Steps to creating a Maoist Party in Britain?

[bailey_187]

Statement by Democracy and Class Struggle
Posted by Member-WPRM (Britain)



http://www.wprmbritain.org/wp-content/uploads/2010/01/red_fist.jpg (http://www.wprmbritain.org/?attachment_id=1019)Democracy and Class Struggle welcomes the meeting in Paris on 30th – 31st January 2010 which seeks to develop Marxist Leninist Maoist Party building in Europe.
In Britain we have embarked on the preparatory stage of party building through the Co-ordination Committee of the Revolutionary Communists of Britain.
We agree with the Maoist Communist Party of France in the paper Drapeau Rouge concerning the rise of Fascism in Europe and Party building in the following statement.
Modern Fascism or Fascisation? Revival of Fascist Organisations danger of return to Fascism in its initial form. (http://democracyandclasstruggle.blogspot.com/2010/01/modern-fascism-or-fascisation-revival.html)
“It is not the case today that the principal question of opposing fascism is to prepare to assume leadership of a United Front, it is a question of the Party.
The adherents of fascisation put off the appointed day with the excuse that it is necessary to win the masses over before building a Party. In fact it is necessary for links to be built with the masses in struggle led by the Party and to learn with them the fusion of theory and practice. They lament the absence of a Party but refuse to go to the masses under the Maoist banner contrary to those communists and Maoists who preceded us and who built the vanguard parties of their day”.
Democracy and Class Struggle calls on all those present at the Paris meeting to support the call for a higher level of solidarity with the current struggle of the Indian Maoists has outlined in the campaign Wake Europe up to the crimes of the Indian State with Spring Thunder Europe 2010.
We also welcome your call for International Red Aid at a national and international level as a means for developing the necessary higher levels of solidarity than at present.
We welcome the meeting in Paris has a contribution to the building of Marxist Leninist Maoist Parties throughout Europe and wish your meeting every possible success.
Democracy and Class Struggle – Britain


http://www.wprmbritain.org/?p=1018#more-1018

[bailey_187]

Is this needed?

[El Rojo]

Another small sectarian party. Excellent. We need those.

[pranabjyoti]

I myself actually read "Maoist" as "revolutionary". Perhaps, they may not be very relevant in present day UK, but at least they can be a support base, however small that may be for revolutionaries in the third world. So, welcome comrades.

[bailey_187]

Another small sectarian party. Excellent. We need those.

Everyones a sect bar your own tho init

[fatboy]

Bailey are there no current Maoist Parties in Britain?

[bailey_187]

Bailey are there no current Maoist Parties in Britain?

No, not that i know of or anyone i spoke to knows of anyway. There are some influenced by Maoism and uphold Mao such as the CPGB-ML but they are not actually Maoist.
We used ot have some Maoist parties in the 70s, but most went over to Hoxhaism after Mao died.

[fatboy]

Maybe you could fill that void. And when you get the workers on your side lead a full scale People's War:)

[Vladimir Innit Lenin]

Great, another small sectarian party, who will attack every other left party in the country, weaking the Socialist and workers' movement, whilst claiming to be the only true upholders of the revolution.

[bailey_187]

Great, another small sectarian party, who will attack every other left party in the country, weaking the Socialist and workers' movement, whilst claiming to be the only true upholders of the revolution.

If this was a split of from another party you could say it is weakening the workers movement, but this is a new party of Maoists who are involved around different things such as the WPRM, George Jackson Socialist League (i think, may be wrong on that), RIM. This is bringing together the various Maoists in Britain together - surely that can do no harm? Maybe it will be a failure and bring no good, but oh well.

Marxism-Leninism-Maoism, although i disagree with aspects of it, is on the rise aorund the world. We would do well to keep up with the rest of the world maybe.

[bricolage]

Yeah I get why Maoism is big in places like Nepal, but in an industrialised hub of the Global North it just doesn't make any sense to me.

