The Communist Party of Great Britain (CPGB) - Provisional Central Committee

[communard resolution]

I know very little about this party.

Wikipedia says that the original CPGB 1920-1991 was Stalinist throughout most of its existence, but that the new CPGB (1991-today) mutated into "something very different" in the past 18 years.

Based on their draft programme (LINK (http://www.cpgb.org.uk/documents/cpgb/what.html)), immediate demands (LINK (http://www.cpgb.org.uk/documents/cpgb/prog_demands.html)), and your own information, what are your views on this group?

When glancing through some of the articles published in Weekly Worker (http://www.cpgb.org.uk/worker/index.html), it appears that a variety of opinions are expressed and discussion - rather than a rigid line - is encouraged. They seem to consequentially oppose nationalisms, including left nationalism/populism (e.g. no2Eu), 'socialism in one country' scenarios, etc. My impression is a positive one.

Their programme states:


As a general rule communists do not want to see countries broken up into small nation-states. Ours is the revolutionary call for humanity to shed the flag-waving imagined community of nation-states.
Communists are the most consistent internationalists and unreservedly denounce any tactical pandering to, let alone attempts to exacerbate, national tensions.
However, this is somewhat contradicted in the following paragraph on national liberation:


Communists fight to secure the right of nations and nationalities to self-determination. Every historically constituted people should be able to freely decide its own destiny. They can separate if they so wish. Thereby they can also elect to come together or stay together with others.I'm not sure what to think of a group whose current programme appears very internationalist/democratic/progressive, but whose predecessor parties were supporters of the Stalinst and post-Stalinist Eastern Bloc.

How strong are their links to the past as far as personnel?

What are their attitudes towards 'anti-fascist' alliances with bourgeois groups and 'anti-imperialist' alliances with reactionary/nationalist/theocratic groups?

Thanks in advance for any views or information on the new CPGB.

[BobKKKindle$]

They are widely considered a joke by the rest of the left in the UK because they have absolutely no role in the trade union movement and spend all of their time and resources trying to rubbish other left-wing organizations which are actually doing things to try and engage with the broader working class and develop a revolutionary alternative to capitalism. Their main strategy consists of trying to attach the word "Marxism" to everything. This was what they did at a forum last year called 'Another Education Is Possible', which, as the name suggests, was launched to try and fight against fee increases and eventually obtain the abolition of all higher education fees, and, in that context, it was totally the wrong strategy, because the forum was a broad initiative that involved many students and activists who did not consider themselves Marxists. I don't think they're really worth anyone's time, to be honest.

[Charles Xavier]

They are widely considered a joke by the rest of the left in the UK because they have absolutely no role in the trade union movement and spend all of their time and resources trying to rubbish other left-wing organizations which are actually doing things to try and engage with the broader working class and develop a revolutionary alternative to capitalism. Their main strategy consists of trying to attach the word "Marxism" to everything. This was what they did at a forum last year called 'Another Education Is Possible', which, as the name suggests, was launched to try and fight against fee increases and eventually obtain the abolition of all higher education fees, and, in that context, it was totally the wrong strategy, because the forum was a broad initiative that involved many students and activists who did not consider themselves Marxists. I don't think they're really worth anyone's time, to be honest.

Why is wrong to be against fee increases and against tuition fees entirely?

[BobKKKindle$]

Why is wrong to be against fee increases and against tuition fees entirely?

Nothing, of course. The forum wasn't launched by the CPGB, it was an independent initiative, and was attended by a range of different left-wing organizations including the SWP, as well as a large number of independent student activists. The problem was that the CPGB used their tiny presence to make ridiculous demands like inserting the word "Marxism" (or "Marxist") into the name of the forum as well as all of the principles and demands that were agreed upon at its first meeting. This kind of ultra-left behaviour demonstrates that a group is isolated from the mass student movement, and is a classic feature of irrelevant sects like the CPGB.

[Sam_b]

In fairness, I don't think they tried to attach 'Marxism' to Hands Off the People of Iran. But most of their activity as HOPI especially towards Stop the War was done in nothing less than an elitist, sectarian attitude.

[Die Neue Zeit]

First off, I'd like to reiterate my criticisms of the CPGB (valid criticisms, not some of those above that are little more than hot air :glare: ):

1) They have a binary line regarding "bourgeois worker" parties (from Lenin's specifically contextual commentary against left communism) and communist parties (as noted by BK's "attach the word 'Marxist' to everything" remark), neglecting the immediate need for proletarian parties (because this would mean a shift in attitude towards Labour and the "labour movement" on the one hand, and on the other the "expulsion" of some of their members, who aren't manual, clerical, or professional workers but are instead either "unproductive" semi-workers or coordinators).

2) They have a fetish for the electoral principle (in contrast with demarchy).

3) Some of their minimum demands don't seem to address the very real need for real, reform-enabling reform (co-ops, upward cost-of-living adjustments for all non-exec jobs, etc.). I'm surprised that, after all of CPGB comrade Mike Macnair's theoretical and programmatic contributions, the "draft program" hasn't undergone severe amendments.



Now, on to the hot air "criticisms":


They have absolutely no role in the trade union movement and spend all of their time and resources trying to rubbish other left-wing organizations which are actually doing things to try and engage with the broader working class and develop a revolutionary alternative to capitalism.

The majority of workers, where I'm from, are NOT unionized. Based on Marx and the past history of worker-class movements, proletarian separatism, which would result in *your* exclusion from worker-class movements (unless you become a manual, clerical, or professional worker like myself), is a radical alternative to the tailist pursuit of lobbying for trade union affiliation.

The CPGB's criticisms of the tailist approaches of other left-wing organizations are valid, in spite of missing the obvious right in front of them. This week's edition of the Weekly Worker commented on the skin-deep turnaround by the SWP (including editor Chris Bambery) on the subject of MPs on the pay level of the average skilled worker, long after the cross-class-collaborationist "popular" front effort known as RESPECT (not to mention George Galloway).

[communard resolution]

Bobkindles says they do nothing expect rubbishing other groups. A look at their 'activists diary' reveals that they're involved in quite a few activies: LINK (http://www.cpgb.org.uk/action/index.html). The fact that they play no role in the trade union movement may be down to their still being a relatively small group?

Sam b - I take it they're largely involved in the same anti-BNP/anti-war popular fronts as the SWP (UAF, Stop The War, etc) - is that correct?
What about their behaviour stroke you as sectarian in this context?

At first glance, one distinguishing feature of the Daily Worker is that they publish a variety of opinions and encourage dialogue - to me, the opposite of sectarian. They publish readers letters that are very critical of their group.

They allow factions and explicitly encourage self-criticism.

Jacob - I don't understand point 1 at all. What does 'non-procuctive semi-workers' mean? Does it refer to supervisors, managers, etc who don't own the means of production but are in privileged positions of power and are unlikely to side with 'productive workers'? Or does the term 'non-productive' encompass more than that?

Point 2 - All the better for it. The more members involved in decision-making processes, the better - no? Where do you see the advantages in demarchy?

Point 3 - ok

Your comment on 'hot air criticisms': Not sure I understand this either -
the CPGB are not inolved in the trade union movement by choice, but are hesitant to advocate proletarian separetism it because it would mean the expulsion of some of their members?

everybody - what are the CPGB positions on

-National liberation struggles?
-Anti-fascism & alliances with bourgeois/reactionary groups (e.g. against the BNP, against war, etc.)
-their own Stalinite past
-the USSR (good up until what point in history?)
-current pseudo-socialist bureaucracies (Cuba, NK, etc - 'critical support' or not?)

Their 'bureucratic collectivism' view of the Eastern Bloc countries makes sense - your criticisms?

[Sam_b]

Sam b - I take it they're largely involved in the same anti-BNP/anti-war popular fronts as the SWP (UAF, Stop The War, etc) - is that correct?
What about their behaviour stroke you as sectarian in this context?


No. As far as I can tell the two organisaitions the CPGB participate in is HOPI (which I would label their 'front' group for all intents and purposes) and the Convention of the Left (which we are in in minimal capacity). It also tried to form Campaign for a Marxist Party in opposition to the SPEW's Campaign for a new Worker's Party.

HOPI approached STWC at one of its conferences (I believe it was two years ago) and was denied affiliation. When this was rejected HOPI members, including the National Secretary who is of course a CPGB member then lambasted STWC, a group they had wanted to join moments before for having "rotten politics". HOPI even threatened some counter-picketing of STWC activities at Glasgow and specifically Glasgow University for a time as well :rolleyes: So this is why in this context I label them as sectarian.

The Weekly Worker is often (rightly so in my opinion) regarded as merely the gossip paper of the left in Britain, and I see it as merely gutter-sniping from the sidelines at movements rather than focusing on its own activities and getting involved in the movement to greater lengths. The fact that they publish letters in opposition shouldn't be lauded - they should be doin that anyway, and all decent left papers should do the same!

