# Occupy Mowbray Castle

By Kurtis with a K.

I recently read the novel Sibyl, by Benjamin Disraeli.  The book itself wasn’t the most interesting read, though it contained vivid descriptions of working conditions in 19^th Century England and the Chartist movement that arose during that time period which sought to bring more power to the lower, working classes.  I was immediately struck by how similar some of the goals of the Chartist movement were to the objectives of the recent Occupy movements, and it got me thinking about what those types of movements are really about and how best to address the issues that they bring to the forefront.

The Chartist movement is considered to be the first mass movement among labourers (shout out to the British spelling) in the world.  In 1838, they presented their Charter to the Parliament for consideration; it contained six major points that would provide for universal male suffrage and fairer parliament elections and voting procedures.  When the Charter was refused, the protesters turned to striking, which often led to violent uprisings.  The government responded with force, and, though the movement would resurge over the course of the next ten years, it failed to accomplish its goals during its lifetime, with some of its proposed reforms only being enacted many years after the Chartist movement was long gone.

I am assuming that most readers will be at least somewhat familiar with the Occupy Movement.  Begun in September of 2011, it attempted to correct the problems of corporate influence over the government and of banking institutions causing financial crises through their dealings.  It quickly spread to many cities across the U.S. and the world, seeing people camp out in tents for weeks, sometimes for months, protesting the power held by what they perceive as “the 1%,” or the richest, most powerful fraction of the population.

While it may seem at first as if the goals of the two movements are radically different, I would contest that they are actually quite similar.  Both movements argued for increased power for the people and increased transparency within the governmental process.  In addition, they both bemoaned the power of a small, upper class of people- in one case, “the 1%,” in the other case, the aristocracy.  Also, both movements gained momentum as they spread nationwide, or globally, among a decent number of people.  The outcomes of the two movements also appear to be similar; both of them did not realize the goals that they wished for at the time of their existence.  Whether the Occupy movement will prove to be ahead of the times in that some of its proposed reforms will eventually adopted, or whether it will be classified as merely an ideological offshoot, is yet to be seen.

Returning to Sibyl, I expected the theme of the novel to be strongly pro-Chartist with its heartrending depictions of the conditions of the lower classes.  However, when the Chartists finally assemble a striking force, they are manipulated by their leaders, who are motivated by purely selfish reasons, into storming (or occupying) Mowbray Castle, where they engage in pillaging and looting, culminating in a battle with troops.  So what did they actually accomplish?  Is this what happens when power is given to the people?  Similarly, the Occupy movement suggests a similar dilemma- Does their ideal world really consist of living in tents?  Reports of chaos, crime, trash dumping, and even rape were prevalent from the Occupy camps across the world.  Clearly, like Chartism, Sibyl would seem to suggest that the Occupy movement cannot be the ultimate answer.

However, that doesn’t mean that the questions that the movements pose aren’t relevant.  I think that that point, more than anything else, was the theme of Sibyl- an overarching question, a problem, rather than an explanation or a solution.  And, I think that that is also the key takeaway of the Occupy movement.  Does this country need increased transparency in its banking and political systems?  Quite possibly.  Is income inequality the most important economic issue facing our generation?  I would argue not.  Do the social classes in this country feel out of touch?  Probably, but I’m not sure that this is any more true than fifty or one hundred years ago.  Is the best vehicle for change within the framework of the system, or is a mandatory first step a reconsideration of that framework?  I think that the combination of democracy and capitalism in America have worked pretty well.  But those are only my answers to those questions.  I would ask you to think about yours.