even if some basic demands (a Robinhood tax, a register of lobbyists) can be agreed on – how will #occupy force politicians to take them on?

By pushing at an open door in the case of lobbyists.

The coalition agreement says:

We will regulate lobbying through introducing a statutory register of lobbyists and ensuring greater transparency.

….hey, and it’s Labour Party policy too.

If they have any sense, they won’t nail themselves to the mast of a Robin Hood Tax.

The more EU leaders press for it, the more it will be perceived as a raid on British GDP by the EU and the public will close ranks against it.

I think I mainly agree with your analysis Sunny, albeit from a position of opposing the ‘anticuts’ movement rather than supporting it.

OccupyLSX started from a series of beliefs which are not in the same world as the Electorate:

That Western democracy has – in some way – completely failed.
That our Government is therefore in some way similar to Mubarak, Syria and Libya.
That therefore rejection/replacement is necessary.

In the absence of OccupyLSX, or Counterfire, or anybody else, giving the public a list of political detainees without trial for years and the sites of mass graves of activists murdered by the Met, they look stupid.

It hasn’t really got much further than that. When they try it ends up looking silly and ill-informed – how could it be otherwise, for example comparison of multinationals with classical fascism, and demanding a Truth and Reconciliation commission for the City. As you note, the dialogue doesn’t connect.

Anything else they have seems to be a rag-bag of whatever policies were lying around to be picked up.

It doesn’t help that they haven’t done their homework – 2 examples:

Would they have been so keen on Giles Fraser if they had noticed that he is Chaplain to the Worshipful Company of Accountants? It’s a valuable role, but too subtle for Occupy to appreciate.

And Naomi Colvin declaring on Sky that Ed Milliband would not be debating a Lobbyist Register without them. Has she not read the manifesto of our main Left Party at the last Election?

As such, I’d call it – and the wider anticuts movement – as being about political marketing more than anything substantive.

Therefore it was a mistake to insist on staying on. All that has done has been to show that cardboard cutout politics is very thin when examined.

there’s no evidence that while most people would have some sympathy for the cause itself, they want to overhaul the political and economic system. There’s simply no evidence that most people are convinced by the most radical (but popular) proposition.

ICM poll for the Guardian last month. Thirty eight per cent agreed with the statement that “the protesters are naive; there is no practical alternative to capitalism – the point is to get it moving again”.

Conversely, 51% agreed with the statement that “the protesters are right to want to call time on a system that puts profit before people”.
http://www.icmresearch.com/1/files/2011/10/OmGuardian-BPC-oct11a.pdf

Obviously this may contradict or not sit comfortably alongside different results from different pollsters asking different questions. But it is, at least, evidence, and should not be ignored.

@David

There’s a summary of various polls on BRIN:

http://www.brin.ac.uk/news/?p=1477

If you want a laugh, have a look at the statement released by occupycardiff http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-wales-15698669

I think you are right Sunny, at some point any movement needs to have a plan of how they will either (a) force the political system to address and accommodate their demands, or (b) how they will secure positions within the political system themselves. Most succesful movements operate as a network and do both.

As such the occupy tactic is only going to have – at best – diminishing returns now. The initial publicity and simplicitly of the demands, combined with the originality of the protest, was very succesful in gaining publicity and getting slogans adopted by political parties (Ed M using ‘the 1%’, support from archbishop etc). But as time goes on it becomes more about evictions, the lack of practical demands etc. So staying in place has dimishing returns. They need to end the occupy protest, and come back with a new tactic in a couple of months.

” The money market system replaced by a resource based economy where every ones needs are provided for free”

They have been watching The Zeitgeist films.

David – one poll isn’t enough, and isn’t static. Polls for #OWS now show declining support. Others on OLSX show varying support…

@Sunny – yes, of course. Which is why I said that “Obviously this may contradict or not sit comfortably alongside different results from different pollsters asking different questions”. You need to look at the range of evidence in its context and on its merits.

However, you said that the evidence for people wanting to see this sort of fundamental challenge to capitalism simply didn’t exist at all. That’s incorrect, whether or not you believe the evidence that does exist to be conclusive (which I don’t either, btw).

I don’t see how a group of people withdrawing from a political system, which is under no threat of being toppled, will manage to change it.

In that case, if they’re only what they appear to be – a bunch of people in tents in a town square (well, several squares), making easily ignored demands and with no long-term political strategy – why the massive police and legalistic attacks on them? Why aren’t they just being completely ignored by governments, media and the powerful?

That’s not a rhetorical question, by the way – I seriously don’t get what’s so threatening about them that they get this “they must be gone at all costs” reaction (which, in so far as it keeps them in the news and further radicalises them, is not a particularly productive reaction) but obviously the people at the top think very differently.

