Failure was always going to be the outcome of the occupy movement because its aims were never clearly articulated to the wider world. They stayed in the usual activist world of "we know best" and refused to engage with the mainstream media so they allowed the Establishment to easily label them and ensure the discussion became about distractions like was anybody in the tents overnight.

In London I was at a meeting where a group refused point blank to have any discussion with a journalist that did not submit their questions in writing 24 hours ahead of the interview, not surprisingly no journo bothered with them.

Until the 'scene' understands the power of the mainstream media and engages with it then their views will be ignored. In the last thirty years only one group that represents a minor viewpoint has truly succeeded in getting their message across, if you don't know who that is ask yourself why.

I wouldn't confuse the current model of consensus with the idea of collective decision making in general. The modern hand wiggly thing is bollocks, and you are right that it tends to take forever and stop alot of stuff getting done.
I think we have invented an overly complicated way of doing things and that actually only relativley honed converational/interaction skills which most of us posess are adequate to hold consensus meetings.
Also, I have often experienced the current model of consensus allowing for the tyranny of the individul, or at least one or two individuals using the process to whine, moan and generally stick a spanner in the works with an idea that 95% are happy with.
I think the queation is, do we believe more in the uninfringed right of the individual and cling to the idea that everyone must be 100% satisfied all of the time, or do we believe that the vast majority should get its way? I certainly believe the second. I believe that everyone should have equal entitlement to a view, an opinion and the right to push that opinion, but if it is running contrary to the wishes of a sizeable majority, that person needs to realise that the group/community is not for them and either put op with the decision or ship out.
I also believe in the 'instantly recallable delegate' model of consensus, where a group approves a person or collective to perform a certain function within a pre-agreed set of perameters and guidelines and then leaves them to get on with it until a certain amount of time expires, or the person does something outside the wishes of the group. Not everything needs to go to a tedious wiggly hand party, and delegation is a great way to keep this to a minimum.
As an anarchist, I believe totally in horizontal decision making and organising, but see the wiggly hand sessions as largely a self-satisfied middle class club that parodies more than upholds genuine collective democracy.

I think 'one of many' is making an interesting point. Are some people simply happy to be led ? As Anarchists we can easily fall into the trap of assuming that horizontal decisions are the best ones however having worked for a charity that had a charismatic inspiring CEO I would say that there are natural leaders and natural followers and the success of Capitalism over Collectivism is partly a result of recognising that natural order of things.

I and other people I know have been followers all our lives and it is state of affairs I am quite happy with.

It was still going strong last time I checked!

The current trend (which stared at Climate Camp) to regard us all as the enemy has undoubtedly harmed the Occupy movement. Regardless of your willingness to speak or not with journalists we will write our stories anyway because that's what we have been sent to do. The only question is what will the story say.

Once groups start to impose unrealistic ideological rules on journalists we will simply ignore you because it's not worth our time complying with your restrictions. At Climate Camp I was told that questions had to be submitted in advance, would be vetted by a group and once agreement was reached would be told that I could ask the agreed upon questions, this process would take 24 hours and that no communication would take place in that time. I ignored them and interviewed somebody else.

Consensus Decision Making makes groups look stupid and naive, it blocks the views of those who are probably the most dynamic and allows certain individuals to tie up simple discussions in hours of procedure and analysis to ensure that progress is not made. At Occupy in London I gave up with the so called steering groups and simply interviewed individual campers. It was their views that got into my story not that of the majority.

Your choices mean you pay a price.

I wasn't aware of any failures or break downs and surely your not suggesting that OCCUPY gets itself a deal with Saatchi and Saatchi to improve it's main steam media appeal, rather then pandering to a bunch of over paid media luvvies perveyours of lies and deciet. Do me a Strawberry Flavour !!

We are talking about political change, you are talking about some people camping at St Pauls that's not the same thing.

