Weekly Worker, CPGB(PCC)

[leveller]

Hello all

I'm wondering what other peoples opinions are of the CPGB(PCC) and its newspaper the weekly worker.

I've read their stuff on and off over the years, and i cant say as how any of it is too controversial to my ears, my criticism of them is more due to their numerical weakness, and the fact that even if they wanted to build their organisation and therefore increase the volume of its voice in the left they face the challenge that finding new recruits is one thing, keeping them anothe and keeping the organisation together yet another.

I dont get the argument that all they do is gossip and trainspot on the left, and get involved in long polemics about obscure points.

Sure they get into the odd debate with other leftists, but that is much more than the big two (swp,spew) do as for gossip in the pages of their paper its not like their commenting on which comrade is dating which comrade and how so and so bought an awful new coat. What gets attacked as gossip is often the willingness to talk about something more than paper sales, and lot of hyperbole about the 'nazis' which is what i see in other left papers.

but well i really want to know what the rest of you make of them so over to you comrades

[Manzil]

I have a lot of sympathy for the cpgb.

The accusations of being a "gossip sheet" are nonsense. The Weekly Worker at least recognises that just because one talks about speaking on behalf, and being part of "the working class", doesn't make it so. Due to the triumphant neoliberalism of recent history, the far left's actual engagement with workers - through (mostly defensive) strikes, and occasional forays into elections - are now the exception not the rule of left-wing activism. All the socialist groups are essentially talking to each other: the cpgb simply does so more directly and openly. We can't ignore our divisions and hope they go away once a workers' party is somehow spontaneously formed.

From the perspective of an English leftie specifically, the cpgb's articulation of the need for a Marxist analysis and, yes, a single 'Communist Party' or united left, both in Britain and across the European Union, make the WW essential if the left is going to get its act together over the coming years. I hope, as with Respect, that when any new (and hopefully this time, actually revolutionary) organisation is established, the cpgb will once again act as a noisy and intelligent thorn in the side of the comfy, unaccountable leaderships of the SWP, CPB, SPEW etc.

[Pogue]

i love it, cheaper than toilet paper and more colourful

[Die Neue Zeit]

As the years ahead come to pass, I'm certain more criticism will be levelled at the CPGB for its theoretically validated "Kautskyite" turn to revolutionary-centrist politics.

[Q]

I recently bought myself a subscription and I havent been disappointed thusfar. Far from a gossip rag they actually criticise on a sound theoretical basis, they give the full opportunity for replies and critiques on their stances and publish different views on hotly debated issues, like the recent debate about No2EU.

Their biggest weakness however is that they focus too strongly on the other left organisations in my opinion. Like I cant imagine standing on the streets with a headline like "Open letter to Peter Taaffe" ... This in turn reflects their rather academic outlook.

[leveller]

Open letter to peter taafe isnt a popularist headline i agree,

But then again, there not aiming to sell on the streets to casual passers by, the readership demographic is very much people who are in the marxist boat already.

On the other hand this week their leading on a piece about the moon landing that looks interesting, and i can see being a good conversation starter with any random passer by.



And for the anarchist guy who uses it for toilet paper i've done the sums and in fact its more expensive, unless that is your taste is for the quilted bourgeois variety rather than the simple proletarian delights of the supermarket cheapest...lol:laugh:

[MarkP]

It's a group of less than 30 who spend all of their energies hanging around larger left groups, making shit up about them and trying to poach the odd member. It's Spartism with a human face - the line they use is "we should all get together" rather than "we need to expose the reformists" - but it's still Spartism.

It's an ideal home for the kind of wafflers and kibbitzers who populate much of the revolutionary left and who don't like actually having to participate in any way in class struggle.

The actual politics are a mix of various odds and ends they picked up while hanging around some other left group (the AWL's stuff on the national question, the RDG's hobby horse about republics) and an occasional burst of their own madness.

Really, don't waste your time. The Weekly Worker is entertaining as long as you understand that (a) their factual claims about other groups are often inventions and (b) their analyses allegedly based on those factual claims are normally Kremlinological fantasies and wish fullfillment. Read it on the web if you are so inclined. But for God's sake don't waste your life by actually joining the little bunch of loons.

[The Idler]

I find many things to admire about the Weekly Worker and it is one of the few places to learn critically about other left-wing parties and publish opposing views (to their own) at length. As for the accuracy of their criticisms of other left-wing parties, they seemed to be the first to report of the SWP departure from Respect and reported relatively openly about John Rees departure from the SWP CC.

[communard resolution]

hanging around larger left groups


making shit up about them Care to back up this assertion and cite a few instances where the Weekly Worker "made shit up" about another left group?

As for the CPGB, they are certainly a principled bunch, which inevitably leads them to challenge certain opportunisms.

As opposed to the Sparts, though, whose declared aim it is to destroy all other left organisations, the CPGB are contructive and seek dialogue with other groups rather than just acting in a disruptive or sectarian manner.

More often than not, it is in fact groups such as the SWP and the SP who refuse dialogue because they don't wish their positions to be challenged, questioned, or critically reflected upon in any way - I'm happy to provide specific examples of this.

Edit: when I said "groups such as the SWP and the SP" I was referring to their leadership, not their rank and file.

[Sam_b]

Care to back up this assertion and cite a few instances where the Weekly Worker "made shit up" about another left group?


Wasn't it the Weekly Worker that said the SWP was going to split earlier this year?

