{vsig}occupylsx{/vsig}
As we go to press, the City of London Corporation is applying for a court order to evict OccupyLSX from its camp opposite the entrance to Paternoster Square by St Paul’s Cathedral. A press campaign against the occupation is now in full flow: ‘Junkie health hazard at St Paul’s’ screamed the London Evening Standard headline on 23 November. It shows the extent to which the Occupy protest has unnerved the ruling class since it set up camps in cities across the country on 15 October following the example of Occupy Wall Street in the US. Having worked hard to transfer blame for the crisis on to excessive public spending, the ruling class now faced a movement which pinned responsibility firmly back where it belonged: on to the banks and the financial sector. Barnaby Mitchel and Tom Vincent report.
The success of the Occupy movement has been down to its politics, its direct action, and its democracy. As long as it keeps its politics to the fore, it will continue to be a thorn in the side of the ruling class, and provide a pole of attraction for working class people seeking answers to the crisis. The initial statement of OccupyLSX was clear and to the point. ‘We refuse to pay for the banks’ crisis’. It challenges the ruling class orthodoxy head on: ‘We do not accept the cuts as either necessary or inevitable’. It has the potential to grow and draw in wider sections of the population. It declares that Britain is a ‘democracy representing corporations instead of the people’. The Occupy movement clearly locates itself as part of a global struggle for ‘structural change towards authentic global equality’ and opposition to neoliberalism and the actions of the British government: ‘We stand in solidarity with the global oppressed and we call for an end to the actions of our government and others in causing this oppression.’
In refreshing contrast to the stultifying traditions of the trade union movement and the social democratic left, Occupy protests were open to political debate and democratic organisation. Most set up Tent Universities where political discussions took place: at OccupyLSX, the opening talk was given by FRFI’s Trevor Rayne on war and imperialism, exposing the links between the City of London, arms multinationals and the brutal character of British imperialism. Other FRFI supporters have given talks on socialist Cuba as an alternative to capitalism and the attack on state welfare, and have shown a film about the non-stop picket of the South African embassy against apartheid which lasted for four years to 1990. FRFI supporters also gave several talks at the Tent University in Newcastle, including one on racism and immigration.
Occupy camps set up a direct form of democracy with open general meetings taking place once or twice a day to determine their political direction and how they should organise themselves. In London, working groups ranging from supplies and technical support to media, outreach, legal and ‘process’ were established and open to all to get involved. The Occupation also set up a blog, a newspaper, an info tent, finance team and on-site security. The same happened elsewhere – in Glasgow and Newcastle, if to a lesser extent. An early principle was that anyone who supported the aims of the protest could participate in the general meetings and the camp organisation. This inclusiveness was vital for the initial success of the movement, and in London enabled it to serve as a pole of attraction for electricians’ protests (see page 4) and the 9 November Student Day of Action. OccupyLSX has also adopted the slogan ‘Shut Down the City’ for the 30 November public sector workers’ strike, clearly a challenge to the trade union leaders who will not want the protest to escape their control.
The ruling class is determined to force the Occupy movement onto the back foot, and in particular to evict it from St Paul’s. Already the press are copying the US authorities who prepared the way for police clearances by raising health and safety fears associated with homeless people and drug users. As far as the ruling class is concerned the homeless are non-people, habitual drug-users or criminals who need to be cleared away and who certainly have no right to participate in politics. There can be no concessions to this ideological onslaught: the real criminals are the bankers and their representative, the City of London Corporation.
There are some fundamental political questions that the Occupy movement has to address. Yes, the ruling class may be 1%, the 500,000 or so millionaires in Britain today. But that does not mean ‘we’ are the 99%. Yes, ‘we’ are a huge majority, but ‘we’ do not include chief executives, managers and senior functionaries in the state and private sector, media lackeys, professors, court officials, prison officers, the police and the army who serve the ruling class and are instruments of its domination. In the US, sections of the Occupy movement argued that the police were a part of ‘we’, only to find that the police were far more interested in cracking open heads than in identifying with the poor. Nor do ‘we’ include racists or fascists who by definition seek to exclude and attack sections of the poor and oppressed. In Newcastle there were those who were prepared to argue that members of the English Defence League should be identified as part of the 99% even as EDL members were trying to trash the camp and were beating up participants.
As we have said, the Occupy movement needs to keep its politics to the fore, and push them forward. The banner erected outside St Paul’s at the opening of the occupation said what had to be said – Capitalism is crisis. The first few days after 15 October put the Church of England on the spot: could they defend the indefensible? The Canon of St Paul’s thought not and welcomed the protest camp. Others, including the Dean, thought they could, and joined the City of London to threaten legal action to evict the demonstrators; Canon Fraser resigned on 27 October. Following this, some in the church hierarchy had further thoughts and abandoned the legal action so that on 31 October the Dean had to resign. The clear message from the camp had forced a split in the clerical section of the ruling class. However, since then, the camp has retreated; the Capitalism is crisis banner was taken down and eventually replaced with What would Jesus do? The answer is, why should anyone care? It is what we do that matters, and concessions to respectability will be taken as signs of weakness.
OccupyLSX will not escape eviction by making concessions to the ruling class. It has to stand firm. It needs to reach out to new forces, and resist the arguments of those who are saying that decisions should be made exclusively by those who are residents, or a form of consensus democracy where one objector can prevent any decision being made. Inclusive democracy means keeping decision-making open to all supporters new or old and realising that the majority view is the one that counts. As the ruling class extends its assault on the working class, and as local councils prepare a new round of cuts, we need to ensure that OccupyLSX continues to fulfil its early promise as a pole of anti-capitalist resistance.
FRFI 224 Dec 2011/Jan 2012