--

@ Jacob or anyone: could you elaborate on the CPGB's views on creating a 'Communist Party of the European Union', and how this is different from the eurocom approach of the CPB?

[Yehuda Stern]

They are widely considered a joke by the rest of the left in the UK because they have absolutely no role in the trade union movement and spend all of their time and resources trying to rubbish other left-wing organizations which are actually doing things to try and engage with the broader working class and develop a revolutionary alternative to capitalism. Yeah, this is the kind of criticism I'd expect from an SWPer and it doesn't really impress. It seems that for the SWP, any person or group which criticizes it is "sectarian." In what way is this group sectarian? According to Nero they seem to be quite active. Also, if they're sectarian, what about their politics causes this? Are they sectarian just because, or is their sectarianism rooted in their politics?

These questions alone show that just shouting "sectarian" at a certain group doesn't teach anyone anything, and is more indicative of one's hysteric refusal to engage with ideas different than his own than of the group's attitude to the labour movement.

Nero: I think ideas posted on a web page aren't enough to judge a political group. Like you said, the group speaks a lot about internationalism and supporting national liberation, but is descended from groups that were Stalinist through and through. I think that the secret is to examine their positions on more modern manners; only then can one make the link between their politics, their theories and their history.

[communard resolution]

No. As far as I can tell the two organisaitions the CPGB participate in is HOPI (which I would label their 'front' group for all intents and purposes)

Had a cursory look at Hopoi (http://www.hopoi.org/). The website says:


Hands Off The People Of Iran fights against the threat of any imperialist intervention, war or sanctions against Iran. It looks to build active, practical solidarity with grass-roots radical secular forces in Iran, the militant women’s, workers and students movementsand furthermore,


But we know that change must come from below - from the struggles of the working class and social movements - if it is to lead to genuine liberation [...] Support to all working class and progressive struggles in Iran [...] support for socialism, democracy and workers' control in Iran!This sounds much better than your average 'front' - I have a problem with reactionary allies, but Hopoi seem to make a point of supporting our comrades in Iran, not their oppressors. Once again, my first impression is positive.


also tried to form Campaign for a Marxist Party in opposition to the SPEW's Campaign for a new Worker's Party.Nothing came out of it?


The Weekly Worker is often (rightly so in my opinion) regarded as merely the gossip paper of the left in BritainJudging by my humble observations, I don't think this is an entirely fair assessment. True, there is some mud-slinging in there, the current focus being No2EU - quite rightly IMO. But the articles in question are very non-gossipy and examine the positions of No2EU in an intelligent manner rather than peddling anecdotes and trivia.

And yes, it's hard not to notice that they have a particular beef with the SWP, and vice versa. I can obviously not comment on that since I haven't been involved in any of the events you mentioned, so I'd rather just stick to discussing their positions.

OK, thanks.

[Sam_b]

Nothing came out of it?
I believe they wound up the project sometime in 2008, though i'm not sure. Even if it is continuing I don't think its their main priority right now?

For the record, I agree with their position on No2EU, but in my personal experience in public forums they tend to parrot the 'Sparts-lite' line of shouting the odds.

[Die Neue Zeit]

Jacob - I don't understand point 1 at all. What does 'non-procuctive semi-workers' mean? Does it refer to supervisors, managers, etc who don't own the means of production but are in privileged positions of power and are unlikely to side with 'productive workers'? Or does the term 'non-productive' encompass more than that?

I'm referring to factually self-employed folks, perhaps also specific small-businesspeople who own their MOP but who don't hire labour for profit. Also, the cops, judges, lawyers, etc.


Point 2 - All the better for it. The more members involved in decision-making processes, the better - no? Where do you see the advantages in demarchy?

What I meant by "electoral principle" was the elections of persons, not votes on policy. The political system of Ancient Greece was one wherein would-be administrators, would-be jurors, and other public officials except generals were selected by lot. That way, more time is left for policy resolutions.


Your comment on 'hot air criticisms': Not sure I understand this either -
the CPGB are not involved in the trade union movement by choice, but are hesitant to advocate proletarian separatism it because it would mean the expulsion of some of their members?

Perhaps some of their members aren't workers at all. For example, if there's some academic there who has underlying research staff, he would be considered a coordinator of labour and not a prole. My suspicions here point to comrade Macnair himself. Also, how does Jack Conrad make a living?


everybody - what are the CPGB positions on

-National liberation struggles?
-Anti-fascism & alliances with bourgeois/reactionary groups (e.g. against the BNP, against war, etc.)
-their own Stalinite past
-the USSR (good up until what point in history?)
-current pseudo-socialist bureaucracies (Cuba, NK, etc - 'critical support' or not?)

Their 'bureaucratic collectivism' view of the Eastern Bloc countries makes sense - your criticisms?

More or less the typical Trotskyist POV, but they're more critical of the Bolsheviks during the formation of the Comintern ("DOTP = dictatorship of the party," no mass party, etc.).




@ Jacob or anyone: could you elaborate on the CPGB's views on creating a 'Communist Party of the European Union', and how this is different from the eurocom approach of the CPB?

The CPB is rather hypocritical in its nationalistic approach. Its basis for party-building and movement-building is some sort of "British road to socialism," as evidenced by its leading role in No2EU (RMT provides the cover). The CPGB, by contrast, seeks to immediately create something like the ultra-left International Communist Current (with no one national "party" being the lead "party" supported by cheerleading "parties" elsewhere), but only at the EU level.




Like you said, the group speaks a lot about internationalism and supporting national liberation, but is descended from groups that were Stalinist through and through. I think that the secret is to examine their positions on more modern manners; only then can one make the link between their politics, their theories and their history.

My revolutionary centrism is inspired to a great extent by the CPGB's revolutionary centrism (read my signature), in contrast with the vulgar "centrism" (or worse) of the CPB. :p

[Yehuda Stern]

My revolutionary centrism is inspired to a great extent by the CPGB's revolutionary centrism (read my signature), in contrast with the vulgar "centrism" (or worse) of the CPB. http://www.revleft.com/vb/../revleft/smilies/001_tongue.gif

Again, revolutionary centrism and vulgar "centrism" are terms you made up, so please don't expect them to mean anything to me. And there's nothing revolutionary about your centrism, or that of the CPGB.

[The Idler]

The Weekly Worker seems to be the only quality publication on the left which publishes dissenting views from its own. I have never seen dissenting views, genuine debate or much mention of other parties in the Socialist Worker or the Morning Star etc. The Weekly Worker is one of the few places where you can read left-wing critical views of other parties. The CPGB also allow factions whereas the SWP do not.

[BOZG]

The Weekly Worker seems to be the only quality publication on the left which publishes dissenting views from its own. I have never seen dissenting views, genuine debate or much mention of other parties in the Socialist Worker or the Morning Star etc. The Weekly Worker is one of the few places where you can read left-wing critical views of other parties. The CPGB also allow factions whereas the SWP do not.


Weekly Worker is generally considered the gossip column of the British left.

[Q]

Weekly Worker is generally considered the gossip column of the British left.
Yes, Sam_b already stated that and Nero already refuted that. Cheers.

[h0m0revolutionary]

everybody - what are the CPGB positions on

-National liberation struggles?
-Anti-fascism & alliances with bourgeois/reactionary groups (e.g. against the BNP, against war, etc.)
-their own Stalinite past
-the USSR (good up until what point in history?)
-current pseudo-socialist bureaucracies (Cuba, NK, etc - 'critical support' or not?)


Ok National liberation:
The CPGB hold that peoples of any nation have the right to split from that nation and establish a new national bourgoisie if they so wish. In that vein they would defend the right of Tibetians, for example, to have an independent state.

Anti-Fascism: The CPGB do NOT believe the BNP are fascist and call AGAINST no platform in educational establishments

Stalin-ite Past: The CPGB-PCC has the right to the name CPGB, but they are NOT the same people as the old CPGB. The split was between Stalinites (who have now form the Communist Party of Britain) and the modern Kautskyite CPGB.

USSR: They call the USSR from stalin-onwards 'beaurocratic socialism' but then go on to say that socialism cannot by it's nature be beaurocratic. They're confused in this position.

Workers States: they do not hold that Cuba, NK etc. are workers stated (deformed, degenerate or otherwise) but of course like anyone else, would defend them against imperialism.

Can i make a crucial point here though, that I am a member of HOPI and i *loathe* the CPGB, can we please discuss HOPI and CPGB in different threads. Only this is a clear attempt to make the two appear similar orginisaitons and they aren't.

[h0m0revolutionary]

With regards to the Weekly Worker. I would say it's a gossip rag. Although what Nero says is legit..

The problem with the CPGB (and indeed their paper) is that they don't do anything. Their only activism comes in the form of Hands Off the People of Iran, which is why they're commonly seen to be more influential in the HOPI campaign than they are.