[fatboy]

If this was a split of from another party you could say it is weakening the workers movement, but this is a new party of Maoists who are involved around different things such as the WPRM, George Jackson Socialist League (i think, may be wrong on that), RIM. This is bringing together the various Maoists in Britain together - surely that can do no harm? Maybe it will be a failure and bring no good, but oh well.

Marxism-Leninism-Maoism, although i disagree with aspects of it, is on the rise aorund the world. We would do well to keep up with the rest of the world maybe.
What parts do you disagree with?

[fatboy]

Yeah I get why Maoism is big in places like Nepal, but in an industrialised hub of the Global North it just doesn't make any sense to me.
Maoism is the applying the teaching of Marx,Engels,Lenin,Stalin,and Mao to your countries conditions. Therefore it can be popular anywhere. Some concepts may not be needed such as New Democracy in industrialized countries like Britain or the U.S.

[bricolage]

Maoism is the applying the teaching of Marx,Engels,Lenin,Stalin,and Mao to your countries conditions. Therefore it can be popular anywhere. Some concepts may not be needed such as New Democracy in industrialized countries like Britain or the U.S.

Ok, but you have to strip it of people's war, third worlds theory and role of the peasantry, what then are you left with? You can apply Marx, Engels & Lenin, even Stalin, to this country sure but you are probably going to end up something that already exists.

[bailey_187]

Ok, but you have to strip it of people's war, third worlds theory and role of the peasantry, what then are you left with? You can apply Marx, Engels & Lenin, even Stalin, to this country sure but you are probably going to end up something that already exists.

Maoism is more than just Peasents fighting Guerilla war in the countryide.

[bailey_187]

What parts do you disagree with?

That Cuba is state capitalist, that the USSR became state capitalist after 1956.
However, these differences are more historical and really have little effect on present day politics (mabe Cuba does actually, but not much).

[fatboy]

While true much of Mao contributions applied to peasants, his talk of class struggle continuing under socialism could be applied.

[fatboy]

That Cuba is state capitalist, that the USSR became state capitalist after 1956.
However, these differences are more historical and really have little effect on present day politics (mabe Cuba does actually, but not much).

Much of your disagreements are small and as you said historical.. I though you were talking about mao theories, such as role of the peasants in the revolution.

[bricolage]

Maoism is more than just Peasents fighting Guerilla war in the countryide.

Yeah that's fair enough, so what parts of Maoism do you think are applicable to the UK?

[red cat]

The mass line and a series of revolutions within socialism apply everywhere.

[The Idler]

I'm sure there's already a Maoist party in the UK.

[bailey_187]

I'm sure there's already a Maoist party in the UK.

Nah there aint.

[Q]

I for one would welcome an explicitly European, thus international, Maoist party. A steo forwards on the Stalinoid "British road to socialism" and similar nationalist programs in other countries.

Or did I misunderstood the OP?

[fatboy]

I for one would welcome an explicitly European, thus international, Maoist party. A steo forwards on the Stalinoid "British road to socialism" and similar nationalist programs in other countries.

Or did I misunderstood the OP?
What do you mean Stalinoid British road to socialism. And nationalist. You are not making that much sense as communism in it;s self is anti nationalist.

[bailey_187]

I for one would welcome an explicitly European, thus international, Maoist party. A steo forwards on the Stalinoid "British road to socialism" and similar nationalist programs in other countries.

Or did I misunderstood the OP?

lol, The British Road to Socialism followers are hardly going to join a Maoist party - BRtS types are closer to the Socialist Party/Ted Grant people tbh (i.e. Nationalise top 200 business)

I think the RCP-B (assuming thats what will be called) will part of the RIM. I dont think it would be a Europe wide party, i think its just saying about a coordinated effort to build European Maoist parties because not many exist.

[Intelligitimate]

What parts do you disagree with?

While I like Mao and think his theoretical contributions to Marxism-Leninism are immense and his leadership role in the Chinese revolution will never be forgotten, he did get a few things wrong theoretically and did some things as a leader worth criticizing. The Three Worlds Theory and "Soviet Social Imperialism" were wrong. Modern day Maoists also take a lot of terrible lines on Cuba, the DPRK, Vietnam, etc. There are also issues of how Mao handled the cult of personality, the Cultural Revolution, etc.

