Occupy Everything… But After the Anger, Then What?
What do the protesters want? A fairer world! When do they want it? Now! What ideas have they got and what are they willing to do to in their own lives to make it happen? Erm…
We live in a world desperately out of balance. A world with problems seemingly so severe and out of control that to stop and think about them is to risk intellectual and emotional paralysis. So we take the issues apart in small ways to help us cope. We complain to let off steam. But very often we fail to follow the path to the actual solutions necessary to drive change forward.
Depending on who you listen to the Occupy Everything protests are either a revolt against the greed of the 1% or against the enforced austerity in the lives of the 99%, all brought about by the incompetent, lazy and self-interested handling of the global banking crisis. Generally speaking the protests are now being called ‘anti-capitalist’.
It’s undeniably good to see people finding their voices and I know so many people who see the current raft of ‘occupy everything’ protests as a sign that the public is finally becoming radicalised, finally finding its power and vision.
I want desperately to believe that this is so. But every instinct I have tells me it is not. The occupy everything protests are not the end of the conversation, they aren’t even the first word. They are the tentative first breath we take before uttering that first word. There’s a long conversation that still needs to be begun.
No more short-cuts
On the one hand, being in the full glare of the media helps to publicise the event. On the other it focuses attention on a ‘movement’ that doesn’t know where it is going and barely knows what it’s about yet. This is a double edged sword – one that threatens to cut the knees out from under the ideas that (hopefully) are forming before they can even begin to reach the surface.
All that media attention demands some kind of coherent statement. I watch the protesters, who gather together with the right instincts and the best intentions and with the best will in the world I still am unsure what it is they are asking for. Where do they want us to go from here? Or are they just hoping someone else will come up with something soon?
The protests did, of course begin began as a call to action from Adbusters, a Canadian-based culture-jamming, anti-consumerist organisation skilled at making its point in short, sharp, and often very funny lampoons of modern culture.
In my less charitable moments I wonder if have we got so used to taking intellectual shortcuts, so used to believing in the ‘power’ of the media and social networking that we can’t even organise a coherent form of human activism – beyond making a clever poster or webpage – anymore. Have we got so used to texting and tweeting that we can neither think nor express ourselves in more than 140 characters?
If someone like myself, who has worked for social change for most her professional life, who has a sympathetic ear and soft heart for direct action can’t penetrate the actual vision of the crowd, how will it reach the entrenched fat cats against whom the protesters seem to be pitting their anger?
Beyond blame
Enthusiasm is great, but eventually it will need to be backed up by substance, depth and focus.
Our inability as individuals to make sense of and to tackle head-on the depth of the messy world that all of us – including the protesters – have co-created seems baffling until you see it in the context of our modern information culture.
It is not simply the overwhelming volume of information that is comes at us each day. More it is the lack of reference points, the absence of a framework to help an average person make sense of the problem, locate their roles and responsibilities within it – and imagine something new – that is holding us back.
Blaming others is easy. Acting from a well-developed sense of responsibility, and awareness of the alternatives, takes a lot more chutzpah.
We want change. We want fairness. But what are we willing to give up for it? Can we let go of the perceived benefits of the capitalist system: cheap food, cheap petrol, affordable aspirational goods like big screen TVs and iPhones, cheap flights, air conditioning, car culture, cheap t-shirts, fast food, and plastic anything.
And this is the problem. We still seem to want the capitalist system to continue providing all the usual benefits, but we want it to be fairer – and this is just not possible folks.
If we want the world to be fairer then we have to acknowledge that the current system, which breeds inequality and poverty, is unfair, has always been unfair and will continue to be unfair. As with all things in nature, something has to die before something new can be born.
We need to acknowledge this fact, to acknowledge our grief at the changes that need to happen, and find strength of purpose in constructing a different future. Inarticulate anger, such as was so apparent during the London riots, won’t get us there. It’s the psychological equivalent of Red Bull and vodka.
Eloquent advocates
Whether you are camping on the pavement somewhere in the world or not, when it’s your turn to speak what will you say? Because if all you can say is “It’s not fair – he has more than I do” then you have lost your argument. If you continue to polarise the debate –”us”, “them”, “1%”, “99%” – you’ll be too busy fighting the same old fundamentalist, shoot-em-up politics to find an actual solution.
What I would say to the protesters is it’s time to do your homework. The information is out there. Be humble enough to accept that many of you are only just catching up with people who have spent decades working through these issues and put forward all kinds of alternatives – from the radical to the reasonable. Let their work inspire you.
Here’s a few resources to help. The list isn’t exhaustive, but it’s enough to get any would-be critic of capitalism going.
What’s the alternative to money?
Time Banks, LETs Schemes, local currencies … if you don’t know what these are it’s time to find out. To get a general overview of the range of alternatives to the way we look at currency, consider this useful resource list.
What’s the alternative to the growth economy?
Begin with the work of the Center for the Advancement of the Steady State Economy which believes that perpetual economic growth, is neither possible nor desirable. Growth, especially in wealthy nations, is already causing more problems than it solves. SSE asks why money, a public utility, that serves the public as medium of exchange, store of value, and unit of account, be largely the by-product of private lending and borrowing?
What’s the alternative to free-trade?
