Anti-Capitalist, Pro. . . ?

For all the diversity of the Occupy movements around the world, about the only thing they (broadly) agree on, is that they are anti-capitalist.

I say broadly, because some people involved may not be completely "anti-capitalist" but are certainly anti-status-quo-capitalist. And I suppose that puts them in something of a New Labour position. They are the new Third Way sort of ditherers.

And I don't think ditherers is too harsh. They would call themselves "anti-greed", which is fair enough, but being anti-greed means they've swallowed the right wing lie that the 2008 financial crash was caused by greed. That sort of analysis completely ignores the fact that capitalism is an unsustainable system with inherent contradictions and exploitation at its core. To blame the greed of a few people, but believing in the system, is just sticking your head in the sand.


So, the "blame the people not the system" occupiers aside, we have a substantial body of anti-capitalists. But the problem with this group, and the movement as a whole, is the lack of coherency about what they do believe in. They are a broad range of anarchists, socialists, communists, environmentalists, syndicalists, students, drifters, hippies and other "alternative types" who just jump on the bandwagon.

The lack of direction over what the occupy movement does believe in is compounded by their inability to make any meaningful decisions. The groups are fundamentally democratic, which is to be applauded. But the discussions I've been involved in also highlight some rather idealistic thinking.

To take democracy to such an extreme that a group does not believe in voting on issues, based on the logic that voting for things results in the majority winning, and therefore the minority losing, is ridiculous. Making every decision "by consensus" - where every decision results in an inclusive compromise, is a nice idea. It is an idea that works if you are deciding what to do on your summer holiday. But trying to build a movement to challenge the force of global capitalism, will not be done by waving your hands in the air if you agree with a speaker.

The occupiers claim to speak for the 99%. But looking at them, they are certainly not representative of the 99%.

In Plymouth this week, the Unison union offered its support to the Occupy Plymouth group. Now, one would have thought that the support of one of the largest unions in the city, which is part of the largest democratic organisation in the country, would be welcomed. . . No. The news was greeted with suspicion, hostility and conspiracy. There were calls online of "we are the 99% - not them". Well, if a small group of protesters are the "99%" the trade unions are either part of the 1%, or they need their own classification - how about the 200%?

The occupy movement needs to realise something. They need to learn both history, philosophy and some basic economics. There is only one alternative to capitalism, and it is called socialism.

There are many, many, theories and programmes of how we get there. There are many different incarnations of socialism and communism, and even anarcho-syndicalism, but in their fundamentals, they are all the same. Each involves the abolition of the state in its current form. Each involves a true form of democracy with the direct democratic ownership of the resources and wealth of a people. All are united by the desire to end the injustice of the wage system.

I have a lot of affection for the occupy movement. I even wrote their main press release for the local Plymouth newspaper. But please, can we not wake up and acknowledge that there is only one alternative to capitalism, and only the unity of the movement as a whole will defeat it.