Occupy

The Occupy Movement
Introduction: How Occupy came to be

“We can change this unjust system together!” is just one of the chants that echoed throughout Zuccotti Park on the first day of Occupy Wall Street. It was September 17th, 2011. Nearly three years since the Wall Street crash, people around the world had grown exasperated by the economic hardship of The Great Recession, while those most responsible remained on Wall Street with their egregious amounts of wealth left intact. The United States government bailed out the banks while various economic recovery acts, such as the Economic Stimulus Act of 2008 in the U.S., were set in motion worldwide in an attempt to save the economy.

After the crash in 2008, it was revealed that some of the world’s largest banks were melting pots of greed and exploitation, with corporations like Goldman Sachs, Lehman Brothers, Bear Stearns and Morgan Stanley enacting faulty mortgage programs and betting against their own clients to pocket millions of dollars. With former employees of these companies later gaining powerful roles in the U.S. Government, the regulation of these banks was barely considered, and conflicts of interest were widespread. After the housing bubble burst and the world was thrust into a global recession. Regular people, fed up with feeling powerless, began to organize.

Inspired by movements like the Arab Spring and the Spanish Indignados Movement, Occupy was organized and spread primarily through the internet and by word of mouth.

Inspired by movements like the Arab Spring and the Spanish Indignados Movement, Occupy was organized and spread primarily through the internet and by word of mouth. Three months prior to that first day at Zuccotti Park, the seeds of the movement were first planted. On June 9th, 2011, OccupyWallStreet.org was registered by Kalle Lasn, the co-founder of the counterculture magazine, Adbusters. From there, Occupy spread like wildfire. With social media users spreading the message on various platforms – primarily twitter – using the hashtag #OccupyWallStreet. Yet despite the economic turmoil and the global discontent, there was something of a collective eye-roll towards Occupy from those who weren’t a part of it. Particularly in conservative media, news anchors in the United States laid down demeaning and biting headliners in their coverage of the occupation. The vast majority of mainstream coverage was negative, coloring activists as violent and detailing arrests and “clashes with police.” Headlines splayed across front pages read “Zoo-cotti: Animals go wild!” “Enough! Time to reclaim Zuccotti Park!” “Creepy criminals infiltrate Wall Street protests,” and “Good riddance!” when occupiers were forcibly pushed out of Zuccotti Park. On social media, though, there was a stark contrast in sentiment, with more people rallying alongside the occupiers. Worldwide and in the Netherlands, the media at large tended to be more empathetic towards occupiers, yet still there was a sense of distance and condescension, especially considering that Occupy attracted a wide variety of people looking for alternative approaches to structures of power, much like squatters. In the Netherlands the presence of unhoused people and squatters in Occupy was often used as something to degrade the movement, especially in media outlets like GeenStijl. Occupy Beursplein was attended by Members of the Dutch Parliament, Ronald Plasterk and Emile Roemer. Though Eberhard van der Laan, the mayor of Amsterdam at the time, visited the occupation at Beursplein in the first days of the encampment, he soon declared he wanted them out of Beursplein, ultimately issuing police to ascend on the square and force occupiers out after 56 days. 14 people were arrested.

The famous image of the ballerina atop the charging bull outside Bowling Green on Wall Street visualized the felt precarity of the market and of the people of the United States during this crisis. The text on this poster read “What is our one demand? #OccupyWallStreet September 17th. Bring Tent.” And people rallied to this call. Lasting for 59 days, this occupation was unprecedented, with protesters occupying banks, corporate offices, and universities following their expulsion from Wall Street. The ripples set off by this event were profound.

