Type
Article
Category
Activism

Occupy Sydney so far

I got to Occupy Sydney at about 8pm on Monday night and stayed for about an hour and a half. I jotted down some things on a pad of post-its, and took a few photos. I went feeling sceptical about it, and didn’t leave feeling particularly reassured.

When I was there, there were about five cops. Evidently, they don’t expect much trouble from the protesters. There were lots of cops there when they first took the tents and stuff occupiers wanted to sleep in, but apparently they maintained a low presence Sunday night too. Refreshingly, casual interactions between protesters and cops that I saw were generally pretty friendly and positive. The cops, however, did seem to be on a mission to restrict and harass the protests as possible. When it was raining, they prevented protesters from going under shelter. Presumably, the hope was this would discourage protesters, who would go home or give up. But that failed. When I was there, there were about 50 occupiers. I was told there were as many as 2000 on Sunday, but there seems to a hardcore of about 50 who sleep there and stick it out.

That said, the weather should get better over the coming week, so at least rain won’t be an obstacle.

As well as trying to make sleep uncomfortable, I saw the standard police harassment in action. One dude (I won’t say his name) with long white hair and a broad hat made a big sign (pictured below), which he placed prominently, to the cheers of the crowd. After a while, the cops quietly complained and word got around to the General Assembly (or whatever they call it).

OccupySydney2

They discussed at the meeting how they should respond – perhaps take it down quietly and then decide if they wanted to defend the sign, and how that could be done. That was approved. But then someone suggested we hear from the sign-maker. He declared, to general cheers, that it was his sign and he was happy to take responsibility for it and he would go and talk to the cops. He and a witness went to speak to the cop I suppose was in charge. I wanted to listen, but he said he wanted it to be private, with what I think can only be described as the arrogance of someone who knows they have power and don’t expect that power challenged. Another young woman wanted to listen too, but the sign-maker chose to chat privately with the cop, accompanied by his one chosen witness.

When I rejoined him, it turned out he had agreed to remove the sign. Apparently the police had said it was dangerous in some way or other (perhaps it had too much wood!). So a group of about four of us picked it up to take it away. Instead of taking it away straight away, we smartasses walked around in circles with one guy yelling ‘be careful, this sign is dangerous’. If the sign had been lighter, we might have done that until the cops complained to us, but the sign was heavy so after a few laps we took it to his car.

Walking back I passed a couple of guys heading towards some dude with gray hair taking photos of the offending sign, as well as another two signs left by the car. The occupiers questioned him, wondering about his intent. Gray-hair dude with a camera explained something about a website. I imagined they were worried about ASIO. I mean, it’s impossible to imagine this kind of action not having ASIO infiltrators, and activists should try to make sure the suspicion doesn’t create unhealthy dynamics (on a sidenote – this was not something I saw at Occupy Sydney).

Occupy Sydney1

Apologies for the crappiness of my photos. This was the General Assembly, which have been influenced by the procedural style of Occupy Wall Street. They use the fluttery fingers thing. I forgot the specifics, but people were happy to explain.

The process seems rather unwieldy. When anarchists had a counter-APEC summit, they would break into little affinity groups and one person would report back with the concerns of each little group. It was much faster and would save a lot of time. At Occupy Sydney they seem to have working groups on issues, but not affinity groups, so the whole assembly winds up debating a great deal of issues. Very little of the debate was of much significance in the hour and a half I was there. The group had not yet, for example, decided on what it stood for.

One of my radical friends had wondered why Occupy Sydney had protested the Reserve Bank, so I spoke to someone from the information area (who represented just himself, because Occupy Sydney doesn’t want to get branded with views reached without consensus). He explained – without much interest in any opinions I may or may not have had about capitalism or any part of our economic system – that he attributed a significant part of inequality, if not all of it, to the Reserve Bank. He considered lending money with interest to be a great evil (and cited a movie I haven’t seen –The World Plus Five Percent, or something like that). I asked him what he thought the solution was – abolishing banks? Abolishing money? He was more interested in persuading me that interest rates on loans are wrong. This then somehow proceeded to his view that inflation is also a great evil. I think he does not imagine many within the financial elite are equally averse to inflation.

I elected to rejoin the assembly rather than try to edge in a question.

The Assembly did not dress in accord with one particular subculture; generally, they looked like ordinary uni students. I think they were mostly undergraduate age, although there were some middle-aged folk too. I think maybe 70 percent was white and maybe 60 percent male (this is tentative as I did not count).

