Unveiling Capitalism at Occupy


74 Flares Twitter 6 Facebook 68 74 Flares ×
Print pagePDF pageEmail page

[From the Forthcoming Autumn 2012 Irish Anarchist Review]

If the normal way revolutionaries engage in politics is to go to people suffering a particular injustice or oppression, fight it alongside them, and raise their consciousness of the systemic change necessary to end all oppressions; then Occupy was a movement that seemed to be happening the wrong way around. Occupy started with the broad systemic critique and desire to put it into action, but never made the critique more coherent, nor translated it into the political activity necessary to effect social change at anywhere close to the scale initially hoped for. Obviously the 99%/1% critique was quite vague and ambiguous, but the movement placed central importance in open discussions about big societal issues and its goals and strategies. Despite this being an ideal situation for revolutionaries, our radical analyses didn’t win many supporters. A year on from participating in Occupy Cork I ask why, and hope to aid the learning of theoretical and practical lessons for future social movement engagements.

The approaches to consciousness raising vary for revolutionaries of the Marxist-Leninist and anarchist-communist variety. For Leninists, the only correct analysis for overcoming the oppression of capitalism lies in their party, therefore recruitment is central. Once in the party, recruits didactically receive the party analysis, with those not agreeing with it presumed to be labouring under a false consciousness. Anarchists tend to be uncomfortable with such an infallible and hierarchical epistemology, and instead prefer to focus on empowering people to organise and think for themselves. This tends to work very well in aiding understanding of the interpersonal aspects of power relations, and the way oppressive power can manifest itself in groups and through gender, race and other privileges – areas where we have seen huge advances against oppressive power since Marxism lost its hegemonic position as the way to do oppositional politics in the sixties. But with the more impersonal oppression of contemporary capitalism in the West, we see both that less people have a critical understanding of it, and that the gains made by the workers’ movements of the post war era have been pushed back for several decades. The logic of the commodity has expanded its control over more of our lives, while its further reification [1] has immunised it from critical scrutiny.

Soon after Occupy Cork started it was noted in our local Workers Solidarity Movement [2] branch discussions that the arguments for internal democracy we’re used to having in campaigns wouldn’t be as much of a preoccupation in this case. The Occupiers were, so to speak, “even more anarchist” than us in their conception of democracy; but the problem was that they didn’t see this conception extending to the realm of economic production. Consequently we saw as one of our key tasks the promotion of the communist part of anarchist-communism. Like other anti-capitalists at the camp, I tried this in various ways: doing some talks and articles, bringing trade unionists and various left-wing and anti-capitalist academics and activists to speak, and in general conversations and discussions making radical arguments and pushing for a further development of the 99%/1% analysis. While the strategy did have some positive effects on the overall consciousness of the camp, it wasn’t unproblematic, as radicals in many other camps have learned. Helena Sheehan in her essay, “Occupying Dublin: Considerations at a Crossroads”, talked of the hostility against the “intellectual elite” of the camp, who she indicates were vaguely defined as “people who read books, write blogs, organise talks and articulate criticism” [3]. Similarly, other Occupy writings have talked about the divide that developed between the experienced activists and the newcomers to social movements. Of course radicals could arrogantly discount this as a manifestation of bourgeois liberalism, but we could obviously learn a lot more by subjecting our own political strategies, methodologies and theories to critical scrutiny. In that spirit of revolutionary praxis being a constant process of action and reflection, it is to the work of the great Brazilian educator, Paulo Freire, that we will now turn.