They do nothing except go to other groups meetings/rallies and such and disrupt them, promote splits in united front campaigns and threaten to keep doing so unless groups adopt their Party Platform. They are about 20 members (the runt of the left litter) percisely because they're seen as those who just attack everyone else and do nothing themselves.

Their paper does offer some good articles, hell i've even written for it myself, but it's obsession with attacking the existing left is bizarre.

In short they substitute class politics for attacking the left. They do nothing but focus on the existing left and do little to engage with workers who are not affiliated - how they wish to establish themselves as the 'Communist Party of Europe' with this approach is beyond me.

[Wanted Man]

how they wish to establish themselves as the 'Communist Party of Europe' with this approach is beyond me.
I certainly can't think of any other European communist parties who would want to do this with them. So it sounds more like a shrill demand than a serious political plan.

[Sam_b]

The CPGB also allow factions whereas the SWP do not.

Not quite true i'm afraid. We allow factions in the run-up to conference which have to be openly declared, and then dissolved once conference is over. This year there were two main factions.

[h0m0revolutionary]

Not quite true i'm afraid. We allow factions in the run-up to conference which have to be openly declared, and then dissolved once conference is over. This year there were two main factions.

haha i'm surprised you didn't lie.

your version of 'democratic centralism' amounts to just 'centralism'. A faction in the SWP can only exist for three months, who the hell can win over an argument to their whole orginisation within three months?

Why not have full faction rights that enable orginisations to have debates and try and win victory for their faction to ensure healthy debate and democracy?

Like all undemocratic measures in the SWP this is designed to keep the Central Committee all-powerful and unchallenged.

[Sam_b]

And as usual the anarchist comes in with the usual baseless bollocks. I won't 'lie' about my organisation because I for one am pleased with the way it works. Under our notion of deomcratic centralism arguments aren't 'won' in three months, but the organisation as a whole then takes up the issue internally. This is what happened with the democracy commission within the party, for example.


Like all undemocratic measures in the SWP this is designed to keep the Central Committee all-powerful and unchallenged

PLease don't comment on something you know precious little about. Explain to me how the CC was 'unchallenged' this year, for example. Or have you been reading the Socialist Unity blog a little too much?

[h0m0revolutionary]

I was a member for five years comrade.

And please explain to me how this years leadership was challenged?
it wasn't, Smith and Callinicos has majority on CC and so the 'alternative slate' (that didn't even attempt to do anything but retain John Rees) wasn't even proposed.

That's hardly democracy.

Similarly when I was a member John Mollyneux put forward such an 'alternative slate' which contained all the existing CC plus himself.

Again no political differences at all. Where was your serious discussion of Davidson's points that the SWP is shrinking and not so democratic?

Even better the whole sharade wasn't put in Socialist Worker, Socialist Resistance or International Socialist Journal - why? because you don't do democracy or political fights, you do internal ego splits and character bashing.

And what is so wrong with full faction rights, not limited to and around conference?

[Forward Union]

Tanks rust but sometimes not fast enough.

[Sam_b]

And please explain to me how this years leadership was challenged?
it wasn't, Smith and Callinicos has majority on CC and so the 'alternative slate' (that didn't even attempt to do anything but retain John Rees) wasn't even proposed.

That's hardly democracy.

Similarly when I was a member John Mollyneux put forward such an 'alternative slate' which contained all the existing CC plus himself.

Again no political differences at all. Where was your serious discussion of Davidson's points that the SWP is shrinking and not so democratic?

Even better the whole sharade wasn't put in Socialist Worker, Socialist Resistance or International Socialist Journal - why? because you don't do democracy or political fights, you do internal ego splits and character bashing.

And what is so wrong with full faction rights, not limited to and around conference?


This year there were extra internal bulletins produced to cope with the amount of articles and open letters made by comrades around the country. Unfortunately, this year coincided with the biggest demos seen for years around the issue of Palestine, and as an outward-looking party we had to mobilise our numbers to these first and foremost. This is why we have a democracy comission ongoing: with regular internal meetings and messages around it.

It seems that you regard 'democracy' as merely being full-blown fights and splits within a party or organisation by your tone. Thankfully, most of our party comrades sing off the same hymn sheet and will debate and discuss in a civilised and yes open manner. Indeed, I was a vocal supporter of Neil Davidson and his letter and motion to conference. Again you're only saying there is a lack of full and frank debates as someone who is outside of the SWP and its organisation.

Whats more important to us is being able to relate to the outside movement and struggle, and this is what we have and always will strive to do.

-

And thats all I have to say on our party in a thread about the CPGB.

EDIT: I also ifnd it quite funny and petty that you've been thanked by a cretin such as H-L-V-S, who doesn't know his arse from his elbow when talking about the SWP and whose criticism of these things are one-liners with no actual evidence. I tend, for example, not to make such baseless criticisms at anarchist organisations in Britain such as AFed as thankfully I have no interest at all in that particular organisation. Neither does the class really.

[The Ungovernable Farce]

Again you're only saying there is a lack of full and frank debates as someone who is outside of the SWP and its organisation.

Did you notice the part where he said: "I was a member for five years comrade"? Or do you think that members who notice a lack of democracy should have to stay in the party, because their - our - critiques of your undemocratic nature stop being valid as soon as we leave? When the founders of Trotskyism said there was a lack of full and frank debates in the Stalinist CPs, they said that as people who were outside the CPs as well.


And thats all I have to say on our party in a thread about the CPGB.

TBF, since most of the CPGB's activity consists of slagging your party off, it's a pretty relevant place to discuss it.

I tend, for example, not to make such baseless criticisms at anarchist organisations in Britain such as AFed as thankfully I have no interest at all in that particular organisation. Neither does the class really.
And because they'd actually be baseless if you made them about AF, rather than completely factual. I spent years in the SWP and I'm now in AF, and trust me, once you've joined a genuinely democratic organisation, you'll never want to go back.

[Sam_b]

Did you notice the part where he said: "I was a member for five years comrade"?

Well done there. So please tell me how that makes any fucking difference into a discussion of what happened at this years (and thats in bold so you actually understand this bit) conference?


When the founders of Trotskyism said there was a lack of full and frank debates in the Stalinist CPs, they said that as people who were outside the CPs as well.

The 'founders of Trotskyism' having experience of dealing with the Stalinist parties from within and constant first half experience? Though I see the irony of you trying to compare these people to an anarchist who got a bit pissed off when he used to be a trot.




Its interesting how so many AFeders are former members of the SWP. Do these comrades switch their politics when the wind changes, or which organisation is 'flavour of the month'. Oh and in before the inevitable bullshit of 'what has made it change now' 'i read on a blog that' 'i feel able to comment on internal matters because I used to be in the organisation but regardless that I wasn't there or didn't receive any bulletins'. And knowing how many of this ilk tend to pick and choose which ways to mount there feeble attacks on in before any mention of national liberation, the police, or stop the war.

I imagine you band around the word 'undemocratic' because the majority of comrades didn't agree with what you wanted and thus you all left in a huff.

[The Idler]

Its interesting how so many AFeders are former members of the SWP. Do these comrades switch their politics when the wind changes, or which organisation is 'flavour of the month'.
Its interesting how few Afeders ever return to the SWP. The flow seems to be in a one-way direction.

[Sam_b]

Judging by the size of AFed, this matters little.

[Tower of Bebel]

They want to forge a marxist party through the existing left (organizations). This also includes the Labour party, Jacob. That's the reason behind their criticism of anything inbetween a genuine communist party and the Labour party. As long there is the LP there won't be a new workers' party ("proletarian" party). New workers' parties need support from the unions for example, but they're tied to Labour (through the imperialist (re)organization of the social devision of labour). So through the eyes of the CPGB the Labour Party is still a bourgeois "workers" party (everday more bourgeois than ever).

The current left parties and movements are concidered their battle ground and that's why their paper is frequently concidered a gossip rag. That's also why they're mostly called sectarians. Hell, after hearing many one-liners concerning their alleged sectarianism and criticism of other parties they just look like the Belgian CWI :scared: (at least through the eyes of the existing left in Belgium).

No offence to those critical of them in a more productive way ;).

