I like very much the way most left communist and even some trotskyist groups have been treating the potentials and deficiencies of the content of the actual mass movementthrough which the people are reacting to the economic and social crisis in the world. But it seems to me that the formal aspects have not been treated very much. Of course, unlike the content, the forms cannot be intrinsicly revolutionary, but I think that some forms are intrinsicly non-conducive to any revolutionary radicalisation of the protests. In that sense, an important distinction should be made between neighbourhood assemblies and city assemblies. Unlike the former, the latter are not representative of anybody or anything, since they are simple gatherings of people who constantly come and go, whose presence and intervention is pretty fortuitous and who by no means engage their responsability by discussing or voting therein. Moreover, the gatherings of a huge number of people offer no real opportunity for debate or programmatical confrontation. In my modest opinion, there can hardly be any way forward for the movement save by trying to connect the existing or nascent neibourhood assemblies in larger decision making bodies which do not imply the physical presence in one place of every one who's interested in participating in the making of decisions. Such participation is objectively impossible, and any attempt to attain it could offer but a thoroughly distorted result. I am aware of the fact that, since I live in a country where there is no mass movement of any sort, I'm not the most competent person for giving a serious answer to the question I posed. However, I think that the question deserves a serious discussion, and I shall be glad to see more competent answers thereto.

Numbers are important. Whatever its outcome, there have already been signs of mass participation, though I think its still tiny compared to what I think is required.

I can but agree with this. Indeed, I don't think that a network of councils ready for revolution could easily arise out of the present neighbourhood assemblies, but a more coordinated (and hopefully more centralised) network of such assemblies could certainly serve as an inspiring example for future struggles. What I was trying to say is that it seems to me that, on the other hand, these central assemblies could hardly be to any extent imitated in a really revolutionary situation, for such a situation will require efficient models of exercise of political power, not an anti-historical imitation of the ancient greek agoras.

...I think this illustrates the point that the OCCUPY...

Actually, there is no such illustration in the quoted article and I've read it very carefully in its entirety (not only the paragraph quoted). The article is entirely dedicated to attacking Battaglia Comunista. As far as it criticises the document endorsed by the Labour Commission of the so called Rome assembly, it seems irreproachable to me. But it goes further to ascribe the entire content of the document to Battaglia Comunista, which is unfair for the latter doesn't have a majority inside the said commission and thus cannot determine the content of the documents the commission releases. Of course, the question of the opportunity of Battaglia's participation in the Commission's work is a serious one and should be discussed. Finally, I should like to pose a question to the CWO: Have you discussed the expulsion of the catanzarese militants of Battaglia Comunista, who formed the Onorato Damen Institute or do you regard it as an internal affair of BC?

Re: "the OCCUPY……… experience will by its failure be a powerful boost to the class conscious revolutionary movement."

Undoubtedly, the inability of the bourgeoisie to solve even temporarily any of the steadily more acute problems with which the working class is confronted will certainly lead to a further radicalisation of the masses, but a revolutionary class consciousness is all but guareteed. In that sense, I hope that the Communist Left (except the latterday bordiguists who, in my opinion, could but harm) will demonstrate enough maturity to attain a considerable influence in future more radicalised movements.

This could be a rough translation of the quotation: "it's only by transforming our unease into a social problem that we can force the system to offer us solutions compatible with it (it's up to us to accept them or not), or more probably, to declare its own inability to meet our demands, which would demonstrate its bankruptcy."

Thus, your translation is not incorrect at all, but the problem consists in the fact that the content of this quotation is not attributable at all to the Onorato Damen Institute, because the author of the article is actually quoting from the aforementioned document endorsed by the Labour Commission (leftcom.org) in order to prove the alleged reformist turn of BC. Their criticism seems to concentrate on the expressed readiness of the Commission to consider accepting some solutions compatible with the system ("a noi di accettare o meno (it's up to us to accept them or not)").

