@DJP: As far as I know (and

@DJP: As far as I know (and it’s hard to keep up, so I might be wrong, it might be easier, like Gnome, just to not bother trying to keep up at all and just pretend knowledge), all Occupy groups practice open membership and consensus (or modified consensus), and so therefore experience all the strengths and positives in this, and also the weaknesses and negatives. Perhaps the fact that Occupy is a “collection of disparate and independent groups” is also in some sense a strength. See, for example, Paul Mason’s new book.@TheOldGreyWhistle: It’s nice to hear some sense on here. Totally agree with you comrade.@alanjohnstone: “The question is – should such acts be given uncritical support ?”That is NOT the question. No one is asking that question for the simple reason that everyone already knows the answer.”But does it offer an accurate description of the workings of capitalism and does it advance the case for socialism ?”Why are you demanding that Occupy achieve in a few months what the SPGB has not managed to achieve in over 100 years? The SPGB’s descriptions of the workings of capitalism are not accurate, merely roughly true, and it has not advanced the case for socialism one inch (or at least, not one inch beyond that achieved by 1,000 other groups). SPGB members are far too quick to point out the “illusions” held by others. Why behold you the mote that is in your brother’s eye, but consider not the beam that is in your own eye?