Another ''which political party'' thread

[*Viva La Revolucion*]

I am sorry, I know there have been loads of these but I'm really stuck and I can't make a decision. I'm looking for a left-wing party in England. There are so many parties, it's impossible to know which ones are worth joining. Any thoughts?

I don't think I want to join the SWP because I've known 3 members who have all left due to problems within the organisation. Although, I'm still open to all suggestions, so if anyone else has had a better experience with them...

[Q]

We really ought to create a subforum for these threads...

What do you already know about the parties that you know exist? What do you like or dislike? Is there a particular tendency you're looking out for?

[Hoggy_RS]

The socialist party(CWI)?

[robbo203]

If its a party you want to join you could try the SPGB, Britains oldest marxist party
www.worldsocialism.org (http://www.worldsocialism.org) or alternatively the De Leonists but Im not too sure i they have a presence in the UK

[Vladimir Innit Lenin]

None, quite simply. I'll elaborate more in private, but IMO the parties on the left in Britain are all rather inadequate. I've flirted with SPEW and the CPB, but neither Trotskyism nor the reform/revolution mess of the CPB really inspired me.

I'd go along to a CPGB-ML meeting or two, they'd probably be of use. As much as I dislike Harpal Brar's political positions regarding the defence of anti-imperialists, the DPRK, USSR and so on, he is a good speaker and a fine Marxist theorist. I wouldn't join them, mind.

[Q]

Can we not make this a blunt (anti)advertisement thread for once? http://static.1.ipbfree.com/uploads/ipbfree.com/cpcn/emo-emot-psyduck.gif

[ContrarianLemming]

don't join a party, the labour party shows how they always sell out once there in power, the labour party was, believe it or not, a socialist party at one point

[Bitter Ashes]

Unless you believe in transitional demands and that generaly anything positive can come of reform, then it's probably not worth it, except to try block the Tories or BNP or something.

[Q]

don't join a party, the labour party shows how they always sell out once there in power, the labour party was, believe it or not, a socialist party at one point
Nope, never was. It was a party with many socialists in it though.

[Zanthorus]

Nope, never was. It was a party with many socialists in it though.

:lol:

The old text of clause 4 before Blair fucked with it:


To secure for the workers by hand or by brain the full fruits of their industry and the most equitable distribution thereof that may be possible upon the basis of the common ownership of the means of production, distribution and exchange, and the best obtainable system of popular administration and control of each industry or service.

Doesn't really get much clearer than that.

[Q]

:lol:

The old text of clause 4 before Blair fucked with it:



Doesn't really get much clearer than that.
Ah yes, that little worthless line surely defined Labour as socialist :)

Labour was a genuine working class party, even pretty leftist at times, but it was never socialist. The party leadership always dodged the question when it came to Clause 4. Blair just properly got rid of it.

[Zanthorus]

Labour was a genuine working class party, even pretty leftist at times, but it was never socialist. The party leadership always dodged the question when it came to Clause 4. Blair just properly got rid of it.

Well I'm not too up on the history of the Labour party apart from Dolgoff's piece on them, the whole clause 4 fuss and "The Longest Suicide note in history" thing.

I think the point about the labour party is as they got bigger they were forced to take in to consideration the middle classes and it led them towards the right.

Anyway, I've never really seen the point in leftists taking part in elections. Aren't their other platforms that can be used in this day and age without the hassle of watering down our policies to appeal to voters :confused:

[FSL]

I am sorry, I know there have been loads of these but I'm really stuck and I can't make a decision. I'm looking for a left-wing party in England. There are so many parties, it's impossible to know which ones are worth joining. Any thoughts?

I don't think I want to join the SWP because I've known 3 members who have all left due to problems within the organisation. Although, I'm still open to all suggestions, so if anyone else has had a better experience with them...


The most important thing isn't finding what the "best party" is. It's finding the one with which you agree on the most points. Even if that party's smaller or less organised than others, you'll find yourself more comfortable working to promote things you agree with.

So, try to define in your head what kind of society you'd like to see built and how to get there, and then join whichever party comes closest.

[Revy]

:lol:

The old text of clause 4 before Blair fucked with it:


That's so vague a social democrat/ state-capitalist could uphold it. "Common ownership" and "popular administration" could just be applied to the state and the workers left out.

[Atlanta]

well you should go out and talk to organizations in Britain, I had to go out and talk to the Cpusa and the RCP in the US before I decided that we wernt going in the same direction.

so you should work with the Communist party of Great Britain, and the communist party of great Britain (Marxist-Leninist), and the revolutionary communist party of great Britain (Marxist-Leninist), and the Communist league of great Britain.....both of them

[The Ungovernable Farce]

Anyway, I've never really seen the point in leftists taking part in elections. Aren't their other platforms that can be used in this day and age without the hassle of watering down our policies to appeal to voters :confused:
In a word, yes, which is why it's a waste of time, if not actually counter-productive.