I disagree with the hyper-sectarianism of a lot of Western Maoists too much to self-identify as a Maoist. I don't want to be grouped with people who are anti-Cuba.

[Kassad]

Hate to say it, but it's no wonder the Trotskyists are kicking ass in Britain. From a couple people I know personally from there, it seems that the Socialist Workers Party dominates just about every aspect of struggle in Britain and the Spartacists are doing a better job of organizing than the Marxist-Leninist groups half the time. Well done, guys.

[bailey_187]

Hate to say it, but it's no wonder the Trotskyists are kicking ass in Britain.

Why is it no wonder?

[Q]

lol, The British Road to Socialism followers are hardly going to join a Maoist party - BRtS types are closer to the Socialist Party/Ted Grant people tbh (i.e. Nationalise top 200 business)
The Morning Star's CPB is close to the Socialist Party? Could you expand on that?

[bailey_187]

The Morning Star's CPB is close to the Socialist Party? Could you expand on that?

Closer. Obviously they have very clear differences. But they are more similar to eachother than a RIM Maoist party would be.

Both the SP and CP aim to get elected to bring about Socialism. (maybe a vulgarisation of boths positions)
Both are part of the No2EU campaign (a campaign that has been rejected by a lot of the left, so its not like the StWC)
The CP aims to nationalise (in the short term) big business, the SP aims (in the short term) to nationalise the top 200 businesses in the UK

How you can pretned that you dont see similarities between the two is beyond me.

[Kassad]

Why is it no wonder?

Because the creation of a Maoist party will mean there's what, three anti-revisionist parties in Britain? This new one, the Revolutionary Communist Party of Britain and the Communist Party of Great Britain (Marxist-Leninist), I believe. What seems to be happening is that the anti-revisionist people in the country are divided and fragmented, while the Trotskyist movement, while divided as well, is still maintaining a solid control of the socialist movement. What's needed is unity to fight opportunism, not another party.

[bailey_187]

Because the creation of a Maoist party will mean there's what, three anti-revisionist parties in Britain? This new one, the Revolutionary Communist Party of Britain and the Communist Party of Great Britain (Marxist-Leninist), I believe. What seems to be happening is that the anti-revisionist people in the country are divided and fragmented, while the Trotskyist movement, while divided as well, is still maintaining a solid control of the socialist movement. What's needed is unity to fight opportunism, not another party.


If this was a split by a pro-Maoist faction of the CPGB-ML then yeah you could say that, but this party is being made by bringing together the people who organise around different MLM groups into one party. The people creating this party already reject the other mentioned groups.
People like the WPRM or people from RIM in theUK are never going to join a party that is so pro-post-mao China as the CPGB-ML or a Hoxhaist party like the RCP of B which would say the Maoists arent even Marxist-Leninists.

We have like 2 other anti-revisionist parties too lol. Other than the CPGB-ML though, all other anti-revisionists are a small group of old people left over from the 1970s.

[Wanted Man]

If this was a split by a pro-Maoist faction of the CPGB-ML then yeah you could say that, but this party is being made by bringing together the people who organise around different MLM groups into one party. The people creating this party already reject the other mentioned groups.
People like the WPRM or people from RIM in theUK are never going to join a party that is so pro-post-mao China as the CPGB-ML or a Hoxhaist party like the RCP of B which would say the Maoists arent even Marxist-Leninists.

We have like 2 other anti-revisionist parties too lol. Other than the CPGB-ML though, all other anti-revisionists are a small group of old people left over from the 1970s.

Then what's the point of the whole exercise? They may not be a split from an existing party, but even so, why create a new maoist party in Britain? Do they see any perspective, or is it just because "there isn't one yet, so we might as well"?

[bailey_187]

Then what's the point of the whole exercise? They may not be a split from an existing party, but even so, why create a new maoist party in Britain? Do they see any perspective, or is it just because "there isn't one yet, so we might as well"?