The General Assembly did not, while I was there, canvass an issue like ‘What do we want?’ One person asked that the group support her protest the next day for a more progressive USyd Political Economy program, for which there was not a lot of enthusiasm. Another speaker stressed the importance of maintaining Occupy Sydney. Another issue was about the slogan ‘We are the 99 percent’. One person suggested supporting Occupy Wall Street. Another argued it should not be about supporting OWS, but rather about supporting occupations so a suitably pro-Occupation slogan was found.

Another speaker stressed the importance of the Occupation’s public image, as well as reaching out to the public with a message. As an anarchist this is unpleasant to say, but it’s true: there’s a group of anarchists here in Sydney who are utterly indifferent to how the public perceives any activism in which they engage. So a couple of them (speaking for a broader group) rejected this concern, arguing that a particular image would repress the plural nature of the group.

There was one loud guy who was a bit aggressive in the group who sometimes yelled. At one point the facilitator was saying something and he yelled at her. A guy sitting near him said ‘respect’ – as in, calling for respect. I’m not sure what the deal with aggro guy was, perhaps he was drunk. A group of guys talked to him and eventually he left. I didn’t think to ask about it but I hope that they have a safer spaces policy (I guess it would be nice if a dialogue with Occupiers could happen in the comments section here).

One debate which occupied the group was whether socialist groups – either Socialist Alliance or Socialist Alternative (I suspect the latter) – should be able to put up their signs and distribute their propaganda. Many others were afraid this would brand the Occupation, and do so in an undesirable manner.

Earlier, another speaker had said it was important that we have fun and be seen to be having fun in order to attract people to the Occupation. Someone else argued that we shouldn’t just appear to be having fun, that we should have a message. Day 3 and no real message yet, nor a person with much idea of what the message should be. There was, however, a leaflet.

The leaflet, rather light on content, states: ‘We are the 99%.’ It goes on: ‘The system is broken’, ‘A better world is possible’, ‘Human need, not corporate greed!’. Oh, and ‘We want to raise awareness and the support of the 99% of ordinary people to reclaim the massive power and wealth unfairly held by the super-rich 1% of individuals and corporations’.

I think talking about the 99 percent in the Australian context of global solidarity is problematic. In America it makes sense to talk about the 1 percent. Joseph Stiglitz, who is no radical, wrote about the immense wealth and power of the top 1 percent.In Australia, we do not have the same class inequality. Protesters here cannot simply steal a US slogan and expect it to resonate here in the same way because our situation is not the same.

It may also be noted – if we talk about the 97.5%, and occupying Australia, this would with perhaps greater justice apply to non-Indigenous Australians. We non-Indigenous Australians could call ourselves the top 2.5%, and talk about the systematic discrimination Australia’s most oppressed minority faces. And I think this is part of the problem of the 99% talk in America – a class that includes 99% of the population includes many who are in many ways privileged. In America, this is not a radical statement at all – it is directed to the particularly obscene wealth inequality there, whilst skirting over the different types of privilege and inequality that are part of their society. Here in Australia, our standard of living is generally much higher.

Here in Australia, we should also talk about the issue of race. In particular: income management. When it was solely targeted at remote Indigenous communities, it was supported across most of the mainstream political spectrum. It’s now being expanded nationally. Here in Sydney it’s being targeted at Bankstown. Perhaps they thought it would be too brazen to start with Redfern. Instead, one imagines the government intends to stigmatise Muslim and Arab communities. I don’t think the Liberals will keep this within narrow racist limits, as the ALP government proposed expanding it nationally, in a non-racist manner. They are giving the Liberals a wonderful stick with which to beat the poor across all Australia: that people on Centrelink don’t deserve to be trusted with public money. This kind of blaming the poor should have shocked Australia, but so far, by targeting it at racial minorities, it has generally slipped under the radar – a fact which should appal us as Australians, and for those who haven’t done enough to cry out against it.

This is not to trivialise big business’ unhealthy influence on Australian democracy. I think that this could be particularly stressed if Occupy Sydney took on the issue of climate change in particular. It wasn’t so many years ago Guy Pearse exposed the Greenhouse Mafia, and what he called its ‘carbon capture’ of the Australian government, the incestuous links between big polluters and government policy makers. Clive Hamilton wrote in disgust that the campaign against the super profits tax was ‘enough to turn anyone into a Marxist’. But perhaps such analysis won’t be as popular among civil society organisations on the left anymore. Pearse, for example, courageously documented how funding compromised progressive NGOs on the issue of climate change.

