> I agree with Carrol on this, and I also think we should avoid some of
> the nonsense that's been said about him. At the same time, it
> strikes me that there's no reason to think of the intervention that
> Doug and the Jacobin people as being radically opposed to that. Why
> not see it as an argument and a provocation amongst many? As a set of
> suggestions to produce that kind of energy and participation?
This is exactly right. No-one at Jacobin is arguing that OWS needs to form itself into a party, as if it could. How absurd would that be? OWS (speaking broadly, to include the Occupies everywhere) is an event, a point of reference, and a gathering of people both at the events and around it, talking about it. Speaking for myself, I advocate thinking about demands and organisation not as if everybody or even most involved would rally to them, but to get together likeminded people of a socialistic bent - not to organise a whole, but a part. And I mean organise pretty loosely too - at this stage the important thing is to strengthen channels of communication. With winter and police, OWS is not going to be around in its present form forever. But it has been a spark that has excited a lot of people.
Incidentally, I don't at all see the important dividing line as being between Marxists and anarchists, but between people who think strategically about social change on the one hand and ultraleftists and other narcissists on the other. There are marxists and anarchists on both sides of that divide, and 'radical liberals' too.
As for Carrol, I'm not a million miles away from his worldview either, though he often provides the reductio ad absurdum for his own arguments. He is often so rude to people that people feel like responding in kind, and I'm sure it doesn't bother him in the slightest.
Mike