Communist Party of Britain splits

[Invigilator]

Reports and rumours are flying all around the left corners of the internet that the Communist Party of Britain is in the midst of a major split.

The CPB has been divided for some time into a pro-Labour wing and a wing which is interested in building a left alternative to Labour. The divisions were obvious at the time of the launch of the Respect Coalition, when a narrow majority rejected participation.

Since then, the CPB has been involved in the No2EU slate with the RMT, the Socialist Party, the Alliance for Green Socialism and others. Since then those organisations have been discussing launching a less narrowly focused left alliance. This week, however, the CPB Executive Committee voted against participation in such an alliance, leaving a number of leading figures and a substantial portion of the party membership rather pissed off.

Rumours are now circulating that Griffiths, the General Secretary of the CPB, and John Haylett, the editor of the Morning Star, are going to break away to set up a communist party with more of an orientation towards left unity.

Links below slightly broken because I don't have enough posts yet to put up functioning links.
network54.com/Forum/393207/
averypublicsociologist.blogspot.com/

[Spawn of Stalin]

Do we really need more socialist parties? The idea of splitting the second biggest Marxist party in the country for the purpose of achieving left unity seems more than a little ridiculous to me. Oh well, I wonder what will happen to Communist Review, they sometimes publish some good articles.

[bricolage]

Sigh...

[Invigilator]

How is the Communist Party of Britain "the second biggest Marxist party in Britain"? Either you are messing about with the "Marxist" definition or your numeracy is lacking.

[scarletghoul]

Hmm. Well I guess it would be alright to seperate the auto-labourites from those who want to build a proper left party. Let's just hope this becomes a proper party and not a random splinter group

[scarletghoul]

How is the Communist Party of Britain "the second biggest Marxist party in Britain"? Either you are messing about with the "Marxist" definition or your numeracy is lacking.
The SLP has described itself as Marxist a few times, but only vaguely. Or maybe he was thinking of the SWP, but I dunno if they count

[Spawn of Stalin]

I'm also unsure about SWP but I knew I'd get a beating from the Trots if I said the CPB was the biggest.

[Olerud]

Jesus, can't well all be friends.

[Invigilator]

I'm also unsure about SWP but I knew I'd get a beating from the Trots if I said the CPB was the biggest.

You see, if you exclude Trotskyist parties because in your conception only Stalinists can be Marxists, the CPB is the "biggest Marxist Party". If you count all self-described Marxist organisations, the CPB is the third biggest, a long way behind the SWP and SP but a long way ahead of the next contender. I can't come up with any way the CPB can be the "second biggest" though.

On the prospective CPB split, it makes a certain amount of sense. If you are in favour of broader left unity and an opportunity presents itself, a small split with hostile elements now can be a step to wider unity down the road.

[The Idler]

Yay, more divisions!

But seriously, if the Griffiths-Haylett "Worker-Communist Party of Britain (WCPB)" destroy the only daily left paper in Britain it will be a disappointing day for the British left.

Why don't Griffiths-Haylett just join SPEW and the pro-Labourites join Socialist Appeal?

I wonder what the CPGB(PCC) will make of all this?

[MilitantAnarchist]

One potential oppressor down, few more thousand to go... :thumbup1:

[Forward Union]

Why jump to such negative conclusions. To me this sounds like an entirely healthy split.

I wouldn't want to organise with pro-labourites, would you? either you expel them, or if the internal mechanisms don't exist to do this you split, form a separate organisation etc. So I think it's a sensible decision for them. And I hope they find a more productive role in the NSSN.

[Andropov]

One potential oppressor down, few more thousand to go... :thumbup1:
What are you on about?

[scarletghoul]

One potential oppressor down, few more thousand to go... :thumbup1:
... you... are... really... stupid...

[Spawn of Stalin]

You see, if you exclude Trotskyist parties because in your conception only Stalinists can be Marxists, the CPB is the "biggest Marxist Party". If you count all self-described Marxist organisations, the CPB is the third biggest, a long way behind the SWP and SP but a long way ahead of the next contender. I can't come up with any way the CPB can be the "second biggest" though.
I'm not excluding Trotskyist parties, just SWP. Regardless of my views on Trotskyism, SP and most CWI parties are very legitimate Marxist groups. I had no idea SP was larger than CPB, I figured they were of similar size.

[The Idler]

Why jump to such negative conclusions. To me this sounds like an entirely healthy split.

I wouldn't want to organise with pro-labourites, would you? either you expel them, or if the internal mechanisms don't exist to do this you split, form a separate organisation etc. So I think it's a sensible decision for them. And I hope they find a more productive role in the NSSN.
What could the WCPB do that the Socialist Labour Party, Red Party, Campaign for a New Workers Party (SPEW) or the Campaign for a Marxist Party (Democratic Socialist Alliance) couldn't?