[communard resolution]

Wasn't it the Weekly Worker that said the SWP was going to split earlier this year?

No idea, you tell me. I haven't heard of it - but I'm all ears.

[h0m0revolutionary]

Wasn't it the Weekly Worker that said the SWP was going to split earlier this year?

Indeed, they went with the "mother of all splits" as headline.

They're really boring actually, there's a distinctive line between having valid criticisms of the left and doing nothing but criticising the left.

I tihnk before those of you who have suddenly gained an interest in CPGB (PCC) sign any dotted line, you might wanna remember a few things:

- They consist overwhlemingly of old, white, male professionals (lecturers and suchlike)
- They're less than 20 members
- They think the Conservative Party will provide the vehicle for a fascist Britain, not the BNP - who they don't view as 'fascist'
- They don't do anything other than the Hands Off the People of Iran campaign (with many other groups) and sell their paper.
- They don't recognise the 'right of return' for Palestinian refugees and they don't call for a secular Israel, not it's removal as a colonial settler state.
- They have bizarre party discipline which they enforce, such as no drinking around meetings, don't support other leftists in elections (that's any elections - union elections, local elections..)
- They don't exist outside of London. Where they used to exist (Sheffield, Manchester) they've slowly died.

I agree that criicising the left is something that can be constructive and necessary, but don't build an orginisation around it. Build an orginisation that offers answers to the problems of the left.

[rednordman]

- They have bizarre party discipline which they enforce, such as no drinking around meetings,My GOD, the monsters!! - On a serious note, what tendancy do they follow? I know that they used to be the largest communist party in the UK, but after the fall of the USSR, they split into about 5 different parties. Nowadays they just come across as a bit of an ultra-trotskyist party that constantly bash the SWP.

[communard resolution]

Indeed, they went with the "mother of all splits" as headline.

What specific fabrications did this article contain that were proven to be untrue? Did the author speculate about a likely split, or did he lie about anything in particular?


They're really boring actually, there's a distinctive line between having valid criticisms of the left and doing nothing but criticising the left.My impression of the Weekly Worker is that every single criticism of the left they have brought up was in in fact valid and worth discussing. As for doing nothing but criticising the left, I think this is inaccurate.

In an earlier thread on the CPGB, I linked to the current Weekly Worker table of contents and asked somone who claimed that it contained "nothing but gossip" to find me the gossip. He didn't find anything.


They consist overwhlemingly of old, white, male professionals (lecturers and suchlikeYou sure? I've only met 4 of them. 2 of them were female. One was Arabic, one was Jewish. I'm not sure if either one passes for 'white' - I guess I would have to consult Stormfront to find out. 2 of the 4 were 'old'.

Whatever the case, how does any of this invalidate their politics?


- They think the Conservative Party will provide the vehicle for a fascist Britain, not the BNP - who they don't view as 'fascist'They've got a point there - the hysteria about the BNP certainly serves to legitmise other far-right forces such as the Conservative Party. I for one am unwilling to 'Unite Against Fascism' with people such as David Cameron.

But that's a slightly different debate. The current issue of WW has an excellent article on anti-BNPism: How not to stop the BNP (http://www.cpgb.org.uk/worker/779/hownotto.php)



Build an orginisation that offers answers to the problems of the left.I think they are trying to do that - but their calls for unity as well as debate often get rejected on the grounds of them being 'small'.

[Tower of Bebel]

Hyperboles wont reveal the truth. The CPGB makes mistakes, and mostly you can "appreciate" or understand those mistakes when you concider the (material) context; but enlarging these mistakes in order to criticize the organization as a whole isn't really a valid method. If this was done by every self proclaimed communist then the future of the radical left is intirely lost. We would all wait for splits and liquidations instead of the opportunities to organize.

They have bizarre party discipline which they enforce, such as no drinking around meetings, don't support other leftists in elections (that's any elections - union elections, local elections..)
IIRC the CWI has sections in Germany that also supports such a discipline. And I know of 2 articles from the CPGB in which members argued for voting SP candidates in local elections.

- They think the Conservative Party will provide the vehicle for a fascist Britain, not the BNP - who they don't view as 'fascist'In Belgium we, that's the CWI, also do not concider Vlaams Belang as a fascist organization even though it has a very similar history to that of the BNP. We call them "neofascist" because of the same reason as why the CPGB wont call the BNP (purely) fascist: as an organization the party doesn't play a fascist role in society.They do however support small fascist groups and have fascist members, even election candidates among them. And could you explain how the CPGB thinks the conservatives will be the vehicle for British fascism?

- They don't recognise the 'right of return' for Palestinian refugees and they don't call for a secular Israel, not it's removal as a colonial settler state.I never read that before. In a recent debate several contributors to the paper called for a secular two-state solution.

[Trystan]

I think the Weekly Worker is a great paper for a Leninist group. They are open to dissenting opinions (in the letters page - including my own criticisms), and the standard is much, much higher than that trashy, boring and repetative Socialist Worker. And the CPGB are indeed a principled bunch - I mean, (Islamic) fascism is not something that they have allied themselves with over the last few years. I think that's reflected in the HOPI campaign.

[Sam_b]

such as no drinking around meetings

I should hope so.

[Q]

Indeed, they went with the "mother of all splits" as headline.
Too bad most of their website is offline currently, I would like to read that.


They're really boring actually, there's a distinctive line between having valid criticisms of the left and doing nothing but criticising the left.
Where is this line?


