Still digesting, but I think this is important reading for anyone (like me) trying to understand OWS

[usernamenumber]

Putting this here and then crossposting to Twitter, since the latter is not so great for conversation and I'd welcome comments if people have them.

Think Occupy Wall St. is a phase? You don't get it

It's true, I don't. I think I kind of get where the author is pointing, but still need to chew on it more. I'm having trouble seeing what's supposed to come of this, or if that's not the point, what the point is. Then again, the fact that it, and the surrounding issues, have just been talked about so much of late (I know it's been on my mind a lot), and some of the things I've learned about the way they organize themselves... maybe that points to a more subtle change in the zeitgeist, and maybe that's the big thing that it stands to accomplish.

Comments

Some thoughts

[fiatlouis.livejournal.com]

Argh, wrote a long post that got deleted. Anyway, E. and I were talking about this last night, as I didn't really get it, and she and her political science friends thought it was really cool. One of the things we came up with was that many people (outside of certain academic communities) don't have a conceptual box to fit OWS into, and that makes it hard to understand/be comfortable with. If one thinks of it not as a protest (because it's a pretty lame protest) but as a group of people making space for democratic discussion and action, it makes a lot more sense.
It was suggested to me that the real "point" of the whole thing was as a way to give people a voice, not necessarily in the media but just in the world. They want to do things differently, and they are being the change in the world that they want to see, if you will forgive the cliche. There's also an argument that it is just good old-fashioned consciousness-raising, trying to make people think. And on a certain level, it doesn't have to be for more than the people that are there.
I heard some compelling arguments for why it is rational, and why it is a reasonable way of achieving what their actual goals may be, but I must admit I am still left a bit cold by it, just in the sense that I am uninterested in joining. It makes me think of people whining and complaining without "doing something" (in a more conventionally political way, anyway), which annoys me.
So those are some of the things running through my head, anyway, and perhaps some (or all of none) of it will mean something to you.

Re: Some thoughts

[dave hall (from livejournal.com)]

From a political science perspective and the study of memetics/thought contagion, the movement is really cool to observe as it grows and spreads. It's the first Internet enabled movement to emerge out of widespread unvoiced discontent and it has a powerful attractor meme i.e. "We are the 99%" to bring people from both sides of the spectrum on board. Something is going to emerge eventually from the Internet infra-structure evolving ... I would agree that at present the effect is largely good old consciousness raising. The lack of "doing something" goals and demands actually keeps the conversations going. "Changes are necessary" is something everyone around the world agree on, what form those take is still to be determined and talked about at grass-root/pavement-side level. So long as the hard-core campers are willing to maintain a presence at the sites, the longer the conversations continue ... allowing experts and celebraties to show-up part-time to say their bit for http://occupytv.org and so forth.

Because the Tea Party already gave forming a 3rd party a shot and due to the general dissatisfaction of the liberal left with Obama (and not having an alternative choice in 2012), I think that it is inevitable that a 99% Party will emerge from the grass-roots "protests", perhaps even with a leader like Van Jones thowing his American Dream movement into the fray. He's already said on TV that he's so proud of the protesters "I don't know what to do with myself". When he does, then perhaps the movement will have a political leader. That's all speculation of course! I'm watching this from a political science perspective from South Africa where a 99% Party makes more sense than a Green Party.