[ls]

One potential oppressor down, few more thousand to go... :thumbup1:

The CPB's program specifically said "we need to oppress and eventually purge militantanarchist".

[Kassad]

Is Socialist Workers Party (UK) the largest Marxist party in the UK? They claim around 5,000 members or, if I recall correctly.

[Olerud]

Is Socialist Workers Party (UK) the largest Marxist party in the UK? They claim around 5,000 members or, if I recall correctly.
They are members wise however most people know that they sign people up without even caring about that persons politics and i even think they went as far to begging someone on this forum to join them (can't remember who).

[ls]

Is Socialist Workers Party (UK) the largest Marxist party in the UK? They claim around 5,000 members or, if I recall correctly.

That's still not 'mass party', also like Olerud says they pretty much suck.

[Kassad]

That's still not 'mass party', also like Olerud says they pretty much suck.

I didn't say anything about them being/not being a mass party, so you don't need to preach to me.

[Die Neue Zeit]

The SLP has described itself as Marxist a few times, but only vaguely. Or maybe he was thinking of the SWP, but I dunno if they count

Huh? King Arthur openly declared his reformism and disdain for communist activism in the SLP, even as he declared a soft spot for Stalin.

Maybe Griffiths and co. might have the balls to form a Left party or Socialist Left party, borrowing from continental Europe.


Yay, more divisions!

But seriously, if the Griffiths-Haylett "Worker-Communist Party of Britain (WCPB)" destroy the only daily left paper in Britain it will be a disappointing day for the British left.

Why don't Griffiths-Haylett just join SPEW and the pro-Labourites join Socialist Appeal?

I wonder what the CPGB(PCC) will make of all this?

SPEW would have to drop its ackward acronym as well as, like the NPA in France, drop the broad economism that is Trotskyism. :)


I'm not excluding Trotskyist parties, just SWP. Regardless of my views on Trotskyism, SP and most CWI parties are very legitimate Marxist groups. I had no idea SP was larger than CPB, I figured they were of similar size.

Demographically speaking, the SWP is anything but a "workers party" anyway. However, one can be a workers-only party without having those awful connections with trade union bureaucracies.

I'd like to see a workers party formation coming from Griffiths-Haylett, SPEW, and the CPGB and various left-republican groups.

[Bitter Ashes]

Oh wonderful. Another variation of CPG/CPGB/CP1337B for me to mistake and get yelled at for. Seriously, cant you guys just establish one cult of personality and get it over and done with?

[Die Neue Zeit]

Um, that was what my proposal was. :glare:

[Bright Banana Beard]

Oh wonderful. Another variation of CPG/CPGB/CP1337B for me to mistake and get yelled at for. Seriously, cant you guys just establish one cult of personality and get it over and done with?

Ooooo, cult of personality! :rolleyes:

Just memorize and study about those CP variety, get over your frustration otherwise quit crying over those begetting parties.

[Olerud]

is there anymore news on this ?

[Philosophical Materialist]

the source and the report sounds like horseshite to me. There is plenty of debate within the Party regarding Labour entryism and other left-wing alternatives, but the Party isn't splitting.

[KurtFF8]

It seems that the CPGB has a similar problem that the CPUSA has: too much support for the large liberal party in power (although this seems to be much more problematic for the CPUSA).

I don't know much about how CPGB is run, but CPUSA could actually benefit from a split: as the leadership (thus those who control the apparatus of the party itself) are the reformists and expelling them would be quite difficult (although I would love to see it happen in CPUSA). So I wonder if CPGB has a similar structural problem.

[Olerud]

It seems that the CPGB has a similar problem that the CPUSA has: too much support for the large liberal party in power (although this seems to be much more problematic for the CPUSA).

I don't know much about how CPGB is run, but CPUSA could actually benefit from a split: as the leadership (thus those who control the apparatus of the party itself) are the reformists and expelling them would be quite difficult (although I would love to see it happen in CPUSA). So I wonder if CPGB has a similar structural problem.

It's the CPB comrade (easy mistake) and yes i feel that the movement would benefit from split. I think that if the split does happen the far left might get it's arse in gear by joining together to form one party (or at least a block), I'm talking more about the CPGB(M-L) and the group that splits from the CPB. Together they could probably start something pretty special but that's just me being an idealist.

[scarletghoul]

That's true, there's potential for some pretty cool stuff to happen if they do split. The CPGB-ML has done pretty well in the few years since they split from the SLP

[bailey_187]

IF it wasn't for the Morning Star I would hope this Labour party pressure group would hurry up and die.