Anyway, with regard to the OP's question, I'd echo Ranma42's advice. Instead of joining a party (and especially instead of joining a party because strangers on the internet told you to do so), why not join a campaigning group? Admittedly, your choices will be limited depending on where you are, (this is also true for joining parties, pretty much), and they're often just front groups for the various parties, but your local area should at least have some kind of an activist group, whether it's anti-fascist, climate change, migrant solidarity, defending public services or whatever. Joining one of these means you can get active without having to sign up to every nuance of a particular organisation's unique dogma, and it should give you a chance to meet other activists and discuss things with them IRL. If members of a party are involved in that campaign, it also means you can judge them on their real-life behaviour instead of their rhetoric, which is important.

[robbo203]

Originally Posted by Clause IV
To secure for the workers by hand or by brain the full fruits of their industry and the most equitable distribution thereof that may be possible upon the basis of the common ownership of the means of production, distribution and exchange, and the best obtainable system of popular administration and control of each industry or service.


We regard to Clause 4 which some point to in justification of the claim that the Labour Party was once "socialist" , please note that it is a contradiction in terms. It is illogical to have common ownership of the means of exchange. Exchange implies sellers and buyers and the transfer of property title over the item being exchanged. This in turn inplies sectional owernship of the means of production, not common ownership. Logically speaking there cannot be exchange (i.e. a market) if you have common ownership of the means of production. If everyone owns the means of production then it follows that the goods and services that are produced must be directly and freely accessible by all without any form of exchange mediating between the goods and services in question and your appropriation of them.

Clause 4 was nothing more than a recipe for state capitalism. It had nothing to do with socialism or communism

[Vladimir Innit Lenin]

The very origins of the Labour Party were anti-Socialist, albeit not anti-worker, but then you must understand the peculiar socio-economic conditions that existed in Britain around 1900. Indeed, the likes of Keir Hardie specifically chose the name Labour Party (or Independent Labour Party, at the time) to separate themselves from Marxism, revolution and Socialism.

So yes, Clause IV or not, the Labour Party was never Socialist in the way we would accept. Even beloved Old Labour. Having said that, it is not to say that at the time the Labour Party was not something to be welcomed on the British Left (again, you must understand the unique circumstances in Britain at the time of its creation). However, one must just not confuse that the Labour Party, at its inception, was an ally of workers, with it being a genuinely Socialist party. From Ramsay MacDonald through to the current crop of neo-liberals, it has never moved further than centre-left liberalism at best, when in government.

[The Ungovernable Farce]

Would it be worth splitting the discussion of the history of the Labour Party, which, interesting as it is, has little if anything to do with the question of which (if any) party the OP should join?

[robbo203]

The very origins of the Labour Party were anti-Socialist, albeit not anti-worker, but then you must understand the peculiar socio-economic conditions that existed in Britain around 1900. Indeed, the likes of Keir Hardie specifically chose the name Labour Party (or Independent Labour Party, at the time) to separate themselves from Marxism, revolution and Socialism.

So yes, Clause IV or not, the Labour Party was never Socialist in the way we would accept. Even beloved Old Labour. Having said that, it is not to say that at the time the Labour Party was not something to be welcomed on the British Left (again, you must understand the unique circumstances in Britain at the time of its creation). However, one must just not confuse that the Labour Party, at its inception, was an ally of workers, with it being a genuinely Socialist party. From Ramsay MacDonald through to the current crop of neo-liberals, it has never moved further than centre-left liberalism at best, when in government.

How on earth can you possibly say this? The Labour Party was not an ally of the workers - ever. No party, no matter what its pretensions, that presumes to take hold of the reins of capitalist administration can ever objectively operate in the interests of the workers. It can only ever operate in the interest of capital because that is the nature of capitalism itself. And operating in the interests of capital means operating against the interests of workers at a fundamental level of political economy

You have to make a distinction between the subjective opinion of the Labour Party which some within its ranks no doubt entertained and the actual structural constraints built into the capitalist system that would -and indeed did - compel the Labour Party to always act fundamentally against the interests of workers. The occasional sop thrown to the workers or the odd palliative reform introduced supposedly to improve the lot of the workers was only done insofar as it was compatible with, and indeed bolstered, the long terms interests of capital itself.

The Welfare state was supposed to be the crowning achievement of Labour and in the eyes of some rather gullible commentators, the most enduring justification of its claim to be a "socialist" party. In fact of course, the welfare state was nothing of the sort. All the main parties . Conservative, Liberal and Labour - supported the proposals set out in the famous wartime Beveridge Report. As a rather useful SPGB pamphlet points out


Sir William Beveridge, who drew up the original plan, constantly argued in his Report that his proposals would be more economical to administer than previous methods, and in February 1943 Samuel Courtauld, millionaire Tory industrialist, said of the Report: “Social security of this nature will be about the most profitable long-term investment the country could make. It will not undermine the morale of the nations’ workers: it will ultimately lead to higher efficiency among them and a lowering of production costs” (Manchester Guardian, 19 February 1943). Most other employers were apparently of the same opinion, for in a poll conducted at the time, 75 per cent of them agreed that the Beveridge Report should be adopted (Susanne MacGregor, The Politics of Poverty, p.21.)


