Tags
Anti-Capitalism, Democracy, Edinburgh, Financial Meltdown, Humor, Indignados, Margaret Thatcher, Marxism, Nihilism, Occupy Edinburgh, Opinion, Politics, St Andrew Square, The Meadows
On my way to the Talbot Rice Gallery, I stop off at St Andrew Square to check on the progress of the Occupy movement, a group of people in tents who are still waiting for something to happen…There is nobody about today to brave the rain – the Occupiers must be huddling in their tents. I imagine [the statue of the corrupt eighteenth-century politican Henry] Dundas toppling down upon the Occupiers to wipe out Edinburgh’s anti-capitalist movement in one fell swoop. His final act of infamy. Considering that their interminable political battle will not be over by Christmas, the Occupiers should have really dug trenches rather than erecting tents (November 2011).
Tychy has otherwise avoided writing about Occupy Edinburgh, the superficially anti-capitalist protest camp of about forty or so people which was established in St Andrew Square between October and January. This was partly because the Occupy movement bore too close a resemblance to the Indignadoes, whose siege of Edinburgh’s Spanish consulate I had observed in May, and I did not wish to end up recycling the same commentary. In my mind’s eye, I saw the Occupiers as a more polite British equivalent of the Spanish protesters, with pasty skin and some comparably lacklustre singing.
Occupy Edinburgh was also denied a platform on Tychy because despite resolving repeatedly to walk over to St Andrew Square to meet them, in the end I simply could not face it. A glance over the “minutes” from the last “General Assembly” should sufficiently indicate why:
Possibly a time-span of 28 days but could be much sooner. 3 representatives were selected to attend the meeting with the Council on February 1st.
It was pointed out that this may result in a permanent eviction notice applying immediately on all Council Land.
Feedback on the legal ownership of the land was offered by a young lady who’s name I do not know but it was well received. To hear back on Thursday.
One opinion heard from an onlooker was that the camp looked ‘small and lonely’ and that it gave the impression of a weakened movement.
Imagine having to sit through this. Occupy Edinburgh has evidently equated boredom with bourgeois respectability, thinking that if they made their Assemblies as tedious as the proceedings of a council planning committee then people would take them seriously. As Lenin would have put it, I voted with my feet, and expeditions to St Andrew Square to take part in a General Assembly would always only get as far as the Standing Order or one of the many excellent facilities on George Street.
Occupy Edinburgh’s “minutes” tend to be all about Occupy Edinburgh, the campsite’s rules and activities and provisions, rather than about offering any solutions to the latest capitalist crisis. On the Occupy Edinburgh website, one immediately heads to the page entitled “Policies,” but these turn out to be anything but political policies. There are instead warnings about respecting “emotional boundaries” at the campsite and getting “explicit verbal consent before touching someone or crossing boundaries.” It is probably best that you have a lawyer tucked up in the sleeping bag with you. “My client wishes to know if “you make me horny” denotes explicit verbal consent?”
The local outlet of a global franchise, Occupy Edinburgh are fixated with PR, with promoting themselves and giving the correct impression, but their public image is at once utterly calamitous. Occupy’s claim to represent “the 99%” must be up there with the little jingle that had forever doomed Gordon Brown – that he had “abolished boom and bust” – in being automatically contradicted by reality. Claiming to be “saving the world” will only earn you pity. The schizophrenic is not wrong for thinking that he is Napoleon, but for not having the army necessary to annex Europe. Comparing yourself to the brave revolutionaries of Tahrir Square will only make people embarrassed. The “bankers” may be relieved if you describe them as a sinister oligarchy because it makes them sound like they’ve got their shit together.
If Occupy Edinburgh are ideologically going nowhere, this is readily symbolised by their obsession with staying put. After being banished from St Andrew Square last week, Occupy are now fighting to prevent a temporary campsite from being expelled from the Meadows. Far from challenging politicians or offering a new model of the economy, Occupy are obsessed purely with their own campsite, and with ensuring that it remains standing as an eternal symbol of nothing.