[MilitantAnarchist]

... you... are... really... stupid...

this is coming from a guy who has pol pot on his avatar...

You may care about a communist party, but i don’t care for any political party whoever they may be... shoot me down for having beliefs by all means, but I don’t see what the big deal is...

[The Idler]

The CPGB discussed the departure of Robert Griffiths from the CPB in their podcast here (http://cpgb.podbean.com/2009/10/04/robert-griffiths-leaves-the-cpb/).

As well as discussing the BNP on Question Time (http://cpgb.podbean.com/2009/10/04/the-bnp-on-question-time/).

[Bright Banana Beard]

this is coming from a guy who has pol pot on his avatar...

You may care about a communist party, but i don’t care for any political party whoever they may be... shoot me down for having beliefs by all means, but I don’t see what the big deal is...

It is Xiaoping Deng, not Pol Pot. This is why you lose, we know you are going to destroy us and then demonize us for destroying you.

[MilitantAnarchist]

It is Xiaoping Deng, not Pol Pot. This is why you lose, we know you are going to destroy us and then demonize us for destroying you.

My apologies, that dude looks the spit of pol pot with them glasses on...
I aint trying to destroy or demonize anyone, we have different values and politics... my original comment was just basically saying i couldnt give a fuck if the communist party is splitting, because i couldnt give a fuck if any political party splits... because...i...am...against...all....authority

If i knew i was gonna get everyones back up i wouldnt of said it, so i withdraw everything i've said, so get back to discussing what you were...

:reda:

[Yehuda Stern]

It is Xiaoping DengIt's actually Deng Xiaoping. Chinese surnames come before given names.

[MilitantAnarchist]

It's actually Deng Xiaoping. Chinese surnames come before given names.

happy-ologies again my little droog.... we really need a 'clockwork-commie' smiley i think

[Die Neue Zeit]

The CPGB discussed the departure of Robert Griffiths from the CPB in their podcast here (http://cpgb.podbean.com/2009/10/04/robert-griffiths-leaves-the-cpb/).

As well as discussing the BNP on Question Time (http://cpgb.podbean.com/2009/10/04/the-bnp-on-question-time/).

I certainly hope the Weekly Worker will comment on this quick development in their upcoming issue and not the next one. Frankly, I'm surprised that Jack Conrad isn't the one doing more investigative work on this.

[Die Neue Zeit]

Ending of CPB truce (http://www.cpgb.org.uk/worker/788/ending.php)

Dave Lynch expects full ‘vote Labour’ mode

September 27 cannot have been the best day for Robert Griffiths, general secretary of the Morning Star’s Communist Party of Britain.

Speaking on Saturday September 26 at the latest Convention of the Left talking shop in Brighton, the comrade assured his audience that the CPB would be involved in ‘son of No2EU’ (ie, whatever general election bloc emerged from the formation that contested June’s European elections). This the CPB would do while fighting for the return of a Labour government and supporting its own candidates, alongside those of ‘domiciled’ communists in the UK. Clearly, Griffiths expected such a strategy to be ratified by the CPB’s executive committee the next day.

On Sunday, Griffiths lost the vote at the EC meeting when it was decided that the CPB would take no further part in negotiations with the RMT union, the Socialist Party in England and Wales and others, thus signifying the end of the nationalist No2EU’s programmatic ‘inspiration’. This reversal also signifies the unravelling of the truce constructed at the CPB’s 2008 congress. On the one side was the (slim) majority committed to the CPB’s traditional perspective of achieving a national socialism through a series of left-Labour government (which, in practical terms, leads to a sectarian brand of auto-Labourism). On the other those, such as Griffiths and John Haylett, EC member and political editor of the Morning Star, who basically think the Labour Party is finished as any kind of vehicle for socialism, and that a ‘new’ “party of labour” needs to be built from the trade union movement. The untenable ‘twin-track’ truce was built around committing the CPB to a new workers’ party - the involvement in No2EU was seen by Griffiths and co as a move in that direction - while leaving open the question of the Labour Party being reclaimed for the left.

The decision to withdraw from negotiations with Bob Crow et al marks a factional defeat for Griffiths and company, and a victory for the Labourite faction around Anita Halpin, Kevin Halpin and John Foster. Griffiths remains general secretary and is likely, although not absolutely certain, to stay there for the foreseeable future. After all, he suffered a similar reversal at the hands of the Labourite faction in 2004 over his wish that the CPB should join the ranks of Respect (although he did offer to resign). There is also the little problem of finding a suitable replacement. Rivals for the general secretary post are not exactly jumping into the ring. The CPB, it should be noted, is a terminally lethargic organisation.

