Okay, but then was the lack of violence before supposed to show that the movement was robust and organized? Obviously not. The only reason there weren't outbursts before is because the movement was dead; nothing left on the bones to decay.

These are the first signs of life of a movement that has been dead for decades in the imperial core.

There cannot be a mass workers' party if the mass of workers do not want a party, and it's unreasonable to expect such an organization to simply appear and get everyone in line instantly as soon as revolutionary sentiment emerges. This is an unproductive expenditure of energy compared to organized action by a vanguard party, yes, but framing it as a failing of the movement as a whole is unhelpful. This isn't a sign of the "absolute decay of the movement", it's a sign that people are beginning to recognize that the change they want will not be achieved under the current system.

I disagree. The movement itself causes this to happen. It is the success of the movement that causes these leaks of excess to occur. It is impossible for the movement to harness and organise everything, everywhere. The movement is creating the revolutionary energy with the spread of education and class consciousness while simultaneously organising it, but some of it spreads faster than it can be organised and you get this.

I am completely neutral to it. I would rather these people were found and organised before this happened, but I see it as a good indicator that things are trending in the direction we want them to trend. If the revolution is a coming thunderstorm then these are small rains as the weather slowly worsens.

You can't cultivate mass without burning through some TP