We are on the side of the

We are on the side of the unions and we do not decide for them when and what to strike over, unlike the Left which tries to do so. But we do offer advice and make it clear that our support is conditional on that they operate on clear and sound lines. For instance, we did not support closed shops. Are you suggesting that because we support unions that we should not point out to trade unionists such flaws and provide remedies to certain failings? In the past, even though the Mob brought some much- and well-needed leverage to trade union power, should we, as a socialist party, not suggest to the Teamsters that Mafia involvement was not desirable and not necessary for success but being at variance with unions doesn’t mean we should advise union members to resign, but simply to clean house. Is that type of prescriptive advice forbidden ? It maybe from 1911 but i think much of this article stand the trial of time.http://www.worldsocialism.org/spgb/socialist-standard/1910s/1911/no-87-november-1911/socialist-and-trade-unionism We recognise that many workers organisations are not perfect and are often in an on-going stage of change and development. They are in a constant state of flux and evolution. Are we not to offer our input? Isn’t that reinforcing an aloofness to day-to-day class struggle? From the earliest days of Occupy we praised them for their non-violence and commitment to endeavouring to create mass democratic decision making. But hand-waving had its problems when contesting and irreconcilable views were to be decided. We argued for a more structured and formal means of democracy and that the decision of a majority, (and we leave it up to them to agree what a majority should entail) , was a necessary requirement for authorising and approving actions. As events panned out over the months and now year what has been frequently raised as an issue on organisation? Yes – the mean of decision making and how it legitimised or does not legitimise certain statements and certain protests by various Occupiers. There were participants, as Adam said,  who were pushing there own platform. In America, most obviously Move On, a Democratic Party caucus. Unlike Adam i do think the Left were a threat. In Edinburgh, i recognised the name of one of the local Occupy movement’s spokespersons, long time and prominent SWP/Stop The War activist. The Left were infilitrating the Occupy Movement when and where it could. But i think Adam’s overall impression was probably correct that many fringe ideas suddenly appeared and were risking taking root, many “solutions” with long histories, Henry George, Major Douglas to more updated models such as Parecon and Robin Hood Tax advocates. Are we to sit back and never ever counter such mistaken ideas? Never challenge those who advocate adopting simple reforms to the more outlandish theories. David Icke even started to try and gain influence, no doubt equating the devils on Wall St with his alien lizard people. Should we do as you counsel and just give them a free rein? What i suggested was to ensure that socialism…free access socialism ….was an option to choose or reject, and to do that means placing it on the agenda. That means explaining what it is and what it is not. Just as importantly, we have to offer a means on how it can be achieved – not as something apart and separate from the Occupy Movement but with them as an important component in the trasformative process of Revolution BUT just as only one component amongst many others,  including a mass socialist politcal party and new industrial unions and as you yourself mentioned tenants and community groups. To have such a revolutionary umbrella organisation requires a form of democracy more elaborate than jazz hand waving. To object to a more structured style of reaching concensus is not enpowering all the people. I have argued with anarchists  that the vote enfranchise those who cannot get out into the streets, the old, the sick, and all the others through all sorts of personal reasons are unable to participate physically 24/7 but need to be included in decision-making which makes the vote imperative. Again how we vote is up for debate…i can see advantages in reality tv style text voting, or thru online e-democracy, but regardless of other mechanisms , the ballot box exists, public meetings and show of hands exists. However,  when people vote on questions of instructions, then they have to know that the mandate will be followed. And the right to disassociate and disavow those who go counter to the wishes of the majority must also exist. Should we remain silent upon such questions and issues? In regards to violence there is an element that appeared again mostly in America that chose to employ such as tactic instead of passive resistance when confronted by police. Are we not to discourage this ultimately suicidal stategy?Putting it into a broader international context, the mass protests by Syrian opposition was to be applauded but when some took the the step of militarising the resistance with armed struggle then it put men and women with AK47s, at best a RPG, up against tanks artillery and helicopter gun-ships. A severe one-sided battle ….UNLESS…the opposion seeks out international intervention and arms supply and training and air support from other countries…in other words, surrender the direction of the revolution to the political and economic interests of rival countries and their elites and produce even more bloody consequences. You raised the Spanish Civil War earlier, we saw the results there of relying on Russian military aid and the power it suddenly gave the previously almost non-existent Spanish Communist Party who proceeded to execute anarchists and POUMists.  We can be certain that the Islamists will not countenance secular leftists once sufficiently equipped by Saudi Arabia. Surely if we are to become part of a broader and more general ” workers organisation” means for us,  and them, of course,  to recognise that we,  too,  are also workers, (albeit already somewhat organised), and cannot have our voice excluded.  Are we to never ever take a critical position on politics or economics and always offer unconditional support ? Are we, as a socialist party of over a 100 years of handed down experience as arrogant as that may sound, to ignore lessons that were learned the hard way from previous decades of false ideas which are now being “re-discovered” once more and presented as “revolutionary” goals? I’m not advocating abstention to the Occupy Movement nor that we should be evoking the hostility clause against them . Quite the opposite. I am promoting more involvment, more participation, not to seek control and not to manipulate but to do what we exist for. Describe socialism. Debate the democratic means to create socialism. If that means in the process stepping on the toes of some well-intentioned ” lets keep capitalism but make it nicer” new-ager, and alienating them, thats unfortunately unavoidable. Hopefully we will engage more constructively with those who are genuinely in search of a sustainable new system of society and understand that it has to be acieved by inclusive and not exclusive methods.  Sorry,  but in the end, we do oppose some workers views and should not condone them by being overly aquiescent through a misguided conception that support and solidarity means always agreeing and putting aside differences. It will oblige the SPGB to be more efficious in its use of propaganda, its manner and its approach. We seek a comradely interaction of ideas. Perhaps, as an abrasive individual, i might not be the ideal candidate to represent the party.  And without naming names there are others that likewise may offer the rong impression. Yet there are plenty of members who are non-threatening and more cordial in their attitudes who could be ambassadors for the party in its dealings with certain groups like the Occupy Movement. Our literature could be written in more appropriate language. We already have mobved on from the confrontational style of debate to a more comradely forum type of discussion meeting. We have a decent premises that could host such events and yes, even give facilities, to others to sometimes use such as a venue or printing. There are precedents for such from our past when we publicised a peace conference manifesto during the First War War, so yes, on occasions we can subsume our own particular political viewpoint to the welfare of the the working class generally. All within reason, naturally,  and without putting our own existence or position at jeapardy. Apologies for a lengthy reply.