Paulo Freire’s Theoretical Framework

In Pedagogy of the Oppressed, Freire expands a dialectical understanding of oppression, conscientizacão, and liberation. (Conscientizacão, sometimes translated as conscientization, refers, to quote Freire’s translator, to “learning to perceive social, political and economic contradictions, and to take action against the oppressive elements of reality”) [4]. Drawing on Marx’s ontology of labour, Freire sees the ability to consciously and collectively shape one’s environment and social relations as the defining feature of humanity [5] . Humankind has a vocation to become more fully human; oppression is what negates it. It is dehumanising for both oppressor and oppressed, but it is the oppressed that must engage in the revolutionary praxis or “gesture of love” [6] necessary to return the humanity to both (although the oppressors are unlikely to see it that way). On first glance some may feel the oppressor/oppressed dichotomy is far too simplistic for the contemporary West and much more applicable to the conditions of mass poverty and illiteracy of the global south where Freire worked. But this objection misses the point. Freire isn’t making an empirical observation that the world is unambiguously divided into two homogeneous groups; he is rather expanding a dialectical theoretical framework for understanding oppression. And neither is he projecting a total innocence onto the oppressed. Instead he talks of how the oppressed can become sub-oppressors, and of the need to eject the oppressor within because it is from them that we get our model of humanity. To see the contemporary relevance here one need only look back at the mawkish reaction to the recent death of Steve Jobs, a man who was responsible for factory conditions that have driven many workers to suicide [7] , and who, according to his biographer, was an all-round boorish bully (who even constantly parked in disabled parking spaces).

Revolutionary leadership plays an important part in aiding conscientization; but how Freire defines the role of these revolutionaries has far more in common with the anarchist conception of the Leadership of Ideas than with the Leninist vanguard [8]. Unlike Lenin’s assertion that peasants can’t be trusted and that workers by themselves can only develop a trade union consciousness; for Freire a lack of confidence in people’s ability to think and reason is incompatible with mutually achieving liberation. Likewise, talk of winning the people over to our side “does not belong in the vocabulary of revolutionary leaders, but in that of the oppressor” [9]. Instead dialogical engagement is aimed at achieving their adherence to liberation – an important distinction for how we construct and adapt radical theoretical work and political strategies. In the praxis of liberation – “the action and reflection of men and women upon their world in order to transform it” [10] – arguments based on authority are no longer valid. Accordingly, that there are inherent contradictions to the capitalist mode of production is not asserted as correct because Marx has shown it to be so. Rather, through collective dialogue, we critically investigate the logic of capital and those contradictions (a process for which Marx’s work could of course be utilised). Since social reality is not static, our theory shouldn’t be either; using Freire’s methods, those who wish to transform social realities become theory’s permanent re-creators.

Freirean Practice

Dialogue happens through a problem-posing pedagogical process, which Freire contrasts with what he calls the banking method of education. We are probably all familiar with the latter from school; it is where educators sees their role as making deposits of information into ostensibly empty receptacles. In this method the students’ role is to receive, file and store information – a role which prevents the development of critical consciousness. It’s therefore a great shame that

“those who espouse the cause of liberation are themselves surrounded and influenced by the climate which generates the banking concept, and often do not perceive its true significance or its dehumanizing power. Paradoxically, then, they utilize this same instrument of alienation in what they consider an effort to liberate.” [11]

For Freire the banking concept of education is, like sloganeering and propaganda, a tool of the oppressor. Liberatory education, on the other hand, is practiced through the problem-posing method. Instead of transferrals of information, it consists of acts of cognition between teacher/students and student/teachers. Together the group “cognize cognizable objects” or “decode codifications” – both terms basically mean the teacher/student facilitates a group critical analysis of some aspect of social reality. The codifications or cognizable objects could be visual aids like pictures, or orally presented existential problems. Freire warns that overly explicit codifications risk degeneration into propaganda – so it’s best not to explore the capital-labour contradiction with an image of a capitalist with a cigar and a top hat. Conversely, if they’re too enigmatic the process may become a guessing game.

Before this happens, the teacher/students engage in “thematic investigation” – the process of understanding how people in a certain group look at the world and construct their thought. This is the section of the book that most strongly bears the imprint of the context in which it was written – the imagery is of white middle class Brazilians going to indigenous peasant communities with notebooks. Still, it is vitally important in all contexts of social change as “[o]ne cannot expect positive results from an educational or political action program which fails to respect the particular view of the world held by the people. Such a program constitutes cultural invasion, good intentions notwithstanding [12].” Freire’s use of the word respect should not be interpreted as a form of cultural relativism, rather it means that the people’s thematic universe, their understanding of the social relations they live under, is the starting point in the problem-posing pedagogical process which aims to unveil the oppressive elements of those relations. Most radicals in their organising already apply some knowledge of their informal or subconscious thematic investigations – for example most of us would probably make arguments at a trade union meeting slightly differently than we would at a student council – but being more cognizant of what we’re doing here is vitally important as it helps us avoid the twin perils of either alienating people with metaphors and themes that don’t connect with their reality, or instead watering down our political arguments for fear of them being alienating.