“They mean to sway by going outside the political system. They are a critique of the political system. They went to the streets and stayed there. They are not funneling their energy into the democratic process because there is no market for what they are selling: capitalism should be overturned.”

I don’t think that’s true, they mostly see their voices not being heard thru the democratic process (the students who campaigned for the Lib Dems, for instance), and who don’t see conventional protest working (the millions who marched against Iraq) and who also don’t see pure expressions of rage, like the riots, as the answer either.

I’ve long held that it is enough for the time being that these peaceful, autonomous (mostly) self-sufficient communities are being set up, and finding ways to debate, discus and strategise and find that common voice. But in absence of ‘an agenda’ the media makes its own bogeyman – so here’s my understanding of the demands of the Occupy and 99% movements

I think there’s four loose camps (with lots of crossover):

- There’s the OBVIOUS that pretty much all agree on (clean up political corruption, stop excessive exec pay, regulate the banks better, fetter lobbyists, don’t cut us into another recession, etc)

-There’s the REASONABLE that appeals to the conventional left/centre (invest in green economy; stop privatizing healthcare, prisons schools and the rest of it; make university education free; strengthen the welfare state and community services; a Tobin/RobinHood tax to pay for it all)

-There’s the RADICAL, which seems to have support on the left and right but most aren’t optimistic of it happening (rebuild our global financial and political system so that’s it democratic, accountable, transparent, not obsessed with growth and is socially & environmentally responsible)

-And then there’s the REVOLUTIONARY, which comes from a minority tho is discussed and debated by more (let’s scrap money and barter stuff / a resource based economy / communism 2.0 )

@3 – It’s all in how you put the question in polling, yes.

@9 – It’s great, isn’t it? It’s because it’s a challenge. The right can never ignore a blatant challenge to their power, regardless of the situation.

Anyway – When violence is used against the Occupy movement, to remove them, THAT’S half the point these days. From both sides.

“I’ve long held that it is enough for the time being that these peaceful, autonomous (mostly) self-sufficient communities are being set up, and finding ways to debate, discus and strategise and find that common voice.”

We’ve been here before though haven’t we. The anti-WTO/IMF demos of a decade ago led to the creation of the world social forum, european social forum etc. After morphing into the anti-iraq war movement, everything died down post 2004.

Is there anything coherent or worth listening to actually coming out of Occupy LSX any more, or is it more the fact that they are there which causes people to talk about them? I think it’s the latter, but so what really, it has been a useful excercise. The American ones have actually been more important IMO.
Particularly when you hear from some poor people in Oakland saying how tough life can be there. Many homeless and marginalised people are largely forgotten about untill they show up at an Occupation like Oakland.
And the police have showed themselves up, to the point where even Daily Mail readers have commented about the amount of pepper spray the American police thow about.

but why not, Sunny? why not let it try to emerge? State the problem then canvas ideas. What’s wrong with that? They’re not an SWP v2 to do their trojan thing in the Greens [and I assume you mention the Greens as the Labour party is a lost cause to all] but they are raising questions. Perhaps that sort of publicity is as valid as running a website like this; perhaps moreso. I think it’s a reasonable position suggesting that mainstream political parties are not addressing their agenda – history shows them as hand in glove with the City

The tea party is a force of reaction and therefore likely to get a relatively easy entry into a slightly less reactionary party.

David: However, you said that the evidence for people wanting to see this sort of fundamental challenge to capitalism simply didn’t exist at all.

I think that’s a bit of a stretch. Most people would obviously want a nicer economic system but they’re also not told here what that alternative is. Or what implications it might have. Its a binary choice, and most people obviously went for the warm, fuzzy option. In the same way, people like lots of public services but they also hate paying more taxes and think there’s lots of public ‘waste’.

You’re not reading too much into the one poll, but lots of people are… and they think the mandate is already there.

People are obviously pissed off with the current state of affairs. But without a clear alternative being offered, its not clear whether they will ditch the system for the other.
Also – every response by OSLX to ‘what will you replace representative democracy with?’ – has been very vague like ‘well, we want more direct democracy and let’s have a discussion. DUDES – people rejected AV because it was too confusing. What are the chances they want a revolution in how Parliament works?

CIM: why the massive police and legalistic attacks on them?

Good question. Obviously OSLX has started a debate in the media, which the Tories hate. My point is only that the debate is not enough and eventually needs to be directed somewhere or it will fizzle out.

Clearly, the fight with St Paul’s helped them. Otherwise the Tories would have ignored them as they did with the Parl Square protesters and turfed them out quickly and mercilessly.

C#m7 but why not, Sunny? why not let it try to emerge? State the problem then canvas ideas.