Somebody asked above the question,
"do we believe more in the uninfringed right of the individual and cling to the idea that everyone must be 100% satisfied all of the time"

The answer to that must be "Yes". Even if only one person is in disagreement then consensus is not reached so the discussion must be continued. That's the point of consensus and I am always amazed that certain people can't get that. It may well mean that some decisions are never reached and that is fine as well. The point is we must maintain our principles or we are one step away from 'elected representatives'

The success of Capitalism over Collectivism as raised by another poster is more to do with the greed of the individual than anything else. Most people want more than others have got and that is a matter of education. In the great days of Soviet Collectivism the equality of resources was imposed by the force of the people's militia etc and that will be needed in the early days however once the people recognise the benefits of Collectivism that enforcement can wither away.

Take what you need, give what you can, the surplus to all.

With the imminent failure of Western governments highly probable the Occupy Movement will likely become the future elective body of several countries so it can hardly be classified as a failure.

Now is the time we need to prepare for initial executive power followed by the establishment of a completely new form of direct democracy. Those in Westminster, Washington and Paris do not realise how close they are to redundancy.

>
>I wasn't aware of any failures or break downs and surely your not suggesting that >OCCUPY gets itself a deal with Saatchi and Saatchi to improve it's main steam media >appeal, rather then pandering to a bunch of over paid media luvvies perveyours of lies >and deciet. Do me a Strawberry Flavour !!
>U WOT

>I wasn't aware of any failures or break downs
Proving my point all too well, you do not realise what has gone wrong

>surely your not suggesting that >OCCUPY gets itself a deal with Saatchi and Saatchi to improve it's main steam media >appeal
Don't be stupid, I'm suggesting that Occupy engages with the MSM to articulate its views, that is not happening right now.

>pandering to a bunch of over paid media luvvies
Proving better than I could have done the prejudice within Occupy and why it failed.

You may well believe you are your band of campers will shortly be taking over the reins of power in London, Paris and Washington but let me assure you that will not be happening. There is as much chance of that as Boris Johnson joining the Labour Party, in simple terms you are deluded as to your support and your future.

The greed of the proletariat and their failure to join a political process that would see ALL OF THEM have improved lives is one of the reasons why imposition of a common standard is so important. It can be a people's militia, peer pressure, monetary control or of course the simple elimination of private ownership enabling equality in all things.

"With the imminent failure of Western governments highly probable the Occupy Movement will likely become the future elective body of several countries"




Sounds like this will be very soon so can you let me know a few dates and times so I don't miss it. I love a revolution me.

I find it rather bizarre that the author assumes that political change comes about in a month from the start of a campaign/movement. A little optimistic, no? See this (albeit in reference to the US, but still makes the point):

 http://www.nytimes.com/2011/11/20/opinion/sunday/kristof-occupy-the-agenda.html?_r=1

"A reporter for Politico found that use of the words “income inequality” quintupled in a news database after the Occupy protests began. That’s a significant achievement, for this is an issue that goes to our country’s values and our opportunities for growth — and yet we in the news business have rarely given it the attention it deserves."

So then, assuming we overthrow the government and install a 'direct democracy model' , based on the principles of horizontality and consensus decision making.
What happens when the 1% blocks every motion, and nothing gets agreed? Do we still believe in consensus, or are some peoples decisions actually based on self interest and greed? Or they're just wrong? Or stupid?

Personally I reserve the right to ignore everyone and do what I was going to do anyway....
Just thought I'd clear that up.

That should not be our position. As an example, I was in a collective recentley who wished to host a feminist event. One or two members of the collective numbering over a dozen blocked the feminist workshop. No amount of persuasion or education would convince these two to shift their position. We eventually accepted their 'blocks' on the issue and (wrongly in my opinion) didn't allow the workshop to proceed. In that case, the desires of a small percentage were able to take precedent over the views of the vast majority precisley because of the consensus model currentley used (and mis-used).

As another, further off example - come the revolution, their will be a strata of society who will 'block' any attempt to remove their wealth and privilege - will we let the do that, or do we say 'fuck 'em' in the interest of the vast majority?

As I said before, everyone should have their voice heard equally, but that does not men we can, or should go with everyones ideas. let's not also forget that one of the central pillars of anarchism is voluntary association, so really, if you are part of a group who strongly disagree with your position, rather than blocking and blocking, you should voluntarily associate with someone else who agrees with your point of view.