I tihnk before those of you who have suddenly gained an interest in CPGB (PCC) sign any dotted line, you might wanna remember a few things:

- They consist overwhlemingly of old, white, male professionals (lecturers and suchlike)
This is the point I often hear and which thusfar I haven't seen refuted. If so, I agree this is a weakness. Although they seem to work on overcoming this, by their youthwork at Communist Students.

- They're less than 20 members
I hear other figures that put them at around 60, but yeah, small.

- They think the Conservative Party will provide the vehicle for a fascist Britain, not the BNP - who they don't view as 'fascist'
I think they wrote a good article on this question in this weeks' paper. You can read it here (http://www.cpgb.org.uk/worker/779/hownotto.php). The essential point is that it is rather simplistic to equal the BNP with the Nazi's and that the overall strategy of the UAF is failing.

- They don't do anything other than the Hands Off the People of Iran campaign (with many other groups) and sell their paper.
Given their resources, I think that is commendable. What would you expect from such a small group?

- They don't recognise the 'right of return' for Palestinian refugees and they don't call for a secular Israel, not it's removal as a colonial settler state.
If possible, I would like some source of this.

- They have bizarre party discipline which they enforce, such as no drinking around meetings, don't support other leftists in elections (that's any elections - union elections, local elections..)
To be honest, I think that drinking at meetings is the strange thing to do. I was amazed when I saw this common practice in my latest visit at London.

- They don't exist outside of London. Where they used to exist (Sheffield, Manchester) they've slowly died.
The Weekly Worker announces weekly "communist forums" meetings in London and South-Wales and Communist Student meetings in London, Manchester and Sheffield. Surely this is not just paper reality?


I agree that criicising the left is something that can be constructive and necessary, but don't build an orginisation around it. Build an orginisation that offers answers to the problems of the left.
I think they are offering alternatives and answers. Not only in a literal sense as published in their articles, but also in their method of open discussion, unity around principles (as opposed to unity in ideas), etc.

[communard resolution]

Too bad most of their website is offline currently, I would like to read that.

I think I just found it: link (http://communiststudents.org.uk/2008/12/swp-mother-of-all-splits-looms/)

Now we can dissect the article and find the alleged fabrications. But maybe in a different thread before this one turns into a discussion of the SWP.

[RevolverNo9]

The CPGB are just bizarre, and as others have said, I wouldn't waste your time with them - although everyone on the UK left will probably have admitted to indulging their guilty train-spotter side by reading the Weekly Worker.


I know that they used to be the largest communist party in the UK, but after the fall of the USSR, they split into about 5 different parties.

They're not the 'proper' Communist Party, as in the continuation of Great Britain's official Communist Party. They were a tiny faction within the real CPGB (related to a Turkish organisation I believe) who after the fall of Soviet Union somehow managed to bag the name. In the '80s, most of the (real) CPGB were won over to Eurocommunism (as expressed in their journal 'Marxism Today') and dissolved themselves into a centre-left think-tank when the '90s came. The 'traditional' Communists had by then already split from the Eurocommunists but now - because of the CPGB nabbing the name - they are forced to call themselves the Communist Party of Britain.

Last Autumn, when the banks blew up in Britain, the Weekly Worker's front-page was a full picture of John Rees, with words along the line of: 'SWP Kick out John Rees from Left Alternative'... astounding. Which workers are going to lap that up on the picket line?

But as if them being all mad (and numbering in only double-digits) wasn't bad enough, they have bad activists and have bad politics. Theirs is a shocking concession to make on the fight against facsism.

[Q]

On a serious note, what tendancy do they follow? I know that they used to be the largest communist party in the UK, but after the fall of the USSR, they split into about 5 different parties. Nowadays they just come across as a bit of an ultra-trotskyist party that constantly bash the SWP.
The old CPGB dissolved in 1991. This group originates from The Leninist grouping which started in the early 1980's as a tendency from the New Communist Party. In 1991 they claimed the name CPGB. They are most certainly not "ultra-Trotskyist" and I wonder how you got that idea?

[Led Zeppelin]

I think they are offering alternatives and answers. Not only in a literal sense as published in their articles, but also in their method of open discussion, unity around principles (as opposed to unity in ideas), etc.

Out of curiosity, why then do both you and Rakunin not leave the CWI and join them?

Only because it's a UK based "party"?

[Q]

Out of curiosity, why then do both you and Rakunin not leave the CWI and join them?

Only because it's a UK based "party"?
Because I express an interest in another organisation, I should immediately join them? I find that a somewhat strange reasoning.

[Led Zeppelin]

Because I express an interest in another organisation, I should immediately join them? I find that a somewhat strange reasoning.

You didn't merely "express an interest", you said they "offer alternatives and answers, not only in a literal sense as published in their articles, but also in their method of open discussion, unity around principles (as opposed to unity in ideas), etc."

I find it somewhat strange that you are not interested in becoming a member of an organization that you believe does all that, unless you believe "offering alternatives and answers..." is not an important consideration when choosing which party to become a supporter or member of.

[Tower of Bebel]

Last Autumn, when the banks blew up in Britain, the Weekly Worker's front-page was a full picture of John Rees, with words along the line of: 'SWP Kick out John Rees from Left Alternative'... astounding. Which workers are going to lap that up on the picket line?
The WW is not meant for selling at picket lines. At least not in the same way as the Socialist or Socialist Worker. While the SWP and SP want to recrute from that empty whole left behind by Labour the CPGB would like to forge a Marxist party through the existing left. It's hardly suprising that their paper feels odd.