Because time is limited, and the internet is a much better platform to do this? (all pointed out in the broader piece I’m writing).

and I assume you mention the Greens as the Labour party is a lost cause to all

Not to me, I’m a member. But I’m just saying if people think the Labour party has lost its values and isn’t radical enough for them – they should look at other parties, or bloody set one up.
I’m all for civil action and politics outside of the party political structure. But only a fool thinks they can bring about change in Westminster entirely from the outside.

“But only a fool thinks they can bring about change in Westminster entirely from the outside.”

Technically Alex Salmond is doing exactly that

Cim @ 9:

“In that case, if they’re only what they appear to be – a bunch of people in tents in a town square (well, several squares), making easily ignored demands and with no long-term political strategy – why the massive police and legalistic attacks on them? Why aren’t they just being completely ignored by governments, media and the powerful?”

The media are going on about them because it’s new and different, and going on about new and different things helps sell papers. The politicians are going on about them because they’re a bunch of shameless populists who chase after news stories like unscrupulous lawyers chase after ambulances.

Planeshift @ 16:

“Technically Alex Salmond is doing exactly that”

Sort of. But then he’s only in a position to do so because he and like-minded people managed to get enough support in Parliament for Scottish devolution.

@15 Sunny: DUDES – people rejected AV because it was too confusing.

To take your last point first: most people didn’t vote in the AV referendum. Some because it was too confusing, but many others because they saw it as a pointless insignificant change that wasn’t worth getting worked up about. But yes, there is a big problem in convincing people of new voting systems and electoral arrangements, because most people can’t be bothered to put any effort into considering them.

If you look at how electoral arrangements in the UK are changed, they hare hardly ever changed because of a referendum (the exceptions being when new devolved assembies are set up), they are changed because a government just changes them. So that’s how better voting arrangements will happen.

every response by OSLX to ‘what will you replace representative democracy with?’ – has been very vague like ‘well, we want more direct democracy and let’s have a discussion.

What I think will eventually replace what we have now is some of of internet-based derect democracy with delegation, i.e. liquid democracy. This won’t happen all in one go. Firstly, parties will start using techniques like this internally — the Pirates and Greens will probably go for it first, as will many voluntary organisations. Then some of the bigger parties — Labour, Lib Dems — will gradually take the idea on. At some point there will be a souped-up epetition system used both in Westminster and at other levels of government (this will probably be build by people like MySociety) which facilitaties online discussion as well as voting for/against policy proposals. Once people are used to using these systems in things like voluntary organisations they are members of, it will seem a smaller step to use them to influence government. As some point I envisage the UK government formally backing a consultative epetition/Liquid Democracy system; this won’t run the country, but it will provide an instant opinion poll on every issue.

Two months into Occupy US and a poll out yesterday said 67% ‘want the government to do more to close the gap between rich and poor’. That’s bound to have an impact on 2012 election.

@20 Nic: Two months into Occupy US and a poll out yesterday said 67% ‘want the government to do more to close the gap between rich and poor’.

They are succeeding at changing the terms of the debate. That’s reason enough for the 1% to try to suppress them.

because they’re a bunch of shameless populists who chase after news stories like unscrupulous lawyers chase after ambulances.

I don’t have a problem with this. They have to be media savvy

Phil:
they are changed because a government just changes them. So that’s how better voting arrangements will happen.

you’re saying we should just ignore people and impose different voting systems anyway? Not sure I buy that.

They are succeeding at changing the terms of the debate. That’s reason enough for the 1% to try to suppress them.

Agree with this, but raising the debate is not enough. Eventually there is a danger people will move on and forget.

@14 – A party which is innately hostile to science is a danger, not an “option”. There’s no difference between you and the UFO nuts, afaik.

The Occupy Protest outside St Paul’s Cathedral seems rather tame compared with what has been happening in parts of America. This video shows the unexpectedly radical political analysis and commitments coming from faculty members and students at the University of California Berkeley and Occupy Oakland:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3IUAKNJrFpY

By the most recent World University Rankings 2011/12, the University of California Berkeley ranked at No 10.

In San Francisco, just across the Bay: “San Francisco police arrest 100 in Bank of America protest. Officers end four-hour standoff after Occupy movement demonstrators, mostly UC students, take over a bank lobby in San Francisco’s financial district.”

The head offices of Bank of America, one of the largest banks in the world, are located in San Francisco. By the global league table of banks in terms of assets, the bank ranks at No 8 in the world.

I’m beginning to understand why those around the top in financial services in London are starting to fret both about the longevity and global extent of the Occupy Protests.

And in New York:

At least 75 people were arrested on November 17 after hundreds of Occupy Wall Street demonstrators marched through New York City’s financial district and tried to disrupt the start of the trading day at the city’s Stock Exchange.

Police and protesters clashed repeatedly during the protest action, which was triggered by the surprise eviction two days ago of activists camped in tents inside nearby Zuccotti Park, where the global “Occupy” movement against economic equality and corporate greed began in September.
http://www.rferl.org/content/occupy_wall_street_clashes_with_police_new_york/24394407.html

I agree with most of this piece.

