Monday morning, I took a bit of a break from my plan for the day. I decided my class preparation and work on some overdue papers would wait. After I replied to Corey Robin’s response to a critical passing comment I made about his book, The Reactionary Mind, on Facebook, I put off until later in the week my search for interesting conservative intellectuals. I decided to ignore the Republican madness, and not worry about the ups and downs in the upcoming Presidential race, and didn’t read the reports on the Super Bowl (the annual sports media event that I usually ignore but did tweak my interest this year, New Yorker that I am). Instead, I opened my computer and watched the video of the Flying Seminar meeting with Bill Zimmerman (which I missed because I was at that time at a conference in Sofia). It was a particularly interesting meeting, very nicely captured in the video (thank you Lisa Lipscomb). I entered a different world, beyond the mundane, considering the connection between radical hopes and practical projects.

This is what the Flying Seminar is. Recall, Elzbieta Matynia and I developed the Flying Seminar in response to Occupy Wall Street. OWS reminded us of our days observing and participating in the Solidarity (Solidarność) movement in Poland, and the great independent academic project of Solidarity times, the Flying University of the Polish underground. We started with a meeting with activists in Shiroto no Ran (Amateur Revolt), a counter-cultural anti- nuclear movement which came to take part in the occupation of Zuccotti Park. We then arranged a meeting with Adam Michnik, the outstanding Polish critical intellectual and political activist, who also visited the Park. Our third meeting was with Zimmerman, an old New Leftist (it takes one to know one), author of the recent book, Troublemaker: A Memoir From the Front Lines of the Sixties. Last month, after a technical delay, we posted the video recording of that meeting.

The seminar discussion got me thinking about a crucial problem: the relationship between challenging social movements and the broader public. This issue is most apparent in the Arab uprisings, in Moscow, Bucharest and in Warsaw in democratic movements, and in New York and beyond in OWS and related occupations. We have been reflecting upon these developments in each of these locations at Deliberately Considered, but there is a general problem common to all of them, which was discussed at the Flying Seminar. The starting point in the discussion with Zimmerman was the anti-war movement in the sixties.

Zimmerman and the seminar participants covered many areas. He reflected on the problem of a radical anti-war movement, too distant from the judgments of the general population to lead a popular movement against the war. They discussed election initiatives, legalizing marijuana, prison reform, the racist quality of the war on drugs, the need to treat drug abusers rather than arrest them, and the protests against U.S. intervention in Latin America. Zimmerman explained a variety of different innovative strategies he has used to reach the public, to make his radical commitments consequential. The use of the ballot initiative and the production of anti-war and anti-Bush and Company T.V. ads, made for moveon.org, were particularly interesting.

Zimmerman discussed a series of innovative victories in his long political struggle. “I have been struggling against capitalism for fifty years.” He celebrated the Internet, the only limit to reaching the public now is our imagination, he asserted. He was thinking particularly about the costs of emailing versus the cost of postage. He recalled throwing $100 bills on the trading floor of the New York Stock Exchange back in the day. Wall Street was then and is now both the symbol of the problem and site of the problem itself. His was an earlier innovative dramaturgic act in the belly of the beast, meant to show radical criticism to a mass audience. Zimmerman applauded OWS for its major discursive success. “It has stimulated a broad public to fundamentally question capitalism.”

There were differences of judgment at the meeting. All knew that connecting with the public is important, but there were different opinions about how this could be achieved. Some saw a global capitalist order on the verge of collapse, confidently sensing that people are waking up and a significant victory is on the horizon. Others were less optimistic, more concerned, believing that the forces of the old order are still alive and very able to defend their interests. Some were less sure of popular support.

The discussion sometimes lingered on generalities that make me impatient and uncomfortable (specifically broad criticisms of capitalism and celebrations of socialism), but they moved beyond empty rhetoric, impressed as the participants were both by Zimmerman’s long history of bringing major issues to the public’s attention, leading to political action, and by the recent successes of OWS in doing the same thing. The discussion was among colleagues. The OWS people say comrades, a term that makes me feel uncomfortable given my experiences around the former Soviet bloc.