Equality does not mean getting your own way all the time - that is the tyranny of the individual over the collective and is, in my opinion one of the fundemental differences between the lifestyley, individulaist lot and the class-struggle anarchists.

you state above,

'there are natural leaders and natural followers and the success of Capitalism over Collectivism is partly a result of recognising that natural order of things.'


We are educated out of making our own decisions in order to keep the production mills rolling. 'natural' leaders throughout history have been tyrants who force others to do their bidding.

You may feel you need to be told what to do, but many of us resent the 'I know what's best for you' top-down mindset which is the bane of our 'democracy'. By your own argument, we should just accept David Cameron is our 'natural' leader, and not question his authority.

Your assert that we should accept 'the natural order of things' which is only your opinion, yet you state is as fact that doesn't need any proof.

Please put up arguments/links to show what you mean by 'natural order of things' instead of stating opinion as fact.

Dale Farm/ Eviction/ Occupations:

 http://www.alytusbiennial.com/news/475-post-damtp-announcement-on-dale-farm-and-occupation-movements.html


Strikes/ Riots/ Occupations:

 http://antisystemic.org/SW/SituationistWorker-0%25.pdf

One word-"peaceful"

"Why has the Occupy Movement failed ?"

It depends what you call failure. What do you think was the target of the occupy movement?

"The Consensus Model of Direct Democracy is one of those ideas that seems entirely sensible and correct but which alongside Consensus Decision Making became the weakness of the movement that the State was able to exploit and use against us."

You have it all wrong. It is different the way of taking decisions with consensus an anarchist practice and the direct democracy. They are both ways of making decisions but not the same. Read some bookchin, kastoriadis for direct democracy and David Graeber «Fragments of an Anarchist Anthropology» for consensus procedure.

" the creativity that was suppressed by the need to achieve consensus. "

Why do you say the creativity was suppressed??? You are terrible wrong.


", the lack of leadership that ensured splits were easy to exploit by agent provocateurs"

Why do you think that the lack of leadership ensures splits? The history proves you wrong and says the completely different, that the existence of leaderships ensure splits and degenerate the revolutions and at the end the consensus procedure means the accepting of the need for diversity.

"and the failure to plan because those stepping forward were often accused of "trying to take over"" all contributed

Give specific examples so we can understand what is going on. Maybe some people were really "trying to take over" for their own political ends but maybe which is possibly too the direct democracy?? or consensus procedure?? did not work quite well because of lack of experience and because those procedures of making decisions require some specific characteristics among participants which occupy movement did not have it.
The occupy movements which first started from spain with indignados strongly influenced by post modernism and lost on a hunt of massification failed to give quality characteristics and end up as a fetishism - see the first manifesto of indignados. The fetishism of the quantity. If you consider on that the complete absence of structures - something which is rational -, the absence of people who have some experience with these procedures - the people who participated in Greece from the a/a was really few and in UK they were even fewer - the fact that these procedures cannot work without economic democracy where the citizens are collectively owners and control all the means of production or otherwise they should have same or similar political ideology - eg anarchists, autonomists, libertarians communists - or at least some key points of contact. Also is really important the de- centralization, the existence of assemblies in the neighborhoods and the decision making locally in the first place and then where it needs centrally too. Above all though the occupy movements did not want any political change, did not want any change actually. What they wanted was the introduction of a moral in the capitalism. From the experience I had in Greece and Spain the assemblies were more a form of psychoanalysis rather than a political tool of taking decision and coordinate of actions. Nevertheless I believe that the occupy movements were successful. They managed to get people on the street for months, - some of them for their first time - organize things by their-self without expecting chewed food from intermediaries and they showed an enviable solidarity.


"If we wish to change this country and this planet we need to accept that some individuals are simply unable to lead others (I am one of them) and need others to take this role,"

Who is going to decide which people are going to take this role and how? by voting... the same system like the one we are fighting. The problem is in the faces or in the system? You are not taking decisions in your life?? hahaha

You are trying to excuse authority by saying that some individuals cannot lead others but you are missing the point entirely.We do not want anyone to get lead by anyone. The humanity has to grow up in some point and be responsible for their own decisions. Aaa by the way Bakunin said if you want to make revolution first you have to revolution against your own self.

"the movement needs leadership and direction not yet more meetings that lead to 'consensus'."

