24.07.2002
Lively debate
A 'Question time' debate on the building of the Socialist Alliance in the north-east took place on July 18 in Newcastle. Alan Thornett of the International Socialist Group and Rob Hoveman, national secretary of the SA and a member of the Socialist Workers Party, answered questions already forwarded to them by Tyneside SA. The meeting was, rather disappointingly, attended by about 20 people and, although the debate was interesting, it was not quite the beginning of the "fightback" on Tyneside, as the local leaflet had proclaimed. The format - prepared answers to set questions - meant that initially the national speakers' remarks were less than riveting, but there were some very good interventions when the debate was opened up to the floor and proceedings started to liven up. The first question set for the panel concerned the party question and whether the Scottish Socialist Party should be the model for a future united SA party. As might be expected, comrade Thornett was rather more sympathetic to this idea than Rob Hoveman, and the meeting itself was also divided. For the CPGB I argued against the SSP model, but most supported the idea of an SA party which contained both revolutionaries and reformists. An aggressive and excited SWPer attacked the CPGB for disparaging the SWP's idea of itself as the already existing revolutionary party. Ed Whitby (Alliance for Workers' Liberty) responded by criticising the SWP's understanding of the SA as a "united front of a special type" and argued for a clearer conception of what we are trying to build. In his response to a question on how the SA should relate to the wider anti-capitalist movement comrade Hoveman interestingly looked to the example of Rifondazione Comunista. Whatever criticisms we might have of Rifondazione, its stress on democracy, open debate in front of the class and acceptance of open factions shows the SWP itself up in a poor light. At first I thought that Rob was joining Chris Harman in the new pro-party wing of the SWP, until I realised that it was only the PRC's policy in this sphere, not its form of organisation, he was recommending for the SA. Perhaps the two are more connected than comrade Hoveman thinks though. This was followed by a discussion on the desirability of an SA newspaper. The AWL and CPGB comrades argued in favour of such a publication and I suggested that, if the majority persisted in voting it down, the minority should take the initiative and set up an unofficial SA paper. This was not to the liking of the SWP comrades, who held up the Weekly Worker as a horrific example of what this kind of newspaper might be. An "introverted" paper like this, carrying SA news, was to be resisted, argued comrade Hoveman though. A CPGB comrade pointed out that many read the Weekly Worker to find out what is going on in the SA (not to mention reports of the SWP's Marxism school) - a fact readily demonstrated by the numbers sold to SWP members at the Durham Miners Gala the previous week. Although there were interesting questions and interventions from Pete Burnett and Louise Van der Hoven of the ISG, there was no real comradely attempt at the clarification of our different understandings of the SA project at this meeting. We need to try and foster an open culture of debate at meetings free from ritual denunciations of those who have the temerity to think that the SA should play a crucial role in the building of a revolutionary party. Martyn Hudson
Worker