[communard resolution]

they have bad activists and have bad politics.

But why do you think are their activists bad, and what is it about their politics that you consider bad?


Theirs is a shocking concession to make on the fight against facsism.No disrespect, but since you're a member of the SWP I'd like to remark that the CPGB's analysis of the BNP is far more sophisticated than the SWP line.

EDIT: The SWP line of action is: shout 'Nazis' at the BNP at every opportunity and call them an 'illegitimate' party (as opposed to the good bourgeois parties such as the Tories and UKIP), and ask to vote for 'anyone but the BNP' (= the parties who have driven people to vote BNP). Obviously, this strategy hasn't worked. At all.

The WW article I linked to earlier attempts to examine why. Please read it and communicate your criticisms to us.

[Q]

You didn't merely "express an interest", you said they "offer alternatives and answers, not only in a literal sense as published in their articles, but also in their method of open discussion, unity around principles (as opposed to unity in ideas), etc."

I find it somewhat strange that you are not interested in becoming a member of an organization that you believe does all that, unless you believe "offering alternatives and answers..." is not an important consideration when choosing which party to become a supporter or member of.
It seems that you think that by my statement that I appreciate the CPGB's method, I automatically reject the analysis of the CWI. This is not the case. I do not think either organisation holds "the truth". I gather from many sources and in my view the CPGB stands out for their method, which I haven't encountered before.

Also, even if I have disagreements with the CWI's line, I'll fight for these ideas *within* the ranks and aim to achieve a majority in those same ranks. The only possibly way I see myself moving outside the organisation at this point, is if I'm going to be expelled (which is not likely). This is because I believe the Trotskyist tradition of I-don't-agree-with-you-so-I-split-to-form-a-purer-tendency is one of the major problems with the revolutionary left today.

[Tower of Bebel]

Out of curiosity, why then do both you and Rakunin not leave the CWI and join them?

Only because it's a UK based "party"?
I don't even know if their tactical choices work. As far as I'm concerned they have an overemphasis on polemics. So they don't really make up a good pull factor. And I don't know if there's a serious push factor present in the CWI that could force me to leave the party I'm currently involved with.

[Led Zeppelin]

even if I have disagreements with the CWI's line, I'll fight for these ideas *within* the ranks and aim to achieve a majority in those same ranks.

I'm not sure to what extent you agree with the CPGB or disagree with the CWI, nor do I particularly care because it's not important and it isn't the point of what I was trying to say, which was that if you believe another existing organization is closer to your views than the one you are currently in, it would be principled to join them.

Because if your disagreements with the CWI's line are your agreements with the line of another organization, you are basically acting as their agent within the CWI for them.

If that is not the case, then what you said was unclear, because it gives the impression that you were a supporter of the CPGB's politics and practice ("they offer alternatives and answers...").


The only possibly way I see myself moving outside the organisation at this point, is I'm going to be expelled (which is not likely). This is because I believe the Trotskyist tradition of I-don't-agree-with-you-so-I-split-to-form-a-purer-tendency is one of the major problems with the revolutionary left today.


Actually, that's a myth that other ideological tendencies created about Trotskyism.

If you look at the history of all ideological tendencies, ranging from Anarchist to Hoxhaist, you'll see at least an equal amount of splits and divisions. The only difference with some of them was that the "big ones" stayed big for a little while longer due to the Soviet Union's backing.

But that is of course beside the point, because no one ever asked you to "split and form a pure tendency". I personally asked you if you were going to join another organization that you said "offered answers and alternatives, not only in the literal sense but also their methods".

Apparently you won't because you also agree with some of the CWI's analysis, even though you will continue to try to bring those "answers and alternatives" of the CPGB inside it.


I don't even know if their tactical choices work. As far as I'm concerned they have an overemphasis on polemics. So they don't really make up a good pull factor. And I don't know if there's a serious push factor present in the CWI that could force me to leave the party I'm currently involved with.

Fair enough.

[Sam_b]

Now, this point is interesting. If the CPGB in the eyes of Q offer these great 'alternatives and answers', doesn't that mean their recent analysis of the electoral process and No2EU completely contradicts and opposes the CWI's tactical line and its politics within this coalition?

Who do you believe is wrong here, Q? The heebie-jeebies or your own international section?

[leveller]

From conversations i've had with the CPGB i dont believe they'd object to Q's continued membership of the CWI at the same time as joining them.

I know they have recruited SWP members in the past and they carried on as SWP/CPGB members.

[Sam_b]

To be honest, I don't believe that for a second. And that totally, totally negates the question above: surely the CPGB's opposition to the CWI's NO2EU project puts them as mutually exclusive?

[rednordman]

The old CPGB dissolved in 1991. This group originates from The Leninist grouping which started in the early 1980's as a tendency from the New Communist Party. In 1991 they claimed the name CPGB. They are most certainly not "ultra-Trotskyist" and I wonder how you got that idea?You know, I may well have the wrong party here. I just assumed that they were trotskyist, after watching a video on their website, with some lad basically stating that the SWP was authoritarian and oppressive in the same way as the Trotskyists lable the Stalinists. The site was something like www.cpgb.co.uk (http://www.cpgb.co.uk) or something like that.

[Tower of Bebel]

After several discussion between Q and me I'm quite sure that I'm far more in agreement with the CPGB on some points than Q. As far as I know I also have a far better understanding of what the WW wrote and stands for than Q.

