The Occupy Movements, starting in the Mid East and having echoes in numerous places (such as the US), has had a large component of, at least, "sociologically" middle class participants. I believe the "Angry Arab" blog referred to a sector of the "middle class poor" in the Mid East - that is those that have been educated by state colleges into middle class culture and may or may not have jobs like web designer or teacher but regardless of employment have the culture of these groups. In the US, we also have a huge group which at least imagines themselves middle class and a substantial subset of this group has what could be called "technocratic control" jobs - high level sales, teaching, low level report-writing bureaucrat, retail store managers etc. These folks may or may not be "actually working class" but if they are proletarians, this proletarianism will sooner or later have to manifest through a total rejection of their position rather than some halfway point like the seizure of their workplace.
I think its clear that this same group is active in the US and demanding some sort of reform to the existing democratic system as well as making less or more radical demands. It also seems clear that this is a response to the current economic crisis as well as to Capital's extreme centralization of wealth and power.
How should radicals respond to this? On the one hand, one might dismiss the movement as "not proletariat" and not worth one's time. On the one hand, would could uncritically laud the movement for building democracy. Even if I make the two extreme responses sound silly, I actually think both have some merit.
On one pole, You can see "middle class" people touting "middle class" values a lot - especially you see a very regrettable faith in democracy and all of bourgeois society's institutions within even the most radical side of the Occupations Movement (whether in Egypt or the US I think). Even the action of the traditional working class within this certainly to be under the control of the capitalist unions. We have the historical example of the "colored" revolutions in the former Soviet Bloc nations which brought only transformed capitalism.
At the other pole, you can see direct democracy, the occupation of territory and a vision of a new world all occasionally "shining through" as well as a fair amount of participation by the "traditional working class".
Even with this, I obviously think the truth lies in between the pole of rejection and the pole of uncritical touting of the movement. But where? My impulse is to think that revolutionaries should be involved with the movement but arguing clearly about the direction.
What are people here's thoughts?