Detractors of the Occupy movement, particularly as it carried on into the late fall of 2011, began to increase in number. Some of the more strident criticism, as expected, came from the corporate class, Fox News, and right-wing pundits, who alleged that the movement’s emphasis on an effective class struggle—1% versus 99%—lent it an air of entitlement, or even Marxism. More common and mainstream, though, was the contention that Occupy had begun to lose track of its initial purpose by November of 2011, that its objectives were overly disparate, that its encampments had become unhygienic, unsightly and a nuisance, and that it lacked leadership.
In a November 2011 editorial, Neil Macdonald of the CBC summarized these criticisms, adding his personal view (shared by others in the mainstream press, politics and much of society at large) that anarchist elements within the movement had eroded their own credibility, effectiveness and mainstream influence by refusing to seek solutions to their grievances within existing institutions.
“In individual discussions, Occupiers patiently explain their aversion to any sort of leadership, and their dedication to rejecting the entire corporate/governmental system—everything, in their view, is broken, therefore any solution that works within the system is doomed,” Macdonald indited.
“To me, anyway, a declaration that the U.S. government must be dismantled, or that all corporations must be ‘taken down’ pretty much steers the conversation into Neverland. Allrighty, then. Thanks.”
The frustration Macdonald and other have articulated toward Occupy seems, in part, a reaction to the movement’s core impetus. At the heart of Occupy are the notions that modern neoliberal capitalism is a system effectively rigged against the interests of the majority, and that liberal democracy has failed to offer reform (particularly in the case of U.S. President Obama, whose initial campaign promised “Hope and Change”, but whose policies have maintained or even enhanced many disturbing aspects of the status quo). Of course, Macdonald’s argument has merit: taken at face value, the goals of some of the protesters—anarchists in particular—to dismantle systems of power through peaceful means is beyond quixotic.
Most occupiers past and present, even those committed to anarchism, Marxism or socialism, would probably concede that their vision of dismantling the dominant political and economic institutions of our world would not come to fruition anytime soon. A far more realistic goal would be to shift the political centre, to persuade governments and political parties to embrace change within the present paradigm. Such a process promises to be slow and painstaking at best, but progress is not impossible.
One important question that remains, however, in an era of extraordinary hurdles like climate change and environmental despoliation, is whether this approach will be good enough.