The third session of the Flying Seminar offered an opportunity to deliberate possibilities for the next phase of the Occupy Wall Street movement. Bill Zimmerman, a self-described veteran troublemaker, gave an account of his many experiences with progressive actions in the United States. Not unlike the two earlier sessions, in which OWS members compared notes with Polish and Japanese troublemakers, the current activists were able to compare and contrast their knowledge and their ideas with yet another out-of-the-box thinker.

Bill Zimmerman was in New York City to give talks and promote his book, a memoir that recounts a history of American political activism starting in the 1960s through Zimmerman’s personal experiences.

When it comes to organizing people, Zimmerman opened a box full of tactics that he and his fellow activists have used over the years to spur and demand change. He started off with letting us in on a lesson he learned early on. After having been active in increasingly militant protests against the Vietnam War, he realized that this kind of activism did not resonate with the public. The movement was forced to reconnect with people or otherwise lose its essential support. As it turned out, Americans responded to the call for humanitarian aid and Zimmerman was able to organize the international charity Medical Aid for Indochina, which brought humanitarian relief from American citizens beyond enemy lines. This prompted a serious discussion about the need to connect and stay connected with ‘your audience’ and how to get people who are sympathetic to a cause to participate.

Inevitably, this also brought back the more strategic question of wanting to work within the current capitalist system or striving for an alternative scenario through a systemic social-economic change. Most discussants were in favor of the use of creative instruments within our current system. Of course, Zimmerman’s experience lies exactly there. He was active in electoral campaigns, organized populist movements, produced political commercials, and worked on ballot initiatives, an instrument of direct democracy that is allowed in 23 states. As Jan Gross put it, “The framework is not your adversary, it can be filled with friendly initiatives.”

The systemic question reminded those around the table of a breakpoint for the movement of the 1960s: the decision to either live the change or organize the public to make change. Those who lived the change were able to influence values and styles. And this was another point of recognition for the OWS activists, whose disappointment with many of our current values has drawn them towards wanting to live the change, as exemplified by the camp in Zucotti Park and the many other public spaces in the US and abroad. They wonder, “How do we want to live, how do we want to treat each other?”

The accomplishments that OWS has made so far were lauded. The movement’s slogan of the 99% and the 1% has truly resonated with the public. There was agreement that OWS has given a spark for a new narrative and that a new language and rhetoric is needed.

Many questions were touched upon, although remained open: if this is the time for a third party movement, if large-scale boycotts are a useful instrument, what specific practical demands resonate with people and how to get people to participate – issues of students loans, underwater housing, and education in general were discussed as potential areas for demands. Instead of ending on tactics, Zimmerman emphasized the importance of organization. He strongly believes that people can empower themselves through organizing. For him, it all-important to reveal to people that they have power, can express that power and have control to set new relations. But the burden to organize should not only lie on OWS: “non-OWS needs to take more responsibility.”

The second session of the Flying Seminar presented the opportunity for a comparative historical dialogue about key issues of radical political engagement.  Adam Michnik, a leading Polish dissident intellectual of Communist Poland and founding editor of Poland’s major newspaper, Gazeta Wyborcza, and Occupy Wall Street activists compared notes. There was much that separated Michnik from the Occupiers, which gave the discussion its critical edge. But there was also much that connected them: a commitment to democracy and experimentation, a critical attitude concerning political elites disconnected from society, an understanding of the importance of creative social action.

Capitalism separated Michnik from the occupiers. They often invoked the term to summarize what they were against. This was also clear and shared at our last meeting between OWS and Shiroto no Ran. Michnik was quiet on this issue. Capitalism is a normal economic situation, what the previously existing socialist system was not.

There was also a difference in the assessment of utopia. Michnik spelled out three characteristics of Poland’s self limiting revolution. It was against violence. It was anti-utopian when it came to political ends. And it was geopolitically realistic, aware of where Poland is on the map. (Here he was referring to Poland’s proximity to Moscow and what then seemed in 1980 to be the solidity, overwhelming power and steadfastness of the Soviet Union.) The tension between taking up political activity versus remaining “splendidly isolated” from mainstream politics dominated the meeting, evolving in different directions – both pragmatic and philosophical ones.

