The Problem with Occupy

Occupy Glasgow today voted at their General Assembly to move the camp from George Square to Kelvingrove park, where the council have agreed to provide them with facilities including lighting, toilets, heras fencing, CCTV, heaters and a water supply as well as transportation for all tents and materials.

At one level this is a positive move – who would want to stay in a location where a young woman was gangraped, but on the other hand, I am having increasing doubts about the whole Occupy movement.  When I wrote my previous blogpost in the middle of last week, although I had considerable doubts over Occupy Glasgow, I was still supportive of the wider movement.  Despite the fact that this was the third reported rape which had occurred in activist space and dreadful rape culture reaction that I had witnessed, I put this down to a lack of awareness of the need for security, the nievety and lack of experience of the average protester involved and a kneejerk defensive reaction coupled with a good bit of Scottish machismo.  But as this week has progressed and more and more and more and more and more and more tales of sexual abuse and rape emerge from the Occupy movement, it is clear that this wasnt an isolated incident but is something which is affecting Occupy internationally.

Lets look at the concept, the original intention was to Occupy Wall Street.  To demand that our money is spent on our needs, which I am totally in support of, but as time has gone on, its turned into Occupy Zucutti Park.  In London, the intention was to Occupy London Stock Exchange, instead its turned into Occupy St Pauls.  In Glasgow, lacking a significant financial centre, George Square was the target from the start, now moved to a public park with council approval and support.  Increasingly rather than targeting and taking over private capital, Occupies have taken over public space.  Their targets, aims and ambitions however seem diluted from the first intentions.  As if by simply being there they can change the world.  Meanwhile the world goes on around them oblivious.

The organisation level in the camps varies.  Some seem to have a good set up, while others are considerably more disorganised.  Many of the camps have experienced the same difficulties as Glasgow has faced, with people seeking them out looking for food and shelter.  Glasgow, despite a legal obligation on the council to house anyone in need of accommodation, has a significant homelessness problem.  Despite legal entitlements to benefits, many find themselves cut off and unable to access them.  Despite a free NHS many find themselves unable to access the medical care they require.  Despite a large city, many find themselves alone.  It is unsurprising that people would be attracted to occupy camps in search of food, shelter and company…and maybe with the possibility of acquiring the means to buy the drugs on which they are dependent but they are denied on the NHS.

This attraction of the Occupy camps to the marginalised elements of the 99%, has proven challenging – not just in Glasgow, but elsewhere, and has caused significant divisions between those who would welcome them and those who see them as freeloaders to be discouraged.  Yet this is the other 1% – the most marginalised, the most affected and the most excluded.  If a movement cannot encompass the most marginalised elements of late capitalism, what good is it.  At the same time, if it cannot adequately manage the issues that many marginalised elements bring with them, then is it any better?  And by meeting their needs and managing the outcomes are they effectively allowing the state to shrug off responsibility for meeting their needs.

At the same time, society also has a significant problem with violence, sexual violence, misogyny, racism and homophobia.  These attitudes are ingrained in our society, promoted by the media and surround us everyday.  Men are expected to be “hard” while women are expected to be sexually available and the norm is the straight white male for whom culture, media and memes are produced.  Black, female or gay perspectives are marginalised as a minority interest, while violence against such groups is minimised and trivialised within dominent communities.

Justice and security are things which we generally look to the state to provide, in the form of police, prisons and law and order.  Many of us are extremely critical in the way that this is manifested – the prioritisation of private wealth over personal security and of the way the system victimises people – yet at the same time, any alternative, particularly one which desires to handle these issues internally must demonstrate that it can provide this at least as well as the state is able to.  And I am not convinced that the Occupy Movement has done this and indeed from some reports the structure, or lack of it, appears to be unable to develop and enforce agreed conduct.

In terms of the wider impact, I am very doubtful as to what this movement will achieve.  Many within it are critical of politics, and explicitly state that this is not a “protest” movement.  It fits to some extent with the concept of “building a new society in the shell of the old” but at the same time is becoming increasingly reliant on the state for services, as the problems and issues within the camps grow.  As time goes on, its challenging nature seems blunted and at best it seems to be creating modern day Hoovervilles.

I am unwilling as yet to write off the entire Occupy Movement, and I hope that Occupy Glasgow will consider carefully whether it can overcome the issues that it has found, re-engage itself with its purpose and find links to the wider movement, whether that is as a traditional “Occupy” or as an evolved entity.  No autonomous anti-capitalist movement can succeed on its own – it needs linked to worker struggles and political engagement – without that it just becomes a few tents in a park.