What we both share however is on the one hand the idea that they're [the CPGB] not simply "nuts", "bizarre", "ultra-left" or whatever they were called on this website or within the ranks of the CWI. Discussions have revealed that the attacks on their piece of paper are more infested with insults than facts.

On the other hand we're both concerned about the development of the CWI and the route it takes. That's why [some articles in] the WW - and on other websites of other organizations - [can] "offer alternatives and answers, not only in a literal sense as published in their articles, but also in their method of open discussion, unity around principles (as opposed to unity in ideas), etc."

However, this shouldn't be taken for the final answer because Q probably still has more questions than definite answers. I admit I have. And also because both of us have formulated different conclusions.

If you have any other questions, just ask. But do that somewhere else.

[Q]

I'm not sure to what extent you agree with the CPGB or disagree with the CWI, nor do I particularly care because it's not important and it isn't the point of what I was trying to say, which was that if you believe another existing organization is closer to your views than the one you are currently in, it would be principled to join them.

Because if your disagreements with the CWI's line are your agreements with the line of another organization, you are basically acting as their agent within the CWI for them.

If that is not the case, then what you said was unclear, because it gives the impression that you were a supporter of the CPGB's politics and practice ("they offer alternatives and answers...").
This is not the case. If I confused you over that, I'm sorry.


But that is of course beside the point, because no one ever asked you to "split and form a pure tendency". I personally asked you if you were going to join another organization that you said "offered answers and alternatives, not only in the literal sense but also their methods".

Apparently you won't because you also agree with some of the CWI's analysis, even though you will continue to try to bring those "answers and alternatives" of the CPGB inside it.
I didn't say that I agreed per se with their alternatives and answers, I was just pointing out they offer them to the poster that said that they did no such thing.

I however do think their method of providing an open platform for discussion is worth looking into. I think so because it resonates with my own views (obviously). What is strange of learning from others?


Now, this point is interesting. If the CPGB in the eyes of Q offer these great 'alternatives and answers', doesn't that mean their recent analysis of the electoral process and No2EU completely contradicts and opposes the CWI's tactical line and its politics within this coalition?

Who do you believe is wrong here, Q? The heebie-jeebies or your own international section?
Actually, they had quite some discussion over No2EU, ranging from full support to complete rejection. I think that the PCC's call to vote Labour was completely absurd.

[Q]

After several discussion between Q and me I'm quite sure that I'm far more in agreement with the CPGB on some points than Q. As far as I know I also have a far better understanding of what the WW wrote and stands for than Q.

What we both share however is on the one hand the idea that they're [the CPGB] not simply "nuts", "bizarre", "ultra-left" or whatever they were called on this website or within the ranks of the CWI. Discussions have revealed that the attacks on their piece of paper are more infested with insults than facts.

On the other hand we're both concerned about the development of the CWI and the route it takes. That's why [some articles in] the WW - and on other websites of other organizations - [can] "offer alternatives and answers, not only in a literal sense as published in their articles, but also in their method of open discussion, unity around principles (as opposed to unity in ideas), etc."

However, this shouldn't be taken for the final answer because Q probably still has more questions than definite answers. I admit I have. And also because both of us have formulated different conclusions.

If you have any other questions, just ask. But do that somewhere else.
I quote this because I want to emphasise these points. I couldn't have said it better.

[Led Zeppelin]

What is strange of learning from others?

There's nothing wrong with that at all. In fact it's a very good thing and it would be a lot better if more people did that within not only the CWI but all revolutionary organizations.

As I said though I was confused over what you wrote, your clarification and that of Rakunin have made it clear.

On the point of open discussion and principled unity; the SWP took a step towards this direction not too long ago with their open letter. It was a shame that the SP leadership rejected it, especially considering the fact that the invitation was merely for opening discussions, nothing more. This proves however that within both the SWP and SP there are members who want unity and discussions on a principled and democratic basis.

It would be more worthwhile to focus on those tendencies rather than on an outside tendency which, when all is said and done and disregarding the "Kautskyism" and other theoretical and historical garbage, consists of only a handful of people who will never be taken seriously within either of the two organizations (and given their lack of activity, within the workers' movement itself).

[Sam_b]

I think that the PCC's call to vote Labour was completely absurd

The point is, unfortunately or not, that the CPGB are the PCC. They have precious few activists. And from my readings of them, they never gave full and complete support to the NO2EU project: at one point before rejecting them they gave some critical support on conditions of questions being answered, and rightly condemned the project's shameful and un-leftist pandering to the nationalist agenda.

[Q]

You know, I may well have the wrong party here. I just assumed that they were trotskyist, after watching a video on their website, with some lad basically stating that the SWP was authoritarian and oppressive in the same way as the Trotskyists lable the Stalinists. The site was something like www.cpgb.co.uk (http://www.cpgb.co.uk) or something like that.
http://www.cpgb.org.uk/ ? Yeah, they're not Trotskyist. They started out (in the early 1980's) as a left-Stalinist grouping, but have throughout the years evolved to something ... different. I'm not sure what to call them really.

[communard resolution]

I think that the PCC's call to vote Labour was completely absurd.

I second this, although this absurd call didn't remain unchallenged within their own ranks. A WW article that denounced this move followed swiftly.

