Paul Benedek wrote:
> Put simply, the Alliance is a challenge to the ALP - the tiny STUOG
> does not appear to be - and the extent to which it splits socialist
> forces, its a gift to those who like to see us divided.

What this suggests is that the Alliance needs to take a friendly
stance to the STUOG, aimed at ending the division.

If the STUOG is successful in attracting serious forces and people, it
is likely that this will be possible. If the STUOG is a sectarian
plaything, it will not be.

Either way, the Alliance should not, under any circumstances, become
"the problem" - that is, erect needless obstacles to collaboration and
possible unity.

Of course, that doesn't tell us everything we need to know about what
to do in situations like the WA ETU election, unfortunately. Making
choices in such situations can be difficult, and errors are possible.
Obviously, people who are on the ground and familiar with the
situation are going to be primarily responsible for such choices, so
we will be dependent on them getting it right. That's fine, of course,
because being able to make such choices is one of the skills a
political activist (leader) needs to develop, and if they make
mistakes in doing so, that's how they will learn.

One of the tasks of projects like the Socialist Alliance, and
hopefully the STUOG, is unleashing the full potential of the members
of the socialist movement - to allow them to become genuine, rather
than merely potential, leaders of the working class. This will
necessarily involve a certain amount of trial and error.

It would be good if the STUOG is successful. Serious people will
recognise other serious people. Let's make sure that the Socialist
Alliance are serious people!

Alan Bradley