Yes sure. Read what happened with the October Revolution in Russia, the Spanish Revolution, what happened in Greece after the WW2, the May 68 and then you will understand that you are terribly wrong.

"We were weakened and ultimately defeated by our slavish adherence to an ideology that prevents progress. We need to change."

Which ideology re mate?? Are you going to make us crazy?? The occupy movements have an ideology?? that's what you understand??? Direct democracy and consensus procedure are just a way of making decision not a regime or an ideology. which ideology is the appropriate?? do you think in the 21st centure a change will happen from an ideology???

"That should not be our position. As an example, I was in a collective recentley who wished to host a feminist event. One or two members of the collective numbering over a dozen blocked the feminist workshop. No amount of persuasion or education would convince these two to shift their position. We eventually accepted their 'blocks' on the issue and (wrongly in my opinion) That should not be our position. As an example, I was in a collective recentley who wished to host a feminist event. One or two members of the collective numbering over a dozen blocked the feminist workshop. No amount of persuasion or education would convince these two to shift their position. We eventually accepted their 'blocks' on the issue and (wrongly in my opinion) didn't allow the workshop to proceed. In that case, the desires of a small percentage were able to take precedent over the views of the vast majority precisley because of the consensus model currentley used (and mis-used)"

Can we take another look at this? Is the problem perhaps just being unable to think as an anarchist? Being unhappy unless you can use somebody else's name, resources, and energy for your own projects?

As I see it, there is this group/organization which has agreed that decisions affecting the entire group shall be by consensus. Now some group of people (call them subgroup A) wished for the group/organization to host some event. But they were unable to convince all of the rest of the group. Fine so far. But then notice that the person telling us this describes as "...didn't allow the workshop to proceed ...." HUH? All I see here is that the workshop could not be described as being under the name of the entire organization. Nothing prevented the persons of subgroup A from going ahead and organizing this event using their own resources and energy.

If you want to call yourself an anarchist, learn to think like own.

No we do not need to engage with the media. As a movement we must strength our existing structures and create new ones as well. About media we do not need to give interview to anyone we have indymedia.

"You may well believe you are your band of campers will shortly be taking over the reins of power in London, Paris and Washington but let me assure you that will not be happening. There is as much chance of that as Boris Johnson joining the Labour Party, in simple terms you are deluded as to your support and your future."

Heard this garbage a million times before and on every occasion it turned out to be nothing more than a prelude to failure.

The Occupy movement is simply the latest incarnation of a movement that has appeared in one form or another for the past 12 years. Just about every major movement that has appeared has had a problem with "Corporate Government" and large numbers of supporters have always raised this issue in some way or another.

What the Occupy movement is saying is simply what people are always saying, "Its not what you know, its who you know". People are tired of being governed by corporations most of whom don't even originate in this country! They are tired of having EVERY last detail of life being reduced to its financial value. For most people in the US and UK, they beleive that their Government is something they elect to look after them. They don't beleive that their Governments are simply constructed from candidates that business and industry "select" in order to represent their business interests. Thats not what the people want.

Now the Capitalists have been seen for what they are, incompetent morons that couldn't organise a piss up in a brewery, the people have become much more attentive to the situation and are shocked to the bone to stumble across the realisation that they've been fooled. The current political order are not representatives of the people, but business representatives. And the bailouts are seen for what they are, business looking after the interests of business.

Capitalism for the people...Socialism for the elite.

The Occupy movement will grow, the public support for them will grow, the Capitalist corporations will fail and those business representatives in Government, both in the US and UK, will fail. The old template of 'violence creation' and wheelbarrowing the media in to shit on the people will no longer work because you are now fighting the very same people you are trying to appeal to. No-one is listening, they are just laughing at you!

This problem will continue until finality, resisting it will only serve to delay the beginning of our recovery. There is no other available outcome.

So you can split heads with metal bars, you can casually squirt pepper spray in peoples faces, you can shoot us, you can bitch, whine, screech like a child and stamp your feet and fling your rattle out your pram...but we will stand and we will win.

We are the 99%.

You have already lost.