Around the world, similar protests took place as a response to class tensions and a felt corruption in global economic systems. In Iceland, occupiers remained in Austurvöllur square in Reykjavík for 15 days. In Santiago, where student protests demanding better education in Chile had already been ongoing since May, Occupy added fuel to the flame, and occupations across the country persisted for months following. In Cyprus, Occupy Buffer Zone protesters aimed to publicize that the divide in Cyprus is but a symptom of larger socio-political and economic issues spoken about in other Occupy protests. This occupation lasted until mid-2012. In Bangladesh, hundreds of protesters occupied the commercial sector of Dhaka, holding signs that read “shoot us,” fearlessly protesting the economic crash that left people around the world ruined. Each Occupy protest took the core values and aims of Occupy and applied it to their own country’s context, using Occupy as a strategy towards equality and freedom in their home. On October 15th, 2011 alone there were thousands of protests across the world, in Egypt, South Africa, Canada, Mexico, Argentina, Brazil, Indonesia, Hong Kong, Germany, France, Spain, The United Kingdom and many more, including several cities in the Netherlands – the largest of which was in Amsterdam.

Consensus and Prefigurative Politics: Occupy’s Strategies and Occupy Amsterdam
On that very same day in Amsterdam, hundreds of occupiers set up in Beursplein, where they would remain for seven weeks. People from all over the country came to protest against the growing power of banks and widening socio-economic inequality. Ultimately, some 1,000 people came to demonstrate in Beursplein. The collective energy from this occupation was felt by everyone involved from the very first moments of the occupation. Back in New York, a man yells to a large crowd of occupiers: “We are all!” “WE ARE ALL!” the crowd repeats in unison. “Part of this movement!” he continues. “PART OF THIS MOVEMENT!” they chant back. In Amsterdam and throughout worldwide Occupy protests, this same style of communication is mirrored. Everyone repeats what the main speaker says, therefore it is a dialogue, a consensus. Other strategies like this are used in Occupy protests to put an egalitarian commitment into practice. When one person is speaking, members the crowd use a system of hand signals to collectively communicate and contribute to the discussion: “Up twinkles” or both hands in the air and wiggling your fingers signal agreement (this also means “applause” in ASL [American Sign Language]), “down twinkles” or both hands in the air but down facing means you disagree, and raising one hand signals that you wish to speak. These basic hand signals were used in variation in Occupy protests around the world. In using these particular and peculiar methods of communication, Occupy demonstrated a dedication to not simply preach about a more egalitarian society, but rather putting these egalitarian ideas to practice.

“People ask all the time: who are the leaders? None. None of us are leaders and we’re all leaders. [We are all] exactly the same.” Says an Occupy protester in New York City. This is exactly what commenters cite as what led to the “failure” of the Occupy movement, but it is simultaneously what lies at the very core of what Occupy stands for. No leadership, no political strategy for the future, but direct action now. Enacting the way you want the world to be in the future in the present. “In our movement it’s really important to have our means reflect the ends we are trying to create.” Another NYC Occupy protester said. This style of protest is called Prefigurative Politics.

Adrian Kreutz defined Prefigurative Politics as “a way of engaging in social change activism that seeks to bring about this other world by means of ‘planting the seeds of the society of the future in the soil of today’s’ (1). As opposed to Consequentialism, seen in Bolshevism, where the ends justify the means, even violence, in Prefigurative Politics, the means must define the ends. An Amsterdam Occupier said this about the movement’s strategy:

“The interesting thing about the Occupy movement is that we don’t dictate a particular solution. The system has fallen apart. We have to be aware of that and try to discuss how to deal with that. The only way to do that is to ask as many people as possible: what’s wrong? What do you think? How can we improve the situation? And we only decide something when everybody agrees. That’s a great way to get people politically involved again.” (‘Een beurs plein’ (Occupy Amsterdam) door Sara Blom, 00:06:00)

Occupy’s Past, Present, and Future: 1968 Student Protests to the 2015 Maagdenhuis Occupation 
Despite now having a history of only a few decades, similar movements have paved the way for Occupy, and Occupy came to be because of them. The use of social media as a strategy for reaching people has been used by various other movements, namely in the Arab Spring and Spanish Indignados movements, both of which occurred just before Occupy and spread their calls to action on social media platforms like Twitter and Facebook. Occupy followed their lead, with the use of a website and social media, particularly Twitter, as a means of spreading the message.

