01.08.2001

SA Press Group

Socialist Workers Party?s failings exposed

The Socialist Workers Party is continuing to make strenuous efforts to reduce to the minimum the necessity of subjecting its members to the opinions of other, non-SWP groups and individuals within the Socialist Alliance.

We have already reported that SWP comrades have been ?advised? not to read the Weekly Worker - the only paper that consistently reports on the alliance of which the SWP is the largest component organisation. As a result, quite a few comrades who were previously more than willing to buy a copy have suddenly become reluctant - especially in the company of their fellow SWP members - although no doubt many of them are continuing to read us on the CPGB website.

The latest sign of the SWP leadership?s overprotectiveness towards its flock came in relation to the SA Press Group, which in recent weeks has seen some lively comments and suggestions. Up until the general election this e-mail list, set up for the exchange of information and dissemination of press releases mainly for the benefit of candidates, agents, etc, during the course of the campaign, was moderated by our national chair, Dave Nellist. By and large, the list was restricted to announcements, statements, etc, although occasionally debate and differences of opinion were allowed to surface - for example over our attitude to small businesses .

However, immediately after the election comrade Nellist abruptly announced that, the job completed, the press group would cease to be moderated - ie, comrades could say whatever they wanted. This was not to the liking of the SWP, since this enabled comrades to post their opinions, in quite often a forthright manner, and not a few of them were critical of the SWP.

One of the first to do so was comrade ?SJR? from Hull, who criticises the SWP from a distinctly backward, localist point of view. The SA is not and should not be a party of any shape or form, according to SJR, but merely a network - indeed the comrade insists on referring to the alliance as ?the NSA? (Network of Socialist Alliances, its original name, long since left behind). Despite being elected as Hull?s representative to the Liaison Committee, our comrade refuses to attend on ?principle? - he claims only paid up individual members are allowed to vote at Liaison meetings (although nobody else seems to think it matters), and he will not join the national body as that would be tantamount to recognising the SA as a proto-party.

Furthermore, says SJR, the SWP with its absolute majority almost everywhere, is the main driving force preventing the ?NSA? reverting to its intended form as a loose, powerless network. You might think that such petty nonsense would be dismissed for what it is by the SWP. Or perhaps the comrades would try to win over our friend from Hull through patient explanation. True, the SWP has no clear idea of where it wants to take the SA, but surely the likes of Rob Hoveman and John Rees are more than capable of coming up with an answer or two?

For a while though SWP comrades seemed to bite their collective lip - apparently under instruction not to respond to ?provocation? from SJR and one or two others, including John Wake of Harlow, who complained that Socialist Worker had featured his local alliance meetings in its listings without permission. But matters came to a head last week when comrade Wake lambasted the organisation of the Genoa anti-capitalist protests. He had the audacity to call into question the organisation of the SWP-led intervention: ?It seems obvious to me that we have to base our judgements of the ?effectiveness? of an action upon a consideration of whether any of its demands were met and/or any of its aims achieved. If none of the aims were achieved and none of the demands were met then the protests were a failure.?

If that were not sufficiently heretical, our armchair critic went on: ?As for not needing a party, we certainly need better organisation. Some British people got stranded in Italy after being released from police custody and had to try to find their own back home, using their own resources ? Those who organised people to go from Britain to the Genoa protests had a duty, in my opinion, to ensure proper support if anything went wrong ? In my opinion it is irresponsible to encourage people to attend such an event and not provide emergency back-up. That someone should have to ring their partner from an airport in Italy in the middle of the night to arrange a plane ticket home is a disgrace. The organisers should be ashamed of themselves? (July 27).

In fact the counter-proposed legal response launched by the SWP/Globalise Resistance was in many ways admirable. Coverage on TV, radio, the press. Louise Christian as defence lawyer. Release without charge. Threats to sue the Italian police. The Berlusconi government in trouble in parliament, etc, etc. Yet comrade Wake had ?dared? to be critical - a cardinal sin for the SWP. Within hours a whole batch of SWPers had rushed in their indignant responses in what was clearly an organised and coordinated intervention. For example, Mike Arrowsmith: ?I joined this list to get information on SA activities nationally. Instead, I?ve spent the whole day reading anti-SWP diatribes and finally an attack on those who organised the magnificent operation to get thousands to Genoa. We spent two days being gassed, beaten up and a concerted attempt to terrorise us off the streets in an unprecedented attack that nobody could have been prepared for. Yet apparently it?s the organisers who should be ashamed of themselves. I?m out of here to leave this list to those with their petty axes to grind from the comfort of their desks.?

Or Jacqui Pointon: ?I keep reading in the hope something will help me in my struggle to develop my own thoughts and feelings, but then I read the report of Joe, an SW journalist from Ireland, of what happened in Genoa and all this seems so trivial and pointless. I?m signing off to protect my political sanity and would be happy to get an invite to a new national site for planning and organisation. Things like how many pairs of swimming goggles we?ll need and how much vinegar suddenly seem so much more important than mindless drivel??

