Occupy London discusses scaling down

The world-wide “Occupy” movement has had a deep impact on political debate, sparking a sustained scrutiny of capitalism, corporations and government compliance that we rarely experience. Taking on both the city and the institutions of the church the Occupy London Stock Exchange (LSX) encampment fought a tough battle for the right to build a tent city at the feet of St. Paul’s Cathedral.

While Occupy LSX has served to inspire debate it has had less success in actually defining the terms of that debate, for good and ill. For example, many “occupiers” insist that the movement is not anti-capitalist and yet the term anti-capitalist has appeared more times in the media over the last two months than at any other time I can remember. Let’s not  forget the fact that they brought us the greatest pun in the history of protest either (“the winter of our discount tents”).

However, there aren’t many people in Britain who relish the idea of camping out during winter and the cold weather has seen a drop off in new recruits and a feeling that things have begun to lose momentum.

New, indoor, occupations have begun at the Bank of Ideas and a disused courthouse as well as the Finsbury Park campsite. There has been a growing debate about whether to retreat to these and new sites in good order rather than allow a potential eviction to end the St Paul’s protest without planning where to go next on Occupy’s own terms.

The current issues of The Occupy Times is hosting a snapshot of that debate, giving a flavour of the arguments on both sides.

Peter Dombi argued that “we should downsize the site as a residential area (ie remove most of the small private tents, and possibly the kitchen and tea areas too – these can all move to our other sites) but increase the scale of the operation as a site for events, discussions, working areas and publicity.”

He continued that “My recommendation would be for an expansion of the TCU, Info and the Library, plus erection of a few other similar sized areas where Working Groups could put up displays outlining what they have achieved, what they are doing now, plans for the future, and other areas of general interest. I also think there would be real practical advantage in having tents where Working Groups could actually hold their meetings. Not only would this lead to greater transparency, but members of the public could actually observe what we are doing ie. we are all working really hard coming up with ideas for a better society and not just sitting around ‘protesting’.”

Tina Louise Rothery said that “I have slept on site for roughly half the week, each week since the first day and witnessed the camp develop in many ways; there has been a great deal of good but much difficulty has come as well. I believe it is now time to plan the next phase in Occupy’s evolution and for me, de-camping is a part of this. Outreach, education and unified local actions across the country seem a natural progression along with maintaining a permanent presence in the place where it started; a non-residential one that provides information, education and a place to gather for key events and actions.”

She continued “We need to choose now if we are going to remain and just continue to draw attention to the problems of society (and risk being over-run by them or evicted as a result of them) – or get out into society and start making the solutions.”

Putting the case against, Mircea Barbu stated that “There are so few ‘free’ spaces left in which to meet, talk and organise – or even just socialise. We don’t have many social centres or youth clubs left anymore. There are pubs, but they lack privacy and come at a financial cost some can’t afford. Time and space in which to exchange and develop ideas are essential for the type of change we’re aiming for. Therefore, we should Occupy as much as we can and hold the space as long as possible. If we allow corporate elites to pressure us in to packing up camp now, St. Paul’s will have been a glorified campsite. I say we stay until we get the change we want to see.”

Nidia Castro-Rojas added that “There is something to be said for the spectacle element of our St Paul’s campsite. Some might say that with all the social issues it has highlighted, it is indeed a spectacle, but it is becoming a negative one, overwhelming the campers and preventing them from doing more productive work. I think that how you frame or define this ‘spectacle’ is quite important. The issues we have should not be seen as failings of the camp, but failings of society at large, of the system that this government and others uphold at the cost of a balanced and nurturing community.”

Matthew Horne commented “The land we currently occupy is symbolic. Its lies between god and mammon, metaphorically speaking. St Paul’s has historically been a place for people to express their dissatisfaction at authority which has broken the ancient contracts between the people and crown… This is why St Paul’s must be maintained. If we lose the case, then the historical symbolism of this space will be lost forever.”

As part of this debate blogger Scrapper Duncan wrote in December that “For the first month of the Occupation, numbers at the nightly general assemblies remained impressive. They were frequently attended not by hundreds but by thousands. In the second month they were attended in the low hundreds still. Now, in the third month, they are rarely attended by more than a hundred – the usual figure is less than 50… Encampments breed fatigue after five or six weeks… Occupy London’s general assembly must decide its own future, rather than having it decided for it.”

There seems to be a great deal of sense in moving the camp before being evicted, particularly as there are a number of other venues and sites that activists can continue to use, albeit not as high profile ones.

More seriously in the long term progressive activists can use Occupy as an inspiration to what they are doing, but few will take up public, symbolic camping as a form of protest – which inevitably means Occupy activists will remain a small minority divorced from the communities they seek to speak for.

It may be better if those activists find ways of bringing their ideas into those preexisting communities where they live, work, travel and enjoy themselves rather than attempting to build a new community, separate from the rest of us, which most ‘ordinary’ people find difficult to engage with.