. Like George Carlin, we ought to continue to widen our vision, reminding people that they have far more to be angry about than economic inequality or cuts to services, which are only the symptoms of far deeper problems.

We might add to Carlin’s list of complaints that these “big business interests” – now more powerful than many nation states – are presently enjoying virtual impunity to institute a new form of imperialism abroad, displacing indigenous peoples form their ancestral lands without any meaningful form of process, creating huge opencast mines or establishing massive soya or palm oil plantations. ‘Our companies are getting away with social and environmental crimes that would never be tolerated at home. The fundamental and underlying cause of economic inequality, and many other problems, is that there is no genuine democratic control of society and economy, neither at home and abroad. Government no longer acts for the benefit of the people, despite the charade of democracy. Occupy should continue to highlight this fact, and bring its wider vision to the debate, in an age where vision is a scarce commodity in politics. If we do this in the right way, and show clearly that there are alternatives, the public will respond with a much deeper, broader and more resilient anger, which can really change things.