The relationship with more conventional politics was an issue, as was the intersection of race and class in and out of the movement. One seminar participant, Jan Gross, strongly argued for a position that I find attractive. Prevailing political institutions, in the close connection between the government and the corporate powers, enforce inequality, but the system is open to cooptation (unlike the situation in authoritarian dictatorships). The liberal order’s democratic qualities can be utilized for progressive change. Lawrence Weschler passionately argued for a specific course of direct action, a mass boycott of under water loans mortgages and student loans, and extensive discussion about the boycott. Radical pragmatic action would both engage the public and address some severe problems, which affect many people. This led to the discussion about the relationship between the social movement, and class and race. An African American OWS activist forcefully argued that the problem of the poor is not about student loans and mortgages but community schools and drug arrests. Class and race divides society and social movements, but he suggested also the people around the Flying Seminar table. The problems of the middle class and the poor are related, but they are also different.

A constitutional amendment was discussed (money does not equal speech), as was a national student strike. One person declared that capitalism had to be saved from itself, while others reflected on the “S” word, socialism. (This reminded me of discussions on the left in the 1930s.) The broad strategy of building alternatives “on our own” was measured against active engagement with more conventional political institutions and the possibility of a third party.

Different tactics reveal different commitments, Zimmerman observed in his closing reflections. But, acting together is the key imperative. The path to power and radical change is paved by organizing, to which he has dedicated his life.

I regret missing this interesting discussion. As I was watching the video, I imagined how I might have spoken up. I may have expressed my conviction that all the talk about socialism, as some kind of systemic alternative to capitalism, is silly. I might have asked people to explain how it is they imagine a modern economy can be organized. But that probably would not have improved the discussion. But there are issues I would have liked to discussed: how a protest movement can move from saying no to injustice to figuring out how to do something about the injustice, what role do political leaders play, and what social activists can accomplish and how that relates to more conventional political agents in parties and states?

There is a proposal before the OWS General Assembly in New York today concerning a statement of solidarity with Occupy Oakland. In it, there is the declaration:

“We affirm Occupy Oakland’s freedom to use whatever means necessary to further
your [and our] struggle. A diversity of tactics is necessary, and it
means that there is no correct method to resistance. We trust our
comrades to make your own choices for your own community.”

Really by any means necessary? Aside from the questionable ethics of such a statement, I wonder how the people who consider it think it relates to the broad American public. How does the movement, which speaks in the name of the 99%, relate to the 99%? I think that the statement will be rejected. But it highlights the importance of the issues and experiences discussed at the last meeting of the Flying Seminar, and it suggests what we should examine in our next meeting.

It seems to me that it is crucial to think about the relationship between the movement and more conventional politics. I think that the relationship between OWS and Obama and the Democrats is similar to the relationship between the Civil Rights movement and Kennedy and Johnson and the Democrats, and some Republicans. It would be interesting to reflect upon how that worked. I am hoping that we will discuss this at the next meeting of the Flying Seminar, perhaps on the legacies of the Civil Rights and Black Power Movement as it might inform the future actions of OWS.

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.”

What do these people want? What are they advocating? In the opinion of many, including Gary Alan Fine in his last post, it is easy to discern what OWS is against, but unclear what they are for. They know how to say no, he knows, but he wonders if they can say yes. He thinks this both about OWS and The Tea Party, as a detached but sympathetic observer of both.

Looking at OWS up close, taking part in a small but significant activity, I think the positive commitments of OWS are actually quite clear, and in marked contrast to The Tea Party. As I maintained in The Politics of Small Things, the democracy is in the details. I had an opportunity to look at some details in a corner of Zuccotti Park, joining the OWS Think Tank.

Many of the OWS activists who have taken part in The Flying Seminar sessions are active in the Think Tank. We started working together at The New School teach in. They have been among the active members of the seminar. I have visited them a couple of times in Zuccotti Park, and earlier this week, on Monday, I joined them in their work there. It was an illuminating afternoon.

From noon to 6:00, the Think Tank conducts discussion sessions of a special sort on a variety of topics.  Many different people facilitate the discussions. I responded to an email call for help and volunteered to do my part. The workshop topics range from the quite general, to the immediate and practical. They hope to inform decision-making in the park and to further understanding of problems of broad public concern, and even contribute to the formulation of policy positions and recommendations. It’s one of the spaces where the big questions about the occupation are being answered in daily practice, a striking case of the politics of small things. It confirmed for me that in politics the means are a significant part of its ends, the form at least as important as its content.

