If ridiculous caricatures of

If ridiculous caricatures of political positions are being made they of course come from yourself, Stuart. The example of the truck-load of lit you mentioned said: “Socialists can only hope that Occupy Wall St develops further, by shedding particular campaigns for the improvement of capitalism, into a general and radical attack on capitalism itself. These are people who are actually looking for answers as to why the world is in such a mess and think we need to be there with truck-loads of leaflets and having a dialogue with anyone prepared to listen to counter-act those with a reformist agenda of a “tamed capitalism” to push. Once again we welcome the fact that some people are moving towards identifying capitalism as the cause of problems they had previously sought to deal with on a single-issue basis, and now we urge them to take the next step and join us in the struggle for socialism as the only practicable alternative to capitalism. Recognising ones class position as many have done on at Liberty Plaza, that they are the 99% and the capitalists the 1%, is the first step, yet an indispensable step, towards socialist consciousness, and the easier it must be for us to put our case across. So how can we as socialists not welcome the emergence of Occupy Wall St? Where else, if not amongst such people, are we to find those we are trying to win over to the socialist case. It can only be hoped that they will come to realise that a real alternative is up for grabs. Socialists are not in the business of protesting for a larger slice of the cake that the workers bake, but for control of the whole bakery plus the grain fields. We argue that we should only settle for free and equal access to all that we produce and all the services we, the working class, provide.” But having now set yourself up on a pedestal as more knowledgeable and more in spirit with the Occupy Movement (not to mention being a soothsayer) than the rest of us mere mortals still inside the SPGB who now by the inference of your language are also now designated to be outside the working class, the minutes of your ex branch don’t appear online like some others, but tell me, what was your own actual motion for the branch’s engagement with the Occupy Movement that precipitated your resignation?”The Communists, therefore, are on the one hand, practically, the most advanced and resolute section of the working-class parties of every country, that section which pushes forward all others; on the other hand, theoretically, they have over the great mass of the proletariat the advantage of clearly understanding the line of march, the conditions, and the ultimate general results of the proletarian movement. The immediate aim of the Communists is the same as that of all other proletarian parties: formation of the proletariat into a class, overthrow of the bourgeois supremacy, conquest of political power by the proletariat. The theoretical conclusions of the Communists are in no way based on ideas or principles that have been invented, or discovered, by this or that would-be universal reformer. They merely express, in general terms, actual relations springing from an existing class struggle, from a historical movement going on under our very eyes.”The above should be our approach and i believe we performed within our limitations just that. We push the Occupy Movement forward to a line of march; because of our theoretical advantage, (but perhaps you now deny the validity of the principles of the party you twice joined. ) We identified and exposed the fakirs with their political and economical constructs. We drew attention to the need to go beyond protest and challenge political power. We placed the Occupy movement in its historic and social context, which may have pricked the inflated egos of some participants. We all hoped that the Occupy Movement would grow wider and not remain in isolation but partly due to what was an inherent weakness of organisational structure the vaunted aspirations of November 30 last year, or May Day of this year, opportunities where the Occupy Movement had a potential of inspiring and giving a much needed boost to a previously very insipid labour union movement (which is also now showing some signs of re-invigoration and re-juvenation)  proved sadly disappointing and came to nothing. The link with the public space and the factory floor never reached fruition.Solidarity doesn’t mean silence or playing lip-service to rituals. The arrogance you accuse ourselves of can easily be re-directed back at some of those in the Occupy Movement who believed they were unique but they were in fact in many cases re-inventing the wheel. Workers constantly develop new strategies and tactics in conducting the class war. The positive parts will be expanded upon and furthered and the faults rectified or discarded. These need to be identified and specific remedies taken.If Occupy Movement truly accept that they speak for the 99% then the 99% cannot be excluded from the decision makiing. As i have said to many anarchists, if politics is to be decided on the streets and on the barricades, what about those unable to physically join in and participate, do their voicies get ignored? Electoral involvement helps to bring those people into the decision process – marking a cross on a bit paper should be considered as legitimate as jazz hands. Some could justifiably describe Occupy of being exclusive in the sense that we are all part of the 99% and that those who claim to act and speak for us need to have our permission and authority to do so by some democratic means. If for all extents and purposes Occupy have currently faded away, the search for the reasons should be within Occupy because that is where they are to be found. Not searching for the scapegoats in the attitude of the SPGB or any other political party. Our own particular failure was not having our own clear and determined presence within the Occupy Movement, whether it was by a truck-load of literature, or hosts of public speakers on soap boxes who don’t require a human microphone to be heard, or discussions at the improvised study groups. We should have targetted the online lists with our  position. After all, there is no debate if no-body is aware of your existece or know about your political outlook. What we should not have done and did not do, is to subscribe to the view that Occupy was beyond the criticism.The point really missed is that the class struggle has to evolve into something more tangible than some sort of amorphous anger and all the talking and writing about it won’t bring that about – it takes practical concrete steps and at times stepping on peoples’  toes.