It seems to be the rule of things that if you are involved in subversive protest these days, you have to have a tent fetish. Ever since Brian Haw began camping out on Parliament Square, for ends that neither he nor his supporters were ever able to coherently explain, no one with the noble aim of socking it to The Man has dared be seen out without one of those small portable jobbies, lest a flash-Eurocamp needs to be set up in Trafalgar Square at a moment’s notice. It’s the must have accessory of the early twenty-first century. Solidarity.
Yeah, take that police state! The Tents of Freedom will eventually topple all the ... well, bad stuff we’re protesting about. They – we – are the 99%.
Except we, or rather, they are not the 99%.
The fatuity of the Occupy London Stock Exchange protest and the usual suspects who are involved in it (there. I said it. Sue me) are issues I could bore on about at some length. However, given that I have a word limit and high blood pressure, I will merely confine myself to saying that if being screamed at for being ignorant lumpen proletariat who will persist in toddling off to the jobs they hope will survive the recession instead of sitting in tents and polishing their ivory towers whilst waving placards emblazoned with the legend “Down with this sort of thing!” along with other Jocastas and Jeremys was what the punters looked for in a political movement, we’d have elected the Bullingdon Club by now.
Look at it this way: I voted Labour in 2010, but the coalition popped up between the election and my hopes and ol’ Cameron and the boy Clegg are now in charge of the farm. I might not like it, but I cast my vote along with millions of others and I wouldn’t have the arrogance to assume that my view was either representative of, nor top trumped, the majority of the population. I haven’t stood for election – my view that the comrades should rightfully be in charge carries absolutely no democratic legitimacy – so why do OLSX believe that their opinions constitute and represent those of the 99%? Ignorance, egotism, or something else?
How about consumerism.
You see, you might think that politics is like shopping for, say, tent accessories. Imagine the scene: you go into Milletts and say to the assistant, “Excuse me, my good man. I should like a nice tent from the Anarchist 2011 range along with an OLSX branded sleeping bag, and a thermos.” To which the assistant will reply, “Certainly sir. Tents are over there, sleeping bags on that shelf and here’s a thermos. Do mix and match as you please.”
Imagine – imagine! – Tarquin’s disgust if the chap had replied, “Actually sir, you have to subscribe to a package of either Anarchist 2011 or OLSX. There will be stuff in there you want, stuff you don’t, quite a bit of it will go wrong and, when you complain, you’ll be told by the representative of the respective brand that it was meant to be like that. Oh, and you’re stuck with it all with the lot of it for up to five years.” This is representative democracy, against which the protesters rail, and they are quite right in terms of their rights as consumers. Who would buy that, especially in the era of Amazon, ASOS, single issue pressure groups, and campaigns organised by Pam Giddy and the Rowntree Trust?
But it has to be this way: modern politics is incapable of producing solutions that are all acceptable to everyone living in the UK at any one time. It sounds a trite point, but it is worth remembering that you vote for a party that broadly, sort of, or on a good day, reflects how you see the world. That’s all it can do in a country that contains 70 million individuals. Representative politics is there to ensure the greatest happiness of the greatest number according to the winning coalition’s manifesto promises, tempering this Benthamism with the understanding that, as the phrase goes, democracy has to be something more than two wolves and a sheep voting on what’s for dinner.
The Occupy movement demonstrates nicely the challenges representative democracy faces: the challenges of a consumerist society which has turned us from citizens in a collective to those who are angered that we cannot “purchase” policies as we do goods and services, who call the system irrelevant because our specific needs and opinions aren’t at the centre of it.
A final exacerbating factor is how we digest our news. Prior to the internet allowing us to read our gossip in the Daily Mail, our editorials in the Guardian, and our news in the Times (whenever the paywall goes down), we used to buy a single newspaper. In the course of reading through all its sections, we came across things that were never dreamed of in our philosophy, but now we can cut those out and tailor our news experience online to correspond to what we believe to be true of the world; we create it in our own image, like consummate consumers.
One of the Founding Fathers once said that there is a kind of ignorance that comes from having too much access to too much information.
I bet he didn’t own a tent.













Comments
Jonny / November 21 2011 10:48am
But we did elect the Bullingdon Club.
Steve Lee / November 21 2011 11:02am
What utter rot!
I don't know about you, but I never got the chance to vote for 'the markets' or 'investors' who seemingly decide the economic policies of elected Governments these days. I never at any stage was given the opportunity to vote as to whether or not I wanted to allow unaccountable global corporations to take the fate of millions in their hands.