Tychy has always suspected that there was a decimal point missing from “the 99%” whom Occupy claim to represent. To claim 99% support is intrinsically undemocratic, and indeed I think that the only political party which has ever enjoyed 99% support was lead by Robert Mugabe. Only 21 people turned up to Occupy Edinburgh’s last General Assembly. Out of 99% of the population, each person at the Assembly had to represent about 250000 Scots. The responsibility must have been awesome. But to put the number 21 into a suitable perspective, the widely unpopular Scottish Conservatives had a membership of 8500 last year (and even Occupy’s Facebook community amounts to less than half of this).
If Occupy Edinburgh have failed so completely, why do they continue to enjoy such a massively disproportionate degree of media coverage? For example, there has always been a community of skateboarders established in Bristo Square. Like Occupy Edinburgh, the skateboarders are apolitical and they freely admit that they have no clue about how to run the economy. Alas, the Scotsman does not grant them the same coverage as Occupy, and report all of the controversies raging amongst the skateboarders (although they are probably far more entertaining than Occupy’s tortuous legal battles.)
Returning to October, when the tents were first pitched, the people of Edinburgh regarded Occupy with genuine goodwill and they were prepared to listen to what Occupy had to say. Those amongst my friends who do not keep up with contemporary politics were suddenly asking me what the protest at St Andrew Square meant and what the protesters would do. I was wearily aware, however, that the same old characters from the Scottish Socialist Party and “People and Planet” had merely found an eye-catching new way to protest. Before long, a friend who deems himself an “anarchist” told me that he kept meaning to go back to St Andrew Square to retrieve his tent.
Occupy was no longer talking to Edinburgh, and Edinburgh was no longer listening to Occupy. It suddenly seemed deeply insulting to imagine that somebody who had lost their job and defaulted on their mortgage repayments should listen to the advice of a scummy student who was sitting in a tent for no apparent reason. The protest now looked like the latest art installation, mysteriously organized by some faraway yuppie, something which those walking past always see but never look at. By December, the Occupy protest was reduced to a collection of forlorn and abandoned tents, and when the city’s new Primark opened on a freezing morning to massive crowds, it seemed that the wretchedness of the supposedly anti-capitalist protest was now complete.
The historical spotlight had fallen and Occupy had garbled their lines, turning out to be more useless than Ed Miliband, more vacuous than New Labour, more inoffensive than David Cameron. A new political movement, enjoying widespread coverage in the media and the bemused interest of ordinary people, offers the possibility that there is an alternative, that we are not totally dependent upon the current intake of indistinguishable career politicians to lead us out of the recession. In 1980, Margaret Thatcher had demanded that, “If I could press a button and genuinely solve the unemployment problem, do you think that I would not press that button this instant?” She wielded that phrase fearsomely – “there is no alternative” – and Occupy’s amateurish activism and their abandonment of practical politics will leave most of the 99% in the same mind as Thatcher, if qualified with an extra adjective or two. We have only neoliberal politicians. There are probably no sensible alternatives.
We have been sniggering throughout the autopsy, but now that the corpse is dressed for burial, the joking has to stop. We seriously need leadership and ideas. Scotland needs a serious investment in industry and housing and technology and education. There remain vital alternatives. And the optimist is once again back at a crossroads. Perhaps the Occupy debacle has taught them that it is unwise to launch a new political movement, and that one should instead engage with the established political infrastructure, the dilapidated machinery of the Labour Party and the trades unions. Any alternative may be otherwise simply despair.
very well written, and 100% correct. You may have overestimated numbers though, I work on the square and never saw more than 5 people sleeping in the tents, ever. They thought we all stupid enough to equate 30 empty tents with a movement. Agree, they also became obsessed with camping and not addressing the underlying issues. Mix that together with anti semitism, sexism, drunkeness and you have one dead movement.
My feelings are mixed, while I am completely sympathetic to the cause/ideals behind it I think there is a lack of clarity in terms of tactics. The success of occupy in U.S.A and camp protests across the middle east relies on two paths; either it is peaceful and massive enough to disrupt the functioning of daily life and pierces into public consciousness in an unignorable manner or it is smaller but militant/pro direct action in its tactics. OE was niether it was small and peaceful/”well behaved” and consequently could be ignored until all enthusiasm dissapated on its own without the government lifting a finger.