Pedagogy of Postmodern Capitalism

And now to ask ourselves what a Freirean problem-posing workshop, aimed at beginning a process of understanding contemporary capitalism, would look like in an Occupy-type milieu. Even the most cursory thematic investigation would reveal that Marx’s factory metaphor [13] is not the smartest place to start. Neither, I would say, is the worker-boss relation put in a broader context. Firstly because there doesn’t exist anything close to a homogeneous experience of the production side of capitalism amongst the Occupy milieu, and secondly, and more generally, because of the changes in the surface appearance of capitalism in the last 4 decades – changes that far too many revolutionary groups seem to ignore in their literature. That is not to claim that the laws of capital accumulation are now different than before, just that the surface appearances and contemporary forms of capitalism are important to take into account in order for our analysis to resonate – or, to put in Freirean terms, these appearances form part of the thematic universe of people’s understanding of the social relations they live under. The new spirit of capitalism, writes Slavoj Zizek, “triumphantly recuperated the egalitarian and anti-hierarchical rhetoric of 1968, presenting itself as a successful libertarian revolt against the oppressive social organizations characteristic of both corporate capitalism and Really Existing Socialism – a new libertarian spirit epitomized by dressed-down ‘cool’ capitalists such as Bill Gates and the founders of Ben and Jerry’s ice-cream [14].” This ostensibly non-exploitative capitalism is epitomized in such products as Fairtrade coffee. The Fairtrade epithet is a de facto admission that trade under the normal laws of capitalism is unfair. But in line with the “add more free market” genre of politics, “fairness” becomes a commodity that Western consumers can pay more for, if they so desire. Thus redemption for just being a consumer is found in the very act of commodity consumption. I see it as a postmodern example of how oppression is mythicized in order for it to be concealed. Given that “problem-posing pedagogy sets itself the task of demythologizing” [15] , and that the myths of ethical consumption are very much part of all our thematic universes, I would argue that a bag of fairtrade coffee is an ideal codification to start the conscientization process.

As the cognizing process is nothing if not a dialogical relation between co-investigators, it’s impossible to predict its course. Starting, for example, with a discussion of the “coffee karma” PR on the package may lead in any number of directions. However if the task is to unveil capitalist exploitation being masked with an ethical branding, the teacher/student needs to be prepared. Therefore here, from my solely literary interaction with Freire’s methods, are what I would see as some of the key problems to pose in order to aid the process:

Do all the workers involved in this coffee get ‘fairly traded’ with? What about the workers that made the plane that flew it over here? And the workers that made the shelf on which it sits in the supermarket? Aren’t they also subject to the same ‘normal trade’ or ‘unfair trade’ that ordinarily makes coffee pickers wages so low? What makes normal trade unfair? Are consumer choices a useful way to effect change? Is it a fair way? If we’re voting with our euros, who gets more votes? Who gets more power? If our power isn’t in our pockets, where is it? If we can choose between fairly and unfairly traded coffee, why can’t we also choose chattel slave picked coffee? Should it be consumers’ responsibility to ensure coffee pickers get fairly paid? Do consumers have the information necessary to make such choices with everything they purchase? Would that ever be possible? What other products are also commonly labelled fairtrade? What do they all have in common? What are people usually doing when they consume these products? If there were fairtrade plain black socks, would anyone buy them? In the nineties there was lots of discussion of the sweatshop conditions runners were made under, why do you think there aren’t fairtrade versions of them sitting alongside the unfair trade ones in every sports shop? If you can’t afford fairtrade coffee, are you being unethical? What’s the emotional experience of seeing the smiling farmer on the package of coffee? Is it fair that this farmers’ livelihood and happiness depend on the whims of Western consumers? What would be a truly fair situation for the farmer?

