Occupation is easy. Rebuilding is the hard part
The Occupy movement is attacking the right in vague terms, rather than focusing on specific policies
By Oliver Duggan Published 25 October 2011 11:29
"Occupy London. Go on. Do it... I dare you... People might watch. People in coats, with ties. Bankers. David Cameron might watch, and we hate him. Bloody Cameron." This might as well have been our Gettysburg address.
Because as far as rallying cries go, the social left of the world needs writers. In the last month, as protests have rippled across the world, it's been the haphazard rag-bag flavour of the left -- not the political brutalism of the right -- that has been burned into the shop fronts of Rome and the consciousness of a generation.
The whole thing -- the hastily stenciled placards, the faint aroma of organics and the rush on tarpaulin -- just smacks of teenage angst, as though the socialist worker has thrown up on an ethics class. Not least because the public have yet to be presented with anything approaching a cogent political aim.
I attended a debate earlier this year that could be couched in similar terms. It was anti-imperialist circle-jerk for the recently philosophical and generationally left. Nato in Libya, they argued, was the continuation of British Empire, the expansion of the American "world police" (a term that should send shivers down the spine of any thinking mammal) and tantamount to colonial invasion. And it's the Tories, they continued with risible stridence, the Tories -- with their cuts and their austerity and their Margaret Thatchers and their racism -- that are to blame.
Now I don't like the Tories. Their social and economic policies are reprehensible, and their political strategy has the mood of a 1950s smoking lounge. But they aren't colonists and if they were, their domestic economic plans would probably have little to do it with it. The argument is, prima facie, a non sequitur.
But that's the problem with a left in the limelight. Without decent, non-centrist organisation -- without the '68ers or the '89ers -- the influence of die-hard socialists in flat-caps and second-hand barbers is unfettered. The message, as a result, tends to lack coherence and consistency.
Now, that isn't necessarily a bad thing. Habermasians amongst us may even suggest it's actively good; it keeps political dialogues fresh. The left has always been a bastion of academic rigour, and competing visions inform the cause. All true, or it would be, if the left of today wasn't regularly sodomised by a generation of "socialist workers" who swallowed their political philosophy in Engels' 56-pages.
Today, rather than engage with political discourse by meeting each point head on, there is an overwhelming tendency to hurl as much shit at any wall that will stay up long enough to take it. (In this analogy, the media is a wall). That's why Wall Street wailing won't work.
Hawkish foreign policy is conflated with religious conservatism. Capitalist free markets are dismissed in the same breath as constrained immigration. Cuts to social services are unfairly labelled as Etonian ignorance. Law and order is ignored because heaven forbid we concede a point. The centre-right and far-right are unfairly homogenised, and the racist tendencies of one diluted by the social backwardness of the other. Taxation is divorced from employment, welfare is deified and defence spending is the "actual antichrist".
Why? Why do we distill generations of intellectual superiority into trite sound bites? Because, without a leftist political party that refuses to accept the rights agenda and stick to its guns, we panic. We see a 24-hour news machine obsessed with breaking the next big thing, a clap-happy police force itching for a scuffle, and a public who absorbs Paxman-politics between Strictly and Buzzcocks. And we panic.
The answer? Sophistry, apparently. The result? Insignificance.
The Occupy movement looks a lot like engagement, like it is taking the fight to Cameron's Britain, but there's a reason dogs don't just bark. A right that is scared is very different to a right that is beaten.
But if we continue to attack blue, instead of blue policies, if we go on badgering Conservatives while conservatism quaffs whiskey in the corner, if we burn Phillip Green in effigy while global capitalism spreads like a wildfire, we will be a life subsumed by sentiment, waiting to be swept from the streets.
Occupation is easy; rebuilding is the hard part.
Oliver Duggan is a political blogger and freelance journalist. He has previously reported from Washington DC, British Parliament and the Horn of Africa, and is now living and writing in Leeds. He tweets @OliDuggan
Latest tweets
More from New Statesman
- Online writers:
- Steven Baxter
- Rowenna Davis
- David Allen Green
- Mehdi Hasan
- Nelson Jones
- Gavin Kelly
- Helen Lewis
- Laurie Penny
- The V Spot
- Alex Hern
- Martha Gill
- Alan White
- Samira Shackle
- Alex Andreou
- Nicky Woolf in America
- Bim Adewunmi
- Glosswitch
- Kate Mossman on pop
- Ryan Gilbey on Film
- Martin Robbins
- Rafael Behr
- Eleanor Margolis
- Tools and services:
- Polls
- Predictions
- Archive
- Magazine
- PDF edition
- RSS feeds
- Advertising
- Subscribe
- Special supplements
- Stockists




















10 comments
Occupy London SX TV Debate....
