Revolutionary narcissism
Francis Sedgemore, Thursday 17 November 2011 at 20:13 UTC
Until now I have said nothing, either in writing or in conversation with friends, about the “Occupy” protests underway in a number of the capitalist world’s major cities. The St Paul’s protest in London is ostensibly targeted at the city’s financial institutions, but in large part occupies land belonging to the Church of England, and as a result causes this socially engaged faith community a considerable degree of discomfort. And I am quite indifferent to it – both the occupation itself, and the wailing and gnashing of teeth on the part of those who would see it gone.
The occupations are described by their supporters as revolutionary acts, while others on the left complain about the lack of political focus, or even the inarticulacy of highly educated protesters who in all seriousness regard their actions as radical, original and worthwhile. I tend to side with the leftist critics, although with my salad days long behind me, and now as a whingeing old fart, I’m not convinced that it is worth devoting attention to the inane spectacle.
The youthful and oh-so-earnest occupiers remind me of a youth spent trying to save the world from psychopathic cold warriors and nuclear weapons fetishists. I fast burned myself out with such silliness, and I fear that today’s urban occupiers will do the same.
I have so far avoided comment, but today I see that my friend Terry Glavin has chimed in with some insightful words on the ‘occupations’ of various north American cities, including those in his native Canada…
“The aborted lunacy of Occupism is now descending into merely a Jonestown of the Imbecilities, with eviction notices and standoffs and arrests breaking up Occupy Wall Street, Occupy Oakland, Occupy Toronto, Occupy Halifax, Occupy Vancouver, Occupy Victoria, and on and on.”
“Maybe the working people who have been made to pay for finance capitalism’s recklessness are getting sick and tired of being told things about inequality and powerlessness that they knew all about before the subject started coming up in Occupist chants and slogans shouted around drum-circles.”
Terry describes “occupism” as a form of “revolutionary suicide”, and he has a point. To me it is a “spectacle”: a display of political narcissism and naïveté from those desperate to be seen to be doing something, yet have neither the wisdom nor the nous to come up with anything useful and constructive, let alone revolutionary. The most interesting thing about the occupations is public discussion of the protesters’ toilet arrangements.
Feed the writer! 
Friday 18 November 2011 at 10:07 UTC
I am still sitting on the fence, waiting for their Manifesto. Or, at least, some coherent list of demands. But yeah, I feel I don’t need to hold my breath.
Friday 18 November 2011 at 10:10 UTC
So then, Snoops, are the kosher krusties getting ready to occupy downtown Tel Aviv?
Friday 18 November 2011 at 11:57 UTC
I wish I could remember where I read recently about the fact that one of the things that that differentiates the protests in Occupy (x) and the ones in the Middle East is the former’s refusal to engage with the mechanisms of civil society, which means that the institutions of power are left untouched, having to bear only the lukewarm heat of the protestors’ virtuous disdain, rather than being forced to engage with concrete tactics for effecting change through legal or political channels.
Of course when I was younger I’d have seen such an attitude as “being co-opted”.
Friday 18 November 2011 at 12:06 UTC
We are all Uncle Toms now.
Friday 18 November 2011 at 20:27 UTC
Oh, they checked the situation, but found out that the offices in downtown TA don’t have enough bathrooms and the closest McDonald’s is too far away.
Friday 18 November 2011 at 20:32 UTC
McDonald’s? I thought these occupist types preferred to feed and water in Pret a Manger and Starbucks.
Tuesday 29 November 2011 at 16:56 UTC
I find it curious that, Billy Bragg aside, so few on the more traditional left have any good words to say for #occupy.
You describe this need to try and prevent our lives and environment being controlled by psychopaths as “silliness”, but I don’t quite get why you write it off like that. What else are people supposed to do, other than rot down into apathy like the rest of the population seem to do?
Admittedly, the English manifestation has been fairly disappointing so far, but the movement abroad seems to be more solid and effective, eg:
http://blog.p2pfoundation.net/an-update-on-the-spanish-indignados-not-dead-just-distributed-15m-update/2011/11/29
Tuesday 29 November 2011 at 17:15 UTC
The reason is that my attitude is warped by the experience of having lived through and been an active part of the 1980s revolutionary narcissism which, with hindsight, was totally ineffective. That revolutionary narcissism died a death in the following decade, and now appears to be rearing its head again. It was bullshit then, and it’s bullshit now. We did little more than turn in on ourselves, and obsess about lifestyle politics. When it comes to the anti-nuclear movement, it was coalitions such as END (not CND) that engaged with the intellectual and political arguments, and contributed to the lessening of cold war tensions.
That said, there will of course be aspects of the current “manifestation” that have redeeming value. I wouldn’t write it off entirely, but I can’t help thinking that many of these occupists could do with slapping around the head with a large wet cod. From what I’ve heard, that appears to be a view shared by their sympathisers in the Church of England.
Wednesday 30 November 2011 at 16:39 UTC
Yes, what is it with the Left that it is so often looking only up its own arse?
The early eighties were especially horrendous with all that obsessional identity politics.
Interesting what you say from your nuclear experiences. I must say, I thought the wind down there was more due to the internal dynamic of inevitable failure of the Soviet project than anything else.
Maybe it’ll be the same this time around and we’ll just have to wait for the current socio-economic arrangements to collapse under their own weight of contradiction. Who knows what’ll be left in the ruins?
Thursday 1 December 2011 at 10:29 UTC
The phrase “internal dynamic of inevitable failure” sounds almost marxist in its historical determinism. That’s fine, but I would caution against arguing like this in normative terms.
The Soviet project certainly failed, but the causes of this were likely many and various, and one could argue that that citizen initiatives which reached across the divide were a contributory factor. In that sense, the western peace movement in the west played a constructive role. Or rather democratic political elements of the peace movement played a positive part in world events.
The problem now is that, while the Soviet Union failed, large parts of the system remained intact following the collapse of the Bolshevik regime in Russia and its satellite states. And there remains a nuclear standoff between the liberal democracies and the now quasi-mafia state to the east.
The political dynamics may have changed, but the ruins might yet be radioactive. But don’t count on CND saving human civilisation; it’s leaders are too busy plotting the destruction of the Zionist Entity, and extolling the virtues of North Korean socialism.
Saturday 3 December 2011 at 15:41 UTC
Count on CND saving human civilisation? Lol, no, I didn’t even know they still existed!
Also unaware about the plotting and extolling you say is going on, so I’m clearly well out of touch on that front. Re the former, maybe CND can leave that to the far more powerful forces that are behind the so-called Arab Spring, as our Special Friends look like they may be planning to abandon the Middle East to the mercies of what is called “democracy” – plausible deniability and all that – and move back to concentrate on the old collectivist enemies once again.
Who said war’s not good for business.