A way to unite the various Maoist groups such as RIM, WPRM, George Jackson Socialist League and other Maoists like exiles from Turkey etc

[scarletghoul]

This is pretty exciting news. There's huge potential in the UK for both Maoist tactics among our own working class and a coherent base of support for the international Maoist movement. Woop. Let's hope we can make best use of the UK's turkish, indian, nepali etc communities

Also Bailey, I would love to know more(anything) about the George Jackson Socialist League. I havent' been able to find any info on them. What do they do ?

[bailey_187]

Sorry theres not much i know about the George Jackson Socialist League

[scarletghoul]

:(Shame. George Jackson is a hero of mine.. Its cool to know that others in the UK are honoring this cool comrade. I hope they get involved with this new party, would be great to have some Panther style work going on

[Spawn of Stalin]

I think they would have been better off doing this when the IWA were in their prime. WPRM, as ideologically strong as it may be, is only about 10 strong and exists only in London so unfortunately I don't think this will amount to much.

[bailey_187]

I think they would have been better off doing this when the IWA were in their prime. WPRM, as ideologically strong as it may be, is only about 10 strong and exists only in London so unfortunately I don't think this will amount to much.

I heard the WPRM had about 100 supporters?

I fear you may be correct though

[Spawn of Stalin]

They have no problems filling halls for meetings on anti-imperialism but in terms of people who actually do work for them they're very small, probably smaller even than RCPB-ML. Most of the people who could be considered cadres are retired Indian Maoists, old IWA/AIC members who wouldn't quite fit into our party which still has strong representation within the IWA and Indian communities as a whole, between us as the SLP I think the Maoists will have difficulties getting things off the ground in Indian communities since most British Indian Communists support the CPI(ML) as opposed to the Naxalites.

[ls]

What the hell? Heard of http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Communist_Party_of_Britain?

They are Maoist, always have been afaik.

CP of Scotland aren't one way or the other also.

Also, Kassad, if you don't know anything about the SWP and their struggle here, don't speak..

[turquino]

What the hell? Heard of http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Communist_Party_of_Britain?

They are Maoist, always have been afaik.

CP of Scotland aren't one way or the other also.

Also, Kassad, if you don't know anything about the SWP and their struggle here, don't speak..
No, they support Cuba and North Korea. They are revisionist.

[fatboy]

No, they support Cuba and North Korea. They are revisionist.
Many Maoist and Marxist-Leninist support DPRK and Cuba and their fight against imperialism despite the fact that they are revisionist.

[turquino]

Many Maoist and Marxist-Leninist support DPRK and Cuba and their fight against imperialism despite the fact that they are revisionist.
If they defend them against imperialism aggression, then that's good, but it's another thing entirely to endorse them as paths to socialism. This party has done the latter.

[fatboy]

If they defend them against imperialism aggression, then that's good, but it's another thing entirely to endorse them as paths to socialism. This party has done the latter.
As you said yes for fighting imperial aggression, no on the paths to socialism.

[Saorsa]

The WPRM may be small, but they're solid as. They're very strong internationalists, and sent a number of their cadre to Nepal to help build support for the revolution there. I don't know much about their day to day work in the UK but fuck, I'd rather join a group of ten people with good politics than a group like the SWP who defend the political 'legitimacy' of Jack Straw, or the SP who welcome prison guards into their ranks.

[Sugar Hill Kevis]

Is this needed?

nope

[ls]

No, they support Cuba and North Korea. They are revisionist.

Ha, they are better than a hell of a lot of other ML parties in the UK, probably than whatever ones you support, this is me coming out and saying this so consider it carefully.

People like you, Kassad and Alastair etc are making wrong assumptions.

At least,some MLs remain unsectarian in the ML bubble, supporting the majority of ML states at any period, it's absolutely ridiculous to say that NK, Cuba and Albania are/were revisionist but that Maoist period China, Nepal's and India's Maoist parties aren't.

[bailey_187]

What the hell? Heard of http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Communist_Party_of_Britain?