I think it worked so well in mediterrenean/middle eastern countries too because public squares will have people hanging out in them anyway and consequently have a much bigger exposure/impact in terms of public attention. The problem here is that no one would hang out in St Andrews square under normal circumstances anyway.
To say there was a lack of focus is unfair to an extent as most people were very clued up about the issues however there was such a disparity between different groupings as is inevitable to some degree in any united front type of organisation. There were right wing libertarians, socialists, anti-semite conspiracy theorists, the totally batshit insane, communists, anarchists and politically non-aligned.
There was a lack of finding the common overlaps and subsequently forming some kind of policy/charter out of it. For me at least there was an issue with engaging the public into action, most people were sympathetic and agreed broadly speaking however they were unsure of what to do about it in practical terms. (the case with so much activism) The camp eventually served little strategic purpose beyond its own continuation (like most socialist parties) , it was a shame to see dedicated activists being absorbed into a strategic dead end spending time finding a place to take a jobby in the middle of the night rather than engaging in truly revolutionary politics and community organising.
My final point would be: It was good when it started however the clarity became mudied by factionalisation, a lack in clarity of tactics (agreeable to all invovled) and the shift from camping to organise actions on a daily basis towards camping because the camp needs to keep existing to try and prove how ardent they are; which pre-supposes that those in charge actually give a shit about the morality of arguments and justice.
A good quote from George Jackson of the Black Panthers put it pretty succinctly:
“The concept of nonviolence is a false ideal. It presupposes the existence of compassion and a sense of justice on the part of one’s adversary. When this adversary has everything to lose and nothing to gain by exercising justice and compassion, his reaction can only be negative.”
That was the problem with occupy to me it didn’t seek to force a change through by whatever tactical means necessary/available it tried to appeal to a sense of justice within the establishment and was thusly a waste of time.
Come come, surely the failure is down to something far simplier – many people who actually support the movement prefer to sit at home and write scathing articles than to come out in the cold and sit through a meeting.
Yes, you’d love change. Yes, you’d love for the Occupy movement to suggest something you can nod along to – something sensible that would solve all our woes. But by golly they better do it with their limited expertise and resources within 3 months!
While your article does point out some shortcomings of Occupy Edinburgh: The difficulty in making EVERYONE feel safe, pitching in St Andrew Sq in winter, using our energy to keep and defend the camp etc. it also is filled with irony and misunderstanding.
” because despite resolving repeatedly to walk over to St Andrew Square to meet them, in the end I simply could not face it ” – And yet you want a movement which represents your views. I assume therefore that the protesters are actually telepathic?
“the 99%” whom Occupy claim to represent – The movement have never claimed to ‘represent’ the 99% – only that they are members of the 99%…which they are, financially speaking.
” listen to the advice of a scummy student” – aside from the obviously provocative character assessment from someone who has admitted to never crossing the grass this shows again that you have totally missed the point. Why do people think that ‘scummy students’ as you put it WOULD know the answer to their woes. You think the people hardest hit by austerity at the hands of greedy bankers and politicians are all renowned economic thinkers? No. They have much support from renowned economic thinkers, but they are usually too busy delivering lectures around the country.
Occupy is a space for everyone who has concerns over how the country is being run seemingly by an elite group for an elite group rather than for the people who make up the majority to come together and discuss the issues, educate each other and look for potential solutions. It is a conversation, not a lecture.
It is not a student movement against capitalism where people are told what is right or not…that would be patently absurd.
Finally, you ask why Occupy gets so much newspaper space, why it demands so much attention. Well, I could ask the converse question: why is the corruption and greed of this neo-bourgeoisie being so very under-reported? Why do you devote an hour or so to write this article rather than having a serious look at were neo-liberal capitalism led us so astray and what could be done about it?
I expect for the same reason as many – it is just too complicated a topic to be bother to get involved in.
You may all like to criticise the bankers and politicians and crave something better, but unless you cross that (now metaphorical) grass and join the conversation then nothing will change – the usual procedure, only this time there might have actually been an opportunity to change it…
Occupy Edinburgh is going from strength to strength.What you on about?