[Q]

I second this, although this absurd call didn't remain unchallenged within their own ranks. A WW article that denounced this move followed swiftly.
If you're referring to the article I think you do, it stated that it got blocked "due to practical reasons" (or something like that, I forgot the exact phrase) from being published before the elections, so its opposing view was only published after the elections... Too little too late. The author of said article denounced the leadership on this. I'm not sure though if these "mistakes" are common or not.

Ah, found the quote:

Of course, no member of the CPGB or reader of the Weekly Worker will doubt our organisation’s commitment to open debate both before and after a united action, during which members are correctly obliged to implement collective decisions. The leadership of the CPGB has reiterated on many occasions the imperative that minorities within a Communist Party have a right to organise and fight to become the new majority and to conduct that struggle openly in front of the working class. That is why it was a serious error on the part of the editorial team not publish the first draft of this article when it was submitted for the May 21 issue.


I had agreed the article with the editor and the PCC had not declared that we had entered the period of a united action. Indeed the reason given to me for its non-publication on May 21 was lack of space - not that it was “simply being held over until the completion of the united action”, as comrade Manson now explains.


The fact that Jack Conrad wrote a three-page article in the very same issue dissecting the differing positions within the CPGB while denying members the right of reply, added insult to injury.

Source (http://www.cpgb.org.uk/worker/774/againstsect.php)

[Pogue]

Can we really talk about this party having 'ranks'?

[communard resolution]

Can we really talk about this party having 'ranks'?

Dude, they are small - we've noticed that by now. No need to repeat it ad nauseam.

[Pogue]

Why do you think they are small (even by leftist standards)?

[communard resolution]

Why do you think they are small (even by leftist standards)?

I don't know - maybe bashing the BNP and simplistic slogans seem like a more attractive option to many? A lot of people like certainties. Not so many people like these certainties to be challenged - at least in the beginning.

[Pogue]

I think its that their group is uninteresting and yes, odd. You'll notice this if you engage with their membership too. They have no appeal, they just seem like a small cultish sect.

[communard resolution]

If you're referring to the article I think you do, it stated that it got blocked "due to practical reasons" (or something like that, I forgot the exact phrase) from being published before the elections, so its opposing view was only published after the elections... Too little too late. The author of said article denounced the leadership on this. I'm not sure though if these "mistakes" are common or not.

Thanks - the aftermath of this completely escaped me, and I didn't know the piece was supposed to come out earlier than it did.

I agree this is a bit fishy on behalf of Jack Conrad. And yet, it is openly discussed on the pages of the Weekly Worker - I cannot imagine this kind of debate taking place in, say, the Socialist Worker.

[Tower of Bebel]

The whole idea of voting Labour because:

1. there was a rightist campaign against Labour as the party of labour (not just as a competitor);
2. there was no genuine alternative to Labour (the majority didn't support NO2EU)

is quite hard to understand not only because there were 3 different "factions" involved, but also because the paper more or less acts like the paper of marxism while it practically isn't (the left is still fragmented).

They persuaded readers to vote Labour instead of other parties while they don't have the influence (both in- and outside of Labour) to gain from this decission. There's no CPGB-rope around the neck of Labour. Because they have no real influence they may have confused their readers (who share different opinions) through a polemic which probably didn't solve anything. During the latest election the left, at the time of the discussion, had no change whatsoever to determine any outcome. The CPGB could equally just have decided to spoil their votes or vote NO2EU instead. There was no favourable situation, their was no campaign they could build.

[Pogue]

So basically it was a fucked up, unjustifiable position?

[Die Neue Zeit]

Actually, they had quite some discussion over No2EU, ranging from full support to complete rejection. I think that the PCC's call to vote Labour was completely absurd.

And this past issue and this upcoming one Macnair is dedicating two articles towards defending the line. The theory part is suspicious, as noted in a past letter of mine re. the need for a proletarian party that is not necessary a communist party (such as the pre-war SPD and USPD).

[h0m0revolutionary]

Their whole reason to voting Labour was based on Macnairs bizarre claim that the centre-right was trying to defeat Social Democracy throughout Europe and the economic recession was bringing in a new, more exploititive form of capitalism that would not tolerate any Parties with working class bases such as the Labour Party.

Even this would not have been reason to vote for Labour Party - but it is distinctivly untrue, and every revolutionary in the world (besides those in the CPGB apparently) knows that social democrats aren't under threat by capitalism and never will be! They're part and parcel of a system that occasionally, in a time of economic growth, is forced to concede to the class to avoid revolutionary upsurge.

What is most striking is that since the election, they've hardly covered this great conspiracy they invented. So their justification for voting Labour, massive at the time, post-election, seems a little less valid, so they've shut up about it.

[Led Zeppelin]

JR, I have removed the petty flame-bait/spam from your post.

Consider this a verbal warning.

[Q]

Their whole reason to voting Labour was based on Macnairs bizarre claim that the centre-right was trying to defeat Social Democracy throughout Europe and the economic recession was bringing in a new, more exploititive form of capitalism that would not tolerate any Parties with working class bases such as the Labour Party.