Unossu

Not only did we discuss the appalling behaviour of the Catanzaro section with the BC comrades, not only did we go to Catanzaro in person to persuade the comrades of their errors (I say comrades but really we mean ONE comrade) but we were also present at the BC Annual General Meeting which the Catanzaro comrades had called but refused to attend. This meeting discussed in full for two days every accusation (there were 5) made by Catanzaro, despite their absence, with what I found to be a dignity and seriousness I have rarely witnessed in my 40 years in political activity. In very case comrades confessed to having written a mistaken sentence in this or that article but this did not amount to a "drift towards activism or movementism" as they say in Italy. The irony is that 3 of the mistaken sentences criticised by Catanzaro were allowed to pass when CZ edited the paper! The long treatment of these issues in my mind gave to CZ a respect they did not deserve (and remember that Giorgio Paolucci has been a personal friend for 30 years). The whole dispute arose over the fact that the younger members criticised the tone of Battaglia which was dominated by economic analysis. Giorgio Paolucci the editor at the time refused to listen. After 2 years the AGM of BC voted to move the paper to Parma from Catanzaro. GP did not accept this (he told me "I am the Party") and began a campaign of hysterical denunciation of everyone as well as a whispering campaign within the organisation to make one comrade criticise another. He even tried to involve his English comrades in it. For two years the comrades put up with this (partly on account of his health - he has had two triple heart bypasses) but in the end it became unbearable. However the comrades did not expel CZ - CZ walked out on BC (the Institute Onorato Damen had been formed months before the final meeting which voted by a two thirds majority to expel them whe they failed to turn up). The expusion ws just a formal recognition that they had broken every statute we had. At the bottom they refused to accept democratic centralism.

Taking the name of Onorato Damen is just an insult to his memory. In the great split of 1952 with the Bordigist Damen argued for the permanent need for a party or rev organisation whilst Bordiga wanted a study circle. And what is the ODI? I could write more but don't try to put our comrades in Italy on the same ground as the people in Catanzaro.

Let's clear up some more. First of all the ICT statutes are between affiliated organisations. They don't deal with individuals. This is done in the statutes of the individual affiliates (which are not dissimilar but which respect certain historic traditions in each area). The CWO statutes allow for factions and tendencies (the first are single issue the second is over a number of points). In practice we have had factions for years although they are not always articulated as such. We don't beleive you can have a healthy organisation if you don't allow for them. Tendencies are different in that over time they may give rise to a separate organisation (or the issues on which they are based are no longer important so the tendencies remerge).

But none of this applies to the CZ institute. They wanted control of all or nothing. I think the way was open for them to continue editing Prometeo but not BC. I personally urged Giorgio to accept this as we need the young to take over and develop. They can only do this if they are allowed to do things and make mistakes as they do them (as we did). It was not that he was articulating a different politics - he was just making up petty criticisms of the young comrades in order to insist that without him at the helm BC was going to the dogs. The comrades of BC were very patient and spent 2 or more years putting up with his vicious temper trying to meet him halfway. They did not take steps to get rid of him. They were prepared to carry on trying to hold the show together. The first step was the setting up of the Institute without telling BC (they only found out about it after CZ failed to show up at the AGM they had called). The expulsion was simply a formal recognition that these comrades had broken the statutes of the organisation. It is a great personal tragedy for the CZ people and for us but when you get someone thinking they are the organisation and no-one else's opinion counts then the outcome was inevitable.

There is a text on our Italian site called Two Years of Calumny which I think is again very dignified in dealing with them. You can try google translate on it. I did not think it was a priority for English language readers.

I would like to thank Un ossu for his recognition that the criticisms made by the Institute are just ridiculous. And following Android's last point remember too that it is the first split in 67 years of BC since the split with Bordiga in 1952!

Do you see any parallels between this occupy movement and the French 68 student movement which helped to catalyse a bigger workers strike?

I think students went to the factories and called for strikes.

I could imagine that the occupy movement could do the same.

Of course this would depend on a lining up of various factors, and at the moment the occupy movement is going to be preyed upon by the left who would not want to see any autonomous link up with workplaces , and of course, the workers themselves would be unlikely to respond positively, but as things develop, there are slim possibilities.

It began as a long series of student strikes that broke out at a number of universities and lycées in Paris, following confrontations with university administrators and the police. The de Gaulle administration's attempts to quell those strikes by police action only inflamed the situation further, leading to street battles with the police in the Latin Quarter, followed by a general strike by students and strikes throughout France by eleven million French workers, roughly two-thirds of the French workforce. The protests reached such a point that government leaders feared civil war or revolution

Stevein

Apart from stating the bleeding obvious all this article says is vote SEP! In other words accept SEP mystification passing off as socialism and the capitalist mystification that elections can change anything.