Even though we have our differences with Griffiths, one could never accuse the comrade of being a nonentity and, compared to his predecessor, the largely forgotten Mike Hicks, one would have to say that he has been a relatively dynamic general secretary (which is not saying very much in CPB terms, of course). But comrade Griffiths now faces a future of once more being politically hemmed in by the Labourite faction: a situation which, in his eyes, could lead to the eventual ruination of the CPB as an independent organisation functioning on the British left.

A very alert individual would have seen the writing on the wall immediately following the European elections in June. At an otherwise soporific London AGM of the People’s Press Printing Society (the body that nominally controls the Morning Star), the No2EU question was not addressed by any of the CPB members speaking. However, Kevin Halpin was keen to remind his audience of the type of leftwing shift that Labour would need to defeat the Conservatives at the general election. Anita Halpin was somewhat more cryptic. She stated that the leaders of Britain’s major trade unions did not realise the power they still had in the Labour Party. It was thus not hard to foresee that the pro-Labour faction would make a move to shift the CPB’s electoral policy back to the more traditional perspective. And so it was.

The EC vote against Griffiths reflects broader factors both within British political life and the CPB itself.

1) The prospect of a Conservative victory at the next general election has clearly helped shift the CPB back toward a more specific pro-Labour stance and away from electoral adventures that could be accused of splitting the Labour vote in political post-mortems. The derisory votes that the CPB gets in parliamentary electoral contests in traditional Labour seats are deemed to be safer territory. For the European elections in June, even hardened CPB Labourites such as John Foster were heading the Scottish No2EU list. However, in the context of a dreadful campaign and vote, Foster and others were said to be uncomfortable at being involved in what turned out to be an electoral mauling of Labour that may have weakened its chance of winning the general election.

2) The recent TUC resolution in favour of the CPB-inspired People’s Charter for Change has convinced many CPB supporters that it is worthwhile slogging away in the more traditional constituencies of the labour movement and serving it with the dull platitudes of the Morning Star. So stop frittering away energies on dead-end ventures brokered by the ‘rogue’ RMT and the likes of the Socialist Party in England and Wales. It is probable that this is the course that has been urged on the CPB by its allies (or, more likely, allies of the Star) in various trade union leaderships.

3) In certain areas of the country, CPB members were not exactly gushing in their praise of SPEW during the No2EU campaign. There were moans that SPEW members were effectively running the show in too many constituencies; this only highlighting to CPB cadre how difficult it is to mobilise its often dozy and apathetic membership.

One contributor to the A Very Public Sociologist blog, ‘YCLer’ (the Young Communist League is the CPB’s youth organisation), said: “My experience of the SP during the No2EU campaign was not at all good. I cannot speak for other regions, but in mine the SP was very uncomfortable about engaging in any political activity where there were not a majority of SP members, a situation I only encountered in the final rally - where SP members (very, very loudly) identified themselves as SP members every time they spoke” (October 4).

This speaks of two factors. First, that SPEW was uncomfortable about the nationalist politics of the CPB and tried to assert itself numerically and vocally and, second, that this provoked, in turn, a reaction from CPB members, who knew full well that they could not match SPEW organisationally. Most of the tortured mythologies that sustain the CPB are easy meat for other groups with any sort of political nous and the CPB’s leadership is painfully aware that getting ‘up close and personal’ with other leftists could lead to fragmentation.

4) The need to engage with the likes of SPEW and others from Trotskyist, or lapsed Trotskyist, backgrounds means that leadership figures from Stalinite backgrounds such as Griffiths and Haylett come across as increasingly agnostic toward ‘divisive’ issues in the history of international communism.
While this might go down well with Trotskyists silly enough to take it all at face value, it is problematic for a number of reasons. First, as Griffiths is honest enough to admit, the whole national-socialist trajectory of the CPB is fundamentally bound up with Stalin and Stalinism. Second, the relative agnosticism shown to Trotskyists by Griffiths and company is extremely unpopular among older members of the CPB. They are imbued with a thoroughly Stalinist world view, even though it might be expressed in less hysterical terminology than that of 1930s ‘high’ Stalinism.

We should now expect the CPB to go into full ‘vote Labour’ mode as the general election approaches. No doubt the likes of comrades Halpin and Foster will be banking on a revival of the Labour left following the expected Conservative victory, and, with it, a reassertion of the traditional approach of the CPB’s programme, Britain’s road to socialism.

[Andropov]

I aint trying to destroy or demonize anyone, we have different values and politics... my original comment was just basically saying i couldnt give a fuck if the communist party is splitting, because i couldnt give a fuck if any political party splits... because...i...am...against...all....authority
Trendy Left liberal drivel.
Go smash a window.

[Die Neue Zeit]

No thoughts on elements of the CPB willing to work with Trotskyists, and elements hostile towards such? :(