Clare Fermont: ?I joined this list as Hackney SA?s press officer. As I understood it, the list was for press and other officers to exchange useful information and to post press releases - and it seemed to work well as such before the election. Since the election, it has disintegrated into ridiculous sectarian nit-picking, much of it seemingly aimed at smearing or denigrating the SWP and its commitment to the SA. I for one have stopped posting press releases on this list as I assume anyone interested in building a united socialist opposition to Blair and the rotten system he runs would have long stopped using it.?

And so it went on, with Rumy Husan of Birmingham claiming to be ?thoroughly pissed off with the sectarian antics of certain members? and Michael Lavalette of Lancashire condemning the ?sectarian diatribes?. The more the SWP comrades complained, the more their philistine culture and complete lack of political gumption was exposed. You could almost sympathise with comrade Hoveman for wanting to steer them away from real debate.

Tony Staunton did not restrict himself to the condemnation of individual contributions. Rather it was the medium itself that offended his bureaucratic mentality: ?There are only 12 people subscribing to this press list in Plymouth. This does not suggest that e-mail is a democratic forum for open debate. Rather, it is elitist ? in terms of having access to the internet, which many low wage individuals can?t do. If there are discussion documents for democratic debate and decision-making, shouldn?t they be seen by all members in hard copy in preparation for formal debate?? A proposal to close down discussion,using egalitarianism as a cover.

Sandriana joined in the next day, likening the press group to the UK Left Network, which had ?degenerated into a stew of fringe lunacy and ad-hominem attacks? with its ?infestation of sectarian troublemakers?. However, she was more defensive than her comrades: ?Yes, SWP members do compose the largest element within the SA, but we all read and post as individual SA members. I can state categorically that as far as I am aware there is no ?SWP agenda? being put forward to the list by members, and certainly not one dictated to us by Party notes. I am not aware of, nor has any posting to this list made me aware of, any desire by SWP members that this list be silenced.?

Alone of all the SWP comrades, Sandriana called for the list to be continued: ?There is a need for a forum where suspicion and mistrust can be overcome by honest discussion.? She went on to call for effective moderation to ?kick off? the miscreants and ensure that ?SA members all over the country can discuss issues of importance to them?.

This contribution was certainly at odds with those of her comrades. After all, what on earth was so unacceptable about the postings of comrades Wake and SJR? Why should their honest views, however misguided they might be in the opinion of the SWP or anyone else, be excluded? Ironically they, as ?independents?, are the type of people the SWP claims to want to draw into the alliance. Hardly the way to go about it, comrades.

Another non-aligned comrade weighed in: ?To the last few SWP members who are whinging about this,? wrote Dave Parks of Exeter, ?please, comrades, you are part of one of the largest component organisations within the Socialist Alliance - surely you can cope with some critical comments. It is really quite simple - if those critical comments are unjustified (and I certainly think that some of them are) then surely you have the political capability of simply putting the matter straight or putting a counter-argument. It can?t be beyond the wit of comrades to point out how pathetic the attack on the listings of SA meetings in Socialist Worker are.

?In my view the points being raised by John Wake are over the top and sectarian, but I feel his views reflect mistrust which is deep-seated right across the left. For trust to be built we need to engage in dialogue so all sides can see that mistrust is misplaced.?

Janine Booth of the Alliance for Workers? Liberty contented herself with a practical suggestion combined with understated irony: ?If we had separate press and discussion lists, I would subscribe to both. Anyone who wants to be part of discussions but is uninterested in press work could be on the discussion list only. And anyone who does press work but finds debate (or criticism of their own party) intolerable can just be on the press list.?

Quite so. And that was the solution plumped for by the July 28 Liaison meeting. The decision was taken in a rush at the very end with the SWP having no alternative but to accept it, since it was the only proposal on the table, moved by comrade Nellist. It was either that or the status quo. In fact, despite comrade Hoveman?s opposition to the new arrangement (see opposite), it is eminently sensible. We need both a list for the exchange of information and hard facts and a forum for discussion.

Comrade Hoveman?s protestations that there are ?proper democratic channels? for such debate are clearly untrue: pinched two-minute speeches have become almost the norm at SA meetings at all levels. And of course rank and file non-aligned SA members have no means of circulating their written views.

But comrade Hoveman makes it clear that vigorous debate is an anathema. It is not only specific critical contributions he objects to. Those of comrades SJR, Wake and Parks - the most ?extreme? that have appeared - are actually comparatively mild and reasonably comradely and it is completely untrue that they ?dominate? the list. He thinks that all displays of disagreement ?do no favours to the building of the Socialist Alliance whatsoever?. As I say, the SWP has an awful long way to go in terms of developing a healthy democratic culture. Thankfully, leading comrades from the AWL, Workers Power and the CPGB all stepped in quickly to disagree.

It is true that e-mail lists often produce ill-considered and low-level contributions. But they can also give rise to some gems. Let comrades say what they want and let all who want to read them. Attempting to keep the lid on such exchanges is not only futile: it is counterproductive. And, as others have pointed out on the SA Press Group, what we really need is a regular, vibrant SA paper - one that facilitates continuous, no-holds-barred debate and helps to raise our combativity and advance mutual understanding.