The Market System Must Go! Why Reformism Doesn’t Work
http://www.worldsocialism.org/spgb/pdf/go%21.pdf

Of course, as with any party proposing to take on the running of capitalism, it will be at the mercy of the whims of the market. Reforms than can be granted at one point in time can be just as easily withdrawn at another should economic circumstances dictate. As we know, the capitalist trade cycle is an indelible aspect of capitalism despite the attempts of governments of every hue - under the spell of keynesian mumbo jumbo - to eradicate it. On occasions when economic circumstances demanded , Labour has been just as savagely ruthless in pruning back the miserly benefits system and attacking the workers as their alleged opponents, the Tories

There can be no justification for claiming labour was ever a party of the workers. The proof of the pudding is in the eating, in Labour's sordid anti-working class history

[*Viva La Revolucion*]

Anyway, with regard to the OP's question, I'd echo Ranma42's advice. Instead of joining a party (and especially instead of joining a party because strangers on the internet told you to do so), why not join a campaigning group? Admittedly, your choices will be limited depending on where you are, (this is also true for joining parties, pretty much), and they're often just front groups for the various parties, but your local area should at least have some kind of an activist group, whether it's anti-fascist, climate change, migrant solidarity, defending public services or whatever. Joining one of these means you can get active without having to sign up to every nuance of a particular organisation's unique dogma, and it should give you a chance to meet other activists and discuss things with them IRL. If members of a party are involved in that campaign, it also means you can judge them on their real-life behaviour instead of their rhetoric, which is important.

I'd really like to do that, but I don't know how to find a campaigning group. Where should I look?


None, quite simply. I'll elaborate more in private, but IMO the parties on the left in Britain are all rather inadequate. I've flirted with SPEW and the CPB, but neither Trotskyism nor the reform/revolution mess of the CPB really inspired me.

I'd go along to a CPGB-ML meeting or two, they'd probably be of use. As much as I dislike Harpal Brar's political positions regarding the defence of anti-imperialists, the DPRK, USSR and so on, he is a good speaker and a fine Marxist theorist. I wouldn't join them, mind.

I think the existing parties are inadequate as well, but my reasoning is that joining a party would provide a sort of base and from there it would be easier to participate. So even though I don't agree completely with any party's position, it's better to have some kind of starting point than nothing at all. Also, aren't the CPGB-ML mostly based in London? :(


What do you already know about the parties that you know exist? What do you like or dislike? Is there a particular tendency you're looking out for?

I know a few things about various groups, but I haven't had any first-hand experience. My information comes from things I've read on their websites and opinions from other 'real life' comrades.

As for what I like and dislike, I'm not sure yet. I don't like groups that insist their ideology is the only correct one and I dislike all of the fighting that seems to go on within some of the parties. I can't possibly commit myself to a tendency because I change my mind so often.

[The Ungovernable Farce]

I'd really like to do that, but I don't know how to find a campaigning group. Where should I look?

Ah. That can be tricky. It's a lot easier if you live in a large urban area. You said you knew other real-life comrades - are they currently involved in any (non-party) activity?

[*Viva La Revolucion*]

Ah. That can be tricky. It's a lot easier if you live in a large urban area. You said you knew other real-life comrades - are they currently involved in any (non-party) activity?

Not as far as I know. I only know a few comrades to begin with and one of them is an ex-party member anyway. :( I am in an urban area, but it's not very large.

Oh well. If anyone knows of left-wing groups in the North-east could you please give me some information? Thank you in advance.

[MarkP]

Oh well. If anyone knows of left-wing groups in the North-east could you please give me some information? Thank you in advance.

Britain has, as you have noticed, a plethora of mostly very small left wing groups and parties.

The first thing to realise is that anyone can throw up a webpage and the ability to do so isn't indicative of any particular real world strength or presence. In practice, there are precisely two left wing parties with any kind of national organisation, the SWP (a part of the International Socialist Tendency) and the Socialist Party (a part of the Committee for a Workers International).

These two organisations are much, much bigger than the other groups and by the law of averages they are probably going to be the ones with relatively nearby branches.

The next biggest organisation is the Communist Party of Britain (a Stalinist party of what would have been described as the "Moscow line" type, back when Moscow still had a line). They are a lot smaller but are still big enough to have a reasonable number of branches. After that we are talking about groups with a maximum of about 100 activists (and often much less), almost always heavily concentrated in London. Some of these groups have the odd branch elsewhere and it is just about conceivable that one of those branches will be somewhere near you, but it isn't very likely.

My advice would be to find out who is local, have a chat with them, go along to a meeting or two, find out about their politics and their activism and then decide if they are a good fit for you. If you are looking for a party because you want to get involved in activism with a wider groups of people this is probably the best approach, because writing away to join a group whose nearest branch is 600 miles away won't help you to achieve that goal.

Here, is the internet form where you can ask for more information about local Socialist Party branches, meetings and so on. Tick the "I would like information" box rather than the "I would like to join" one:
socialistparty.org.uk/Join.html
Here is the phone number for their North East region:
0191 421 6230
And their Yorkshire region, as I don't know precisely where you are:
0114 264 6551

[*Viva La Revolucion*]

Thank you so much for the info! I think I'll try and find a local branch of the Socialist Party and go along to see what it's like.