Even this would not have been reason to vote for Labour Party - but it is distinctivly untrue, and every revolutionary in the world (besides those in the CPGB apparently) knows that social democrats aren't under threat by capitalism and never will be! They're part and parcel of a system that occasionally, in a time of economic growth, is forced to concede to the class to avoid revolutionary upsurge.
I don't think that was the gist of the reasoning exactly. Labour's vote collapsed (due to their own policies obviously, not due some alleged attacks). They reasoned that, because of the lack of any class alternative, it would be better to just vote Labour then, just because of the name. :rolleyes:


What is most striking is that since the election, they've hardly covered this great conspiracy they invented. So their justification for voting Labour, massive at the time, post-election, seems a little less valid, so they've shut up about it.
If only. Mike is now running a two-part series on why Labour is still a bourgeois workers' party. You can read part 1 here (http://www.cpgb.org.uk/worker/779/labourparty.php). I wonder how they twist that logic towards part 2 :rolleyes:

[leveller]

The argument as i understood it is that they would rather support labour than the left-nationalists of No2Eu or SLP.
And some of their members clearly disagreed and favoured a 'critical' vote for NoEu or even using the spoilt ballot tactic, others have criticised the leadership of the CPGB for being incredibly clumbsy over the whole affair.

For me it was a matter of Why should i support a dishonest revolutionary pretending to be a reformist when you can vote for a real reformist? (a green one in my case)

I'm holding fire on Macnair till i've read part 2, but i'm quite undecided on whether the nature of the labour party has changed.

There was clearly an assault on the labour party and to a lesser extent the other westminster parties from the Daily Telegraph before the election and it was one that played into UKIP's hands - the owners of the telegraph (The Barclay Bros) are thought to have UKIP sympathies rather than Tory ones at present.

That the story broke just at the time it did, is no coincidence.

[leveller]

Why do you think they are small (even by leftist standards)?

Mostly because their not on a recruitment drive (and never have been) unlike say the SWP whose raison d'etre seems to be to recruit, recruit, recruit.

I think its because they dont see themselves as the next SWP.

[Devrim]

The argument as i understood it is that they would rather support labour than the left-nationalists of No2Eu or SLP.
so straight forward nationalism is beter than left nationalism then?
Devrim

[Die Neue Zeit]

Mike is now running a two-part series on why Labour is still a bourgeois workers' party. You can read part 1 here (http://www.cpgb.org.uk/worker/779/labourparty.php). I wonder how they twist that logic towards part 2 :rolleyes:

Here's Part 2:

http://www.cpgb.org.uk/worker/780/making.php

But thankfully they've published an article by Dave Craig:

http://www.cpgb.org.uk/worker/780/bnp2.php


It seems unfair to suggest the CPGB were posing as left sectarian republicans. In fact the party supported her majesty’s capitalist Labour government responsible for the queen’s armed forces in Afghanistan. No leftism there then. The ultimatum to Bob Crow’s No2EU campaign turned out to be: ‘If you don’t support an armed militia, we are voting for a standing army.’Republicans in the UK can learn much from the struggle in Iran. In England the struggle for democracy is at a low level. The ‘crisis of democracy’ and the Y2D campaign drew out the republican programmes of the socialist left. These programmes have much in common and some differences to be debated. A republican united front is possible if the political will exists.

However a workers’ party needs the support of militant trade unions. These remain attached to Labourism, not republicanism. The RMT has no democratic republican policy. Y2D is about as far as trade unions can currently go. If republicanism in England is serious it must challenge the Labour Party by organising a republican party and a republican election campaign.

Let us start to organise a ‘Yes to Democracy’ party for the forthcoming general election.

[communard resolution]

But thankfully they've published an article by Dave Craig:


He makes a lot more sense than Conrad, whose outrageous argument for voting Labour amounts to nothing but semantics.

[Asoka89]

The CPGB PCC's "Weekly Worker" is simply the best weekly of Marxist thought in the English speaking world. Macnair's argument is 100 percent on the money (his two part series on why Labour is still a "bourgeois workers' party)

[Serge's Fist]

So my Google Alert two days in a row sent me this thread so I thought I should join in.

Mark P’s comment is not uncommon from those who don’t read or understand what the paper is about. We don’t make stuff up, but we do get things wrong from time to time. If we do get something wrong like expecting a split in the SWP, we will explain why we were proved wrong when it came down to the conference. Let’s be clear the fact that Rees, German and their dwindling supporters spines turned to jelly and chose not to fight at Conference ensured that an explosive discussion which could blow up the SWP did not take place.

H0m0revolutionary, gets us quite wrong on several issues. I have never heard the Weekly Worker described as boring and it is rather silly to just say that we focus on the entirely on the Left. Our coverage of what is going on in Iran because of the links we have built over the last few years is the best the Left has. The debate over Palestine between many different commentators and readers was an excellent display of how the Left can discuss in a sharp yet constructive way.


They consist overwhelmingly of old, white, male professionals (lecturers and suchlike)Not correct. We have two lecturers one male and one female in the organisation, one used to work in a car factory and the other used to be a member of the Fedayeen. Not exactly your typical academics. We do have a decent balance of young and old, obviously we would like more young people in the organisation but I think the fact that for our numbers we have school, college and university students at party aggregates is a good sign that we are not overwhelmingly old white male professionals. As Nero pointed out even if we were just old white male professionals it would not invalidate our politics.


They don't do anything other than the Hands Off the People of Iran campaign (with many other groups) and sell their paper. We do spend a lot of time on HOPI, I do personally, we think building solid links amongst the workers movement here with the workers in Iran is essential. It is important to build up another pole of attraction for the movement in Iran which is not the reformists inside the regime or the Imperialists who would love to see a colour revolution. We do plenty apart from that, and for an organisation our size it is a miracle that we manage to get a weekly paper out. The paper itself is extremely unique I don’t see the AF in their organs having the level of intra-organisational debate that we do, and I don’t see the same level of openness in debate in Resistance and Organise with those outside the AF’s ranks that the Weekly Worker has.