[BobKKKindle$]

it wasn't, Smith and Callinicos has majority on CC and so the 'alternative slate' (that didn't even attempt to do anything but retain John Rees) wasn't even proposed.Rees was removed at this year's conference, and German chose to resign shortly after it had become clear that Rees was going to lose his place on the CC - the fact that this proposal went through is an indication that the majority of conference was not happy with the way that Rees had conducted himself as part of RESPECT and felt that the SWP would be benefit from him not being a member of the CC, despite his ongoing and past contributions to our organization. Given that the delegates who are sent to conference are all elected in their respective branches, with each branch being allocated delegates on a fair basis, and given that the CC is elected at each conference by all of the delegates who are present, I don't see what the problem with this is. Anyone who is a member of the party is able to put forward their own slate as well as any opinions they may have on the current composition of the CC so it's not clear how you can see the party as being undemocratic on this basis. I think that there is room for improvement and that's why our party directly encourages its members to voice proposals and concerns through the democracy commission, which is currently touring the country, and regularly publishes an internal bulletin. The most recent issue of the bulletin contains a number of proposals for changing the way the CC is elected and it is possible that one or more of these proposals will be adopted at the next conference if the majority of delegates think that it will make the SWP a more democratic organization. Personally, based on my own experiences, I think the main problem with the SWP at the moment is that there is not enough attention given towards educating our newest members and ensuring that the whole of the membership is engaged in political activity on a regular basis. I've voiced these concerns openly around other comrades, and I don't think they detract in a major way from the value that the SWP possess as a revolutionary organization.


Even better the whole sharade wasn't put in Socialist Worker, Socialist Resistance or International Socialist Journal - why?I'm surprised you see this as a criticism. Why would people who are not members of the SWP be interested in internal disputes? All members receive weekly updates about what's happening inside the party through party notes, whereas the primary role of Socialist Worker is to function as an organizer, and as a way for people to get informed about the struggles of the class around the UK and throughout the world.


Why not have full faction rights that enable orginisations to have debates and try and win victory for their faction to ensure healthy debate and democracyOur policy of allowing factions to form themselves in the pre-conference period does not mean that people are not allowed to have different opinions or put forward unpopular proposals outside of that period - it just means that during the rest of the year party members have to submit to the policies that are agreed at party conference. Our party is full of debates all the time, including a big one right now, but we don't allow them to undermine united decision making - which is really an integral part of democracy, because if people don't agree to follow through on decisions that have been debated and accepted by the majority, then there's no point in upholding the decision of the majority as a meaningful political principle.

[Q]

Its interesting how so many AFeders are former members of the SWP. Do these comrades switch their politics when the wind changes, or which organisation is 'flavour of the month'.
Maybe it reflects the general political level of comrades in the SWP?


Oh and in before the inevitable bullshit of 'what has made it change now' 'i read on a blog that' 'i feel able to comment on internal matters because I used to be in the organisation but regardless that I wasn't there or didn't receive any bulletins'. And knowing how many of this ilk tend to pick and choose which ways to mount there feeble attacks on in before any mention of national liberation, the police, or stop the war.

I imagine you band around the word 'undemocratic' because the majority of comrades didn't agree with what you wanted and thus you all left in a huff.
Are the arguments running out?

[Sam_b]

There was no evidence in the first place. I thought you of all people Q would be able to formulate some sort of discussion rather than two questions. To be honest I don't really need to justify myself or my party to two members of AFed: i'm more concerned with justifying the party to te wider working class.

Its funny you'll fling yourself into this thread with some suggestive remarks, of course with no irony about some of the downright disgraceful positions, tactics and suchlike that the CWI has been involved in.

[Q]

I'm surprised you see this as a criticism. Why would people who are not members of the SWP be interested in internal disputes? All members receive weekly updates about what's happening inside the party through party notes, whereas the primary role of Socialist Worker is to function as an organizer, and as a way for people to get informed about the struggles of the class around the UK and throughout the world.
It has to do with the point of open discussion. The SWP is not a seperate part from the working class (or shouldn't be at least), merely (one of) its political organised parts. To test the ideas out to the people that matter, to see if they truly reflect the needs of the (advanced layers of the) working class.

In another forum I put it like this:

I however think open discussion is vital, for basically three reasons:
1. On the plane of the individual member. Members that think differently on an issue have a conflict, with themselves. In a closed environment you have to defend both the official line which was decided upon by the organisation, but have a different opinion personally. This conflict is termed cognitive dissonance and is a well known phenomena in psychology. People have several options to "solve" these conflicts, the most easy way is to give in to group pressure, in other words, conformity. However conformity then leads to conservatism if everyone thinks this way. I believe this is contradictory to the idea that we're building an organisation consisting out of leading cadres that are supposed to make a difference in working class struggle. In an open environment this issue becomes redundant.
2. A related issue on the leadership plane. If after all individual members follow the group, the leadership leads the group. They then become the "thinkers" of the organisation. Discussion then only takes place within the official structures of an organisation, everything outside that is a threat to that. Open discussion breaks this monopoly of discussion by the leadership. It acts as a counter-balance to too much centralism.
3. On the plane of the working class movement. In a closed discussion environment, my experience with entryism is that the party you work in (that is, the general consensus by members, there are of course exceptions) sees you as an alien entity. This of course is strongly related to the nature of the party. I work in a strongly bureaucratic top-down unitary party. But open discussion enables everyone to follow your organisation's discussions, it's conflicts, it's development. I like to make a parallel with the concept of open source software: there are only a few real developers of the software, yet because the source is open and reviewed by hundreds or even thousands of people, patches drop in, suggestions are made, features are requested, bugs are tested out, etc. The software gets improved, gets correcter. Similarly, if the organisation is open to a wider audience, the political line gets correcter, we become an integral part of the working class, if only a layer of it.

[communard resolution]

Ok National liberation:
The CPGB hold that peoples of any nation have the right to split from that nation and establish a new national bourgoisie if they so wish. In that vein they would defend the right of Tibetians, for example, to have an independent state.

I had the impression they were further to the left than that given their support of/involvement in HOPI, which explicitly supports progressive liberation movements rather than just any old liberation movement.


Anti-Fascism: The CPGB do NOT believe the BNP are fascist and call AGAINST no platform in educational establishmentsAs for whether the BNP are really fascist or not is completely irrelevant in my opinion. They're nationalists and racists - that's bad enough. To try and prove to people that the BNP are brownshirts is the wrong strategy, the focus should be on showing up how nationalism serves the interests of the ruling class, no matter if it's perpetuated by evil Hitler-worshippers or 'good patriotic lads'.

As for the second part, I'm in two minds about this, but that's best left for another thread to prevent this one from derailing.


Stalin-ite Past: The CPGB-PCC has the right to the name CPGB, but they are NOT the same people as the old CPGB. The split was between Stalinites (who have now form the Communist Party of Britain) and the modern Kautskyite CPGB.OK.


USSR: They call the USSR from stalin-onwards 'beaurocratic socialism' but then go on to say that socialism cannot by it's nature be beaurocratic. They're confused in this position.I think they actually call it bureaucratic collectivism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bureaucratic_collectivism) rather than socialism.


Can i make a crucial point here though, that I am a member of HOPI and i *loathe* the CPGB, can we please discuss HOPI and CPGB in different threads. Only this is a clear attempt to make the two appear similar orginisaitons and they aren't.Sam b stated HOPI were more or less a CPGB front, which I assumed to be true. I wasn't really attempting to do anything.

[Pogue]

CPGB are useless muppets tbh, even more so than the eurocomms CPB. They are cute though, its fun when they try to sell you their paper.

[communard resolution]

The problem with the CPGB (and indeed their paper) is that they don't do anything.

Well, if they really only number 20, their activities will be limited in scope. They do however run their 'communist university' thing, are involved in HOPI (I don't know to what extent) and a number of other things - whether they have organised them themselve or not, they still seem to be involved and are therefore active.

Plus, of course, the Weekly Worker: high quality, critical articles - a real asset. And I'm saying this as someone who doesn't particularly like anecdotal gossip.


they're seen as those who just attack everyone else and do nothing themselves.Haven't they called for a Marxist mass party, though?

HLVS - why do you think they are useless muppets?

[Q]

I just purchased a six month subscription.

(in b4 wasted money)

[Pogue]

EDIT: I also ifnd it quite funny and petty that you've been thanked by a cretin such as H-L-V-S, who doesn't know his arse from his elbow when talking about the SWP and whose criticism of these things are one-liners with no actual evidence. I tend, for example, not to make such baseless criticisms at anarchist organisations in Britain such as AFed as thankfully I have no interest at all in that particular organisation. Neither does the class really.


Says the guy whose party has absolutely no base in the working class whatsoever. No wonder your party is shrinking, your a mess of student 'radicals' who want something to do before they graduate. To the dustbin of history, you fucking posers!

The thing is the AFed isn't an arogant outfit of nerds like the SWP so isn't made up of people desperate to be paid attention by 'the class' (I assume you mean the working class which your party finds itself lacking any base in whatsoever), its a group of militants who want to encourage working class independent action. Because unlike your rabble, they don't see themselves as the glorious vanguard of the proletariat. Seriously, if we're going to be led into the revolution by the children of the bourgeoisie we're fucked from the beginning, and I can hardly see someone with a degree in East European literature being the one to be calling that pivotal strike or manning the barricades.