The next biggest organisation is the Communist Party of Britain (a Stalinist party of what would have been described as the "Moscow line" type, back when Moscow still had a line). They are a lot smaller but are still big enough to have a reasonable number of branches. After that we are talking about groups with a maximum of about 100 activists (and often much less), almost always heavily concentrated in London. Some of these groups have the odd branch elsewhere and it is just about conceivable that one of those branches will be somewhere near you, but it isn't very likely.

I thought the CPB were reformist and less Stalinist than other groups like the CPGB-ML etc?

[Revy]

There is also the CPGB (http://cpgb.org.uk/worker/whatwefightfor.php).



What we fight for



Our central aim is the organisation of communists, revolutionary socialists and all politically advanced workers into a Communist Party. Without organisation the working class is nothing; with the highest form of organisation it is everything.
The Provisional Central Committee organises members of the Communist Party, but there exists no real Communist Party today. There are many so-called ‘parties’ on the left. In reality they are confessional sects. Members who disagree with the prescribed ‘line’ are expected to gag themselves in public. Either that or face expulsion.
Communists operate according to the principles of democratic centralism. Through ongoing debate we seek to achieve unity in action and a common world outlook. As long as they support agreed actions, members have the right to speak openly and form temporary or permanent factions.
Communists oppose the US-UK occupation of Iraq and stand against all imperialist wars but constantly strive to bring to the fore the fundamental question - ending war is bound up with ending capitalism.
Communists are internationalists. Everywhere we strive for the closest unity and agreement of working class and progressive parties of all countries. We oppose every manifestation of national sectionalism. It is an internationalist duty to uphold the principle, ‘One state, one party’. To the extent that the European Union becomes a state then that necessitates EU-wide trade unions and a Communist Party of the EU.
The working class must be organised globally. Without a global Communist Party, a Communist International, the struggle against capital is weakened and lacks coordination.
Communists have no interest apart from the working class as a whole. They differ only in recognising the importance of Marxism as a guide to practice. That theory is no dogma, but must be constantly added to and enriched.
Capitalism in its ceaseless search for profit puts the future of humanity at risk. Capitalism is synonymous with war, pollution, exploitation and crisis. As a global system capitalism can only be superseded globally. All forms of nationalist socialism are reactionary and anti-working class.
The capitalist class will never willingly allow their wealth and power to be taken away by a parliamentary vote. They will resist using every means at their disposal. Communists favour using parliament and winning the biggest possible working class representation. But workers must be readied to make revolution - peacefully if we can, forcibly if we must.
Communists fight for extreme democracy in all spheres of society. Democracy must be given a social content.
We will use the most militant methods objective circumstances allow to achieve a federal republic of England, Scotland and Wales, a united, federal Ireland and a United States of Europe.
Communists favour industrial unions. Bureaucracy and class compromise must be fought and the trade unions transformed into schools for communism.
Communists are champions of the oppressed. Women’s oppression, combating racism and chauvinism, and the struggle for peace and ecological sustainability are just as much working class questions as pay, trade union rights and demands for high-quality health, housing and education.
Socialism represents victory in the battle for democracy. It is the rule of the working class. Socialism is either democratic or, as with Stalin’s Soviet Union, it turns into its opposite.
Socialism is the first stage of the worldwide transition to communism - a system which knows neither wars, exploitation, money, classes, states nor nations. Communism is general freedom and the real beginning of human history.
All who accept these principles are urged to join the Communist Party.

[FSL]

Thank you so much for the info! I think I'll try and find a local branch of the Socialist Party and go along to see what it's like.



I thought the CPB were reformist and less Stalinist than other groups like the CPGB-ML etc?


CPGB-ML isn't "Stalinist" stopping at that. It also upholds Mao, it has a really positive stance on modern China (as in really really) and generally seems more to the left of where a marxist-leninist-party-that-thinks-socialism-in-one country-can-work should be (which is what "Stalinism" is if you count out the attempt to libel).
CPB on the other hand is to the right of where -I think- it should be to be considered Stalinist but I'd say they're okeyish for the time being.

All parties have some rigid ideology and they do so for a reason (the reason can be good or bad). Even promoting unity at all times and despite all differences is a form of a rigid ideology.
In all honesty, if, as you say, your mind is still constantly changing, you're just better of doing some reading for now. You can still learn about parties or organizations that are active where you live and support in some way their actions when you agree with them.

[MarkP]

Thank you so much for the info! I think I'll try and find a local branch of the Socialist Party and go along to see what it's like.

Let us know how you get along.


I thought the CPB were reformist and less Stalinist than other groups like the CPGB-ML etc?

There are different types of Stalinist. Most of the big Stalinist Parties in Western Europe followed the "Moscow line" in international affairs and combined that with a kind of reformism at home. The Communist Party of Great Britain (which the CPB is sort of the left-overs of) was the runt of that litter, the biggest left of Labour party in Britain up till the 1980s but tiny by the standards of similar parties abroad.

