What should be public, then? Should the elected members of a party take direction from people making decisions behind closed doors?

http://www.nla.gov.au/apps/cdview/?pi=nla.aus-vn2247771-1

I believe in calling out anyone who needs calling out. Allies aren't so static, nor will you necessarily be allied across all topics. I'm happy to work with Paulites against drone strikes or the drugs war, for example, but I'd hardly consider them allies in general.

To believe that there are people who are allies, and everyone else, is to see the world as far more black and white than it really is.

"What should be public, then?"

Everything else. It's a simple rule, really. Don't embarrass your friends in front of your enemies. If you have criticism of your friends, do it politely and in private. And also don't criticize local decisions made by an allied party. You're not there, so defer to their judgment.

"Should the elected members of a party take direction from people making decisions behind closed doors"

Elected members of a party should take direction from their elected leadership and party manifesto which they voted on.

"To believe that there are people who are allies, and everyone else, is to see the world as far more black and white than it really is."

The goal is to rally the advanced and isolate the backward. There are people who agree with you more than they disagree with you, and you should promote coalition building over trying to be 'right' all the time.

Unfortunately, for some people feeling good about themselves matters more than getting anything done.

Again you try to split the entire population into two distinct groups, even in your goal. This is pretty much impossible to do in reality.

No it is not impossible, which is why party building and organizing continues to occur even if some on the left deny that it can be done.

And everyone falls neatly into 2 parties, right?

No, but you don't even identify leftists as allies. Is it really so difficult to determine that socialists and other anti-capitalists are allies and reactionaries are enemies? Is that really too categorical for you?

Yes. Some leftists are xenophobic warhawks. I am not allied with them. I'm happy to work with them on some issues, but not on everything.

One of the reasons the (hard) left struggles so much is because relatively small differences stop cooperation, and we focus on (relatively) trivial differences. I may disagree with a lot of other leftists on a lot of things, but fighting each other, instead of the real enemy is a problem that undermines the movement, to the benefit of the real enemy. Until success is already achieved, allies shouldn't really be criticised publically, or in a way that is not constructive

I'm sure it happens on both sides, so don't take this as a shot across the aisle, but I wince a little every time I see political opponents described as "enemies." Is this really necessary? (But perhaps it is just part of a kind of war metaphor, as in "the enemy of my enemy is my friend," and not meant too seriously).

@ semck: " I wince a little every time I see political opponents described as "enemies." Is this really necessary?"

The Conservative Party in the UK, which is currently in power, is currently perpetrating an all-out attack on the poor, the needy, and the vulnerable, directly harming thousands of families. They know that their policies are directly harmful to a section of society which was already struggling, and they don't care.

Yes, they are my enemy. Enemy is exactly the right word for one's political opponents in some cases.