The AFed see's itself as part of the working class and irrelevant without it, they exist only to support the actions of the working class and attempt to influence it in a revolutionary direction where they can as independent working class people. On the other hand, the SWP is the home of Jesus figures who want to lead us silly oafs onto revolution, patronising everyone they can along the way and generally engaging in whatever movements can boost their membership. You lot take ourselves too seriously really, but then with members like yourself and bobkindles who is really suprised, I doubt you've ever really lived real life much. still, we'll all be lolling when you wind up in the lib dems aged 40.

[Pogue]

HLVS - why do you think they are useless muppets?


Tiny, Leninists, sectarian, and publish a rag with nothing but gossip. That is all.

[Sam_b]

H-L-V-S' one-line analysis of a political group as insightful as ever. Almost as insightful as his rant against the SWP - and in true H-L-V-S style, no substance nor evidence! After reading his rant and then his post on the CPGB as 'sectarian', people in glass houses shouldn't really throw stones.


On the other hand, the SWP is the home of Jesus figures who want to lead us silly oafs onto revolution, patronising everyone they can along the way

Lies. The SWP adheres to the concept that the 'emancipation of the working class is the act of the working class'. We do not see our party or us as the main actors or charge in a revolutionary situation. However i'm sure you can quote evidence otherwise?


engaging in whatever movements can boost their membership

Is there something wrong with entering movements trying to win people over to our ideas? There are far many more groups and actors in these things you've referred to as 'fronts' before than just ourselves. Of course if you actually engaged with these movements you'd now that, rather than sniping from the sidelines.


I doubt you've ever really lived real life much

Thankfully you know nothing about me and it shows. All talk, but no substance.

[communard resolution]

Leninists

I see, but this isn't a criticism of the CPGB specifically, it's just that you reject Leninism in general.


and publish a rag with nothing but gossip. That is all.But that's not true. Here's for the index of the May issue: link (http://www.cpgb.org.uk/worker/770/index.html)

Where's the gossip?



sectarianThe current issue (link above) has two interviews with No2EU members - and CPGB are highly critical of No2EU. How is that sectarian?

[h0m0revolutionary]

I see, but this isn't a criticism of the CPGB specifically, it's just that you reject Leninism in general.

But that's not true. Here's for the index of the May issue: link (http://www.cpgb.org.uk/worker/770/index.html)

Where's the gossip?

The current issue (link above) has two interviews with No2EU members - and CPGB are highly critical of No2EU. How is that sectarian?

Comrade you're right in what you're saying, I have no issue with the weekly worker attacking the left. But when that's all an orginisation does, then it's a different matter.

I work very closely with them, and for what it's worth they're mostly a nice bunch (if a little macho and posh :P). But they do annoy me as an orginisaiton because no matter what left/anti-capitalist unity gathering im at they turn up, denounce it like some sect group and call for a full Marxist programme that they come up with (including such demands as right to bear arms - how im supporsed to tacke this seriously in a student gathering i dont know..)

I tinhk the WW is an ok read and does to it's credit allow for dissenting views, but I view the CPGB as less of an orginisation owning a paper and more of a paper owning an orginisation. As the paper is all they do that is constructive.

They have a really bad rep on the left and I hate to say it to some of my closest friends, but they deserve it.

[Revy]

This No2EU bullshit is what all you comrades should be opposing, not the CPGB, which often takes principled stands, instead of opportunistic ones.

I guess that's the folly of being right, everyone else just calls you a "meanie". Like how anti-imperialists are called anti-American, it is supposedly sectarian to bring up logical
criticisms of parties which have a pretense of being on the socialist left.

[h0m0revolutionary]

This No2EU bullshit is what all you comrades should be opposing, not the CPGB.

:laugh: im third-campist on this one comrade. Neither No2EU nor the CPGB! =p

[Die Neue Zeit]

They want to forge a Marxist party through the existing left (organizations). This also includes the Labour party, Jacob. That's the reason behind their criticism of anything inbetween a genuine communist party and the Labour party. As long there is the LP there won't be a new workers' party ("proletarian" party). New workers' parties need support from the unions for example, but they're tied to Labour (through the imperialist (re)organization of the social devision of labour). So through the eyes of the CPGB the Labour Party is still a bourgeois "workers" party (everday more bourgeois than ever).

The current left parties and movements are considered their battle ground and that's why their paper is frequently considered a gossip rag. That's also why they're mostly called sectarians. Hell, after hearing many one-liners concerning their alleged sectarianism and criticism of other parties they just look like the Belgian CWI :scared: (at least through the eyes of the existing left in Belgium).

No offence to those critical of them in a more productive way ;).

No offense taken at all. :)

Well, I do recall a couple of articles mentioning the need to work through "the existing left," but I couldn't make the connection to their position towards the Labour party.

That still raises a problem that I raised earlier, though: their equivalence of mass membership in the various trade unions with some sort of worker movement ("radical alternative to the tailist pursuit of lobbying for trade union affiliation").

Nice anecdote re. CWI in Belgium, BTW. ;) :D


But they do annoy me as an orginisaiton because no matter what left/anti-capitalist unity gathering im at they turn up, denounce it like some sect group and call for a full Marxist programme that they come up with (including such demands as right to bear arms - how im supposed to tacke this seriously in a student gathering i dont know..)

Maybe they're just attending the wrong meetings, then. :( ;)

[The Ungovernable Farce]

Well done there. So please tell me how that makes any fucking difference into a discussion of what happened at this years (and thats in bold so you actually understand this bit) conference?I think that being a member of a party for five years gives you a good impression of what the internal culture of that party's like. Are you genuinely claiming that this year's conference was utterly qualitatively different to every other SWP conference that has ever happened? Or was it similar in some ways - in which case the experience of other, similar conferences would be relevant? Were there contested elections for the CC at this conference, f'r instance? If this conference was so much more democratic than any before, does that mean that there was a major problem, which has now been solved?

The 'founders of Trotskyism' having experience of dealing with the Stalinist parties from within and constant first half experience?
So, constant first-hand experience of dealing with a party from within is relevant when it's trots criticising Stalinist parties they used to be in, but first-hand experience is not relevant when it's anarchists criticising trot groups they used to be in? What's the difference? To use your own logic - Trotsky was not there at the 1930 Congress of the Soviet Communist Party, so does that mean that he had no right to criticise it or say it wasn't democratic?

Its interesting how so many AFeders are former members of the SWP.
It's not that surprising, really. The SWP attracts a lot of people who are new to anti-capitalist/radical politics; then, when they find out what the organisation's really like, and how totally ineffective it is as a tool for promoting working-class self-organisation, they leave and join a genuinely revolutionary group. What's so odd about that?

Oh and in before the inevitable bullshit of 'what has made it change now' 'i read on a blog that' 'i feel able to comment on internal matters because I used to be in the organisation but regardless that I wasn't there or didn't receive any bulletins'. And knowing how many of this ilk tend to pick and choose which ways to mount there feeble attacks on in before any mention of national liberation, the police, or stop the war.
You do know that saying "in before" doesn't actually invalidate a criticism, right? I'm kind of confused that you include the police in that list as well - I understand that you get criticism for your support of "national liberation" and your use of ineffective front groups like stop the war, but I didn't think you'd include the police in a list of causes you support.

Judging by the size of AFed, this matters little.
We're small, but growing. So is the broader anarchist movement, which is important, because we recognise that the AF =/= the revolution. How much has Respect/the Left List/the Left Alternative grown recently? Have you noticed that incredible trend where every time you lot call a StW march, the numbers increase? Cos I certainly haven't.

Rees was removed at this year's conference, and German chose to resign shortly after it had become clear that Rees was going to lose his place on the CC - the fact that this proposal went through is an indication that the majority of conference was not happy with the way that Rees had conducted himself as part of RESPECT and felt that the SWP would be benefit from him not being a member of the CC, despite his ongoing and past contributions to our organization. Given that the delegates who are sent to conference are all elected in their respective branches, with each branch being allocated delegates on a fair basis, and given that the CC is elected at each conference by all of the delegates who are present, I don't see what the problem with this is. Anyone who is a member of the party is able to put forward their own slate as well as any opinions they may have on the current composition of the CC so it's not clear how you can see the party as being undemocratic on this basis.
So what you're saying is that if formal democracy exists, democracy must be alive and healthy? Was the election for the CC contested this year? I was there the year Molyneux ran, and I voted for him, and was then told off by my district organiser in an attempt to make me recant my heresy. Do you really see no problems with this? Do you agree that the Labour Party is democratic, because they have formal democratic structures too?

Why would people who are not members of the SWP be interested in internal disputes? All members receive weekly updates about what's happening inside the party through party notes, whereas the primary role of Socialist Worker is to function as an organizer, and as a way for people to get informed about the struggles of the class around the UK and throughout the world.
That's fair enough. But Socialist Review and the Journal are there to discuss more complicated theoretical ideas. Is there really no room for discussion or debate there?


