Occupy Dame Street: A positive development but lacking a class understanding
On 8 October 2011 a group of people pitched tents on the plaza outside the Central Bank in Dame Street and began a protest against Irish and international finance. Inspired in part by events in New York, as well as the M15 movement in Spain, the Occupy Dame Street protest has become not only a physical stand against the bank bail-outs and NAMA but also an exercise in participatory democracy.
And it is the latter, rather than the former, that has so far managed to hold the disparate group together. The almost complete lack of democratic engagement by the state with its citizens in relation to the banking crisis is the issue that gives the action coherence.
From the start, Occupy Dame Street adopted a “no banners” approach. This is in tandem with similar calls made by the M15 movement and by Occupy Wall Street. The move has been called counterproductive, short-sighted, and naïve, and the criticisms are not without justification. Yet the decision to ban overt political and trade union connections at the Dame Street protest has less to do with a rejection of ideology and more to do with the realisation among the participants that the Socialist Workers’ Party is aggressively pushing to take over the occupation-and is using the call for trade union banners as its trojan horse. Bizarrely, the SWP has openly admitted to participants that this is its objective.
Whereas other political and trade union groups have respected the “no banners” approach-including the Socialist Party, People Before Profit, Workers’ Solidarity Movement, Unite, the Dublin Council of Trade Unions, and the Communist Party of Ireland-the SWP remains committed to infiltrationism. Until that issue is resolved, the distrust of left-wing political groupings will remain.
Unfortunately, the ban has left the Dame Street camp exposed to the ideas and conceptual frameworks of conspiracy theorists, who have descended on the camp like locusts. It is not uncommon to hear at ODS that the world is run by Jews and the Bilderberg Group, that fluoride is a mind-control drug, and that 9/11 was conducted by the American government itself. During the first week of the occupation I was informed by a gentleman that Barack Obama was kidnapped from the Kenyan jungle by the Bilderberg Group when he was four, who then raised him to be president of the United States. In the spirit of the premise that it is pointless to argue with a madman, I patted him on the shoulder and quickly walked away.
More recently, a group of conspiracy theorists tried to hijack an open assembly. These are held twice daily and are open discussion forums. The pressures facing the camp extend beyond the weather and logistics.
Occupy Dame Street is best described as social-democratic in outlook and orientation. There is a distinct lack of class analysis, for example; and a core belief is that the problems facing Ireland have come about through the actions of individuals or politicians rather as a result of the dynamics of the economic and political system itself. The phrase “We are the 99 per cent” is a reflection of this, with the implication that a small group of greedy bankers and financiers are the root cause.
This is changing as the occupation progresses, with more focus and debate on the economics of banking and speculation in Ireland, and the role of the IFSC as a pivot point in international finance. For now, though, class remains a taboo topic at the camp-that is, the idea of class as a power relation. When class is discussed it is usually portrayed as an affliction of the working class and the poor. The view of Ireland’s middle class at ODC is one that sees the middle class as benign participants in Ireland’s class system-not surprising, as the majority of the participants at ODC are middle-class themselves.
In general, the Occupy Dame Street camp is a positive development. It may be social-democratic, but such is the paucity of democratic engagement in Ireland that even such a stance has radical undertones. Long may it continue.
The writer is a long-time left activist who has spoken at a number of general assemblies of the Occupy Dame Street movement. This article reflects his contact and experience with the Occupy movement. This article was originally published in the November edition of the Socialist Voice.
Discussion
We welcome and encourage lively discussion from the public about articles on Irish Left Review. You can leave a comment using the form at the bottom of the page. Please read through the existing comments before posting your own.
Comment by: Scarlett
Nov 16th 2011 at 01:11
Take control of the baton. Much sooner rather than later. Good Lads & Ladies
Comment by: lubbe
Nov 17th 2011 at 23:11
You, my friend, are deluded. Of, course the US Government would never do that to their own people, just as the Nazis would never have burned the Richstag. Since you seem to agree - it’s time you studied some history (not to mention some basic logic - so the the US is in Afghanistan because of the antics of some bearded Emmanuel Goldstein? Huh?)
Comment by: Helena Sheehan
Dec 7th 2011 at 16:12
This author has made an few trips to Occupy Dame Street, drawing overgeneralised and unwarranted conclusions from too few experiences. This article is lacking in nuance and perspective. It is even lacking in basic factual accuracy. ODS is not social democratic. It embraces a spectrum of ideological positions, yes, social democratic, but also marxist, anarchist, etc. There are many participants who have positions that are undeveloped and in flux. I would say that the ideological centre of gravity balances more towards anarchism. ODS is not lacking in class consciousness. The 1% v 99% theme, which is so prominent, is a rough and ready form of class consciousness, if it is anything. Of course, a more developed form of class consciousness requires analysis of the means of production, distribution and exchange. We have had a number of lectures at Occupy University bearing upon this. Speaking of class analysis, on what basis does this author conclude that participants are predominantly middle class? I know far more of them that he does, I am sure, and I would not say so. There are a few that have or had their own businesses, but most are dependent on wages, social welfare or pensions to live. Does he think they/we are middle class because so many have degrees? Class is determined by relation to the means of production, not by educational level. I could go on. The mentality behind the ban on party political and trade union banners, which I have opposed, has to do with far more than fear of SWP infiltration. On the matter of the SWP, the author is not well informed. I do not think that this article is in any way a useful contribution to an understanding of the occupy movement.