In terms of scale, cdm is impractical beyond local decision making if you insist on such a large margin (or unanimity). As for a whole movement involving many people, it is downright impossible; the larger the group, the more disparate the opinions in a particular discussion become. In some ways consensus decision making is useful, for example it can allow an issue under debate to be considered more thoroughly and simultaneously be used as an educational facility for the participants. But therein lies a major problem, it’s a dialetic dream, nothing more. It needs to be more clearly defined.

I think it practical that it should not require total agreement, as long as a vast majority is agreed as the threshold in advance (over around 80% I would suggest) AND more importantly, a full explanation and acceptance of why a particular course of action is being taken. Getting a total concensus is an impossibility, especially on less tangible or issues that tend towards sectarianist beliefs.
None of this is counter to participatory social models, you are your own representative in a particular discussion.

I would argue that it’s not against ‘our’ principles as nobody can decide what those principles are :-)

"The Occupy movement will grow, the public support for them will grow, the Capitalist corporations will fail and those business representatives in Government, both in the US and UK, will fail. The old template of 'violence creation' and wheelbarrowing the media in to shit on the people will no longer work because you are now fighting the very same people you are trying to appeal to. No-one is listening, they are just laughing at you!"

Yeah, right on, man. The mainstream media, tabloids and right wing press won't work anymore because of a couple of hundred tents outside St. Pauls. "The message has to spread! Once they hear what we're saying they'll have to join us, the corporations will move out and governments will crumble." - this type of arrogance is what's put me off the occupy folk, people aren't always going to come round to your point of view, no matter how much you think your interpretation of 'logic' or 'common sense' make it an inevitability. Do something to provoke a proper reaction that people will take to heart and want to be involved with or you will alienate that quote/unquote 99% that you go on incessantly about - Sad fact is 98% of the country coundn't give a toss about camping outside St Pauls. The state and capitalism happily continue as they are and we're sitting bitching on the internet about processes to conduct meetings with. Right now is time to be on the offensive against them while they're down (in relative terms anyway), not having stupid fucking debates about consensus or trivialities, that's not to undermine consensus as a way of doing things, it's the only way I'd want to organise on a small scale but if you want a mass movement you need to be much less compromising. You're playing in to the hands of state and capital otherwise.

Actions speak much louder than words... Get out there and something...

Some half baked twat comes on with a Cock n' Bull story, probably a Sun reader / writer or a member of the Gutter press association, some one who has been seriously distracted by the Weapons of Mass Distraction and or a Cop. What do you think the goals of the activists movement iares to get the Tories to change their shade of blue or perhaps Labour to become the Pinkies ? .Get Nick Clegg and a bunch of robot public school arseholes to get some compassion / compunction. The whole lot has gotta go, it makes no difference whether you get shafted by the left or the Right either way the people are getting it up the Arse !!
The Corporate controlled media is the very weapon that maintains the status quo, activists are supposed to go to these parasite scum bags cap in hand and ask them to write some whole truths for a change, which kinda Banana tree did you fall out of ?

In short because it is not representative of the wider population.

The posters above have picked up on items like CDM which even many in the anarchist movement consider unrealistic for anything outside a little group however that aside the Occupy Movement is no more than the usual group of misty eyed, naive, simplistic individuals with a 'right or wrong' view of the world that is so detached from reality they are laughable.

People may be pissed of with bankers and MP's however they are also intelligent enough to understand that they play a role in society and that more importantly there is no viable alternative to the current system. Until such time as somebody
(you?) comes up with something better than the world will continue more or less as it is now.

"In terms of scale, cdm is impractical beyond local decision making"

One again you have failed to understand the power of CDM because you fear that your view will not be adopted. CDM is about EVERY view being of equal benefit. If a block is given it must be respected even if that is representative of less than 1% of those present or participating.

CDM forces people to reach compromises that encompasses all views and opinions. Imagine the beauty of a world where anything could be blocked.

Why has the Occupy Movement failed




To be blunt because those involved do not represent the majority viewpoint of the population. It really is as simple as that.

In answer to the original post by One of Many - it depends what you factors you judge for success.

By slavish ideological adherence, if you mean trying to build up a common goal, trust, respect, being able to be flexible and think sometimes of the collective good not our own individual positions, then frankly I'm all for it and hope you are too.