Lies. The SWP adheres to the concept that the 'emancipation of the working class is the act of the working class'. We do not see our party or us as the main actors or charge in a revolutionary situation. However i'm sure you can quote evidence otherwise?
Right. Which is why, when there was a grassroots working-class anti-fascist mobilisation outside of the SWP's control against the BNP's festival, you joined in with that and worked productively within the existing campaign instead of sabotaging it. Right?


Is there something wrong with entering movements trying to win people over to our ideas? There are far many more groups and actors in these things you've referred to as 'fronts' before than just ourselves. Of course if you actually engaged with these movements you'd now that, rather than sniping from the sidelines.
I've spent a long time working in the front groups. They are front groups. Of course there are non-SWPers in them, they'd be pretty ineffective fronts if they weren't, but I think it's a bit disingenuous to call them "actors" when control is so firmly in the SWP's hands.

[Sam_b]

I really cannot be bothered justifying my tendency to an anarchist, i'm more into justifying us as a viable alternative to the class at large. But what the hell.


Are you genuinely claiming that this year's conference was utterly qualitatively different to every other SWP conference that has ever happened? Or was it similar in some ways - in which case the experience of other, similar conferences would be relevant? Were there contested elections for the CC at this conference, f'r instance? If this conference was so much more democratic than any before, does that mean that there was a major problem, which has now been solved?


You cannot compare conferences as there were different issues to others, different strands of discussions, different factions. But to be honest, say what you like about 'democracy' with your unsubstanciated claims and the fact you have no idea at this present time the debates and motions that are going through the party at this very minute. Forgive me if I won't indulge you with information that should be privvy to party members only.


Trotsky was not there at the 1930 Congress of the Soviet Communist Party, so does that mean that he had no right to criticise it or say it wasn't democratic?


Stop trying to equate an anarchist's experience being a member of the SWP with Leon Trotsky.


It's not that surprising, really. The SWP attracts a lot of people who are new to anti-capitalist/radical politics; then, when they find out what the organisation's really like, and how totally ineffective it is as a tool for promoting working-class self-organisation, they leave and join a genuinely revolutionary group. What's so odd about that?

Blah blah blah, swipe swipe swipe.


and your use of ineffective front groups like stop the war, but I didn't think you'd include the police in a list of causes you support.


1. I would wager that Stop the War, especially the Time to Go demo has been effective. By saying that, then you are obviously by association saying the anarchist response to the war has been effective. Yet there are still troops in Iraq and Afghanistan. So basically a non-criticism - a group has apparently 'failed' because you have failed yourselves. I haven't seen anarchists behind mass mobilisations to stop the war, have you?

2. I said nothing about a list of causes we support, I was merely replicating the usual unsourced bullshit that gets thrown about here against the party.


Have you noticed that incredible trend where every time you lot call a StW march, the numbers increase? Cos I certainly haven't.


100,000 out in the defence of Palestine in London not good enough for you?


Right. Which is why, when there was a grassroots working-class anti-fascist mobilisation outside of the SWP's control against the BNP's festival, you joined in with that and worked productively within the existing campaign instead of sabotaging it. Right

Not that this was even addressed to you, but anyway. I'm not going to engage in something that I don't think even happened, so if you want to answer this question without the shite (inevitable contrasts between squadism and the class aside), then you're welcome to. I'll believe you when you give me sources from our party about the SWP's supposed vanguardism.


I've spent a long time working in the front groups. They are front groups. Of course there are non-SWPers in them, they'd be pretty ineffective fronts if they weren't, but I think it's a bit disingenuous to call them "actors" when control is so firmly in the SWP's hands

You have not got a bloody clue about Stop the War then, for example. So why are the leading members from Stop the War also from Left Labour, the CPB, SA and the like?

Now, if you'd like to get onto the topic in question of the CPGB, then you're welcome to. Sorry for the half-arsed reply but thats all you really deserved. If you're going to use this thread for more unsubstanciated crap about the SWP (which you obviously feel threatened by) then I won't be replying.

[h0m0revolutionary]

i'm more into justifying us as a viable alternative to the class at large...
... Forgive me if I won't indulge you with information that should be privvy to party members only.


Fail. Surely it's in the interests of the class to reveal yourselves as an open and democratic orginisation. Exactly why is faction information, discussion and political evaluation only an internal matter?

Why should members only be privy to your 'democratic structures'?

Mayhaps because such democracy doesn't exist in the SWP, the CC dominates all aspects and if that isn't true feel free to show me an example of internal disagreement that has lead to substantial political change recently?

And don't give me the John Rees bollocks, because the very same people who called for his head were the ones appluading him throughout the whole Respect fiasco. Where was their disgareement with party line at the time? perhaps they wasn't allowed to disagree?

or perhaps they didn't disagree until it was over and wanted to fool (dwindling) party membership that the party actually does have people who aren't opportunists who willingly enter into alliances with Asian businessmen, Iran-regime apologists and reactionaries. Ooops.

[The Ungovernable Farce]

You cannot compare conferences as there were different issues to others, different strands of discussions, different factions. But to be honest, say what you like about 'democracy' with your unsubstanciated claims and the fact you have no idea at this present time the debates and motions that are going through the party at this very minute. Forgive me if I won't indulge you with information that should be privvy to party members only.

Are you claiming that the entire culture of the party's changed dramatically since early 2008? Or not?



Stop trying to equate an anarchist's experience being a member of the SWP with Leon Trotsky.
Does being a member of a party for several years give you experience of what that party is like? Or doesn't it?



Blah blah blah, swipe swipe swipe.

Intelligent point, eloquently expressed.



1. I would wager that Stop the War, especially the Time to Go demo has been effective.
Yep, and that's why the war is over now.

By saying that, then you are obviously by association saying the anarchist response to the war has been effective.
No, I don't think there has been an effective response to the war, as shown by the fact that it hasn't been stopped yet. I think that the hegemony of the SWP's politics within the movement has made it less effective, and that if anarchist currents in the movement had been stronger, it would've stood a better chance of stopping the war.

100,000 out in the defence of Palestine in London not good enough for you?
Remember G-20? Remember the Stop the War demo at that? Remember how totally irrelevant it was next to the mass anti-capitalist demo that was completely outside your control the same day?


I'm not going to engage in something that I don't think even happened.
And the Trotsky school of falsification strikes again. Do you want to explain what you think did happen? Or is the whole incident so embarrassing you don't even want to talk about it?

I'll believe you when you give me sources from our party about the SWP's supposed vanguardism.
Because the behaviour of political actors never contradicts their rhetoric? Can you give me a quote from the CPB about their vanguardism? Or are they not vanguardists either?



You have not got a bloody clue about Stop the War then, for example. So why are the leading members from Stop the War also from Left Labour, the CPB, SA and the like?


Of course there are non-SWPers in them, they'd be pretty ineffective fronts if they weren't
Why are Lindsey German and Chris Nineham not listed as members of the SWP on the list of the STWC's officers?

Now, if you'd like to get onto the topic in question of the CPGB, then you're welcome to. Sorry for the half-arsed reply but thats all you really deserved. If you're going to use this thread for more unsubstanciated crap about the SWP (which you obviously feel threatened by) then I won't be replying.
To be fair - and I'm sure you'll agree with me on this - the CPGB doesn't really do that much activity outside of slagging off the SWP. Except for when it's slagging off the AWL or another left group. There's not that much to say about them really. I respect them for having some principled positions, but they're a nightmare to try and actually work with.

[Sam_b]

Why are Lindsey German and Chris Nineham not listed as members of the SWP on the list of the STWC's officers?

Why is Andrew Murray not listed as a member of the CPB?

[Pogue]

H-L-V-S' one-line analysis of a political group as insightful as ever. Almost as insightful as his rant against the SWP - and in true H-L-V-S style, no substance nor evidence! After reading his rant and then his post on the CPGB as 'sectarian', people in glass houses shouldn't really throw stones.



Lies. The SWP adheres to the concept that the 'emancipation of the working class is the act of the working class'. We do not see our party or us as the main actors or charge in a revolutionary situation. However i'm sure you can quote evidence otherwise?



Is there something wrong with entering movements trying to win people over to our ideas? There are far many more groups and actors in these things you've referred to as 'fronts' before than just ourselves. Of course if you actually engaged with these movements you'd now that, rather than sniping from the sidelines.



Thankfully you know nothing about me and it shows. All talk, but no substance.

Sure, you spout a whole load of shit, but your still Leninists, so believe in the state, not the people. You want to use the people at most.

Nothing wrong with trying to win people - alot wrong with using genuine movements as recruiting grounds.

Stop crying about how I crticise you, pull yourself out of the mud and start aruging back, or is it too difficult for you to do when you don't have Bob 'Wall of Text' Kindles backing you up?

[Q]

This thread needs more CPGB...