Looking further back in time, the occupation of public space has been a protest tactic for centuries, but the first occupations that look like those we know today began in the 1930s.
However, the largest precursor to Occupy occurred decades later in 1968, when students around the world began occupying their own universities to protest against various systems of oppression and inequality. The most well-known of these is the 1968 student protests in Paris, where universities were underfunded, society was heavily conservative and oppressively capitalistic, and students were fed up with most structures of power as a whole. Parisian students broke into an administrative building at Paris University at Nanterre and barricaded the doors. These protests lasted seven weeks in Paris, where over 1,000 people were arrested. Around the world, similar actions took place opposing similar structures of oppression and exploitation, and incorrigible events like the Vietnam war. In the Netherlands, students at the University of Amsterdam (UvA) joined in the global protests, with around 700 students occupying the Maagdenhuis building in 1969 for five days before police action forced them out. The occupation in Amsterdam was connected to the Provo movement, and was concerned with expressing its opposition to authoritarianism and mass consumerism. As a whole, these occupations, known as the Student Protests of 1968, are often credited as one of the forebearers behind the Occupy movement.

The occupation in Amsterdam was connected to the Provo movement, and was concerned with expressing its opposition to authoritarianism and mass consumerism.

But this wouldn’t be the last time the Maagdenhuis would be occupied by students. In 2015, 46 years after its initial occupation and four years after Occupy Beursplein, UvA students occupied the Maagdenhuis again. Responding to budget cuts that disproportionately impacted the Humanities, students demanded change in the way that the University board was elected, the contracting of staff, allocation of funding throughout the institution, and reform of student housing in the wake of the housing crisis. Many of these student activists were also involved in Occupy Beursplein 4 years prior. The inspiration from Occupy was clear, and shows the impact of the movement on those involved and future occupations. Yet, there was also a disconnect. Many of the issues that led to the fall of Occupy resulted in a similar demise for the occupation of Maagdenhuis. There was a lack of direction, a difficulty in maintaining the day-to-day practicalities of those on the ground, as well as seeing the larger picture and developing a long-term strategy. In the end, though it was a powerful demonstration of the power of collective action, many of the issues prompting it remain today.

More recent examples of similar occupation-centered movements are plentiful. Throughout 2022 and into 2023, student climate activists from Extinction Rebellion, UvA Rebellion, Amsterdam Autonomous Coalition and Activistenpartij UvA have occupied UvA on several different occasions. On one said occasion, students occupied UvA’s former Amsterdamse Academische Club building responding to the university’s ties to Shell. The occupation lasted only a day before students faced violent expulsion by riot police (though students refuse to give up and it is evident that more protests are to come). Other forms of occupation persist, as well. At any given time, there are still several squats in Amsterdam – though squatting has decreased substantially in the past decades. But with organizations like Mokum Kraakt dedicated to changing the way urban life is structured amidst the housing crisis, occupational action is sure to persist. (For more information on squatting and Mokum Kraakt see page **.)

Most discussion reflecting upon the Occupy movement is laced with nostalgia and regret, with simultaneous celebration of the almost mythical energy that collective action seemed to produce amongst participants, and a sense of mourning over the “failures” of the movement. This failure is often credited to the lack of substantial economic reform following these protests. This failure is also blamed on the very structure of Occupy, in its revolving around consensus, collective participation, egalitarianism, direct democracy, and prefigurative politics. However, to label Occupy a failure is to appraise it in a manner opposed to its core values. Occupy was centered around Prefigurative Politics. It was about creating the future we want in the present: direct action now, collectivity and equality. It was about creating change in the moment through changing what people think is possible.

Occupy changed the way people viewed their relationship to authority and inspired future generations to question the status quo. It drew on similar occupation-based actions of the past, and shaped how we approach collective action and activism: “It was a spark,” according to Ewout van den Berg.