In military planning it is essential to have a solid political objective and to craft your strategy around achieving that. Many of the most disastrous and ineffective military campaigns have been those where the desired political end-state was either not defined at all, poorly defined, or constantly changing. While Occupy aren’t talking bombs, guns and nation building (yet!) – I think the parallels are strong.

As someone said above, the best outcome they can hope for in these occupations is publicity.

As for why aren’t they being ignored by the establishment? I suspect one of the reasons is that their very essence (in the UK at least) seems to be the overthrow of the liberal democratic system – the preservation of which is perhaps THE top priority for the police/politicians/MI5 who hold their positions as a result of said system, and at least theoretically act as the agents of the wider population who have consented to it.

After religiously motivated terrorism, I would have thought that the biggest security nightmare the country would face would be some nexus of radicals from anti-capitalist, environmentalist, anti-western schools of thought.

Looks at the public statements made by individuals at UK occupies as well as some ‘group statements’ – while the statements might seem quite agreeable and non-threatening, the consequences go alongside the achievement of these goals could be extremely unsavoury. The implications in some cases imply a longing for a totalitarian borderline fascist world order.

My other issue with their strategy is the very notion of the 99%. The broader demands being made in the UK are nowhere near representative of the 99%. The polarisation the phrase creates might sound good on a placard, but in practice there is a significant proportion of the 99% that are directly reliant on the 1%, another proportion that are reliant one step removed from the 1% and so on. Indeed anyone who bought a house and watched its value rocket over the last 20 years is a beneficiary of the actions of the 1%.

Occupy as a movement isn’t well suited to having a strategy imo.

In terms of what they should do… identify reforms they would like to have made to the system; identify the prerequesites that would have to exist for such reforms to take place and consider these mini-reforms; target elite opinion and convince them of the merit of these reforms. All this is quite difficult: needs international support, have negative consequences elsewhere in society, etc etc.

The unfortunate thing is about Occupy is that 99% of their ‘members’ don’t have even nearly a proficient understanding of the consequences of, and prerequisites for, the creation of the sort of world they desire.

I was at a lengthy, lively and well informed debate at Occupy LSX tonight after the GA discussions about how to bring about change about whether to try to clean-up capitalism or replace it. And at the heart was an issue that has divided the left since well before Rosa Luxemburg summed it up in her essay “Reform or Revolution?” in 1899.

What they did agree on was that no longer was it enough to only join the Labour party (or the Green party, SNP etc) and expect change. And tho the debate ranged, often passionately, from ‘we must take the means of production’ to ‘capitalism gave me an iPhone and that’s great’ via Dawkins, co-ops, technocracy and the financial Big Bang – it remained ordered and friendly.

Of course there is a vital parliamentary process (John McDonnell did Occupy LSX a great credit with his letter to the Guardian yesterday, Milliband made a modest step forward with his speech, Glasgow City Council giving protestors toilets and fences) as well as the spaces where these debates have raged for decades – universities, union halls, working clubs, marches, comments threads even.

Where Occupy is different is that it is without barriers to entry and doesn’t collectively come with a dominant political or ideological baggage beyond an agreement that the status quo is unfair, unjust and unsustainable. It is finding it’s voice mostly thru talking in circles rather than rows of chairs and a stage at the front. Tho this sounds like a Channel 4 concept show, it really is ‘street politics’ – as one passerby who popped into the circle tonight to listen said ‘I never thought I would see this quality of political debate on the streets of London – thank you, keep going’.

It takes spending time on site to see this on action – but even if you’ve never been it’s impossible to deny ‘Occupy’ and ‘the 99%’ is the most powerful global brand the left has been part of in a long while. For this to grow into something more meaningful, and to translate into lasting change, it’s going to need those traditional fora – unions, the Labour party, academia, and so on – to not just use the movement as cannon fodder for their own actions and arguments, but to join in.

And for those – especially in the media – to recognise that perhaps the really revolutionary spark at the heart of Occupy is the way it is trying to find answers to these very questions – thru a political process that is somewhere between the openness and freedom of the Internet and a town square in ancient Greece.

American students at UC Berkeley doubtless are fairly well briefed on unwelcome trends in the American economy – try this analysis by Laura Tyson, economics prof at UC Berkeley, who was chair of Clinton’s economic advisers for 4 years and subsequently Dean of the London Business School:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WWn1AWG_8-w

Oh, goody. I just wrote about this, I’m glad to see I’m not the only one who spots a problem in the absence of strategy.

And for the “evidence” of the “dropping out of the system, camping in the middle of a city and debating over alternatives” approach I give you… Spain. The conservative party has just won the elections, promising “austerity” and cuttings in public spending.

Which worked wonders with Greece, as we all know.