[communard resolution]

This thread needs more CPGB...

Yeah, I was thinking the same... it wound up being an AF vs. SWP argument. Don't mean to be a spoilsport, but it's become difficult to follow the CPGB related debate in here. Would a mod mind splitting the thread?

[Sam_b]

Sure, you spout a whole load of shit, but your still Leninists, so believe in the state, not the people. You want to use the people at most.

Nothing wrong with trying to win people - alot wrong with using genuine movements as recruiting grounds.

Stop crying about how I crticise you, pull yourself out of the mud and start aruging back, or is it too difficult for you to do when you don't have Bob 'Wall of Text' Kindles backing you up?

Congratulations on admitting that you can't find anything we've written about vanguardism or our attitude towards it. All you have is some hollow evidence because we are 'Leninists'.

So if we can do this slander, because of your attitudes in several threads about WW2, then you are a supporter of imperialism because of your attitudes to fighting fascism?

If you have any leg to stand on and value real debate then you'll substanciate your claims with empirical and written evidence.

[Die Neue Zeit]

This thread needs more CPGB...

Well, I'm sure this Weekly Worker article's gonna stir enough controversy (in spite of comrade Rakunin's response above):

No2EU fails the test: Peter Manson calls for a Labour vote on June 4 (http://www.cpgb.org.uk/worker/771/No2EUfails.html)

[Q]

Well, I'm sure this Weekly Worker article's gonna stir enough controversy (in spite of comrade Rakunin's response above):

No2EU fails the test: Peter Manson calls for a Labour vote on June 4 (http://www.cpgb.org.uk/worker/771/No2EUfails.html)


Instead a reactionary anti-partyism is widely encouraged. In the absence of any positive leftwing intervention the CPGB is recommending the biggest possible vote for Britain’s bourgeois workers’ party on June 4.So instead of providing critical support to one of the initiatives, it calls for a vote on the Labour party?!

This is just I don't even.

[The Ungovernable Farce]

Why is Andrew Murray not listed as a member of the CPB?
Cos you thought it'd look better to have him representing a trade union than representing a clapped-out irrelevant bunch of Stalinists. Can't say I blame you, I'd be embarrassed to admit I was in the CPB too. But he is listed as a member of an organisation he's in. The way Nineham and German are presented makes it look like they're just free-floating autonomous individuals. Ever-so-slightly disingenuous.


Congratulations on admitting that you can't find anything we've written about vanguardism or our attitude towards it. All you have is some hollow evidence because we are 'Leninists'.

And I repeat "Can you give me a quote from the CPB about their vanguardism? Or are they not vanguardists either?"?

[Sam_b]

I'm not the one accusing any party of being vanguardist or not. In short I couldn't give much of a toss. It isn't good enough to say that one organisation is 'X' because another one is.

If you've got nothing constructive or evidencial on the subject, then forgive me if I won't be replying to your loaded half-truths and baseless lies which do more to tarnsih you and your organisation than us.

Or you could talk about the CPGB, the point of this thread, unless your entire existence on here is to try and score questionable political points.

[Killfacer]

This thread has been a really good advertisement for the left i think.

[The Feral Underclass]

It seems that you regard 'democracy' as merely being full-blown fights and splits within a party or organisation by your tone. Thankfully, most of our party comrades sing off the same hymn sheet and will debate and discuss in a civilised and yes open manner. Indeed, I was a vocal supporter of Neil Davidson and his letter and motion to conference. Again you're only saying there is a lack of full and frank debates as someone who is outside of the SWP and its organisation.

This is just hyperbole and evasion, you're not actually addressing the question raised. As a former district organiser I know full well what happens when factions continue to exist within the party, indeed I've seen an entire branch expelled, yet you're claiming there is full, open and democratic debate done so in a civilised manner. That view is clearly undermined by the way John Rees', erm, demotion was handled, don't ya think?

The question was: Why can there not be full rights for factions at all times? Are you going to answer it?


Whats more important to us is being able to relate to the outside movement and struggle, and this is what we have and always will strive to do.You don't try and relate to the outside movement, you try and control it.

[The Feral Underclass]

Why is Andrew Murray not listed as a member of the CPB?

You've totally failed to address any of the criticisms levelled against your organisation. How embarrassing.

[Sam_b]

This is just hyperbole and evasion

You don't try and relate to the outside movement, you try and control it
:rolleyes:

Forgive me if I don't give a damn about what some insignificant members of an insignificant organisation have to say about the SWP. And thats all I have to say in this thread.

Enjoy putting in your last words.

[The Feral Underclass]

:rolleyes:

Forgive me if I don't give a damn about what some insignificant members of an insignificant organisation have to say about the SWP. And thats all I have to say in this thread.

Enjoy putting in your last words.

Outstanding. Bravo.

I assume by your little tantrum that you are denying the SWP's entryist tactics. Rather an audacious debate tactic: Deny your own political theory. Well done.

And if you can't honestly and openly rebut very rational and not particularly controversial questions and criticisms about the internal workings of your organisation how do you intend to actually build a movement in the real world...

Oh that's right: Sell them papers, balloon your membership figures and continue to peddle the same outdated, reformist popularism until the working class have died of boredom.

[The Ungovernable Farce]

:rolleyes:

Forgive me if I don't give a damn about what several long-term members of the SWP, one of whom worked as a district organiser, have to say about how their experience of being active within the SWP led them to conclude that it's utterly incapable of fulfilling its stated aims, and is actually counterproductive. And thats all I have to say in this thread.

Fixed.

[communard resolution]

This thread has been a really good advertisement for the left i think.

First, everybody calls the CPGB sectarian. Strangely enough, the thread is then swiftly converted into an SWP vs. Anarchist Federation mud slinging contest.
Can a mod please, please split the posts that have nothing to do with the CPGB and create a separeate thread? You may want to name it 'SWP vs. AF' or 'SWP vs. everybody else' and make it a sticky.

This one here is CPGB vs. everybody else.

[redarmyfaction38]

Well done there. So please tell me how that makes any fucking difference into a discussion of what happened at this years (and thats in bold so you actually understand this bit) conference?


The 'founders of Trotskyism' having experience of dealing with the Stalinist parties from within and constant first half experience? Though I see the irony of you trying to compare these people to an anarchist who got a bit pissed off when he used to be a trot.




Its interesting how so many AFeders are former members of the SWP. Do these comrades switch their politics when the wind changes, or which organisation is 'flavour of the month'. Oh and in before the inevitable bullshit of 'what has made it change now' 'i read on a blog that' 'i feel able to comment on internal matters because I used to be in the organisation but regardless that I wasn't there or didn't receive any bulletins'. And knowing how many of this ilk tend to pick and choose which ways to mount there feeble attacks on in before any mention of national liberation, the police, or stop the war.

I imagine you band around the word 'undemocratic' because the majority of comrades didn't agree with what you wanted and thus you all left in a huff.

i'll add my little bit, here, i've had "experience" of being in the swp, i can honestly say it was not a good one, when "militant" dissolved itself, i joined the swp, being schooled in trotskyism, i found the swp attitude, to members who actually worked for a living somewhat "lacking".
"employed members were to be screwed for every last penny", they were "practically middle class" etc.
there was no desire and minimal effort to educate its members, you attended meetings and members were wearing t shirts advertising sky ffs!
i'm not back in the fold, so to speak, of any of the political descendants of militant, i'm a supporter of the sp, i've a subscription to "socialist appeal" the paper of the imt,i have an internet subscription to "workers power", i read the morning star, which publishes opposing socialist arguments daily and generally i make my own mind up.
"socialist worker" is a paper i don't buy generally, swp members....some are really good comrades, i've put myself on the line with the sp in support of them and the sp has supported them cos they are good comrades.
BUT, in my opinion and experience, the swp has been found somewhat outside of todays rev. leftist or even leftist thinking.
it sponsored and supported a political careerist like george galloway ffs!
and the got all upset when he fc uk ed them over, there was an "accident" waiting to happen......

[Die Neue Zeit]

First, everybody calls the CPGB sectarian. Strangely enough, the thread is then swiftly converted into an SWP vs. Anarchist Federation mud slinging contest.
Can a mod please, please split the posts that have nothing to do with the CPGB and create a separeate thread? You may want to name it 'SWP vs. AF' or 'SWP vs. everybody else' and make it a sticky.

This one here is CPGB vs. everybody else.

When is someone gonna go hysterical and compare the CPGB to the entryist Grantites in the IMT for calling for a "critical" Labour vote?

[Q]

When is someone gonna go hysterical and compare the CPGB to the entryist Grantites in the IMT for calling for a "critical" Labour vote?
That is a nice comparison. I guess the only difference here is, is that the IMT does it out of a long term strategy whereas the CPGB does it "to vote on the lesser evil".

Both reasons are bullshit of course.

