The argument against it is that you have to operate on sentiments,
> ideologies and thematics as they actually exist in the populations (classes)
> you want to mobilise.
>
Well, since most of the American working class mistrusts the public sector and wants to see it shrink ( http://reason.com/blog/2010/01/19/poll-most-americans-want-small), we're equally screwed in terms of our prescriptions for the United States. What now?
> Reaching for the sky is fine if you don't expect to achieve anything.
>
Well, of course! I don't expect OWS to achieve many of its chosen goals, whatever they are, in the short term, any more than the Seattle generation of radicals did. Frankly, I don't see immediate policy changes as the proper concern of these kinds of mobilizations. If conscious tinkering with the mechanisms of power were the goal, they - and we - certainly picked a funny way to go about it. Long-term influence is another question, as David Graeber has noted ( http://news.infoshop.org/article.php?story=2007graeber-victory).
But those who want to achieve stuff - to point to this specific strategy, which led to such and such a victory that month - shouldn't vest their hopes in OWS or anything like it. That's simply not where the value and potential of these kinds of political moments lie.
-- "Hige sceal þe heardra, heorte þe cenre, mod sceal þe mare, þe ure mægen lytlað."