The CPGB-ML is a much harder line Stalinist operation and a lot smaller. If I remember correctly it descends from a Maoist current, which is a subset of anti-revisionism. Anti-revisionism basically means a more "revolutionary" Stalinism and it comes in different variants, notably Maoism and Hoxhaism. In Britain that sort of politics is represented by a number of different splinter groups, the CPGB-ML, RCPB(ML), NCP and CPB(ML), all nearly invisible to the naked eye.

[FSL]

There are different types of Stalinist. Most of the big Stalinist Parties in Western Europe followed the "Moscow line" in international affairs and combined that with a kind of reformism at home.


For the shake of historical accuracy, there were no stalinist parties among those that followed the "Moscow line" in the second half of the 20th century and in Western Europe there were almost no parties following the Moscow Line anyway. Most had adopted eurocommunism being critical of Lenin even.

[MarkP]

For the shake of historical accuracy, there were no stalinist parties among those that followed the "Moscow line" in the second half of the 20th century and in Western Europe there were almost no parties following the Moscow Line anyway. Most had adopted eurocommunism being critical of Lenin even.

Don't be so silly.

The programme of the CPGB, and now of the CPB, is the British Road to Socialism, which was personally approved by Stalin himself.

Stalinism often involved a kind of national reformism at home, as long as that suited the foreign policy of the Soviet Union. This caused the would be "revolutionaries" amongst the ranks of smaller Stalinist sects no end of confusion, but confusion is their natural state anyway so I'm not sure how anybody noticed.

Eurocommunism in its early stages was simply a paticularly virulent subset of the usual Stalinist national reformism displayed by Western European CPs. In its later, more advanced stages, it becomes a sort of radical liberalism which I would agree differs from Stalinism. Eventually, of course, the Eurocommunists abandoned the left altogether. But so too did the ruling bureaucrats in the various Stalinist dictatorships, so that's hardly a point of distinction.

[Atlanta]

Don't be so silly.

The programme of the CPGB, and now of the CPB, is the British Road to Socialism, which was personally approved by Stalin himself.

Stalinism often involved a kind of national reformism at home, as long as that suited the foreign policy of the Soviet Union. This caused the would be "revolutionaries" amongst the ranks of smaller Stalinist sects no end of confusion, but confusion is their natural state anyway so I'm not sure how anybody noticed.

Eurocommunism in its early stages was simply a paticularly virulent subset of the usual Stalinist national reformism displayed by Western European CPs. In its later, more advanced stages, it becomes a sort of radical liberalism which I would agree differs from Stalinism. Eventually, of course, the Eurocommunists abandoned the left altogether. But so too did the ruling bureaucrats in the various Stalinist dictatorships, so that's hardly a point of distinction.

While it is true that the Communist party of Great Britain was probably revisionist while Stalin was still general secretary (hence why they backed Khrushchev's coup) I don't think you can say he endorsed this Euro-Communist policy. In fact in his speeches to the Communist party USA he attacked these policies as a result of factionalism; http://www.marx2mao.com/Stalin/SCPUSA29.html

[The Ungovernable Farce]

Oh well. If anyone knows of left-wing groups in the North-east could you please give me some information? Thank you in advance.
Oh, right, North-East England, hang on...here's a guide to alternative/radical groups on Tyneside (http://tynesideshortcutz.wordpress.com/). Some of them are a bit lifestyley, but there's some good ones in this section (http://tynesideshortcutz.wordpress.com/direct-action-campaigning/). In particular I'd recommend checking out:
Campaigning Groups in North East England (https://lists.riseup.net/www/info/northeastcampaignevent) (email list)
Tyneside Community Action for Refugees (if I recall correctly, they're a bit dominated by the Revolutionary Communist Group, who're a weird lot, but you might want to give them a try): [email protected] ([email protected])
No Borders North East (http://nobordersnortheast.wordpress.com/)
Tyneside Industrial Workers of the World (non-affiliated radical grassroots union): [email protected]
Tyne & Wear Anti-Fascist Association (http://www.revleft.com/vb/www.twafa.org.uk)
Toon Climate Action
(http://www.toonclimateaction.tk/)Tyneside Solidarity Group: tynesideagainstdebt(at)gmail.com ([email protected])

If you can meet up with them, they should all give you a chance to get active without having to sign up to a particular party's ideology first (as I said, I think TCAR are quite heavily dominated by the Revolutionary Communist Group, but as far as I know all the others are pretty independent). I'd also recommend messaging Holden Caulfield on here, cos he's from that neck of the woods and pretty sorted.

[Revy]

Don't be so silly.

The programme of the CPGB, and now of the CPB, is the British Road to Socialism, which was personally approved by Stalin himself.


The programme of the CPGB (PCC) is revolutionary Marxism. They are critics of the CPB's "British Road to Socialism".

[FSL]

Don't be so silly.

The programme of the CPGB, and now of the CPB, is the British Road to Socialism, which was personally approved by Stalin himself.