Against his realism (he is the author of a brilliant essay “Grey is Beautiful”), an OWS activists asserted that being against utopia means accepting the unacceptable, rejecting the need for fundamental change. The struggle for imagination against realism, for achieving desirable change without new forms of tyranny provided a fertile field for discussion, with broad agreement.

Michnik recalled how the older generation was sure that the protests in Poland in 1968 and of the seventies lacked clear political goals and, therefore, was doomed to failure. But he and his fellow students and activists persisted. He told an interesting story about the rejection of a self appointed leader in a tram workers strike that occurred weeks before the emergence of Solidarity in August, 1980. He clearly admired the imagination and energy of the OWS activists and identified their struggle against a political leadership that is unaware of the condition of the vast majority of the population, the 99%, with his and his fellow Poles struggles leading to great transformations of 1989.

The OWS activists perceived an eloquent and brave comrade, who put his body on the line. He comes from a different world, but their commitment to the notion that people should rule and their experiments in defending ways that can be achieved, was also his commitment.

You can view the discussion in its entirety here. The dialogue was packed with moving and illuminating observations and insights. We will publish a selection in a post or two in the coming days. I also hope we continue the discussion here at Deliberately Considered.

It was a flash seminar that led to deliberate dialogue. The first session of the Flying Seminar was remarkable.

On Saturday, we had a teach-in, proposing the seminar. From the floor a proposal was made to have a meeting between activists in Shiroto no Ran (Amateur Revolt) and Occupy Wall Street. We contacted the Japanese activists, who were camping out in Zuccotti Park. They agreed to participate. It was later reported to me that this is one thing they hoped to do coming to New York. I met with Harrison Schultz, the sociology student here most involved in the occupation, about the event. He spoke to friends. I went to the park to talk up the seminar, particularly with the OWS Think Tank group. It seems that there will be an ongoing relationship between this group and the Flying Seminar. We asked Jonathan Schell, given his long term focus on direct action and issues nuclear, to join us. We hoped people would come. And a diversity of interested people did, taking part in a fascinating serious discussion. As the video of the proceedings posted here reveals.

The event was defined by the people taking part. The New School provided a space for free thoughtful exchange and much was discovered. I will post my sustained thoughts about the discussion early next week. For now, I will just outline what happened.

I opened the seminar with a brief statement introducing our project. Then we started with the seminar participants introducing themselves as individuals. After which, the activists of Shiroto no Ran gave an overview of their political engagement through a slide presentation.

It turns out that they are a group of self-styled misfits, non-conformists centered in a kind of second hand retail store, where some live along with others who eat, drink, dance, sing, and exchange goods, all supported by the kindness of neighbors. Their small countercultural world (I would describe it as a quintessential example of the politics of small things), engaged a large public when they organized mass demonstrations after the Fukushima disaster. They took us through their experiences, how they reached people, where they stand in Japanese society. They explained how the size and the spirit of the anti-nuke demonstrations repeatedly attracted popular support beyond expectations. The vast majority of the protestors were first time demonstrators. Shiroto no Ran is engaging, inventive and funny.

The OWS people compared and contrasted their experiences with Shiroto no Ran, as its activists reported their experiences in the Park. There was a discussion about violence and non-violence, the evils of capitalism, how direct action here and there presents alternatives. There was debate about whether the alternatives were material or symbolic, and much more. Mostly there was a sharing of a common spirit, a common attitude toward the order of things and the pressing need to constitute alternatives.

We closed by pondering two questions: how do we imagine democracy and act upon our imagination? And, what are the prospects for and the means of achieving sustainable social change? I was struck by how the common concerns and similar practical actions are now appearing in such different cultural contexts.

More from the participants and more from me in the coming days. And please do post your comments and thoughts about Shiroto no Ran, OWS and the Flying Seminar: your judgments about this seminar session, and ideas for future ideas.