At the session I facilitated, the topic of discussion was mental illness and Occupy Wall Street. The subject was put on the agenda by a very practical activist. He wanted to discuss the problems of mental illness, substance abuse and health problems and Occupy Wall Street. He had a pressing need to address these issues, as significant social problems of the city are appearing in the park and dealing with the problems is quite challenging. We focused on mental illness and we talked about it both as a general issue, and as one in the park that required action.

We talked for about two hours. There were multiple voices, presenting different positions, revealing different sensibilities and experiences. Two people talked about their own struggles with diagnoses of mental illness, one thought of himself as a survivor of misdiagnosis and the madness of the mental health establishment, the other, a young woman, as a healed person, thanks to proper medical care. She spoke about how she would have been attracted to the occupation when she was deeply troubled, how she would have wanted to be where the action is, but how her response would have been off, more about her own internal troubles, less about public affairs. The critical young man reported that he was subjected in rehab to drug treatments, which were far worse than the drugs that got him institutionalized. The healed young woman spoke empathetically for people who suffer, about the need to empathize with their situation and to treat them with compassion. The man and the woman didn’t debate. They joined the discussion drawing upon their different experiences. While they didn’t agree in their general assessment of mental illness, they both pointed to a course of action that started with respect for the dignity of troubled people. But of course, this did not settle the matter.

Others joined in, including a woman who worked on mental health issues (I never quite got precisely what she did), the activist who was seeking insight to address difficult problems of aggression and fights in the park, and a woman who emphasized the need for practical action because of a case of sexual assault a few days ago.

The discussion moved back and forth between the general question of approaches to the mentally disturbed and very pressing matters concerning the peace and good feelings in the park. There was the occasional disruption also, particularly an older man who very much wanted more to talk than listen and had his own agenda, criticizing the focus of OWS and the Think Tank, maintaining that the first imperative is to fight against corrupt politicians, including, perhaps even especially, Barack Obama. I really wasn’t paying close attention to his words. Mostly as a novice Think Tank facilitator I was focused on keeping the group on the topic as they were developing it.

But generally speaking, staying on topic was not a problem. The competing progressive approaches that were discussed, I believe, were more or less like what one might come across in a discussion among psychiatrists, from those who are deeply committed to pharmaceutical solutions to those who are radically opposed. No policy was suggested. We didn’t come close to that. It wouldn’t have been appropriate for many reasons. But major issues were highlighted: to turn or not to turn to the professionals outside the park, love and compassion versus safety, treating people as equals versus addressing clear disabilities. There was a realization that general social problems were appearing inside the occupation, inevitably, leading to a need for responsible action.

Nothing was solved. I don’t want to overemphasize the importance of this discussion. It was one among many, without apparent immediate consequences. But, on the other hand, it revealed, at least to me, the answer to the question about what OWS wants. The participants in our OWS Think Tank session were all there because they were saying no to the way corporate power has distorted democracy. They see increasing inequality as a moral, political and economic scandal. They have a sense that there is something fundamentally wrong with the prevailing order of things. Saying no brings them together. This is of crucial importance, as Adam Michnik underscored in his dialogue with OWS at the Flying Seminar. “At a certain point you have to say no and the ability to say no is a revolutionary ability.” Yet, once they are together, they are moving beyond no and saying yes, as they act in each other’s presence and consider complicated problems together. The way they interact reveal their positive commitments. Careful mutually respectful discussions, open to opposing political positions, focused on pressing problems in practical ways, not forgetting primary commitments to democracy: social, cultural and economic, as well as political. I saw this at the Think Tank. I don’t think that this is what I would see at a Tea Party meeting. I await Fine’s or a Tea Party supporter’s response.

I know this may still appear to be of little consequence beyond the immediate interaction. But I think it has, involving the media representation of OWS and the deep task of reinventing political culture. I will turn to these issues in my next posts. Hint: involved will be my thoughts on the Occupation and Obama, and the Democratic Party more broadly, and the link between the Occupation and other social movements, especially labor unions. I will consider the problem OWS has in its relations with a broad public, not only speaking in the name of the 99%, but also in a language that the 99% can understand, so that it can respond and act.