Stalinism often involved a kind of national reformism at home, as long as that suited the foreign policy of the Soviet Union. This caused the would be "revolutionaries" amongst the ranks of smaller Stalinist sects no end of confusion, but confusion is their natural state anyway so I'm not sure how anybody noticed.

Eurocommunism in its early stages was simply a paticularly virulent subset of the usual Stalinist national reformism displayed by Western European CPs. In its later, more advanced stages, it becomes a sort of radical liberalism which I would agree differs from Stalinism. Eventually, of course, the Eurocommunists abandoned the left altogether. But so too did the ruling bureaucrats in the various Stalinist dictatorships, so that's hardly a point of distinction.


I find it funny how you're throwing around stalinism for parties and countries that wanted nothing to do with Stalin after 1956.



The programme of the CPGB (PCC) is revolutionary Marxism. They are critics of the CPB's "British Road to Socialism".


That is, of course, a matter of opinion. I find nothing revolutionary in accepting the neoliberal policies of comission as a given.

[MarkP]

I find it funny how you're throwing around stalinism for parties and countries that wanted nothing to do with Stalin after 1956.

"Stalinism" is not the personal worship of Stalin, but a broad political movement committed to certain political positions. These include, but are not limited to, the Popular Front, socialism in one country, "stageism" in the neo-colonial world, and support for some or all of the bureaucratic dictatorships. The old CPGB fits this pattern just as clearly as the occasional little oddball Stalin-worshipping sect.



The programme of the CPGB (PCC) is revolutionary Marxism. They are critics of the CPB's "British Road to Socialism".

I wasn't talking about the grandiosely named sect of two dozen which currently uses the name "CPGB". They aren't Stalinists any more, but a variety of confused ultra-leftist, not that they matter enough to analyse in detail.

I was talking about the real CPGB, which is now defunct. The CPB is the largest leftover from that party and maintains its programme, which as I noted above, was personally approved by Stalin.

[Spawn of Stalin]

I think the existing parties are inadequate as well, but my reasoning is that joining a party would provide a sort of base and from there it would be easier to participate. So even though I don't agree completely with any party's position, it's better to have some kind of starting point than nothing at all. Also, aren't the CPGB-ML mostly based in London? :(
Hi we have Comrades all over England, we're very thin in Scotland and Wales but the only regions without branches in England are East Anglia and Cornwall. PM me if you're interested in coming to one of our meetings or having a chat.

I thought the CPB were reformist and less Stalinist than other groups like the CPGB-ML etc?
CPB still tell people to vote Labour and adhere to 'Britain's Road to Socialism', which is basically their revolutionary plan to stand in a few elections and establish socialism.

The CPGB-ML is a much harder line Stalinist operation and a lot smaller. If I remember correctly it descends from a Maoist current, which is a subset of anti-revisionism.
Well, Harpal Brar started out as a Maoist in the 60s and 70s, as a party we are simply Marxist-Leninists with a positive view of Maoism.

In Britain that sort of politics is represented by a number of different splinter groups, the CPGB-ML, RCPB(ML), NCP and CPB(ML), all nearly invisible to the naked eye.
I think the important thing to note when comparing CPGB-ML, RCPB, and NCP, to the CPB, SWP, etc. is that every single one of our members is an activist, we don't have many paying members but we have just as many committed cadres as the CPB do outside of London. I am active in Birmingham and we are definitely the most active Marxist party here and in terms of numbers of actual cadres I dare say the biggest.

The programme of the CPGB, and now of the CPB, is the British Road to Socialism, which was personally approved by Stalin himself.
Sure, it was approved by Stalin in the 1940s, that doesn't make it relevant today, also it has been revised countless times it is nearly unrecognisable from the original document.

OP: Join whoever you agree with on the issues that matter. All I will say is this, there are a lot of parties out there who would have you voting Labour under the impression that it is still the party of the working class, and that it is somehow better than the Conservatives, I would advise against joining any of these parties. Join a revolutionary party who understands that Labour are the biggest threat to the left today. If you think Labour are worth voting for, join them.

[MarkP]

All I will say is this, there are a lot of parties out there who would have you voting Labour under the impression that it is still the party of the working class, and that it is somehow better than the Conservatives, I would advise against joining any of these parties.

This actually brings up an interesting question. Which parties do not call for a vote for Labour, not counting seats in which that party is standing itself?

The Socialist Party doesn't. The CPGB-ML doesn't. The SLP (does it still exist?) doesn't. The Alliance for Green Socialism doesn't. The SPGB doesn't. Who else? I know that the Scottish left parties don't (Solidarity and the SSP).

[Vladimir Innit Lenin]

CPB is the only party that calls for a vote for the Labour Party, I believe.

There are a few minor sects (if I can remember rightly, the NCP?) that advocate voting for Labour, but the CPB is the only party of more than a dozen or so activists that advocates voting Labour.

[mosfeld]

My vote goes for CPGB-ML. Lots of great comrades on this board such as, the recently banned, Radical, motionless and, if I remember correctly, the notorious REDARMYFACTION himself belong to the party. Their newspaper Proletarian is excellent. They have progressive views on most issues, or at least nothing I've read which I disagree with, so far anyways. Maybe on China.

