Correspondence: Request for a debate

I trust you will afford this letter space in the columns of the Socialist Standard.

Whilst I was a member of the S.P.G.B. I developed views which were critical of the declaration of principles of the Party. Early this year the members carried a resolution which made it impossible to express those views within the party and retain membership.

I resigned my membership.

A few weeks ago I wrote to the Executive Committee, asking them to appoint a representative of the Party to debate with me publicly. I was fobbed off with the lame and untrue statement that the S.P.G.B. does not debate with individuals (during my 25 years membership I was officially appointed to debate several “individuals”) It was also stated that if and when I join another organisation they would be pleased to debate with me as a representative of that organization.

Now I have very sincere and serious criticisms of the S.P.G.B. principles and policy, I suggest that such a debate would have greater value than the debates with Sir Waldron Smithers. I do hope that the S.P.G.B. will back up the statements of those members who said that they would be pleased to debate with me when I left the Party. I have pleasure in accepting their challenge.

As I stated in my letter to the Executive Committee, I am quite prepared to leave the choice of title to them, providing it will permit the following issues supported by the S.P.G.B., to be debated.

That a Socialist Party must be a working-class party.
That the working-class must capture control of the machinery of Government.
Violence.
Materialist Conception of History.

Also that I can defend my positive position as laid out in the article appearing in the April, 1955, issue of “Forum,” and any other article appearing over my name in the “ Forum ”
A. W. L. Turner

Reply:
The letter of May 1st, in which A. W. L. Turner asked for a debate, was replied to as follows:

“If and when you can get the support of another political organisation, we would be happy to debate with you as their representative, and, that until such times as these conditions arise, you can use the same method of attacking the Party as is open to any other member of the public in opposition.”

To his further letter, reproduced above, the following reply was sent:

“Replying to your letter of July 11th, we wish to inform you that the Party is prepared to debate with you through the columns of the ‘Socialist Standard’ on the question of the validity of our object and Declaration of Principles.”

The first statement in Turner’s letter is inaccurate. In fact, he “developed ideas” opposed to the Declaration of Principles of the Party. The resolution he refers to was a question put to a poll of the membership. The question was as follows: —

“Shall members of the Party who do not accept its Object and Declaration of Principles be asked to resign, and if they refuse to do so their membership be terminated?”
The majority of the members answered “yes” to the question.

As a late member of the Party Turner is well aware of the fact that be can put his opposition to the Party in writing for publication and reply in the columns of the Socialist Standard. In this way the statements of both parties to the discussion or debate are set down in writing and the reader can check arguments and statements if in any doubt. This is the most satisfactory way of making the position of each side clear, and gives Turner all the opportunity he should need to state his case.

As Turner is constantly on our platform stating his case in opposition, which is more than equivalent to a formal debate, we are puzzled at his unnecessary request for an oral debate.

Executive Committee.