I would like to be optimistic about Occupy Sydney. But I don’t really think there’s much there to engage the public. To be successful, these kinds of things have to emerge from the kind of thought, engagement and activism which I suspect has been lacking. In my [undesired] opinion, the Occupation is primarily a group of student radicals inspired by the Arab Spring and Occupy Wall Street. Perhaps it will grow in a constructive manner. If it encourages a new generation of activists to become engaged, that would be positive. If it just fizzles out, it would be a shame.

Michael Brull is studying Juris Doctor at University of NSW and has written for ABC Drum, Indigenous Law Bulletin, National Times, Overland and elsewhere.

More by

Comments

  1. I know you’re trying to write about this cause people are curious, but 1 1/2 hrs ain’t enough to give an informed opinion on it.

    Write something after you’ve been there for 100+hrs

  2. I’m not too convinced by your idea that: ‘To be successful, these kinds of things have to emerge from the kind of thought, engagement and activism which I suspect has been lacking. ‘ Actually, the diverse (and in some ways incoherent or inconsistent) attitudes is a result of the demonstration’s real success – the fact that it has drawn in a group of activists beyond the usual suspects. The fact that the demonstrations have forced their way into the public sphere is itself something to be wildly enthusiastic about. This enthusiasm seems sadly lacking in your piece which reads a bit too much like one long criticism for me.

  3. Anon: Well the protesters had been there for maybe 84 hours when I visited, so I guess you think no one should’ve written anything yet, and the only people who should comment on occupy sydney are its most hardcore participants. Well, I guess that’s one view.

    Rjurik: Well they’re camping in the middle of the city, in solidarity with global protests. I think that would naturally create some interest, and they have gotten unexpectedly positive coverage from the corporate media imo. But I haven’t gotten the impression that they’ve drawn in a group of activists beyond the usual suspects. They had lots of visitors on Sunday – obviously, lots of people are curious. But there are about 50 hardcore activists involved, and my impression is that they are basically who one would expect. That they seem to voice ideological grievances with capitalism, rather than personal issues with how capitalism affects them, makes me pessimistic. I think – and I would like to be wrong – that this is a shallow movement (at least now), which has yet to articulate concrete grievances. I know that people have defended OWS from demands that it propose positive solutions, but I think Occupy Sydney hasn’t even voiced what it’s against.

    I think it’s important to analyse and comment on this soberly and honestly, rather than let ourselves become deluded by what we would like it to become, or what we would like to see in it.

  4. i agree with what a couple of people said above, but also with you that we should engage what is happening honestly.

    on the following:

    “Another speaker stressed the importance of the Occupation’s public image, as well as reaching out to the public with a message. As an anarchist this is unpleasant to say, but it’s true: there’s a group of anarchists here in Sydney who are utterly indifferent to how the public perceives any activism in which they engage. So a couple of them (speaking for a broader group) rejected this concern, arguing that a particular image would repress the plural nature of the group.”

    your point here is misplaced and you assume too much. a number of people wanted clarification on the meaning of ‘image’ in the proposal, including myself. i spoke to this point on the night, and i am not an anarchist. i, and others, were addressing debates that you had obviously missed on previous days. one side of this debate thinks there should be an ‘apolitical message’, and that this also goes in hand with restricting political expression at the occupation and in communication with others. this is what was being addressed by those questioning the emphasis on image, not that we should not care about how we communicate to the public.

    • The two people I described I know personally, I won’t say their names, but they’re from the Black Rose mob. I had this argument about trying to reach out to the public during and after the APEC thing, which was largely dismissed. That’s not an assumption – it’s something I know well, and have been involved in long arguments about.

      That’s not to account for everyone. And the person who spoke specifically was not about whether socialist alternative should be able to hand out their things or whatever. It was very simply: can we reach out to the public. Even that was considered problematic. I’m not saying everyone who disagreed with this (very mild and imo reasonable)proposal is part of that group, but certainly imo that is where some anarchists come from.

      • i think you might be talking about me when you say, “know them personally” (i realise i didn’t put my name on the previous post). i am unsure exactly what an apolitical message is meant to be, but there is an (unclear) argument made by some participants in the occupation that the occupation needs to be ‘apolitical’ in order for it to be communicable and inclusive, and it seems at times to want to close debate, rather than open the space for deeper discussion. this is what i was questioning, and seeking clarification on… but there was never an argument that there should be no communication…

  5. I don’t think it is possible to disagree with either of these points: (1) “To be successful, these kinds of things have to emerge from the kind of thought, engagement and activism which I suspect has been lacking.” (2) “I think it’s important to analyse and comment on this soberly and honestly, rather than let ourselves become deluded by what we would like it to become, or what we would like to see in it.” At the same time, they are nothing new, and are in some way totally banal, something to be taken as given by serious people.