Obviously such questions are only suggestions; it would be the dialogue that would guide the collective decoding. And the teachers are also students, so what is actually unveiled might be quite different to what was originally considered problematic. In any case it’s not difficult to see how such workshops would help develop better understandings of the reified capitalist mode of production we live under. Freire’s methods could be seen as a cognitive application of the “learn by doing” principal. Just as no one would feel they know how to brew beer until they actually use their homebrew kit, in the same way, we don’t critically engage with ideas until we actually do the thinking that conceptualises them.


In Pedagogy of the Oppressed, Freire tells a story of a group of armed peasants who planned to take over a latifundium, but couldn’t find a single volunteer to guard the owner they planned to keep hostage. It was an example of the magical beliefs in the invulnerability and power of the oppressor that Freire commonly found amongst the peasants of Brazil. At Occupy we witnessed similar magical beliefs in, for example, vast international conspiracies, spiritually transcending social reality, and the possibility of creating a local ethical capitalism. That many left Occupy with as fragmentary an understanding of capitalism that they entered with, and, sometimes, bad impressions of “know-it-all activists” [16], shows the need for revolutionaries to alter their often ineffective approaches to conscientization. For this, Freire’s dialogical pedagogy offers a robust and insightful framework from which to develop more attuned methods of engagement in social movements.


[1] Reification refers to how the constructed social relations of capitalism appear as objective natural laws of civilization.

[2] Workers Solidarity Movement, or WSM, is the anarchist-platformist group that produces The Irish Anarchist Review

[3] Helana Sheehan, “Occupying Dublin: Considerations at a crossroads”, http://www.irishleftreview.org/2012/01/19/occupying-dublin-considerations-crossroads/.

[4] Paulo Freire, Pedagogy of the Oppressed, (Penguin, 1996) pp.17.

[5] To quote Marx: ‘A spider constructs operations that resemble that of a weaver, and a bee puts to shame many an architect in the construction of her cells. But what distinguishes the worst architect from the best of bees is this, that the architect raises his structure in imagination before he erects in reality.’

[6] Freire, pp.38.

[7] After 19 suicide attempts in two years, one factory installed suicide nets to catch the jumpers. A former Apple executive has even admitted to the New York Times, ‘most people would still be really disturbed if they say where their iPhone comes from’. http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2092277/Apple-Poor-working-conditions-inside-Chinese-factories-making-iPads.html

[8] In fact, I don’t see any practical incompatibility with the anarchist conception. In this Freire augments a major trend in Marxism which has seen several reformulations move the philosophy ever closer to anarchism. Todd May in chapter 2 of The Political Philosophy of Poststructuralist Anarchism details how this trend develops from Luxembourg to Lukacs, to the Frankfurt school critical theorists, to Althusser, to the autonomists, and finally to Cornelius Castoriadis.

[9] Freire, pp.76.

[10] Freire. pp.60.

[11] Freire, pp.60.

[12] Freire, pp.76.

[13] Meaning the way Marx saw the factory as the ideal metaphor for the social relations of capitalism.

[14] Slavoj Zizek, First as Tragedy, Then as Farce (Verso 2009) pp.76. Emphasis in original.

[15] Freire, pp.64.

[16] To quote a Facebook argument I had with an Occupy Cork friend who was quite taken by the prevalent and highly questionable Freeman of the Land ideas.

The following two tabs change content below.

Cathal Larkin

Latest posts by Cathal Larkin (see all)


12 Responses

  1. Richard

    October 9, 2012 3:30 pm

    I like (very much) the effort to introduce a Freirean approach to understanding what happened with Occupy, and would find it very hard to disagree with a lot of what has been written here. I certainly agree wholeheartedly with the last line.

    However, I would like to question a couple of the underlying assumptions of the piece in so far as it addresses the history of Occupy itself. First, Cathal presents the Occupy movement as an object that allows easy identification: a kind of social movement that bears unproblematic comparison to other social movements. Thus we have ‘Occupiers’, and then we have the ‘revolutionaries’, who try to bring their influence to bear on the consciousness of the assembled, or to help develop common consciousness through a more or less dialogical process.