Contingency is of the essence for creativity. The Flying Seminar session with members from Shiroto no Ran (Amateur Revolt), an anti-nuclear and counter cultural social movement group from Japan, and Occupy Wall Street, I think, was not an exception. What started as a rash decision by the Shiroto no Ran to come to New York to show their support to the OWS protest and to experience the heart of the occupation first-hand took an unplanned change after a chance meeting. Through a New School effort to create the time and space for deeper and meaningful dialogue, a valuable Japanese – American encounter occurred.

I heard the news about Shiroto no Ran’s visit just a day before their arrival. During their short stay at the Liberty Square, we met and talked about OWS. From our conversations, I began to realize how difficult it was for them to actually get the opportunity to really meet and get to know the people who are most engaged in the OWS movement. The activists in Zuccotti Park were too busy and things were changing too rapidly there. I realized that there was a need for creating a space that would facilitate a dialogue between these two groups of activists. A teach-in session organized by two New School professors, Jeffrey Goldfarb and Elzbieta Matynia, not only opened a door of opportunity, but also gave a concrete structure to my vague idea. From listening to their ideas about the Flying Seminar, I realized that we could have a serious conversation between these movements from different cultures. Just two days after I proposed the event, we all met, and my sense that it could be worthwhile, proved to be correct.

As a participant in both movements, I see my contribution in creating a space for dialogue as a modest one. But on the other hand, as a researcher who is working on the Japanese 1968 movement from a transnational perspective, I am especially interested. I am fascinated how such a dialogue is now possible in contrast to the impossibility of transnational – transcultural exchanges between activists in the sixties, and I think that such dialogue can have significant consequences. We learned from both our similarities and our differences.

Similarities and Differences

On capitalism: although not all participants involved in these movements are anti-capitalists, many, if not most, do consider capitalism as the source of profound problems. Both countries are in the stage of late capitalism and are currently facing the consequences of the great recession. In both countries the activists see the need for radical change.

With this in mind, both movements regard zones for alternatives as especially important. They work to create spaces where people can gather and live through an alternative life style, different from the ones which capitalism demands. For example, the urban commune filled with love and thoughtfulness at the Liberty Square and various shops in Koenji, Tokyo run by Shiroto no Ran that are organized through creativity and support from the people who share their ideas. Even though both movements believe in drastic social change and use the word “revolution” to describe their aspirations, their immediate aim is not to forcibly take over the government, but to create a “post-revolutionary” space inside of capitalism. They wish to change the society by inventing new tactics and demonstrating to the public that “another world is possible.” Persistent activity and the desire for creativity is the key to both movements. Their primary task is to expand their space and penetrate their thoughts into the existing society.

Despite these similarities, there are also important differences. In OWS, the goals are vague and also diverse. On the other hand, after the disaster of 3.11 in Japan, Shiroto no Ran is now focusing on a single issue, which is the abolition of nuclear power plants. Their tactics are also different. OWS occupies public spaces, while in Japan, since the use of public space for political purpose is highly restricted, Shiroto no Ran has rented  and runs several small retail shops, creating an alternative micro-economy to sustain their movement. Another difference is the consensus building process. Direct democracy is crucial for the OWS, but not for the Japanese movement at this moment. Lastly, judging from our discussion, principled opposition to violent action is more central for the Japanese activists than for the Americans.

Other than these differences on the level of issues and tactics of the movement, there are also the differences in the way they conceive capitalism. As I have mentioned earlier, both groups are against capitalism, but it seems that they are focusing on different aspects of capitalism. The OWS movement is struggling against the system that creates the deep disparity between the rich and the poor and the winners and losers that is rooted inside the American capitalist culture, which have become extreme especially after the great recession of 2008. On the other hand, after listening to the comments made by Shiroto no Ran’s members, it seems that their target is more toward the high mass consumption culture in everyday life that has been deeply embedded in the Japanese society since the 1970s. This difference came about partially from the impact of the 2008 recession on the labor market in each country. In the States, unemployment rate skyrocketed from 5.80% in 2008 to 9.28% in 2009. On the other hand, although the recession actually did affect the Japanese labor market, it was still within the limit of 3.99% in 2008 and 5.09% in 2009. Overall, a large part of the Japanese society is still living off or surviving from the post-war rapid economic growth reserve. Shiroto no Ran’s criticism is of the consumer culture supported by the post-war economic growth.

