Hold on to your hat. The Guardian today is endorsing the Manichean thinking of George W. Bush. No, really. You remember when Bush said that 'Either you are with us, or you are with the terrorists'? Normally you wouldn't expect the Guardian to go for that sort of thing. You'd be right not to. But today the paper is seeing things differently. Naturally, its leader doesn't use the very same words as Bush did. But the thought is pretty much the same.
Whether or not the old song is actually sung, "which side are you on?" is the question that every protest poses.
Read to the end and you'll find that you have to be on a side with respect to Occupy London.
Hey, how about in so far as...? I support the Occupy movement:
- in so far as it gives expression to the thought that the distribution of wealth in this and other capitalist countries is unfair - no, I'll rephrase that: grossly unjust;
- and in so far as it gives expression to the view that there's got to be a better way of doing things;
- and in so far as some currents within it take the view that we should be able to think about alternatives to capitalism, though I would add that that should be seriously think and not just pretend that gestures will do the work of thought;
- and in so far as, by putting this view, they demonstrate, even to those who oppose it, the value of freedom of speech and opinion;
- and in so far as they exemplify the truth that not all politics have to be electoral politics; protest movements can try to make space for views and demands that they believe are not being adequately represented at parliamentary level.
That isn't a complete list, but it'll do for now. On the other hand, I don't support the Occupy movement:
- in so far as there are currents within it that appear to believe that their alternative way is a substitute for electoral politics and parliamentary-representative institutions;
- or in so far as some of its participants propagate a one-sided critique of the democracies of which they are the beneficiaries, as being undemocratic;
- or in so far as some of its participants propagate the view that the movement can do without demands, specific proposals, a practical programme;
- or in so far as it is sometimes implied on behalf of the Occupy movement that it is OK to set up camp on any space available to them regardless of how that affects others.
On the last point, this is clearly not OK, and the recognition of this will be made easier for you if you imagine a movement of protest to which you are wholly unsympathetic choosing to set up camp permanently in a place that creates a severe public obstruction and/or nuisance or adversely affects the interests of large numbers of others. Free speech, free association, the right to protest - these all need adequate rules to guarantee them and spaces where they can take place. But, whatever the rights and wrongs of the occupation at St Paul's, it can't just be up to those who want to camp and protest somewhere to nominate their favourite spot in which to do so. Imagine the best democratic utopia you can, and that wouldn't be a viable rule.
That's the 'side' I'm on, whatever the Guardian and George W. Bush might agree in insisting.