    In both cases, we’re confronted with the ‘Occupiers’ as they are (beset by different misconceptions and illusions, or immobile, or heading in the wrong direction) and as they ought to be (having managed to cast off these chains of illusion, now mobilised around a common set of objectives, or engaged in the praxis of liberation), from the point of view of their ‘teachers’. I think Cathal’s right to point out the distinction between the scenario in Occupy and that of white middle-class Brazilians going out to indigenous peasants with notebooks. However I think there is another dimension to this that he leaves out, which is the way in which the Occupy movement sought, at times successfully, at other times spectacularly unsuccessfully, to engage with the sympathies of the wider public.

    Why, from the point of view of the revolutionary -of whatever conviction-, referring specifically to Occupy, was it particularly important to ‘go to work’ (apologies for the ugly phrase) on those who were down at the site? Why is what happened with them of particular importance, and not that of people whom the Occupy movement were seeking to reach?

    The reason I ask such questions is that over the last half a year or so the narrative around Occupy has solidified in Ireland around a kernel of people who wouldn’t fit in with the expectations of more experienced activists, and fine, we can diagnose their outlook in terms of the ideology of postmodern capitalism. But there were lots of other people -who might have been onlookers at the site, attended a couple of talks, or followed accounts of what was going on from elsewhere- who perhaps didn’t fit such an easy diagnosis. Do we really know that they ‘left’ Occupy with ‘as fragmentary an understanding of capitalism that they entered with’?

    Take for instance the 99%/1% slogan. Fine, as a model for understanding how class operates it’s drastically limited. But in terms of what Amador Fernández Savater refers to ‘as common and open names that anyone can feel involved in (‘indignados’, ‘99%). Non-identitarian identities’, it worked pretty well, as far as it went. In Fernández Savater’s understanding of the 15-M movement in Spain, ‘inclusivity is not just a cunning strategy (to avoid criminalisation or so that more people sympathise), but another way of understanding and practising politics that trusts in the abilities of anyone and sets forth other images of co-existence.’ I don’t believe that kind of inclusivity -which has as its horizon a truly popular event that cuts across the whole of society and is not merely something to be built upon whoever is holding the fort- ever got off the ground in Ireland. Though this is by no means the only factor involved, I think this had something to do with the binary that opened up between ‘the Occupiers’ and the ‘activists’, with the wider public and its concerns largely excluded from view.

  2. Cathal Larkin

    October 9, 2012 5:30 pm

    Thanks Richard for your thoughtful comment.

    In this essay I don’t talk about the dynamic between Occupy and the wider public, but there are implications in it for that dynamic. The way I’d look at it is that the better a social movement is able to analyse and strategize, the more productive their interactions with the wider public will be. I’m re-examining the methods used in the former in order to aid improvements in the latter.

  3. An occupier

    October 9, 2012 10:55 pm

    This essay presents a parody/stereotype generated by experienced leftists of what occupy was. Set yourselves up as priests with the good word and that is how you will eventually be treated. That is what happened in my observations from the inside of one camp. And in my experience experienced leftists were not part of the dialogue that happened around occupy because they were literally in some cases writing down the ways their groups/parties could take advantage of it before they ever engaged with it. And people participating – who happen to read the internet too – saw that. Anarchists passively supported a good cop bad cop routine pulled by the DULA in Dublin. That was noted too. The hegemonic narrative that portrays the occupiers generally as dumb stooges who need to be shown the light is positively colonialist. Ah at least it helped with the recruitment efforts.

  4. Alan Gibson

    October 10, 2012 8:14 am

    Some interesting observations on the processes by which revolutionaries engage with those not yet revolutionary.

    However it is disappointing to see you offer up such a crude view of Leninism. Struck me as the mirror image of what I heard, and argued against, at the session on anarchism at this years SWP “Marxism” event in London.

    The thing that is missing from this perspective is what the WSM calls “leadership of ideas” and the social reality that the very nature of capitalist society produces reformist ideolog within the wider movement of working people and the oppressed. This becomes manifest in political organisations that very consciously spread that reformist ideology.

