I think that one of the interesting shifts in the occupy wall street movement from the California actions is the increasing flexibility in the concept of occupation. For the California movement, the notion of occupation was really a lock-down approach (there were some exceptions with open building occupations.... but the dance parties were never considered occupations themselves... just cover for occupations.) We see something else with the Wall Street phenomenon, which is a lot more flexible and mobile.
In this sense, the Wall street phenomenon is actually a little more faithful to the situationist ideal, albeit inadvertently. To go briefly back to the question that shag initially asked, the situationists were interested in re imagining the movement of the city. This frequently involved walking, mapping, and other informal collective activities. In effect, the situationist act was much more in line with the flanuer of Baudalaire and Benjamin's work than the California lock downs. I also think that it works well within the mobile structures of Wall Street.
If we think in this more mobile context, there are already forms of this type of action in the form of flash mobs, and other mobile actions. Activists in Minnesota were able to shame Target through the use of flash mobs, and the hotel workers deployed them fairly effectively as well. One of the more memorable actions when I worked for UFCW Local one in northern New York was an action in which a bunch of union folks went into a non-union store with join the union t-shirts and just strolled around the store shopping. The point is that all of these actions temporarily 'occupied' and re-utilized space in ways that operated through indirect and diffused confrontation, rather than through an inevitably losing lock down of space. I don't see why returning to a more mobile notion of space and occupation couldn't allow for an engagement with something like Wal Mart, although I think Target is a better... well, target.
robert wood
> well, remember that the point of the discussion was intially the complaint
> of Doug and others (SA I think?) that such demonstrations/occupations are
> nothing but moral witness. It does nothing to fuck up the system, so it
> can
> do nothing to change the system. People will just ignore them.
>
> I wrote my summary of one situationist exposition of the strategy behind
> occupations, pointing out that their goal was to eventually fuck with the
> system with occupations at the point of production, but right now, when we
> are outnumbered and there's not yet a movement, you begin by occupying
> public spaces.
>
> Not that i disagree with what you said, per se. Just that it's important
> not to let this bet get by because this entire discussion is dominated by
> a
> repeated claim: there's no strategy, oh the humanity! blah fucking blah
> blah. as if repeating it a gogangajillion times makes it true.
>
> At 11:30 PM 10/28/2011, 123hop at comcast.net wrote:
>>I think one of the most important things OWS is doing is reclaiming
>> shared
>>social space, a space whose significance derives entirely from that fact
>>that it is shared, and it is public, and it is consensually held. So the
>>strategy would be to expand that space in every direction.
>>
>>Therefore, before looking at the issue of occupying private places (like
>>Walmart), we ought to look at occupying other spaces whose nature is that
>>they are naturally common and shared. For example schools that are
>>supported by public money. That's the next logical topos both as a shared
>>physical space and as a shared space of social knowledge and, in that
>>sense, social wealth. Start with the universities and high schools.
>>"Occupying" would mean restoring authority to the teachers to teach as
>>they see fit, rejecting standardized testing, and rejecting police
>>presence in schools.
>>
>>Following that would be the occupation of other things that should by
>>rights be common: utilities, transport, banks....
>>
>>
>>Joanna
>>
>>
>>----- Original Message -----
>>From: "Carrol Cox" <cbcox at ilstu.edu>
>>To: lbo-talk at lbo-talk.org
>>Sent: Friday, October 28, 2011 7:57:55 PM
>>Subject: Re: [lbo-talk] occupying retail
>>
>>No one of course is going to occupy Walmart or X or Y tomorrow. Any
>>discussion of such an occupation is of two kinds:
>>
>>a) Politically Serious: It begins with some consideration of what kind
>>of social changes and what kind of political activity and change would
>>have to occur before such an occupation becomes an actual proposal for
>>action.
>>
>>b) Politically Frivolous: It discusses such an occupation as though it
>>were being planned for implementation without such changes having first
>>occurred.
>>
>>That limits very much the considrations that are relevant.
>>
>>There are no local or national organizations at the present time that
>>could or would plan or implement such an occupation. It could only be
>>proposed under political conditions that do not at present exist. In
>>picking up Michael's idea earlier today I was envisaging an exploratory
>>conversation which moved back and forth between a consideration of the
>>kind of process mass political groups go through in deciding on actions
>>and an exploration of the political development which would have to o
>>ccur for such an idea to be seriously debated within a political group.
>> Oh well. Perhaps mail lists are not the proper forum for such
>>exploratons of the complex relationships between fundamental theory and
>>political activity.
>>
>>Carrol
>>___________________________________
>>http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/mailman/listinfo/lbo-talk
>>___________________________________
>>http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/mailman/listinfo/lbo-talk
>
> --
> http://cleandraws.com
> Wear Clean Draws
> ('coz there's 5 million ways to kill a CEO)
>
> ___________________________________
> http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/mailman/listinfo/lbo-talk
>
>