The problem arises when consensus decision-making is done badly - this can mean that people seek consensus on things which don't need whole group agreement or that the facilitators (for big tricky decisions) aren't experienced enough to make it flow faster, better and avoid abuse.

And where there aren't the conditions needed for consensus, like trust, then yes, no-one dares step forwards, and initiative and creativity die a slow painful death on the bed of fucked-up consensus.

But I'd still prefer to aim for what we want, to hear what everyone has to say, to build respect and trust, rather than have others take decisions for me. Yes there's dangers in the 'Tyranny of Structurelessness', but there's also big ones in the 'Tyranny of Tyranny'.

 http://seedsforchange.org.uk/free/consensus#conditions
 http://rhizomenetwork.wordpress.com/2011/05/30/when-not-to-use-consensus/

As to other comments about consensus -

Town End Boy, the wiggly hands thing is borrowed from Deaf culture, and once you get over the unfamiliarity of it, is a very useful way for the everyone to see what level of agreement or even just people listening there is, which helps discussions flow.
To say we don't need facilitators is unfortunately letting power and privilege dominate in meetings - I'm sure you've experienced that and more in 'bad meetings'. (the block to a feminist workshop sounds well fucked up)
A block means 'if this decision goes ahead, I'll have to leave this group/meeting/etc' - in other words, if used and considered correctly, it's exactly as you'd have it, on a grounding of trust and listening of course.
Your 'other model of consensus' is again how good consensus should work, building trust and autonomy to delegate decisions and tasks.
"Equality does not mean getting your own way all the time - that is the tyranny of the individual over the collective" - hear hear.

Non-Aligned Journo, it shouldn't block the most dynamic. Remember that a lot of people at Occupy London (I'm not in London so no direct experience) are learning a lot fast. The danger is that bad consensus will put them off politics altogether.

MrProudhon, that's the way decisions have been taken at many Occupy/indignado occupations, with a percentage of disagreement OK for a decision to go ahead, sometimes depending on how important the decision is too. There have been decisions taken by huge groups of people, in direct actions (notably the anti-nuke and peace movements), and throughout history by groups, nations, organisations etc.
 http://rhizomenetwork.wordpress.com/2011/06/18/a-brief-history-of-consenus-decision-making/
and elsewhere.

Ian K, consensus decision-making is not unrealistic for groups that aren't little.

My comments above don't mean we should always use consensus, or that it's the right tool to bring out creativity, initiative and more at times...but that it doesn't (or shouldn't if done well) block these, and can and has achieved so much in so many parts of the world.

A world where we can trust each other and go beyond our self-interest, and where our opinions matter should be a world we strive for.

I think what worries about this chain of comments is not that people are wrong but they don't understand why they are wrong or are even able to face that they might be wrong. Once again the activist mindset kicks in and we are off down the path to meaningless actions, poster waving and long tedious rants on Indymedia about how everybody else is at fault because they wont listen to our ideas.

Change the world your way, I'll change it my way but my contribution to this thread is over because clearly some people just can't hear what they don't want to hear.

To be blunt because those involved do not represent the majority viewpoint of the population. It really is as simple as that.
Kevin

Exactly Kevin, which is why the views of the people are irrelevant, the views of the politically aware are the ones that matter

"To be blunt because those involved do not represent the majority viewpoint of the population. It really is as simple as that.
Kevin"

And what, in your view, is the majority viewpoint then...Kevin?

 https://www.indybay.org/newsitems/2011/10/09/18692850.php

Most people think bankers are great people who deserve every penny of their 6 or 7 figure salaries and bonuses. Also, they think it was a good idea to bail out the banks with taxpayers money when their businesses were failing.

will always fail when you sit aroung asking ...... please mister banker stop it.
get real you may aswell pray for change. you will have as much chance of god jumping down of some magical clowd and waving his fariy wand and making it all better than getting these greedy fucking pigs to behave like humans. make change. force it. take action.

No revolution has ever succeeded without leadership. End of.

Meanwhile, day after day Occupy LSX reveals its weakness by holding its general assemblies in public. Should our soya milk be sweetened or not? Let's have a show of hands!

The authorities must be shitting bricks!

Revolution is militant. Not fluffy.