Hybridity: Central for Sustainable Occupation

In our global era, it is even more important for social movements to learn and be empowered by one another from both our similarities and our differences. While there seemed to be ambivalence about violence among the Americans, there was complete rejection of violent action among their Japanese counterparts. Japanese experience of the recent past accounts for this difference. Violence against the police and brutal infighting among the activists during the late 1960s and 1970s in Japan not only isolated the movement from the larger society, but it also left a deep cultural trauma, creating a negative image of social movements for almost forty years. Violence was the beginning of the end of social movements in Japan, and it seems to me this is something our American colleagues, who may be attracted to the communicative power of violent projects, should bear in mind.

On the other hand, the Japanese movement can learn a lot from the Americans about consensus building. As Hajime Matsumoto, one of the members of Shiroto no Ran, has accurately pointed out during the dialogue, it is hard to build up consensus through the open assembly in Japan. Instead problems are solved during unofficial situations such as the drinking session after meetings. Of course, direct democracy, which is practiced by the OWS general assembly, is not perfect. Words are power and people who can use the words effectively tend to prevail. Thus, we should acknowledge that there are voices that are being suppressed. However, it seems to me that the consensus building tactics practiced by the OWS is based on the notion that people are different and have different opinions and this needs to be consciously worked on through a persistent effort as the precondition of common agreement. Compared to the U.S., Japanese society is less diverse, especially in terms of race and ethnicity, and therefore, people tend to think that others share similar ideas, although in many cases they may not. Since different ideas are an important source for creativity and since Japanese society is becoming more diversified, it is essential to self consciously create a more democratic and open way for building consensus. This does not mean that the tactics of direct democracy and its tools of human microphone and hand gestures can or should be directly transferred to and implemented in Japan as it has been practiced in the U.S., yet these technics can be modified and rebuilt by applying appropriate resources in a different culture. Tactical hybridity is inevitable and desirable.

Lastly, in order to achieve a social change within capitalist society, it is crucial for movements to endure without losing the support from the general population. To do so, the tactics of Shiroto no Ran that creates an alternative economy inside the capitalist society and maintains relationships with the existing and surrounding society is instructive. But to really make a difference, it is crucial for us to keep pushing creatively, to draw the attention of the media and to surprise, indeed astonish, the public at large, to provoke them to think that the way things are is not the way things must be. For such purpose, the practices of OWS can be adapted and used in many different ways by the Japanese movement when they try to expand their movement.

I believe the coming together of these “amateurs” from different cities and continents will be a source of creativity sustaining an occupation. I hope and think that this Flying Seminar session made its small contribution to an ongoing transnational relationship between the two significant movements.

Over the past week, big changes have occurred in the little virtual world of Deliberately Considered. We have put up a changed format that has been on the drawing boards for months. You will note that while now the text of only the most recent post is to be found on the home page, the titles and images of many more posts can be viewed and easily accessed. We have been thinking about doing this for quite some time, but rushed this week to get it going in response to events just south of my New School office in lower Manhattan, in Zuccotti Park and its neighborhood. We are part of the neighborhood and seek to have neighborly discussions.

The new format provides easier access to more of the unfolding reports, analyses and debates on our site, and allows us to bring forward posts past that continue to address pressing problems, particularly in the editors picks.  And most important now, it will permit us to highlight more intensive investigations of pressing political issues, hoping to inform debate about those issues. Thus, now you will find the continuing posts on Occupy Wall Street.

Elzbieta Matynia and I find the occupation movement to be of great interest. For her, it is a case where her ideas of performative democracy apply. For me, the occupation is a clear case of the power of the politics of small things. We proposed and are now coordinating the Flying Seminar with our intellectual interests  and our previous work together on the Democracy Seminar in East and Central Europe and beyond in mind. As we have already reported, it is off to a quick and extraordinary start. Occupy Wall Street and Shiroto no Ran on Tuesday, Adam Michnik on Saturday. And Deliberately Considered now has a space for the announcement of upcoming sessions of the seminar, for reports on the seminar sessions, including videos of the events, and for what I hope will be sustained ongoing discussions about the issues discussed in the seminar.

