While the occupation at St Paul\u2019s outlived most in the US, the movement here remains in the shadow of Occupy Wall Street. For OWS, the eviction of the camps turned out to be a blessing. Instead of focusing on site management and internal politics, occupiers were given an opportunity to shift tactics and look outwards, focusing on new directions for the movement. Meanwhile, the occupations in London rumbled on defiantly, but vital energy was expended on their upkeep. The occupation of physical space increasingly divided \u2018occupiers\u2019 from sympathetic members of the public, resulting in an exclusive lifestyle. We had created a \u2018social\u2019 without the \u2018movement\u2019, while in the US, Occupy remained an accessible wave of public outrage.<\/p>\n
Had the eviction of St Paul\u2019s come earlier, things may have been different.<\/p>\n
Post-eviction, the allocation of funds became more of an obstacle than an enabling force. Camping enthusiasts at Finsbury Square thought funds should go exclusively towards maintaining occupations, while others wanted to adopt different tactics, spending on outreach and direct actions.<\/p>\n
In the run-up to May, the majority of General Assemblies were attended by only a dedicated group of \u2018core\u2019 occupiers, determined to keep momentum in the hope that the energy of last October would return. M12 saw a good turnout, with around 500 people taking part in the action, but compared to Indignados in Spain, OWS and the student movement in Canada, it felt like more of a final whimper than a resurgent roar.<\/p>\n
Same Name, Different Movement?<\/strong><\/p>\n The relatively modest stature of Occupy here compared to the US isn\u2019t all of our own making. Until the Tory government shreds it completely, Britain still has the remains of a welfare state, which takes some of the sting out of revolutionary sentiment. It breaks the fall into extreme poverty, while in the US there is no safety net. Despite the US government doing more to stave off mass unemployment in the wake of the global financial crash than our governments have here, the foreclosure crisis and continued absence of free healthcare means that Americans are literally on their own. Stateside, Occupy provided both community spirit and, at times, genuine resistance to the consequences of neoliberal ideology, when occupiers defended homes from foreclosure.<\/p>\n While OWS moved on from occupying to the more radical actions of blocking ports and taking back community centres, Occupy in London repeated the same symbolic protests, rhetoric and tactics. Like a river carving its way deeper into the landscape, it reinforced a well-defined identity instead of bursting its banks and flooding the plains of wider society. There has been too much self-affirming, inward-looking debate and, most of all, forging of a safe image. \u2018Safe\u2019 doesn\u2019t inspire in a time of record youth unemployment, increasing poverty and ransacking of the NHS.<\/p>\n Despite a more radical outlook and greater numbers, they have encountered many of the same problems on Wall Street as we have. Numbers dwindled, attempts to inspire a mass May Day strike failed, and a lack of political space was a problem we didn\u2019t have here, but as winter passed and key issues were addressed, energy was rekindled.<\/p>\n Writing in the Guardian<\/a> recently, David Graeber described how OWS benefited by ridding itself of parasitic liberalism and financial burdens. \u201cWhen OWS re-emerged in the spring, the abandonment of the liberals, the drying-up of the money, have become an almost miraculous blessing.\u201d Here in London, we have yet to abandon the (mis)guiding light of liberalism.<\/p>\n The Liberal Branding of \u2018Occupy London\u2019<\/strong><\/p>\n At some point after the eviction of St Paul\u2019s, OccupyLSX and OccupyFS were discarded in favour of \u2018Occupy London\u2019 as part of an undemocratic \u201crebranding push\u201d. This shift was subtle but stiflingly significantly. Now, all \u2018Occupy London\u2019 activities fell under a central PR managerial umbrella, and while anybody could do anything in the name of Occupy in the US, actions in the UK must be prescribed.<\/p>\n As a brand, \u2018Occupy London\u2019 has appeared corporate, measured and polished. Lacking the permeable messiness and dynamism of the wider global movement, it instead looks exclusive and apart. From the outside, \u2018Occupy London\u2019 feels like a members-only club, failing to live up to the promise of the Statement of Autonomy to make \u201ccaretakers\u201d of those who wish to participate.<\/p>\n The liberal mindset shaping the press image of Occupy in London is determined not to scare people away by appearing \u2018too radical\u2019. The \u2018Capitalism is Crisis\u2019 banner in front of St Paul\u2019s was removed early on as part of an effort to stop the mainstream media using the \u2018anti-capitalist\u2019 label to describe occupiers, and a recent \u2018Global Occupy Manifesto<\/a>\u2019 (which was put together by a self-appointed group not representative of the movement in any meaningful way) didn\u2019t mention the word \u2018capitalism\u2019 at all, after reformists \u2018blocked\u2019 the term.<\/p>\n No similar efforts were made to remove signs from St Paul\u2019s expressing liberal sentiments, or links to the questionable Zeitgeist movement<\/a>, and \u2018fluffy\u2019 actions like handing out flowers escape scrutiny because they are harmless. That people might be alienated by pointless actions lacking a political message isn\u2019t deemed worthy of consideration. Any movement needs to attract people, but the aim of Occupy should be to draw people to the radical and new, rather than to fall in line with what is already populist, offering no agitation to the status quo.<\/p>\n