Ad hoc popular organs: bourgeois construct, too?

For some of the recent anti-party hype in other discussions, would it be fair to describe the very basis of councilism, popular assemblies, as a bourgeois construct itself?

It is clear from historical studies that town and town hall meetings, for example, were bourgeois constructs.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Town_meeting

Typically conducted by New England towns, town meeting can also refer to meetings of other governmental bodies, such as school districts or water districts. While the uses and laws vary from state to state, the general form is for residents of the town or school district to gather once a year and act as a legislative body, voting on operating budgets, laws and other matters for the community's operation over the following 12 months.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Town_hall_meeting

Everybody in a town community is invited to attend, not always to voice their opinions, but to hear the responses from public figures and (if applicable) elected officials about shared subjects of interest. Attendees rarely vote on an issue or propose an alternative to a situation.

That part about not meeting frequently enough to hold real governance bodies to account was passed on to ad hoc "workers councils."

Thoughts?

It's clear from that thread that the usual suspects are just rehashing lifestyle anarchism, again. Everything that arose under capitalism is a 'bourgeois construct' therefore everything must be done away with! It's just the same old petit-bourgeois radicalism; what is actually key is the class basis of constructs. As you point out here, the concept of councils themselves arose out of bourgeois society, but if such councils are made up of proletarians and consciously repurposed in a way to channel that class' interests, then I don't see the problem with it. I see no evidence that organizations such as parties or councils are somehow "corrupted" with bourgeois origins and by themselves have some intangible power that turns proletarian militants away from their class interests. That's essentially what was being argued by the anarchists(although they wouldn't classify them as such, it is the ideological basis of their thought whether they realize it or not) in there.

Actually, comrade, my point in that thread was that, of various organizational forms, only the branch meeting was not a construct of bourgeois radicals or rulers. Prior to worker-class movements, most parties in the real sense were comprised of clubs, which were a bourgeois construct.

[Heck, if you look at the Tweedle-Dum-Tweedle-Dee "parties" calling the shots in the US today, and even some of the "third parties," all their "political action committee" structures very much resemble clubs.]

With the emergence of worker-class movements came a more proletarian form of party-movement organizing, crystallized in the branch meeting.