Of course, there always some

Of course, there always some who think their own shit smell of roses. If you accept an analysis that a certain strategy is the more appropriate course of action whether workers council or revolutionary use of parliament where is the arrogance in communicating and promoting those means? The alternative is some sort of radical Bernsteinism. The movement is everything.  The objective indeed remains formless just waiting for all those Left Keynsesians and currency cranks to define the shape who appear to have had a more measure of success than ourselves, not just locally but world-wide. One lesson that has been learned and it something thats is constantly debated on Libcom between those of the Left Communist currents and others in regard to trade unions – whether there is a need for a permanent organisation of class struggle of trade unions or whether the strike committee and ad hoc work-place committees should supplant the union organisation. The same issue of difference exist for those  who desire the abolition of the socialist political party and others who see it as the organisation umbrella where a diverse heterogenous working class gather under. On the personal side one of the most ridiculous scenes i witnessed on TV was a group of Occupiers at a political meeting and aping Wall St Occupiers where because of city by-laws the use of amplification equipment by speakers was restricted so the human megaphone system was devised for those at the back could hear what was going on. This clip showed how the intervention chose to mimic Wall St when there was absolutely no need to use it. It was an example where content is deemed unimportant and is replaced by an improvised form of public address that becomes ritualised. Libcom, btw, has a comment by someone from i think the Pittsburg Occupation who described the way his contribution was sabotaged simply because the human megaphone participants practised their own form of censorship and kept quiet and did not repeat his statements because of their personal disagreement with it. There is ample evidence that due to the manner of the decision making Occupy was NOT democratic in the sense that minorities(often very small minorities) could thwart the majority will or subsitute for it by claiming a legitimacy they did not possess. To argue as i did in  the blog did that this type of “formless” was not desirable but detrimental and arguing that Occupy has to go beyond “structurelessness” may indeed be seen as shit by some but dealt with actualities and practicalities not just abstract theory – revolutionally fluff. As for the future I know it is not materialist to say that history repeats itself exactly but I hope that the present hiatus of the Occupy movement can be seen as mirroring the gap between 1905 Russian Revolution and  February 1917 and that genuine revolutionaries are more effective in warning of and blocking an October,  that the socialist/anarchist movement are more prepared for it without resorting to spouting platitudes.  After all, as the link you gave demonstrates, there is ample philosophying about Occupy, the point is to change it !!!