The SWP has come a long way over the last couple of years. Despite the demonstration of its leadership?s tendency to bureaucracy, revealed so clearly in this dispute, we should certainly not give up on the comrades. They will continue to change .

Peter Manson

Sectarian backbiters ...

Rob Hoveman deplores the ?bile? of Socialist Alliance comrades who criticise the SWP

The Socialist Alliance Press Group was set up in order to improve communication horizontally and vertically across the Socialist Alliance. It provided information about events and useful initiatives locally and nationally and access to local and national press releases. It is in my view a great shame that this purpose, which brought most of us into subscription to the press group, has been abandoned by the moderators in favour of an unmoderated sectarian backbiters? list.

The issue of the future of this list was briefly discussed at the Liaison meeting on Saturday. By majority vote the Liaison meeting took the decision to leave this list running in its present form and to establish a new list which would perform the functions of the press group list prior to the general election. In my opinion this was a mistake, as it will oblige people like me who want nothing to do with the bile currently issuing onto the press group list to unsubscribe from this group and subscribe to a new group. However, the decision has been made.

I would urge two things in relation to this current e-group. Firstly it should change its name, preferably not using the words ?Socialist Alliance? or ?press?. It is not in any sense now the Socialist Alliance Press Group. Secondly we should take a decision nationally that this is not in any sense an ?official? ?discussion? list. The contributions that now dominate this list do no favours to the building of the Socialist Alliance whatsoever. There are proper democratic channels within the Socialist Alliance for making constructive criticism (channels which I hope will be improved at the December structure conference) and the comrades who have such criticisms should use them.

The new list needs to be set up as soon as possible. I presume its membership will have some sort of restriction to officers of local Socialist Alliances, including the press officer if you have one. Could members of the current press group send in e-mail details as soon as possible to the national office at office@socialistalliance.net of who the officers of your local Socialist Alliance are and their e-mail addresses. Could you also ask them to e-mail the office as to whether they wish to go on the new moderated notice board e-list.

Finally I, like a number of other national officers, will be unsubscribing from this list as soon as the new list is properly establishedl

Rob Hoveman, SWP
national vice-chair

... And some responses

I am disappointed that Rob Hoveman has acted in a spirit which I think is opposed to the decision taken by Saturday?s Liaison Committee.

The decision was quite clearly to open this list to all Socialist Alliance members for discussion. In this sense, it is an ?official? SA list. Its name is immaterial. This is clearly no longer a press list, but a list for open debate. An alternate list for information sharing, which will be moderated, will be open shortly.

The concerted and organised intervention of SWP members to pooh-pooh this list is also disappointing.

Frankly, if you haven?t got the maturity to delete and ignore contributions you don?t like, that is your problem. The nature of this medium is that all sort of irrelevance will appear. And yes, people may also express ?bile?. I personally ignore and delete this stuff.

However, with maturity and concerted efforts, informative debate is possible through this medium. I would have thought it was the responsibility of leading members of the SA to encourage such a culture in light of the democratic decision of the Liaison Committee.

For Rob to write as if he was representing the opinion of ?other national officers? is unfortunate. I am sure that other members of the executive will not be unsubscribing.

Marcus Larsen, CPGB
executive committee member

The executive agreed to propose that this list be turned into an open discussion list of the Socialist Alliance. The Liaison meeting voted to endorse this proposal. It is therefore a Socialist Alliance list, not an informal one. I think Rob Hoveman is wrong to suggest that it should drop the words ?Socialist Alliance? or in some other way be dissociated from the Socialist Alliance. This wasn?t proposed when the matter was discussed and decided on, nor should it be decided now. Whether people participate is up to them.

I am not at all in favour of bile or real sectarianism. But I am against any undermining of political discussion on an e-list simply because groups or individuals are subject to criticisms on those lists. Debate can be conducted in a civilised way even where criticisms are sharp and important.

Mark Hoskisson, Workers Power
national election committee

I?m glad the Liaison meeting voted to continue the list as one for open discussion. Those who voted against have a right to their opinion, but I think they should separate their function as officers from the SA from their personal opinions. As officers of the SA their job is to implement the decision - in the first place, report it straightforwardly, distinguishing their job as officers to report decisions accurately and neutrally from their right as individuals to abhor them.

As to recent contributions on the list, I agree entirely with Marcus Larsen: ?The nature of this medium is that all sort of irrelevance will appear. And yes, people may also express ?bile?. I personally ignore and delete this stuff? - but ?if you haven?t got the maturity to delete and ignore contributions you don?t like, that is your problem?.

The real answer is to have a sufficient volume of informative and relevant debate to drown out the ?bile?. Mark Hoskisson?s recent contribution, which I largely agree with, is a good start. Let?s have some replies to it from those who disagree.

Martin Thomas, Alliance for Workers? Liberty
executive committee member