CPGB-ML's website (http://www.cpgb-ml.org)
CPGB-ML's youtube channel (http://www.youtube.com/user/ProletarianCPGBML)

[Orange Juche]

don't join a party, the labour party shows how they always sell out once there in power

they're, not there.

[The Idler]

You haven't given enough information to base a recommendation on, it basically depends on what you want. Any recommendation will therefore be pretty worthless. There's more in the link in my sig, but basically some are;
Trotskyists - SWP, SPEW, AWL, PR, The Commune, WP, WRP
Reformists - Labour, Respect, Green Left, SLP, Socialist Appeal, AGS
Stalinists - CPB, RCG, CPB-ML
Leninists - CPGB(PCC)
Socialists - SPGB
Anarchists - L&S, SolFed, AFed, Class War

[Q]

Trotskyists - SWP, SPEW, AWL, PR, The Commune, WP, WRP
Wasn't The Commune left-communist? Could you tell me more about them? I've been hearing about them a lot lately but have no idea who they are really.

[The Idler]

I think The Commune split from Alliance from Workers Liberty over Matgamma's comments about Israel and Iran, this guest post would seem to support that (http://shirazsocialist.wordpress.com/2008/08/23/the-awl-israel-and-iran/). Both organisations however, seem to be Trotskyist. To their credit, the Commune seem to be active (at least in London) and manage to produce a regular (monthly?) paper.

[The Ungovernable Farce]

My vote goes for CPGB-ML. Lots of great comrades on this board such as, the recently banned, Radical, motionless and, if I remember correctly, the notorious REDARMYFACTION himself belong to the party.
Yep, Radical and REDARMYFACTION are great adverts for the CPGB(ML).

Wasn't The Commune left-communist? Could you tell me more about them? I've been hearing about them a lot lately but have no idea who they are really.
They're a broad network rather than a party and encourage internal discussion and debate, which I think is really healthy, but it makes it a lot harder to put labels on them. They have libertarian communist members as well as more straightforwardly trotty ones. You can read a discussion they had with some left communists here: http://thecommune.wordpress.com/2009/11/16/reply-to-the-internationalist-communist-tendency/


In one sense, we are the old left in a new form: several of our members are drawn from the large layer of militants experienced in, and disillusioned with, the Trotskyist movement. And we clearly adopt a more open form. But the old left is part of our roots. Do we discard everything from that experience? No.
Yet, are we a radical new grouping? Yes. We do not have the same ideas as the Internationalist Communist Tendency. The Commune represents a break with statism, nationalism, organisational authoritarianism, and crude accounts of various elements of class struggle, including the idea of the party. Our appraisal of the unions is critical, alongside our conviction that they represent, albeit often in bureaucratised form, attempts by workers to organise around their class interests: attempts that are worth relating to.
I don't think you can really call them a Trotskyist group.

[Die Neue Zeit]

That's so vague a social democrat/ state-capitalist could uphold it. "Common ownership" and "popular administration" could just be applied to the state and the workers left out.

The same goes for "public" as replacement adjectives for "common" and "popular."

What was missing in the old Clause Four is a summary of the need for a DOTP.

To organize the workers by hand or by brain towards obtaining the ruling-class political power and related changes to the state structure that are necessary to secure for themselves...

the full fruits of their industry and the most equitable distribution thereof that may be possible upon the basis of the common ownership of the means of production and distribution, and the best obtainable system of popular administration and control of each industry or service.

[The rest of the Clause would still be Lassallean re. "full fruits," but the refined Clause (and I took into account robbo's critique of "exchange") would overall be better.]

[Die Neue Zeit]

You haven't given enough information to base a recommendation on, it basically depends on what you want. Any recommendation will therefore be pretty worthless. There's more in the link in my sig, but basically some are;
Trotskyists - SWP, SPEW, AWL, PR, The Commune, WP, WRP
Reformists - Labour, Respect, Green Left, SLP, Socialist Appeal, AGS
Stalinists - CPB, RCG, CPB-ML
Leninists - CPGB(PCC)
Socialists - SPGB
Anarchists - L&S, SolFed, AFed, Class War

What about the IWCA? [www.iwca.info]

The CPGB-PCC isn't "Leninist" but rather "neo-Kautskyist."

[*Viva La Revolucion*]

You haven't given enough information to base a recommendation on, it basically depends on what you want. Any recommendation will therefore be pretty worthless. There's more in the link in my sig, but basically some are;
Trotskyists - SWP, SPEW, AWL, PR, The Commune, WP, WRP
Reformists - Labour, Respect, Green Left, SLP, Socialist Appeal, AGS
Stalinists - CPB, RCG, CPB-ML
Leninists - CPGB(PCC)
Socialists - SPGB
Anarchists - L&S, SolFed, AFed, Class War

What's PR?

[BobKKKindle$]

What's PR?

Permanent Revolution, an irrelevant split from an irrelevant organization, Workers Power, which is WP in the above list.