Who are you? So much misinformation and heresay in this that I have to wonder what your agenda is? If you want the facts try asking the people in Occupy Edinburgh and stop stirring it.Failure? We’re in a stronger position now than ever before. Try reading something else apart from the Evening News or speaking to me for instance if you want some truth but please stop spreading this malicious misinformed crap.
stronger position now than ever ? Judging by your facebook page, the movement currently consists of 5-7 people having the occasional meeting in a local pub to vote on various resolutions.
Who supplied you with this information?
I’m happy to chat with you to put you straight.Do you know what we are doing now?
Do you know our future agenda.Occupy Edinburgh has just begun mate.Watch this space!
Were you involved in the past? Are you involved now? Please thoroughly check your sources before making such defamatory claims. Just say who you are? Why hide?
Maybe unsure you’re telling the truth?
Failure? From someone who knows the truth.
Love letter to St Andrew’s square,
When we first met you talked of love, or rather I talked of love and you listened. It was more than a romance between us, romantic love is too narrow, you were everything to me, brother, sister, mother, father, teacher, student, son and daughter. You were all humanity to me, all that is good and true. When I was hungry you fed me, though you were poor, and when the wind bit you gave me shelter. You held my baby boy in your arms and filled him love. When I was inspired you listened to my elevated ideas, when I was in sorrow you offered me true friendship. We explored the City together, colourful streets opening up before our love struck eyes, we danced in the streets to the sound of pagan drums, we scaled Arthur’ Seat, and shook hands with the sky.
Though you were homeless and begging, you gave me a pram for my baby, and fed him biscuits. When I had the blues you handed me a guitar and a bottle of wine. You taught me so much, you were so earnest and curious, you knew about the ways of the economy, the environment, of spirituality, of meditation, you knew a whole book of old socialist songs, methods of escape, the workings of the Green Party and the city council, the unions, transexuality, magic, the Sitar, and yet you always claimed to know very little, always asking questions and wanting to find out more.
You were so creative, coming up with witty slogans, artistic happenings, dances, games, jokes, pranks, like when you put a Robin Hood mask on that statue outside RBS, or offered to play them a football match at Christmas, you always seemed fresh and manifestly different: an old man taking us to the council, a young boy painting revolutionary art, a young woman giving speeches to the book fair, a middle aged woman making beef hash for all of us, a young man teaching us to act, a kindly beggar handing me a cup of tea, offering a seat, an old criminal praising our beauty.
What I loved most about you was your optimism and high ideals. You really wanted to save the world, from feeding the homeless, to taming the banks, to bring democracy back to the people, to helping the environment and freeing education. You felt daunted at the task, but you believed it should be done and that we could do it. You inspired me so much with this belief.
What is best is that you were always there. Whether Jupiter was shining and you were in a philosophical mood, or whether the wind was blowing down the tents, or whether the hail was hurting and you were wounded and down, you were always there, and always had a kind word and a listening ear. Sure we argued sometimes, but I always felt you were listening, and that you only got angry because you cared so much.
I am so sorry you had to go. I am proud that you bowed out with dignity and respect, that you left in peace. But I am sad. I am loath to visit that Square with out you giving it life. I can see it like a corpse, the wind whistling around the meaningless pillar, hard nosed windy café shiny metal capitalism. The manicured lawn of 500 heartless corporations. To think this cold square once housed an explosion of love. You weren’t angels, you were people, and people are lovely and kind, people are wise and intelligent, knowledgeable and practical, creative and funny. So though now you are gone from the Square, you have opened my eyes, and I now see you everywhere. You are all over the world, you, the people, the people I love, the people that love me.
Love Letter to Joe Bloggs.
Dear Joe.
We’ve shared some great times together and it’s been fun, but I think that you want something from me that I’m simply unable to give you. It’s not you, it’s me. Your heart is so big that I could never hope to fill it. We all have to move on, and maybe we should take some time to breathe and reflect. Let’s think of the good times, and hope that they shine through all of the frustration and bitterness of our darker days. Btw I met Ed Miliband the other day, and he asked me to give him your phone number. He thinks that your idea for a Robin Hood tax could really make a difference. Hope you don’t mind…
Andrews Square.