    It is necessary for revolutionaries to also consciously organise to combat that reformism.

    While Ferries provides some useful advice for how to engage more productively in political discourse it seems that the reality of the need for conscious political struggle against the reformist gets lost – and by doing so hands the reformists a great advantage.

  5. Cathal Larkin

    October 10, 2012 5:14 pm

    Firstly to respond to Occupier.

    The ‘dumb stooges’ narrative that you refer to certainly does exist, but I think calling it hegemonic is a bit of an overstatement. In any case, it’s a bit unfair to imply that this essay forms a part of it. Most Occupy camps didn’t develop a coherent analysis and strategy to effect social change – to state this objective fact is not to demean the people involved. My purpose here was to look at what the left could have done better to aid that process of analysing and strategizing.

    Regarding the Occupy Dame Street stuff, I think you’re talking about groups that I have nothing to do with. About the group I am a member of, the WSM; it has been noted by Helena Sheehan that we “participated in an organic and constructive way, which no one found problematic.” An observation that is very much consistent with our reputation. http://www.irishleftreview.org/2012/01/19/occupying-dublin-considerations-crossroads/

    And to Alan:

    I fairly sure I haven’t misrepresented Leninism, but if I have, please show me where and how.

    Regarding the Leadership of Ideas: yes, it’s something I just briefly mention. It would have been interesting to do more comparing and contrasting between that conception and Freire’s work, but that would have been outside the scope of this essay. I do hope to do some work like that in the near future though.

    Alan you say that with Freire “it seems that the reality of the need for conscious political struggle against the reformist gets lost”. But you don’t tell us why it seems like this to you, so there’s no way to engage with that part of your comment.

  6. An occupier

    October 11, 2012 10:13 pm

    ‘Occupy camps didn’t develop a coherent analysis and strategy to effect social change’.

    A self policed and safe public space – with political discussion, public assemblies, organised learning and workshops, with extremely high quality arts events happening outside circuits of commodification, – dedicated to dialogue – which lasted in a quite coherent way for 2 months – on one of most crazy streets in Europe. It may not be an politico- academic argument/analysis – but it is basically a socio-architectural argument/analysis through concrete practice.
    Funny thing about weekend just gone when a taste of the whole thing returned to the plaza – was that the public seemed used to it existing – it was not an aberration anymore. The city remembered it.

    I was there and the left with some exceptions – which I could basically count on my two hands – including a small few from the group you’re from – did not contribute to the creation of that unique space. In fact most fed into the exhaustion and frustration created when trad leftist ideas, which the occupiers imo had every right and reason to subject to skepticism – were repeatedly pushed on the occupiers by people who it was clear to them were in the majority not doing the equivalent of washing the dishes and sweeping the floor. Not only that but it felt – from inside the tenuous assemblage that was the camp and the holding of the space – that this ‘pushing’ was backed by a clear threat of withdrawal of solidarity. Some were viscous in this grinding down of solidarity. Some were more reasoned. But from inside both blended into one. Thus my ‘good cop-bad cop’ observation. Anarchists passively looked on while this went on. Imo that was the wrong thing to do. Why shouldn’t others question the basic shibboleths of the organised left? It didn’t in any way feel like a dialogue. I chaired some of the sessions where this went on and I have to say if you wanted to find a way to exhaust and dispirit a new layer of activists then you couldn’t find a more effective methodology.

    I find it funny that you quote Helena Sheehan as an unquestionably objective authority on the subject of ODS. I have a lot of respect for the work she put into aspects of the whole thing – but I also feel that she participated in that good cop – bad cop routine and justified it with a bunch of the now familiar justifications for negatively assessing the group of people who held that space together. In fact her justifications – probably because she narrated her experiences before others did – have become a kind of received wisdom with regard to the whole phenomenon. It is good to see people in fits and starts question received wisdom and the ‘voice of authority’ on the subject. It was far from a simple occurrence and any given view – my own included – can only be partial and situated. Those who held the space are not articulate in terms of narrating their own history and making explicit their political motivations in the way that Helena and Yourself are – it does not mean they are stupid or do not have an analysis.