And please note how the everyday posting will quite often inform the discussions in the Flying Seminar and, I hope, the discussions and debates in various groups in OWS. This week, in addition to the posts that have directly related to the occupation, Malgorzata Bakalarz reflected on the problem of curatorial practice as it attempts to address large public issues, in her case what she calls nine-elevenism. How we remember 9/11 is key to how a social movement in lower Manhattan is understood. The need to “re-remember” (as Toni Morrison put it in Beloved) the attack of September 11^th may be one of the reasons why OWS is so powerful. Malgo is dissatisfied with how an art exhibition dealt with the problem. I sometimes think that the greatest significance of OWS is that it is a much more successful exhibition. And Anette Baldauf thought about her film on the tragedy of Victor Gruen, a progressive architect and urban planner who designed the shopping mall. He hoped to “combine commercial and civic spaces and counter the a-geography of the suburbscape with a cultural and social center” and instead he “integrated living into shopping.” As she walked downtown through Soho, an art center turned urban shopping mall, on her way to visit the occupation, she imagined the city where this tragedy is overturned, where “people come before profit.”

Deliberately Considered is still a place for informed reflection on the events of the day. Now, I hope, we are moving in the direction where we can deepen the reflection and get closer to the events.

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.

The Flying Seminar is taking off! At the teach-in yesterday, Elzbieta Matynia and I presented our idea (described in my last post) to a group of Occupy Wall Street activists and New School colleagues. It was received with strong support and also with creativity. We are already working to turn the idea into a reality.

We want to create a setting for making intellectual and political connections. We recognize that OWS presents something unique. We hope to learn from it, and we also think that experiences “past and present,” and “from here and elsewhere,” can not only inform our understanding of the world wide occupation movement, it can also help the occupation and other social movements act in an informed fashion. Our seminar is dedicated to this learning and informed action.

Elzbieta and I worked together once on such an activity in East and Central Europe, the Democracy Seminar, which she describes in her book Performative Democracy and which is also described briefly in my bio here. The comparison excited great interest yesterday from OWS activists and New School students, as did other comparisons that were discussed around the room.

One seemed particularly pressing and interesting. Kei Nakagawa, a graduate student at The New School from Japan, informed us that a number of prominent Japanese activists from Shiroto no Ran are now in New York to observe and support OWS, and that they will be here until the middle of next week. Shiroto no Ran is a leaderless, network oriented social movement organization, which focuses especially on anti-nuclear issues, responding to the meltdown at the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear plant following the earthquake and tsunami of March 11, 2011. By using the tactics of sound demonstration and non-violent action, the movement successfully mobilized people, especially young citizens, who have never previously participated in political demonstrations. On September 11th, the half-year anniversary of the disaster, Shiroto no Ran played a key role in mobilizing more than 25,000 participants in Tokyo marking that fateful day.

Nakagawa suggested that the visiting activists would be particularly interested in a sustained exchange with participants in OWS. We were all intrigued by the fact that such a meeting might be arranged. Amazingly through the dedicated action of Matynia and her colleagues at The New School’s Transregional Center for Democratic Studies, and the engagement of Nakagawa, a the first meeting of The Flying Seminar has been put together, less than a day after our preliminary meeting.

I am happy to report that this meeting of The Flying Seminar will take place this Tuesday evening at 8:00 at The New School, exact location to be announced. Jonathan Schell, the distinguished activist and writer on non-violent action and nuclear power has agreed to moderate the meeting.

This is a good beginning. We at Deliberately Considered will report on the first session of the seminar and will provide a platform for serious deliberate discussion of the issues raised in this meeting and future meetings of The Flying Seminar. Also upcoming, Matynia’s reflections on Occupy Wall Street, presented at our meeting yesterday, and New School sociology student and OWS activist, Harrison Schultz’s reflections from Zuccotti Park.

Occupy Wall Street reminds my friend, colleague, and frequent “co-conspirator,” Elzbieta Matynia, and me of our long term engagement in the democratic opposition and alternative cultural movements in East and Central Europe. There and then, we coordinated an international seminar, before and after 1989, between scholars and activists, concerning the theoretical and practical problems of democracy, “The Democracy Seminar.” As we observe Occupy Wall Street with a great deal of interest, appreciation and in support, we are moved to act.