Leave a comment below, or join the discussion on the or join the discussion on the Second Council House of Virgo facebook page. .
5 comments
Murdo Ritchie
Murdo Ritchie

Correction remove "Their" replace with "There".

Murdo Ritchie
Murdo Ritchie

RIGHTS? Rights is a word bandied about with very little real appreciation of its its absence. Their is no right to a home in Britain and measures to deal with people who feel they are homeless runs up against a vast number of difficulties from deciding who really is homeless, if outstanding rents or bills exist (especially Council Tax), and, of course, availability of housing. When many people in Britain uses the word rights, they are often referring to discretionary concessions that can be withdrawn entirely or so circumvented they cease to have any real meaning or worth. This is made very clear by the limited powers that exist to enforce those so-called rights.

Zen Rbe
Zen Rbe

I agree, we have no rights just privileges, as our rights can and are taken away. they are eroding more and more with every new government that comes in. But as an activist myself, i do see the need for active activism, rather than the same old mundane protest where we all go home when were cold and its late. The occupy movement are just the tip of the iceberg to be honest, there are far more unhappy people out there, and as soon as there lifes start to become a toil they too will start asking questions of this system. Now whats really being missed is the root cause, asking for the system to make some adjustments in our favour just wont happen, and changing the people we ask is pointless. We need a complete redesign of this system for the betterment of all, not just the few. In 30 years time we will require 2.5 earths to keep up with our consumption of resources and our cyclical consumption addictions. We are at a cross roads in our species existence, we cant afford to just let this slip by. People say go speak to your councillor or politician, but these folks should know, i should not need to ask. These people have created this so why ask them to change it.

Murdo Ritchie
Murdo Ritchie

Firstly, no-one has a legal right to be housed by a local council, legal entitlements to various benefits are framed in ways that make them almost impossible for many to claim, and medical assistance is restricted by the availability of medical staff to prescribe or perform the aid necessary. These are issues that require a lot deeper discussion and popular understanding. I am a bit cynical about the so-called Occupy movement. Indeed, I doubt it can be called a movement.. Instead, it is one more expression of unease and unhappiness about the direction of capitalism in Britain with losses of employment, services and increased brutality. It poses no solutions only a further expression of anxieties. Expressing pain and crying “no” will never be enough. Solutions that involve millions outside the protests have to be discussed. And they are not social but political. A route many of the occupiers seem unwilling to take. In effect they have let their tents do the talking. I feel some people have modelled these on the protests on the peace camps located in rural Berkshire and Argyll. But locating them in large urban areas is an entirely different issue. Most people can lock their doors and keep the cold bite of Britain’s street life outside. That is unlikely for people camping beside a burning brazier in an inner city. The brutal reality of city and street life will come to investigate. Yes society “has a significant problem with violence, sexual violence, misogyny, racism and homophobia.” And every one of those bludgeons will be used to obtain momentary warmth from the cold, or enough alcohol or drugs to blot out that cutting pain. Hardness and vulnerability exist together, and an appreciation for the details of participative mass democracy may not be readily digested. Maybe many of the street people see and recognise that pain in the occupiers. Possibly also the despair. But it isn’t even desirable to build upon it. In the US, but not Britain, tent cities have grown up of the dispossessed. They can be essential refuges and violent, dangerous places at the same time. There are very few lone wolves in street life. Protection comes by congregating. This may unintentionally become the direction of the occupy movement. It presents an entire range of new problems. If that’s the case; it offers very few solutions again. Both Glasgow Green and Sighthill Park are large parks nearer the City Chambers than Kelvingrove Park. I’m sure it would be possible to locate a camp of sorts even on the Clyde Walkway. Why Kelvingrove Park? It is too far away to be visible and offers no sight of the genuine anger of the protestors. They will be out of sight and out of the papers too. I fear the violence that has been inflicted on the occupy protesters may be the real warning they give. As dog eats the carcass of newly slain dog., this may be the picture of the future we should really fear.

mhairi
mhairi

In Scotland there is a legal right to be housed if you are homeless. See http://scotland.shelter.org.uk/get_advice/advice_topics/homelessness/homeless_peoples_rights but yes, housing, benefits and medical assistance are unfairly withheld from those who need them. I think the Occupy movement running into unanticipated issues with people who live on the streets out of necessity rather than choice is a critical issue and some Occupies have started to explore solutions - it has at least highlighted the very real issues that destitute and people who exist on the margins margins face.

© 2014 Frontier Theme

Page Optimized by WP BTBuckets WordPress Plugin