They don't recognise the 'right of return' for Palestinian refugees and they don't call for a secular Israel, not it's removal as a colonial settler state. Wrong on both points. We are for the right of return and/or compensation. We are for the destruction of the Zionist state. What confuses some people is that we are for the safe guarding of both populations democratic and national rights. I think the debate that we had in our paper at the beginning of this year was essential in understanding the complexities of the situation, I find myself in agreement with Moshe Machover after seeing him speak in Manchester during the University occupation and reading his excellent articles in the Weekly Worker. Has such a debate been carried out in any other left paper or journal with such openness? No.


They have bizarre party discipline which they enforce, such as no drinking around meetings, don't support other leftists in elections (that's any elections - union elections, local elections..) A ban on drinking before meetings and during actions is important. When Matgamna debated Machover the whole meeting descended into chaos because some AWL members and non aligned people got tanked up before and during the meeting. It is important to have comrades who are clear in mind and can take a full part in meetings and actions. Simple stuff. We do support other Leftists in elections, maybe a quick look at our history in the SA and afterwards. I was in the office on Saturday where I found a set of stickers calling for a vote for Weyman Bennett from the beginning of the Socialist Alliance. Whilst there was some disagreement Manchester CS backed several other Leftists who we have had longstanding arguments with as well.


hey don't exist outside of London. Where they used to exist (Sheffield, Manchester) they've slowly died. Not far off, we do have poor presence outside of London, but like all small organisations we do have pockets of consistent activity. South Wales, Leeds, Sheffield, Manchester, Milton Keynes and increasingly Glasgow. Granted in these places we have a very small number of comrades yet these comrades are also working with CS members who are not CPGB members and members of other organisations.

The history of our tendency is rather complicated but is explained well in Lawrence Parkers little pamphlet on the revolutionary oppositions in the CPGB before 1991. Essentially I think it is correct to describe the beginning of the Leninist tendency as Left Stalinist but moving towards unconscious Trotskyism and now I would say that we have established our own identity that is influenced by many tendencies, but essentially is orthodox Marxism.


Last Autumn, when the banks blew up in Britain, the Weekly Worker's front-page was a full picture of John Rees, with words along the line of: 'SWP Kick out John Rees from Left Alternative'... astounding. Which workers are going to lap that up on the picket line?

I think it was a poor decision that we led with John Rees and the crisis in the SWP that week, however, we covered the crisis very well in many other issues which went far beyond the sloppy articles in Socialist Worker, The Socialist and Socialist Appeal. We had articles from not only those putting the majority understanding but had comrade Bill Jeffries from Permanent Revolution lay out their very unique understanding of the economic situation. We do sell the paper on pickets when our comrades go down and usually sell a fair number. It is no surprise that the most common question we get whether on stalls, pickets or at demonstrations is ‘what’s the difference between you and X left group’ - To think that workers who are involved in struggle should not or cannot understand and take part in the debates the Left smacks of elitism. We don’t treat other workers as stupid.

We could do a paper like SW, but it would be a cheap copy of SW. There is no point our group copying papers like SW or The Socialist like other small groups like Workers Power and Socialist Appeal try to do. We don’t have the members, money or staff to pull off such a paper. The paper is a weapon for the fight that is going on within the Left and is open to the those on the Left to engage with each other on many topics. Nowhere else does such a service exist for the workers’ movement. The Anarchist Left also pump out cheap copies of SW with a good shot of radical language tacked on. I never understand so why those on the Left find it ok to attack the WW for having the debates and discussions that they are obviously interested in but are blocked from having such discussions in their own organs and in public. One group that does buck the trend like the CPGB is to some extent the AWL, they do have a largely open press for their members and competing factions something which is turned off at times but is clearly a healthy practice. PR also share a healthy internal culture come to think of it.


From conversations i've had with the CPGB i dont believe they'd object to Q's continued membership of the CWI at the same time as joining them. Correct that has happened and in CS is happening today. We would encourage comrades to organise and fight not just leave.

I think there were some serious mistakes and a serious blunder during the Euro elections. I myself did not back a vote for No2EU for the reasons we have given in the paper and on this thread and blogs etc. I was also uncomfortable in calling for a vote for the Labour Party, for all of the reasons that were stated by members and readers of the WW and for the reasons raised by groups like Workers Power. Mike’s articles on the Labour Party have been very good, it is not as straightforward as Ste is trying to make out that we were simply defending the idea of a Labour Party. We have covered this so called ‘conspiracy’ in in many issues since the election. Read the articles.

The pulling of Nick Roger’s article was a mistake. Yet unlike every other group on the Left we admitted the mistake, printed an amended version of Nick’s article and censured the comrades involved in the blunder at an all members aggregate, which we then reported in detail in the paper. Do any other groups on the British Left do such a thing?

Obviously I am pretty biased in my support of the Weekly Worker, however, what comrades have or will find with us is that our commitment to open debate and democracy is second to none. That is the greatest strength of our paper and that is why thousands read it every week and have aided us with money for many years.

[Q]

It's good to see a CPGB member on Revleft, welcome :)

[communard resolution]

The history of our tendency is rather complicated but is explained well in Lawrence Parkers little pamphlet on the revolutionary oppositions in the CPGB before 1991.

Is this text available online?