Greetings fellow cafe folks.
I'd like to offer an alternative perspective on OWS. First I'd like to introduce myself-
I'm a native San Diegan, facilitator/process artist (co-host of the 14th annual World Open Space on Open Space in Moscow in '06; co-editor of Russian translations of process arts books and articles, including Open Space Technology: A User's Guide and the mini-hosting guide for World Cafe), .
After having been involved for about two weeks- which included one week of staying at Civic Center Plaza overnight- I decided to no longer take part.
I blogged about my participation from the very beginning.
I've lived half my life abroad- Iran and Russia (and was eyewitness to the Islamic Revolution (and the Iran-Iraq War and the US hostage crisis) in Iran and collapse of the Soviet Union.
My own politics are in many ways aligned with those taking part. I was arrested in front of the CIA at age 17 (civil disobedience), at age 18 went public with my intention not to register for the Selective Service, throughout my twenties was a war tax resister. While in Russia, I protested the wars in Chechnya.
My worry - and that of a few others who share the values but not the strategy of OWS- is that elites are actually interested in seeing OWS continue and grow because little of consequence will come of it. I've seen in my life subtle and not so subtle means of engaging masses- including highly educated people- in movements that actually bear little fruit.
I think this comment by Richard Moore (linked to on my blog) sums up - a lot of my concern (I will add that I don't 100% agree with his perspective but at its core I think his point is a good one) where I'm coming from:
What I am sure of, is that none of the grass-roots initiatives or movements currently on the scene have any hope of changing anything. In fact, activist energy is increasingly being channeled and managed by the very system we are hoping to change. As with Obama, who managed to fool all of the people some the time, and even now is fooling some of the people all of the time. 'Hope you can believe in', if you're dreaming.
But someone like Obama can only channel those who see hope in the political system. More and more people are realizing there is no hope in the political system. So we are getting things like The Zeitgeist Movement and Anonymous, that cater to those who have given up on politics, and give them something to 'join' or 'follow' so they can pretend they're 'doing something'. Here is a relevant posting on Zeitgeist:
The latest of these vehicles of co-option is the Occupy Wall Street movement. This one's really a humdinger. It has all the right slogans, and an appealing internal process. Its success is not surprising, because it is the latest version of a formula that has been thoroughly tested and refined 'on the ground'. We might call it the 'twitter formula', and we've seen it in the 'colored revolutions' that were used to bring about various desired regime changes, and more recently in the 'Arab Spring' movements, that soaked up lots of energy and prevented unwanted regime changes.
Four years ago progressives found hope in Obama. This time around they're finding hope in the Occupy Wall Street movement. In both cases, this 'hope' became available all too easily, was accompanied by all the right mainstream publicity, and offered easy ways to join in and become not only a follower, but an active participant. This is what co-option looks like.
rkm
p.s. feel free to share with others, but do not include my last name (if you know it).