[The Idler]

Permanent Revolution, an irrelevant split from an irrelevant organization, Workers Power, which is WP in the above list.
PR's website is very good and their journal is one of the best. They even give their journal away for free download after a couple of months. I don't know if they do much grassroots organising though.
By contrast, IWCA branches seem to organise at a grassroots level but don't have a journal.

[Die Neue Zeit]

The comrades of the IWCA do have an online journal. It's supposed to be monthly, but for some reason they don't have any since their articles on identity politics and economic democracy.

[Luís Henrique]

I think the point about the labour party is as they got bigger they were forced to take in to consideration the middle classes and it led them towards the right.

On the other hand, as they get smaller, they tend to take the working class less and less into consideration.

In a general way, the "parties" and organisations of the left are part of the problem, not part of the solution. They are mostly cults, with no real relation to the working class, and no clue about how building such relation. And generally with a program and practices that preclude the building of that relation.

In general, don't join anything that you may find difficult to get out from; don't join a "party" that claims to be the "only revolutionary party", all other being sell outs and reformists; don't join anything that will exploit you, requiring you to sell papers and denying you active participation in the discussion on what to do with the money of the sales; don't join anything that a leader who claims to have achieved a breaktrhough in revolutionary thought (generally, anyone who claims any thing similar to "Marxism-Leninism-JohnDoeism").

If you join anything, be critical of it. Discuss and question their program, their actions, their dogmas, their organisation, their formal and informal hierarchies. If they can't stand criticism, you are certainly in the wrong group.

Luís Henrique

[The Idler]

The comrades of the IWCA do have an online journal. It's supposed to be monthly, but for some reason they don't have any since their articles on identity politics and economic democracy.
Where is it?

On the other hand, as they get smaller, they tend to take the working class less and less into consideration.

In a general way, the "parties" and organisations of the left are part of the problem, not part of the solution. They are mostly cults, with no real relation to the working class, and no clue about how building such relation. And generally with a program and practices that preclude the building of that relation.

In general, don't join anything that you may find difficult to get out from; don't join a "party" that claims to be the "only revolutionary party", all other being sell outs and reformists; don't join anything that will exploit you, requiring you to sell papers and denying you active participation in the discussion on what to do with the money of the sales; don't join anything that a leader who claims to have achieved a breaktrhough in revolutionary thought (generally, anyone who claims any thing similar to "Marxism-Leninism-JohnDoeism").

If you join anything, be critical of it. Discuss and question their program, their actions, their dogmas, their organisation, their formal and informal hierarchies. If they can't stand criticism, you are certainly in the wrong group.

Luís Henrique
Much of this is very good advice, though I'd disagree that Labour ever really considered the working class. Also the idea that most left parties are cults. However, if a party says they are the only party left of Labour, you have good reason to distrust everything else they say.

[Vladimir Innit Lenin]

The_Idler: Labour was a very workerist (albeit this did not translate into Socialism) party at its creation, and such rhetoric accompanied the party up until the war at least. Indeed, it even presented at the 1983 a genuinely Democratic Socialist (although again, not Marxist or revolutionary) manifesto, although one could say that this was the outlier as opposed to the norm. IMO, it is only since the New Labour project that the Labour Party has totally lost its connection with the working class. Granted, they have never been a Socialist Party in the way that would be unobjectionable to people with our outlook, but they were certainly a party that one could plausibly, in theory at least, still take towards Socialism; with the advent of New Labour, there is little hope of Labour ever becoming anything more than a right-Social Democrat party (that would probably be the result of what the Capitalists would call a 'lurch to the left'), and thus whilst we must still remember that the Trade Unions, with their large working class memberships and ability to finance, are still affiliated with the Labour Party (and so we must not sever every last tie to those TUs and left Labour members, we must not shell out any hope that Labour can be turned into even a Chavez-like Social Democratic party again.

[BobKKKindle$]

Labour was a very workerist (albeit this did not translate into Socialism) party at its creation, and such rhetoric accompanied the party up until the war at least.

Why do people make these sweeping assertions without a single bit of evidence. If anything the exact reverse is true because Labour's ideological inspiration has always come from outside the ranks of the working class, from middle class intellectuals, the Fabians being the clearest example of this, and in that sense the party has never been workerist, insofar as that term has a coherent meaning.

[Tiktaalik]

All these parties are completely irrelevant where I live. No one gives a shit or would give a shit about them, they have ZERO relationship to working-class people except occasionally you'll see them hawking their individual papers, each one of them saying how they have the perfect prescription for revolution. None of them ever seem to be workers themselves tho.

They're irrelevant dinosaurs. No change is ever going to come from them and even if it did, they can fuck off. We don't need no leftist intellectual managing our revolution and tellin us what we want.

[The Idler]

I don't really want to get into a discussion about the Labour Party, but "workerist" is a waste of time. If it means anything, which is doubtful, it means composed of the working-class and that's no guarantee of progressive views. At their founding conference in 1900 they rejected a motion to recognise "class struggle" and in 1916 they backed the suppression of the Easter rising. In 1920 Lenin described Labour as a "thoroughly bourgeois party" which "deceives the workers". By 1924 they'd won a majority and within months of taking office, used troops to break their first strike.