    I think when thinking about the consequences of the ‘occupy’ phenomenon in Australia we should at least consider what had been going on before Adbusters put the call out; and we should note well that Adbusters is a massive force that has been working consistently on this stuff since before I first heard of them around the time Naomi Klein’s No Logo came out – 10-15 years ago? There is a huge amount of background work there, narrative building, &c. Adding that to the open character of the class struggle in the USA gives the space for the sort of movements that are emerging there. (I’m aware that Adbusters is a Canadian magazine.)

    On the other hand I think Michael is also refering to bread and butter of community organising, which any sort of organised Left – save perhaps trade unions, charities, NGOs – has left fallow. This has meant that class has been depoliticised, or has not been explicitly represented as a political question; it is rather a moral or technical problem of those left behind who turn up in Centrelink, hospitals or charities.

    There is a lot more to say about the ‘occupy’ thing, but I think Michael’s two points here are important for framing discussion. Having said that I don’t at all agree with Michael’s comments about Australia being so ‘different’; I think there is more a failure to adequately address the actual state of affairs here than that state being so good that popular movements are unthinkable. I think it is an old Leninist idea that it tends to be the case that self-appointed Left is inadequate than that history is against popular movements.

  6. Well I would like to see debate, so if you can explain why you disagree, I think that would be constructive.

    As to (what I understand to mean) the claim that my analysis is Leninist – I think it’s quite obviously the opposite. If anything, my impression is that this manifestation of Occupy in sydney doesn’t seem likely to be as successful as the Occupies we’ve seen elsewhere, because it’s a radical vanguard, without the necessarily links to broader community grievances that would allow it the kind of depth and support that any movement for social change needs.

  7. Pingback: Tweets – Monday 24 October 2011 « CDU Law and Business Online

  8. Michael: Like you, I used ask what Occupy Xers were standing for. A perplexed git writing in Forbes, the US business mag, asked the same question of Occupy Wall Street, wanting a program, a manifesto, a list of demands, aims… anything. Now, I’ve come to admire the occupy movement for keeping it nebulous.

    The old conservative movement (1789-1980s, before the neo-cons stole their thunder and pushed their neo- ideology upfront) stood for nothing except that current insitutions were worth while, worth keeping and, should change be necessary, these should change slowly enough to preserve stability and avoid radical and revolutionary change. No program, no manifesto, no list. And 200 years of influence, in many nations, flowed from that impulse.

    The occupy movement has identified a common enemy: greedheads, in general.

    It’s making friends: e.g., two 50-something women outside a Bronx home being repossessed by a bank,a home occupied by occupy squatter-protestors, with a placard, ‘The American middle class – too big to fail’.

    It’s cleverer than St Jago’s monkey in the Tree of the Kabbalah too. I read about Occupy Oakland, came across an Open Letter by 4 or 5 truck drivers, and I found out that the Australian company running the Port of Oakland’s stevedoreing, doesn’t even provide toilets on the wharf for the drivers held in queues – now drivers are paid by the load, so why would the greedheads bother? Occupy Oakland got support from radical feminist activists, a church’s clerics and layity, and the Teamster’s Union, this last, of course, ensured the 24-hour port stoppage was successful – the trucks to be stopped were part of the picket! (Google that Michael, and you too will know Victoria’s dirty little secret.)

    I would also mention that the Forbes mag columist really should be asking ‘How can we, the business community, ensure a stuff up like the GFC does not happen again?’ So far, the unacceptable answers seems to be, ‘Shut up! It’s business as usual’ or ‘We’re prudent, and only lend to rich people now’. No manifesto there, just blind greed, and another GFC beyond the horizon.

    Like you, Michael, I visited my local Occupy base for an hour or so. Like you, I couldn’t get answers to my questions from occupiers, who were bereft of any interest in me or why I was asking. But I did meet a nurse who told me apalling war-stories about the state’s care of mental health clients.

    I reckon Occupy needs support. The nurse figures her one-issue bitch is part of something uglier and bigger, and it should be fixed. And I think she’s right.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>