Free trade might help keep the price of your of t-shirt down but it is also the reason why there is so much inequality in the world. Globalisation has dramatically increased inequality between and within nations, even as it connects people as never before. About half of the world’s population lives on the equivalent of what two dollars a day would purchase in the US. The world’s 358 richest people have more money than the combined annual incomes of countries with 45% of the world’s population. Is there a way out?
Fair Trade guarantees fair wages and decent working conditions and prohibits child and slave labour, but it still keeps us dependent on so-called luxury goods from afar – and keeps developing world producers locked into a marketplace where they grow food for others instead of themselves
Tobin Tax is named for Nobel laureate and Yale professor Dr. James Tobin. It discourages speculative currency trading with a small tax on all international currency trades. Since the trades are international, the Tobin Tax would be collected by an international agency. This agency would then establish a trust fund with the money collected to go toward development issues of international significance. The Tobin tax is endorsed by organizations such as the AFL-CIO and the World Council of Churches. the European commission has recently proposed and EU-wide Tobin Tax. Proponents of the tax in the EU say it could generate 57 million Euros per year to be put to social causes. The UK rejects the plan.
Autarchy is a system in which a country attempts to become self-sufficient, eschewing all trade with foreign markets and making do with whatever goods the national economy can produce. Related to this is Protectionism which attempts to bolster a country’s production against other nations using restrictive taxes and tariffs. Protectionism has been attacked by free trade proponents as creating job loss and higher prices.
Radical economist Herman Daly, Emeritus Professor at the University of Maryland, School of Public Policy and former Senior Economist in the Environment Department of the World Bank, proposes another way: Regulated Trade. According to Daly the opposite of free trade is not autarchy or no trade, nor state trade nor total monopolisation of trade. The opposite of free trade, which is deregulatory, is trade which is regulated in the national interest by governments involved. This is just one element of the Steady State Economy that Daly has been talking about for decades. His ideas extend into an overhaul of the tax system – questioning what should be taxes and how the money should be spent – and the thorny issue of whether a ‘fair’ economic system can sustain full employment (Daly thinks not).You can read a Grist article on Daly here. His selected essays are available as a Google book here.
Daly also contributes a regular blog, The Daly News for the Center for the Advancement of the Steady State Economy (see above).
If the idea of a system that can’t sustain full employment scares you, consider the new economics foundation’s (nef) proposal for a 21 hour working week. According to nef’s report 21 hours – Why a shorter working week can help us all to flourish in the 21st century a more equal distribution of working time would have clear environmental benefits. Moving towards a standard of 21 hours could help to redistribute unpaid as well as paid time – for example by making more jobs available for the unemployed and giving men more time to look after their children.
What about interest-free money?
Around 97% of all ‘money’ now in circulation is this so-called ‘Debt-money’ (i.e. computer-generated, interest-bearing, for profit ‘credit’), some people, somewhere – be they individuals, families, communities, companies, countries – always have to be in debt (and interest-bearing, grinding, miserable debt) Thus, for capitalist economics to ‘function’, the misery of debt always has to exist. The prevailing debt leads to interest leads to inflation system hurts everyone – rich and poor alike, people and planet. According to the Campaign for Interest-free Money, interest paid on loans is a crucial factor in maintaining social inequality. The campaign has lost a bit of momentum in recent years. Maybe it’s time to reinvigorate it?
Challenging the concept of ‘ownership’ of goods
Rethinking our economic model doesn’t begin and end with money. It also requires a reorganisation of our manufacturing processes, and a re-envisioning of the relationship between objects and consumers and indeed a redefinition of ourselves as something other than consumers.
The Ellen MacArthur Foundation, with input from Michael Braungart, founder and director of Environmental Protection and Encouragement Agency (EPEA), has some inspiring things to say about an economy based on services rather than goods, and on a future where we don’t own goods but lease them instead. You might want to check out what Braungart’s former partner William McDonough has to say on the subject as well.
The resurrection of the commons?
The commons is a new way to express a very old idea – that some forms of wealth belong to all of us, and that these community resources must be actively protected and managed for the good of all. From blood banks to sidewalks, from herbal medicines to public libraries, from green open spaces to the Polar ice caps, from your genes to the local library, these things and more have been privatised for the profit of the few and to the disadvantage of the many.
A commons-based society refers to a shift in values and policies away from the market-based system that dominates modern society, especially over the past 30 years. The foundation of the market is narrowly focused on private wealth, while the commons is built upon what we all share. Read more about the concept of the Commons here.
Finally you might consider getting hold of a copy of the book The Spirit Level: Why More Equal Societies Almost Always Do Better by Richard Wilkinson and Kate Pickett. It’s a fantastic examination of the way that income inequality is the root of pretty much every social ill – murder, obesity, teenage pregnancy, depression and even premature death. And if you care to look at it from the other side, from a business point of view, try Umair Haque’s The New Capitalism Manifesto: Building Disruptively Better Business. For a great dissection of the ‘growth’ myth you’ll want to read Richard Heinberg’s The End of Growth: Adapting to Our New Economic Reality and investigate his and his colleagues’ work at the Post Carbon Institute.
It is up to every one of the reasonably well off well educated, middle class people who seem to be making up the bulk of the protesters – and commentators – to do better than that. To be eloquent, thoughtful spokespeople for their own needs but also for the needs of those who can’t afford to take a day or two off work to join the party. They also need to be effective advocates for the future and that role is easier to fill if you are standing on a foundation of good information.
© Pat Thomas 2011. No reproduction without the author’s permission.
This article originally appeared on Alternet
