A few days ago I said this movement was the most exciting thing since
> Seattle. I will correct myself and say this movement is far more important
> than Seattle.
>
This seems to me like saying that Revolution and the State was more important than the Communist Manifesto. Since you can't have the former without the latter (and make no mistake, Occupy is, as much as anything else, a continuation of Seattle, ideologically, organizationally, and personally), what does it mean?
> This movement is in a direct continuity with Wisconsin-Greece-Egypt-Spain.
>
To risk pedantry (or, perhaps, to indulge in it shamelessly), there is no such thing as "direct continuity" in human history.
> The job of socialists is not to "lead" this movement.
>
I would be interested in hearing more about what you mean by this, or why others might agree with it. Obviously revolutionaries shouldn't attempt to seize control of mass movements (which would rarely prove appropriate for the effort anyway), but why shouldn't we attempt to inject our own ideas and strategies into them? Everyone else, from Barack Obama to the chemtrails/Fed/Ron Paul weirdo on the corner, will. Or do you mean something different by "leadership?"
-- "Hige sceal þe heardra, heorte þe cenre, mod sceal þe mare, þe ure mægen lytlað."