I'm afraid that sneering at tents and making utterly bogus, indeed mendacious, claims about consumerism just won't do at all.
David Landon Cole / November 21 2011 1:02pm
Interesting. A few thoughts spring to mind.
One is that almost everyone at those protests is the 1%; not that they're Jocastas and Jeremies but that by virtue of being in the first world, they have done exceedingly well in the lottery of life. Certainly within Britain or the US they're the 99% but if any claims are being made to global justice, I do feel the protestors should realise that they are near the top of the heap.
Something else that caught my eye was the grandly-named general assembly. The reality seems more like whoever wants to and has time to turn up. That very quickly makes it easy for the movement to be hijacked by organised groups that can cajole their members into turning up.
There's the oft-repeated thing about political parties suffering because people are doing single-issue campaigns, or people doing single-issue campaigns because political parties such. While I perhaps sympathise with the desire for a better way of doing things, I rather agree with you that this ain't gonna do it.
Greg Pycroft / November 21 2011 1:28pm
Rather in the vein of Sadie's thesis, I blame cheap tents, or rather the music festivals that led to their inexpensive proliferation. I asked a protester in Cardiff why the local Occupy Movement wasn't willing to participate in the Welsh Local Government elections next May (rather than camp on the grounds of Cardiff Castle). The movement has a good 6 months to agree a manifesto, choose a ward, put up a candidate and campaign . Apparently the cost of the deposit is sufficiently high enough to dissuade participation in elections. So it looks like democracy does have a going rate at approx 10 tents per electoral deposit, that's not including sleeping bags/thermos' etc.
The laws of supply and demand eroding representative democracy, never thought I'd get to blame Glastonbury for that one...
Barry Reynolds / November 21 2011 1:51pm
It's not just what tent you buy also but where you get it from and quite frankly Millets doesn't cut it. Now Gaddafi got it right when he bought his tent, not only did he get the best tent in the world, his allowed him to have everything he wanted!
Robin Macfarlane / November 21 2011 2:58pm
This is a very interesting piece of writing. If the writer would like to email with me I would like her to join my Party.It is not a true political party at this moment.I must assure her that unless she has an inherited bag of dosh under the bed she is one of us, the99%.I constantly say that Banks were victims of the economic crisis. they did not set out to ruin the financial system. All financial institutions have for years relied on the work of the Rating Agentcys to give them an accurate risk assessment.When it came to the American CDO's there was a "shocking abdication of responsibility" not my words but those of the Fed. Com.reporting on the crisis. The banks may be responsible for other shocking faults but not the crisis. The point is that the people of britain are hard working with very varied skills so they were able to say, OK we will bail you out instead of all of us going on the Dole.which would have broken the good ship UK anyway.Now the banks must be told in no uncertain terms that they must foot the bill.They broke the system so they must mend it. The British people have given them the tools but are not able to do the repair work because they are busy keeping the good ship Britain from sinking. If the banks refuse then The British Gov. Have only one thing they can do, follow Greece and default.Then print another currency that will not go to the banks but to a peoples bank. to restart the economy. In this process the banks will lose all their pounds stashed away in tax havens their salaries their pensions and probably their lives if the people catch them.I wonder which way they will go.
oliver segal / November 21 2011 4:25pm
we did elect the bullingdon club the tories won the most votes at the election
we voted for the markets and investors by not voting swp/bnp/respect or any of the other anti-capitalist parties into power.
ruby / November 22 2011 12:08pm
As we survey the devastation, the injustice, the political and economic ground zero of all our lives thank goodness we now words to rally to: 'pick and stick' .
Rob E / November 23 2011 1:08pm
Foolishly I thought Louise Mensch's Have I Got News For You Starbuck's comment was the final word in Occupy condescension.
Steve Lee / November 24 2011 11:53am
Oliver - the Tories did NOT win the election. They singularly failed to do so.
Is your point about not electing anti-capitalist parties serious? If so it's simply stupid - by not voting SWP we positively chose to have our fates decided by people whom we do not know and who are accountable to no-one? No, I'm afraid you're either being smart-arsed or stupid.
The issue is not about market economies v command economies, but about the fact that our lives are being largely governed by people who are not accountable to us who act in their interest and not most of ours. Occupy is a PROTEST movement - not a political movement. It's up to the political classes to respond to it in an adult way. Sneering is the response of a rather spoilt child.
Jed / November 25 2011 12:14pm
Well said Steve Lee, I don't think this article could miss the point more if it tried.