Tuesday, October 25, 2011

I do sometimes wonder why the ongoing (and increasingly tedious) occupy protests garner such anger from those not involved. It isn't so much the inconvenience (after all, unless you live or work next to one of the sites, it can't really be impacting too much on the way you live) or the fact that these demos are fundamentally incoherent - scratch the surface of any supposedly reputable political party and you will find disparate people with very different motivations, views and objectives. No, I think there are other more fundamental reasons why people object so much to these protests.

The first is the naivete of them. As soon as we hear someone like Laurie Penny banging on about the soundtrack for a revolution, it becomes very difficult to take this sort of thing seriously. This isn't a revolution. Do you know how I can tell? Because no-one is seriously trying to take power or control away from the government here. Camping in the City of London could just be classed as civil disobedience if you really push it; revolutionary, it ain't.

Of course, it is a bit harsh to kick the young for being naive; it is pretty common when you're young to think that you're going to change the world. Then you grow up.

However, there is a second reason why I think these protests may be deriving such scorn from many people. It is the arrogance of those involved to claim that they speak on behalf of the 99%. Put simply, you don't. You don't speak on behalf of me, and I am neither a banker nor a politician - ergo, I am one of the supposed 99% you claim to represent. And I would guess that you don't speak for at least 85% of those including in your spurious figure of 99%. From what I can gather, the vast majority of people don't want radical change; they want to be allowed to get on with their lives - preferably with the bills (tax 'n' all) being considerably lower. They don't want to take to the streets to occupy financial districts, and even if they did then they couldn't as they have jobs to go to and families to provide for. They just want life to a be a bit easier. And to have urban campers claiming their voice to back up a shambolic act of civil disobedience is bound to stick in their throats a bit.

Now I fully realise that I can't claim to speak on the behalf of those 99% any more than Stinky and Son: Urban Protesters can. That may be true; the important difference is, though, that I'm not wallowing in media attention through making the claim about representing that 99%. I don't speak for anyone other than me; but I'm not camping in a financial district somewhere claiming otherwise.

Don't get me wrong; people have the right to protest and any claim that everything is not OK here in Britain today has some basic relevance to reality. But to believe that this is the start of a revolution is naive, and to claim to represent the vast majority of people in this country and elsewhere is simultaneously arrogant and utterly unconvincing

Labels: ,

2 Comments:

At 8:32 pm , Blogger James Higham said...

However, there is a second reason why I think these protests may be deriving such scorn from many people. It is the arrogance of those involved to claim that they speak on behalf of the 99%. Put simply, you don't. You don't speak on behalf of me, and I am neither a banker nor a politician - ergo, I am one of the supposed 99% you claim to represent.

Just had a similar argument at my place over this. No I damn well am not one of their 99%.

 
At 3:04 pm , Blogger The Nameless Libertarian said...

I would almost they were more honest about it and just said "look, we're in a minority here, but we think that the banking crisis really shafted us and we're protesting about it".

It would be one hell of a lot more honest than the 99% crap.

 

Post a Comment

Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]

<< Home