  7. Donagh Brennan

    October 12, 2012 9:11 am

    Readers of this thread might be interested in this. Richard, the first commenter has put his comment on his own blog, Cunning Hired Knaves, as an introduction to …,

    …a translation of a piece by Amador Fernández Savater, originally published in eldiario.es on the 10th September, addressing the question of strategy for movements such as Occupy/15-M through the work of sinologist François Jullien and Antonio Gramsci. I think it’s quite germane to the discussion that the ILR piece has opened up, particularly bearing in mind the history of the Occupy sites in Ireland and the tensions that emerged between experienced activists and people for whom political activity was something newer and more unusual. I would also recommend following the link through to Fernández Savater’s piece on ‘The Republic of the 99%’, in which you will find a novel discussion of the film Michael Collins (!) as a way of understanding what a radical strategic shift might amount to.

    Full post here: http://knaves.posterous.com/waves-and-foam

  8. Cathal Larkin

    October 13, 2012 8:19 am

    Hi Occupier,

    Thanks for your comments.

    In response I’d firstly like to say that I’m not at all denying the brilliant concrete practices that Occupy engaged in. Nor the importance of this for effecting social change. I believe that in the praxis of social change the means determine the ends – an idea Occupy epitomized fully in a way that I found very inspiring. But the continuum between the means and the ends does not mean that a social movement just has to practice direct participatory democracy in order for it to become a wider social reality. There are also power structures that stop us from having a real democracy, and we must confront them. The methods of collective analysing and strategizing against these power structures is the area I wanted to examine because it hasn’t been covered in Occupy writings even half as much as its prefigurative side.

    I’m sorry that you feel left ideas were being pushed at you in ODS. But this essay is about combating those tendencies on the left.

    Of course I don’t believe Helena Sheehan is the perfectly objective arbiter on all ODS related truth claims. But I didn’t see her non-anonymously recorded observations challenged in the comment section of the article, and she wouldn’t really have any reason to lie about WSM members being decent activists.

    My observation that ‘most Occupy camps did develop a coherent analysis and strategy to effect social change’ is still correct. This does not imply that Occupiers are stupid or don’t have analyses of their own, just that we didn’t synthesize our ideas into a common strategy. For me to believe such a thing while utilising Freire would be a complete contradiction, and it’s obvious from the essay that I don’t.

    And Richard, that blog post is very interesting, thanks. There’s lots of food for thought there. Although the first paragraph of this comment would also relate to it, but it’s not a full engagement with or response to the many interesting ideas in the piece – I’ll need some more free time for that. I added the link to the Irish Anarchist Review facebook page, hopefully it’ll spur some more thoughtful discussion.

  9. an occupier

    October 13, 2012 11:37 am

    Apologies for using your article to sound off quite generally about occupy. just a couple of things for now. I think the vast majority of WSM members are decent activists. I just think they made a fundamental mistake at ODS in passively supporting the agressive way in which the whole agenda of assemblies was derailed by socialist parties into an ongoing litmus test re. support for DCTU march / Unions etc. I don’t think and didn’t say Helena was lying- just that i don’t agree with her on the unproblematically positive contribution of ‘anarchists’.

    Also thanks for writing your piece. It and a few bits and pieces here and there recently seem to be sparking some non-rancorous analysis of the whole thing now that the heat of the moment has passed. I was too burned out at time of Helena etc articles to contribute to any debating of the matter. There also seemed up till last few months a certain peer pressure to fit into received wisdom that it was something to forget due to the ‘crazies’ at the heart of it narrative which I think WAS the hegemonic narrative.

  10. eamonn moran

    November 6, 2012 3:53 pm

    Do you guys actually speak like this?

    Looking at it as an observer I would have to argue that part of your problem was that you were not able to speak in a language most people use. You could do with reading George Orwell’s theories on communication. (never use a long word where a short word will do)

    What is your objective? To sound intellectual or to speak to a population in a language they understand?
    Sometimes i think your objection is not to effect change but to prove to the world that you are a clever person who does not value material possessions. If your objection is the latter that is very snooty and turns people off your message.

    All the best