My point was simply that the vast majority of today's Occupy supporters are
> (were?) teachers, government employees, transport and service workers, and
> other trade unionists, whose politics, like those of other mainstream
> groups represented in the movement, are mainly liberal Democratic.
>
> ...
>
>
The test of any movement is whether it can keep broadening its appeal. The
> presence of the anarchists and their romantic liberal apologists, judging
> by many first hand commentaries, appears to have reduced it
>
But the anarchists are the ones who actually built the movement, and have in many cases sustained it. See, for a very cursory overview: http://www.aljazeera.com/indepth/opinion/2011/11/2011112872835904508.html
Now can the founders of a movement become impediments to broadening its appeal? Of course. (See: Christianity.)
What then? It's a subjective question that depends entirely on where your sympathies lie, and how you balance (for example) the respective merits of anarchism and the Democratic Party, with the siren's song of short-term effectiveness versus the hard work of building a sustainable revolutionary project, etc., etc.
But leaving serious deliberations aside, there are hardly enough trade unionists left in the United States to form the vast majority of anything. That's pure fantasy-talk. And I care about participation, not "support." Like most of us, I "support" any number of worthwhile causes for which I've done jack squat. Should they be grateful?
My core point remains: Those who want a mass movement that doesn't look like it was built by anarchists should get to work building it. Or, hell, engage seriously (that means offline!) with this one and see where it gets you. Curmudgeonly Internet screeds are pretty much the least acceptable, most annoying of all possible options.
-- "Hige sceal þe heardra, heorte þe cenre, mod sceal þe mare, þe ure mægen lytlað."