Occupy Wigan Pier: an Op-Ed on the State of Occupy Seattle
I have written supportively of Occupy Seattle in the past, and while I stand by those comments, the protests that gave me so much hope a week ago have become a source of frustration and anxiety.
This movement started because broad swathes of the public had become fed up with specific trends in our society: the influence of wealth in our political process (particularly from large corporations and financial institutions), and an unequal economy that has been stagnate at best for all but the wealthiest. But rather than get behind the sudden, popular push for reform on these issues, Occupy Seattle is frequently distracted by a cacophony of niche concerns and generic desire for confrontation with any convenient representative of "the establishment."
When I went to my first big protest in 2003 against the invasion of Iraq, I was shocked to see how many protesters seemed to be at the wrong event. There were signs and slogans against capitalism, marijuana prohibition, American involvement in Haiti, the war in Afghanistan, the Israeli occupation of the West Bank, racism, and police brutality, to name some. Many of the causes I saw championed were worthy ones, but few had more than a tangential relationship with the imminent war. At every protest I've attended in the subsequent eight years, regardless of the issue, I see signs, banners, entire scenes that remain absolutely unchanging, and I can't help but wonder how many potential sympathizers and supporters take a look, think "standard protest freak show" and never bother to notice the actual cause of the march. It's particularly heartbreaking when I see this happen to a movement claiming to represent nearly all Americans, and which polling suggest majorities of the country would be inclined to support.
Thinking over these frustrations brought to mind a quotation from George Orwell's The Road to Wigan Pier:
...there is the horrible- the really disquieting- prevalence of cranks wherever Socialists are gathered together. One sometimes gets the impression that the mere words "Socialism" and "Communism" draw towards them with magnetic force every fruit-juice drinker, nudist, sandal-wearer, sex-maniac, Quaker, 'Nature Cure' quack, pacifist, and feminist in England.
Obviously, most of the occupiers wouldn't call themselves socialists, and many of those words don't have the connotations in the USA in 2011 that they did in Britain in 1937, but the sentiment was enough to make me re-read the book over the weekend, and I found it shed more light on what's going on at Westlake (and all over the country) than any cable news rant or glib editorial.
Orwell's book describes the horrible conditions in the coal-mining towns of northern England. In Orwell's time, it was only the socialists who promised to alleviate, or even bothered to address such miseries, so it perplexed Orwell that the miners he met weren't ardent socialists. Aren't we liberals asking ourselves the same questions about Occupy Seattle? How are there only token crowds at many Occupations, when large majorities of the country are disgusted with corporate America's greed and corrupting influence on our political process, and frustrated by economic inequality?
One conclusion Orwell reached is the socialists themselves did very little to reach out to the people they claimed to be helping, and activism (as practiced by the British left of the 30s) actually deterred more supporters than it attracted. Too often, I see the same dynamic at Westlake. I see a segment there for whom this is more about rebellious self-expression than achieving any reforms- about rejecting society rather than rejecting certain harmful aspects of our society. A movement that's about reforming our politics and economy, and represents 99% of Americans needs to be winning people over and getting skeptics to get past their cynicism listen to a message that is broadly appealing. Turning the Occupations away from their original goals into a counterculture crie de couer is the fastest way to get the vast majority of Americans to write you off as a gang of kooks. The conservatives consistently win over middle America by caricaturing the left as wavy-gravy weirdos, why do we insist on doing their work for them?
I'm not suggesting some people stop being involved with the movement, or trying to make any dictates, but the fewer people are staying with the occupation every night, and the city is largely indifferent- something is wrong. Once again, I'll borrow the words of a more eloquent writer
The only thing for which we can combine is the underlying ideal of Socialism; justice and liberty. But it is hardly strong enough to call this ideal 'underlying.' It is almost completely forgotten. It has been buried beneath layer after layer of doctrinaire priggishness, party squabbles, and half-baked 'progressivism' until it is like a diamond hidden under a mountain of dung. The job of the Socialist is to get it out again. Justice and liberty! Those are the words that have got to ring like a bugle across the world. For a long time past, certainly for the last ten years, the devil has had all the best tunes.
I don't think we should be fighting for socialism- we have our own gem of justice and liberty to extricate from our own dung heap. Occupy Seattle could be a powerful force for good, but it's time to start digging.