This is a short discussion on the Occupy movement, between an oaf from the Tax Payers Alliance, which is a right wing pressure group, close to the Tory party, and Guardian journalist, Polly Toynbee. In my view, Polly spoils it a bit with her talk of 'good' capitalism, which is rather a contradiction in terms, but she shows up the the bloke from Tax Payers Alliance as a shallow apologist for corporate capitalism.
http://haringeygreens.blogspot.com/2011/10/occupy-london-sx-...
So what you're saying is....no one has a congruent voice anymore so that's fine. No it isn't, that's what the writer was saying. Modern politics doesn't tackle the issues. Rather than talking about the negatives of cutting the deficit deeply people just bemoan thatcherism and say something about DC's background. Equally the Torries just spout something about how they 'left us in this mess, boo don't trust them'.
When we participate in that, we legitimise and encourage it.
Erm, what's your point, Oliver?
Has a new language been invented?
I don't understand it at all. Either I am stupid or the writer is being deliberately vague and obscure.
I can't criticise the content because I don't get it.
The Occupy movement is not Left any more than is is against the Right. It is critical of the whole of the political system and thus of the pretty feeble divisions of Right and Left. Searching the websites for Occupy Together or Occupy Wall Street will yield nothing stating that the movement is left-wing. Indeed, there has been support from some Tea Party advocates. Therefore couching this critique in terms of a Left/Right binary make it seem fairly meaningless.
He's making a very good point. Shame the writing of an article criticising vagueness is very vague.
But I know what he means, and he's right
The Occupy movement is distinctly less vague than your article or journalistic credibility. Surely a "freelance journalist and political blogger" is a thinly veiled euphemism for being unemployed.
What the author fails to realise is the contradiction between his opinion that a movement is insignificant and the fact that he is writing about it for a national magazine. These are not trees falling in woods with no one around to hear the sound.
And since when do protest movements need policy pamphlets? This isn't the Fabian Society. It is amusing that people (read journalists, even freelance ones) can't write coherently without a press release spelling out the 'key messages'. Where is the press contact? Where can I download the press pack?
This movement is in its early stages and may fall on its ass. But what is wrong with a grass roots movement? The media always seem afraid of multi-agenda groups unless they are political parties. Of course groups internally contradict themselves on policies - look at the Tories and the EU, hardly a consensus.
I applaud anyone who removes themselves from their tvs, phones and computers to join with other humans in an earnest and collective manner. It is so very easy to, as I am doing, hammer a keyboard in an effort to make my voice heard but much harder to go out in public and stand up for something, anything.
The tents are empty!!
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/financialcrisis/8847357/Telegraph-evi...
The writer isn't being 'vague' or 'obscure'. He's making a clear and structured argument to do with the narratives constructed by occupiers and protesters. Just pay attention to what he's saying and don't be distracted by what you find to be inflammatory. A display of anger and disaffection without any rational tackling of the issues is useless at best.
What's worse is that the voices coming from these protests all too often are made up of disaffected anarchic types who shift the focus of the protests away from the issue they're focused on.
The reason this happens is because they're so aimless. They don't have a 'writer' as Oliver points out. Their is no structured analysis over why the status quo is failing, just a hormonal outpouring of teenage angst against 'bloody cameron'.
They might not need 'pamphlets', but they do need a voice. They need a goal. What do they want? They're protesting against capitalism and bankers? Do they want the dissolution of both? I highly doubt it if they also want running water and hospitals.
I think this is a great article and makes salient points that needed t be said
@Voice of Reason (what kind of fatuous joke of a moniker is that)
Video of 'hormonal outpouring of teenage angst'...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TdD_virtXc4&feature=player_embedded
The fact that they don't have a 'writer' is pretty congruent with post-modern political movements that combine multiple discourses. The days of the single narrative were robustly observed to have died by Jean-Francois Lyotard.