[Tower of Bebel]

That is a nice comparison. I guess the only difference here is, is that the IMT does it out of a long term strategy whereas the CPGB does it "to vote on the lesser evil".

Both reasons are bullshit of course.
It seems the IBT has replied for the same reason:

Spoiler

The CPGB’s call for conditional critical support to ‘No to EU, Yes to Democracy’ candidates in the European elections overlooks one significant aspect of this rotten nationalist project - the involvement of the openly bourgeois Liberal Party.


When bourgeois and working class forces present themselves together on the same electoral slate, Marxists call this a popular front, and it automatically precludes any political support, no matter how critical. In his article ‘Republican democracy, voting tactics and communist strategy’ (May 21 (http://www.cpgb.org.uk/worker/770/republicandemocracy.html)), CPGB leader Jack Conrad does not think the participation of bourgeois forces is even worth mentioning, let alone including in his list of conditions for critical support.


This organisational embrace of the ‘progressive bourgeoisie’, while contradicting No2EU’s formal claim to stand for the interests of the working class, is completely in line with its nationalist programme, which feeds into the reactionary poison of ‘British jobs for British workers’. This on its own would be reason enough not to give critical support. It is vital that we fight all capitalist attacks, whether carried out in the name of the European Union or of the nation-state, and build active solidarity between workers of all nations.


Conrad then goes on to call for a vote to the Labour Party if, or more likely when, No2EU rejects the CPGB’s conditions. But, after 12 years of this viciously anti-working class government, the idea that there are any class-conscious workers who still believe that Labour represents their separate class interests is absurd. To apply the tactic of critical support to New Labour today can only be done on the basis of ‘lesser evilism’, which defeats the purpose of the tactic - to develop working class consciousness in a revolutionary direction.


Critical support can potentially be useful at times when the reformists pretend to stand for our interests as a class against the bosses. It is a way of engaging in dialogue with class-conscious workers over the best programme to advance those separate class interests. With Labour and No2EU today, there is no such impulse to intersect.


In the absence of any candidates standing for the independent interests of the working class, even in a deformed reformist way, revolutionaries call for workers to spoil their ballots in the European elections.

Barbara Dorn
International Bolshevik Tendency

[The Deepest Red]

Says the guy whose party has absolutely no base in the working class whatsoever. No wonder your party is shrinking, your a mess of student 'radicals' who want something to do before they graduate.


The thing is the AFed isn't an arogant outfit of nerds like the SWP so isn't made up of people desperate to be paid attention by 'the class' (I assume you mean the working class which your party finds itself lacking any base in whatsoever), its a group of militants who want to encourage working class independent action. Because unlike your rabble, they don't see themselves as the glorious vanguard of the proletariat. Seriously, if we're going to be led into the revolution by the children of the bourgeoisie we're fucked from the beginning, and I can hardly see someone with a degree in East European literature being the one to be calling that pivotal strike or manning the barricades.


still, we'll all be lolling when you wind up in the lib dems aged 40.

Pot. Kettle. Black.

[The Deepest Red]

That is a nice comparison. I guess the only difference here is, is that the IMT does it out of a long term strategy whereas the CPGB does it "to vote on the lesser evil".

Both reasons are bullshit of course.

The CWI will lead us to victory, any minute now.

[Die Neue Zeit]

In the absence of any candidates standing for the independent interests of the working class, even in a deformed reformist way, revolutionaries call for workers to spoil their ballots in the European elections.

Notwithstanding the IBT's sectarianism, I have said it before, and I'll say it again, comrades: there needs to be a mass, working-class anti-electoral movement. I've got a musing elsewhere on this:

The problem with voter abstention (http://www.rabble.ca/babble/western-provinces/problem-voter-abstention)

[Tower of Bebel]

The CWI will lead us to victory, any minute now.
We can miss this type of comments like dog shit on our doorsteps.

Notwithstanding the IBT's sectarianism, I have said it before, and I'll say it again, comrades: there needs to be a mass, working-class anti-electoral movement. I've got a musing elsewhere on this:

The problem with voter abstention (http://www.rabble.ca/babble/western-provinces/problem-voter-abstention)
Of coure. But this also needs to be accompanied with serious demands concerning a radical change in the electoral systems used by various capitalist countries (in some countries spoiling your vote means supporting the biggest parties).

[Die Neue Zeit]

^^^ Feel free, comrade, to comment upon my closed-list PR musings (despite all the false hype about PR, especially closed-list, even moreso party-recallable, giving more power to parties):

http://www.revleft.com/vb/party-recallable-closed-t94427/index.html

[Q]

The article Strategy and tactics (http://www.cpgb.org.uk/worker/771/strategy.html) clears up their point of voting on Labour. I'll quote some of the relevant parts:


To lump together the Labour Party, the Tories and the Lib Dems as indistinguishable is to commit a strategic blunder of the first order.

Our call for a Labour vote on June 4, because the Labour Party remains a bourgeois workers’ party - that is if No2EU’s lead candidates fail to support the CPGB’s internationalist and democratic conditions - obviously come to mind.

In this combative spirit Lenin wanted the newly formed CPGB to stand in selected parliamentary elections. He also urged our party to support Labour into government and apply for affiliation. The underlying idea was quite simple. Communists in Britain were small in number and found great difficulty in gaining a hearing from the mass of the working class.

A correct attitude towards the Labour Party is vital. The Labour Party still has the majority of trade unions affiliated to it and commands the loyalty of the mass of those who consider themselves working class partisans. The Labour Party is therefore a key strategic question in Britain. Labourism cannot be wished away; it has to be positively superseded.

But to write off the Labour Party as a field of struggle today is paradoxically to give up on that mass Communist Party.Of course this reasoning hinges on the assumption Labour still has a working class mass. Something I think is not the case anymore. I can't find a source right now sadly (if someone could provide one, it would be appreciated), but if I'm not mistaken the Labour membership has progressively collapsed since 1980 or so. Internal party life is that akin to a desert. In other words: rank and file activists, the "counterweight" of the bureaucracy, has long left Labour. Something that has been graphically displayed by Labours' unchallenged move towards the right.

In this situation it is absurd to call for a vote on Labour.

[Die Neue Zeit]

The website has been the unfortunate victim of a viral attack. :(

[Q]

The website has been the unfortunate victim of a viral attack. :(
I see they got their site back in some shape, but aren't they making backups of their site for this type of situation? Geez, what a newbs.

[Patchd]

:rolleyes:

Forgive me if I don't give a damn about what some insignificant members of an insignificant organisation have to say about the SWP. And thats all I have to say in this thread.

Enjoy putting in your last words.

If we ask someone from a significant organisation to pose the same question TAT asked you, would you kindly answer them? I'm very interested to see how you respond to the fact that your party isn't democratic.

Party hacks, lol.

[leveller]

Their activism is somewhat limited by their numbers, their links to the old CPGB are that many of them were once members of that party or raised in communist families, in general they have moved a long way since being formed as 'the leninist' in the early 1980s, and i think have more in common with the SWP than they care to admit when it comes to their positions on China, Cuba and the nature of the USSR - they struggle for a name to describe the USSR, they dont believe it was a workers state, degenerate or otherwise, and they dont take the state capitalist line, so they use the term bureaucratic socialism but in general entertain the notion that the soviet mode of production was something unique (neither socialist nor capitalist) They also dont insist on party member agreeing on the soviet question, it isnt a condition of membership like it is with other groups (SWP)

Their current membership is made up of comrades from many traditions, Mike Macnair comes from the IMG(tariq ali's group in the 70s) Others came from the WRP to them in the mid 80s, and they are beginiing to have a small student group of comrades new to politics which hopefully will have a healthy effect.



I think they are now much more on an organisation building trajectory than they have ever been, following the failure of many unity attempts.

For years they have been punching above their weight, and if they are to progress they must put on weight and be force to be listened to and debated by the SWP and SPEW, as for now it is far to easy to dismiss them as a small group.

[Devrim]

As the previous poster said the current CPGB used to be the Leninist group who were a faction within the old CPGB with a newspaper of the same name. I believe though I am not sure that they went off with the CPB before the end of the party. Then when it finished they realised that the name was hanging around unused and grabbed it.

Politically they are a bit strange. I think they started as the English section of the Turkish group 'Yeni Yol' (New Way/Path/Road). This is quite strange in itself as generally it is English groups who have franchises in Turkey, not the other way round. Sine then, however, they seem to have picked up a few more diverse influences such as Tichkin for example.
Devrim

[Radical]

I'll respect and and backup anybody that wants the same ultimate goal as me - Communism.

Lets just face it, theres so much sectarianism from everybody on the left in the UK.

[Pogue]

I'll respect and and backup anybody that wants the same ultimate goal as me - Communism.

Lets just face it, theres so much sectarianism from everybody on the left in the UK.

Are you dizzy? One minute your slagging of Trots and the next your talking like this.