Looking Back, Looking Forward: What we can learn from Occupy
Ewout van den Berg, a member of the International Socialists, was one of the organizers of the very first attempt of Occupy Amsterdam that took place on the same day as the encampment at Zuccotti Park in New York City, months prior to the occupation on October 15th. This early demonstration had only around 25 people, and quickly fizzled out. But the energy underlying it was quickly picking up momentum, as the people on the ground began to spread the word and increase enthusiasm for the movement, people like van den Berg were quickly developing strategies and finding ways to make the occupation effective. Going back to these first moments of Occupy, he tells me that it was an experiment, it was indeed a “kind of spark” that brought people into contact with radical ideas, gave them a place to discuss alternatives to capitalism, and functioned as social space and center for these discussions to take place. “There’s a certain openness – liberation even – about the open mic experience... the fact that everybody could say something and everybody would listen. It is important in a society which is structured for you not to say anything or feel empowered enough to express yourself.” In his own life, he tells me that Occupy, which happened near the time he joined Socialism.nu, changed his perspective on activism. “It helped me see the importance of these kind of moments, but also the importance of having difficult discussions at the moment they happen. It’s very easy to take it for granted. It helped me realize that these are the moments that you need to have conversations about where we want to go, how do we measure out success... the importance of thinking strategically and how we are going to grow this movement.”

Growing the movement was made difficult by the immediacy of it, by the need to keep the encampment clean and to function as a group, where some didn’t always contribute as much as others, leading to conflict and disfunction on a regular basis. Amidst these ground affairs, the direction of the movement and effectivity was difficult to see. When you are trying to arrange food, sanitation, and safety, when you look at things from so close up, the bigger picture can be impossible to see. Van den Berg’s role is about looking at the bigger picture, something prefigurative politics is not so focused on. Looking at it from afar, he sees that “Occupy was not really able to adapt [to, or] to balance between, being an open structure with everyone being present and at the same time trying to build a political movement that involves people. In practice, meetings would take forever. Because Occupy was not able to structure its democracy in a serious way, it also made it impossible to really build something.”

People often forget “the importance of trying to involve the networks that activists already have built, that also can help sustain these moments to last longer but also make them more rooted.

Looking to the future of collective action and seeing what we can take from Occupy, this lesson seems abundantly clear. Where these kinds of movements can arise in moments of tension, where friction builds and people who are not usually politically active are more radicalized, van den Berg stresses the importance of maintaining this precarious balance, trying to see the bigger picture and staying rooted in the community. People often forget “the importance of trying to involve the networks that activists already have built, that also can help sustain these moments to last longer but also make them more rooted.” He explains how there was a connection at one point between Occupy Amsterdam and different Unions, where Amsterdam tram drivers and sanitation workers who were on strike were able to join and meet with those at Beursplein. “This was only possible because there were activists who were trying to link up a new activist network at Beursplein to already existing networks. [46:37]” He stresses the importance of this connection, where these types of movements can grow and empower the existing community of activists rather than sprout in isolation with no benefit to either party. Today, van den Berg works with Socialisme.nu, though he tells me this is his last year with them. He is mostly active in supporting local branches of the organization in different cities, writing, organizing demonstrations like recent campaigns against the far right, and working to bring together different activists.

If there is anything to take away from Occupy, it’s the power that movements which harness collective action have to spark dialogue and change the way people think about and approach the world they live in. But beyond the change it sparks in people, how can systematic change be possible? We can spark awareness and vote for change, but are the politicians even listening? Is real change event a possibility? I do not have the answers. My perspective of Occupy, as someone who wasn’t involved, can only ever be incomplete. In seeking to understand the movement, I do not claim to fully determine what it means today or what it meant then, but can only say that in looking to moments like this from the past, we can better understand how to act now and in the future, for change; to speak to those who were a part of these past moments, and to learn from them. To connect with activists fighting for change since before we were born, and to continue the fight. In the end, we can only hope that, as protesters echoed through Zuccotti Park, “we can change this unjust system together!”