Six weeks after the protest began in front of St Paul's Cathedral, the Occupy London campaign has come up with some demands, finally putting some bones in the aspirational tofu that we have been fed up to now.
And many people, perhaps including the protesters, may be surprised to learn that the demands are all good capitalist stuff.
The story so far
While it has been difficult to pin down the campaign's position, there has been a general railing against market economics and bank bailouts, despite the fact the bailouts were an example of the state over-ruling the markets in order to avert pain.
Many protesters claim to represent 'the 99 percent against the 1 percent', a unofficial motto that has some unfortunate connotations of mob rule, but all in all the campaigners are a very diverse bunch of people brought together by the fact that they're dissatisfied.
They strive to create a better society, and most rational people are not opposed to a 'better' society, especially when the rules of that new society are left unspecified.
Unspecified, that is, until now.
Finally, some proposals
The protesters have come up with the first three steps to achieve their aims:
1) "We must abolish tax havens and complex tax-avoidance schemes, and ensure corporations pay tax that accurately reflects their real profits."
Abolishing tax havens is a difficult issue, as countries must surely be allowed to compete for business. Should some states be obliged to impose higher taxes just to make themselves less attractive?
But the fact is that many corporations, and many individuals who support capitalist principles, would wholeheartedly welcome a simpler, flatter, fairer tax structure, under which attempting to game the system or shelter profits in a tax haven would be a waste of effort.
2) "Corporate lobbying subverts our democracy. Last year corporations spent £2 billion influencing the British government. We believe exploitative corporate lobbying has no place in a democratic society. Legislation to ensure full and public transparency of all corporate lobbying activities must be put in place. This should be overseen by a credible and independent body, directly accountable to the people."
To make the broad generalisation that corporate lobbying subverts democracy is a bit of a stretch -- much lobbying is done to ensure politicians understand and take into account the issues that are relevant to particular companies and industries. And as long as politicians and regulators have the power to make or break businesses, it's entirely reasonable to allow businesses to make their case.
But it would be naïve to assume that all lobbying never has the intention of gaining an unfair advantage over competitors, customers or taxpayers, and for that reason there could be some merit in this proposal to increase transparency and oversight. The devil, of course, is in the detail: what constitutes lobbying? What exactly must be reported? Do we really want a quango telling us what we are allowed to say?
This is a tricky area, but as a general principle, markets function better when there is openness and transparency, as it reduces corruption and increases competition, and few genuine capitalists would disagree.
3) "Those directly involved in the decision-making process must be held personally liable for their role in the misdeeds of their corporations and duly charged for all criminal behaviour."
Directors are already responsible for making sure their companies comply with the law, and can be personally liable if there is fraud or even negligence. The Bribery Act 2010 also makes directors personally liable in some cases of corruption.
It is not always clear when poor judgment crosses the line into criminality. The directors of many businesses, including banks, made the fatal error of assuming easy access to funding, for example -- were they criminally negligent, or just blindly riding the zeitgeist? We should expect directors to know better, but it is not always a criminal act when they don't.
But to the extent that there was criminal behaviour, a key component of a functioning society, capitalist or otherwise, is the ability to have that behaviour dealt with by the courts, as demanded by the protesters.
The real capitalists?
Monday's statement is to be welcomed for making the protesters' position a little less vague, and perhaps giving us some food for thought.
And it could just be that Occupy London are the real capitalists, even if they'd hate to admit it. Source