We therefore have proposed to The New School community and the activists in OWS the creation of a new seminar, as a place for mutual learning and discussion that can inform action, The Flying Seminar (the name inspired by a dissident academic program during the late 70s and 80s in Poland). The idea came out of an informal chat with one of OWS’ outreach people at Zuccotti Park.  Tomorrow at 3:00 pm, we will have a planning meeting and a first conversation, as part of an Occupy Wall Street Teach In at The New School.

We propose to organize a series of portable conversations with key participants and dedicated observers in various movements and actions in the United States and beyond, which could help to crystallize the differences and parallels between projects of resistance then and now.  We had in mind, for example, the Civil Rights Movement , SDS, the 1968 movements in Europe, the second wave feminist movement in the States, the Solidarity Movement in Poland, The Anti-Apartheid Movement in South Africa (its peaceful and its militant side), the Green Revolution in Iran, and the Arab Spring.  Our goal will be to facilitate discussion about movements past, from here and elsewhere, as a way of guiding the future of movements present. The hope is that this discussion could help address the key question of what is to be done now.

We agree with many of our colleagues, along with our university president, David Van Zandt, that the New School should be an active part of and site for the OWS. Using our specific resources, and in recognition of the special horizontal, open-ended character of the movement, and its fresh language for opposing the status quo, we hope to make our modest contribution. The exact form the seminar will take, and its specific ends, will be determined by those who participate. Our hope, though, is that it will be a place of collective learning that will facilitate common actions, making them more visible, in New York and far beyond.

A few additional thoughts concerning yesterday’s post on the Republicans, Obama and Occupy Wall Street: I asserted that the Obama makes sense, while the Republicans don’t. I had in mind specifically the contrast to the situation in the early 80s. While I strongly opposed the “Reagan revolution,” I knew that it made sense to Americans. They agreed with the idea that government was the problem not the solution as they reflected upon the inefficiencies of the welfare state. The challenge for progressives then was to present an equally compelling opposing story. They failed. Now things are reversed. Even though the Tea Party somehow managed to gain significant and passionate support, the idea that the Great Recession has been caused by government regulations is not compelling to most Americans. Occupy Wall Street suggests a much more sensible diagnosis of our times and has successfully changed the conversation, as Paul Krugman also underscored today. Obama’s account makes sense in this environment. It is for this reason that I think my prediction that Obama will not only win the election, but it will actually make a big difference in the way the American ship of state navigates through rough waters, is not premature as Scott suggested in his comment to yesterday’s piece.

The question of Obama’s chances has been discussed extensively on my facebook page in response to yesterday’s post. Let me underscore, I think because of the Republican disarray, which has to do with the weakness of the specific candidates, but, crucially beyond personalities,  also with their nonsensical positions, not only improves Obama’s chances, but also Democratic candidates for the Senate and the House. And, in my judgment the long term significance of the OWS is that those who are elected are going to be pushed to address concerns centered on jobs and the problem of gross inequality in America.

On a different kind of interpretation from afar: I received an interesting response to yesterday’s post from Daniel Dayan in an email message. It was a theoretical and not a political response, which I appreciated. He noted:

“The ‘Occupy Wall Street’ movement has much more echo around the world than the largely undecipherable ‘Tea Party Movement.’ I like both the ample political landscape you describe, and the theoretical gestures you use, including: (1) (thanks!) ‘monstration,’ (2) the role of sacred, or symbolic, space as one of amplifying small gestures into world gestures, whispers into cries, and (3) Arendt’s ‘lost treasure’ of revolutionary engagement….I am intrigued by your view of certain spaces as microphones. This adds a new twist to Turner.”

Dayan and I are fascinated by how the politics of small things, the sacred, monstration (the problem of showing) and visibility in the new media landscape, and the reinvention of political culture (my way of putting it) are now developing. My post and his response encapsulate where our conversation is now and where possible joint research is going. Our task will be to understand the way politics and media relate. This is an important scholarly problem, but also a pressing practical one, which I hope will be investigated in the Flying Seminar.