An open space for global conversation
Please use this thread to post on anything that struck you about the conversations you had in small groups during a Cafe Call that were focused on a particular question.
This "harvest" allows us to collectively make meaning of our conversations and to bring the insights, patterns and deeper questions that emerge into our next round of dialogue.
Everyone's voice matters--please share yours!
When Occupy Boston obtained a restraining order against the City of Boston, the judge observed that the occupiers do not have legal standing because no one could/would be identified as a leader who could/would guarantee the group would do something. I'd never noticed such an idea in my life. It seemed odd that the rights of citizens evaporate when they assemble merely as themselves, not as a hierarchical entity with at least one represenatative.
Anyway, I'm wondering if extra-legal action opens up imaginations a bit.
I want to go deep with respect to the five characteristics and with you as their champion. Please advise, when the time is right.
I wonder- if people just in ways small and large begin just pulling out of the existing system and create the new one-- for example by growing their own food- wouldn't that be enough?
Isn't following the Law of Two Feet- as we say in Open Space Technology- enough?
As I sit here, the question comes to me- what are the weakest points in the corporatocracy we live in? Where is it most vulnerable?
Entire local/regional economies need to come into being, not just food systems, which are a great beginning because they involve production of fundamentals (including soil) by solar energy, precipitation and good attention.
It's when we are nature working (thanks Penny Livingston-Stark) that we frighten, and leave behind, the corporatocracy.
Thanks for this comment, David. I agree that it is entirely new "economies" that we need on a local/regional level. Then we need those economies to be connected (as I mentioned on the call today) trans-locally ... to the degree that that offers learning and solidarity.
I love the distinction that Penny Livingston-Stark makes here about being nature working. So, the question then for me is: "When else are we (being) nature working?"
re: the person who was moved away--
i just came across this proposal that was adopted it looks like by occupy boston to deal with people who are creating an unsafe environment at an occupaton:
On the 11/7/11 call two local initiatives that look like good models for local development were shared. Mary Engel from Chandler Arizona shared http://gangplankhq.com/ . Gangplank is a group of local individuals and small businesses creating an economy of innovation and creativity.
Suzanne Daigle from Tampa Bay shared Roosevelt 2.0 http://www.creativityincommerce.com/#! . The mission of The Roosevelt 2.0 is to provide a venue for education, creative expression, and serve as a model of urban renewal and sustainable living.
I came on late but heard some passing references to the movie Thrive and the Walk Out, Walk On movement that I found interesting.
I am very interested in how we focus on "the more beautiful world our hearts tell is possible" (Eisenstein) even as we squarely face the "real" issues of a societal breaking down of the old paradigm.
Had the great pleasure of being in a group with Helen and David talking about all that we expect of Occupy and what is our role to do. I will post notes on this amazing exchange when three strangers met and connected deeply, passionately, with purpose and resolve. Amazing that technology can bring us together this way. Thank you Occupy Cafe! Thank you OSW for bringing these important issues to the table!
We discussed "What is the Occupy message?" and initially attention was focused on the topic of a constitutional amendment for "getting money out of politics", emphasizing the importance of finding a single issue to focus on in order to be able to produce a concrete outcome of the movement. However, eventually, the range of topics blossomed to a much wider range of different points.
A side theme throughout the conversation was the question whether the main message of the Occupy movement shouldn't be the movement itself, in the sense that the main message should be that the people insist on being heard. The motivation for getting money out of politics, for example, also roots in the believe that this will keep special interests from overpowering the will of the people in the legislative process. Finding processes that keep the movement going indefinitely and empower it to output a "constant stream of messages" in the future, instead of (or in addition to) a single one now, would be ideal.
Chris and I shared both sessions. It was fun discussing the different perspectives on the differnt cultures and political environments between Switzerland and the US.
In the first session breakout session we had six people in our conversation to answer the question "What is the direction and purpose of the movement?"
Blake, Hainesport, NJ
Chris Zumbrunn, Mont-Soleil, Switzerland
Dave Kubiak, Maine
Jim Rough, Seattle, WA
Jim Barton, Ashville, NC
Steve Letsfixit, Reno, NV
Blake, Chris, and Steve pretty quickly agreed that the primary issue that would put the US and the world on the path to broader income distribution, greater personal freedom, fewer wars and a healthier environment is to pervent politicians from accepting funding from monied entities.
Jim Rough felt any issue would result in a political divide so the Movement should focus on a process he teaches. Indicated each time the Coffee Party picked an issue things got too political. He recommended a 9 minute video on his website, http://wisedemocracy.org/ .
Jim Barton discussed three issues: police accountability, dissolution of middle class and a 1960s movement to new type of society. He mentioned at many recent movements, such as OWS, the Arab Spring and a European movement (name?) emphasize the need for change. He also spoke of a planetary evolution in response to corporations taking over every function of society. He explained a concept recommended by a Japaneve academic that corporations be limited in size to that of the GDP of the smallest nation in the UN. He used the size of Zaire as an example. There wasn't time to explore the concept, but I with countries as small as Andora, San Marino and Niui, the concept needs clearer parameters.