Nah they arent Maoist.

Besides, this party from what i know is a few old people left over from the days of the USSR. They call for people to vote in Labour too.

[bailey_187]

Ha, they are better than a hell of a lot of other ML parties in the UK, probably than whatever ones you support, this is me coming out and saying this so consider it carefully..

Other than views on the Labour Party, the CPGB-ML and NCP a pretty much the same ideologicaly, except the CPGB-ML put in much more work




At least,some MLs remain unsectarian in the ML bubble, supporting the majority of ML states at any period, it's absolutely ridiculous to say that NK, Cuba and Albania are/were revisionist but that Maoist period China, Nepal's and India's Maoist parties aren't.

This is basically what the CPGB-ML does and they are much more active than the NCP. I think the NCP has some trade unionists still, but they are on their way out.

[Spawn of Stalin]

The NCP take a good line on probably the majority of issues but sadly they still promote voting for the imperialist Labour Party. Also they haven't been active outside of their weekly paper for a long time and make no effort to seek out new cadre, apparently at their recent congress there were just as many international delegates as there were actual NCP members.

As for being outright Maoist, I'm not so sure, at the time of the Sino-Albanian split the NCP (most of whom were still operating within the revisionist CPGB) sided with the Chinese, in that sense they are Maoists more than they are Hoxhaists, but they don't support Maoist tactics in this country, that's for sure.

[bailey_187]

The NCP uphold "Marx Engles Lenin Stalin as the great teachers of Humanity and Communism" and "Mao, Castro, Ho Chi Minh as great revolutionaries". So i guess that means they dont think Mao had much theoretical contribution.

[Kassad]

What the hell? Heard of http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Communist_Party_of_Britain?

They are Maoist, always have been afaik.

CP of Scotland aren't one way or the other also.

Also, Kassad, if you don't know anything about the SWP and their struggle here, don't speak..

I have several family members who live in the area and every single one of them has said that the Socialist Workers Party dominates almost all areas of struggle. I hate their political line, so why the fuck would I defend them unless I had something to back it up? As you said, don't speak.

[ls]

I have several family members who live in the area and every single one of them has said that the Socialist Workers Party dominates almost all areas of struggle. I hate their political line, so why the fuck would I defend them unless I had something to back it up? As you said, don't speak.

Nope, sorry but you clearly know nothing about the political and economic situation for workers here, if you think they dominate "every struggle", that is the most ridiculous thing I have heard in quite a while.

Your family members are very, very, very much mistaken.

[Kassad]

Nope, sorry but you clearly know nothing about the political and economic situation for workers here, if you think they dominate "every struggle", that is the most ridiculous thing I have heard in quite a while.

Your family members are very, very, very much mistaken.

You make such a convincing argument... how could I ever disagree?

[ls]

This is a joke. Anyway, you should have been there when the Ford subcontractor Visteon had its workers turn on them and occupy factories in Belfast and London. All the SWP did was turn up, put up a few stalls, have about 3 interviews with workers and that's it.

Anarchists and other assorted communists actually engaged with the workers, some even slept in the factory with the workers, later on when it turned into picketing - my group stayed out there all night in a van to alert everyone else, in case people came along to take the factory back.

Go and ask your family members how much use the SWP were there, yeah, thought so.

[Kassad]

This is a joke. Anyway, you should have been there when the Ford subcontractor Visteon had its workers turn on them and occupy factories in Belfast and London. All the SWP did was turn up, put up a few stalls, have about 3 interviews with workers and that's it.

Anarchists and other assorted communists actually engaged with the workers, some even slept in the factory with the workers, later on when it turned into picketing - my group stayed out there all night in a van to alert everyone else, in case people came along to take the factory back.

Go and ask your family members how much use the SWP were there, yeah, thought so.

You're quite the whiny little one, aren't you? I speak only from what I hear, so unbunch your underwear. However, it's impossible for me to debate with your one example. Regardless, however inefficient you think the Socialist Workers Party (UK) is, they will likely gain more strength from the continued division of the Marxist-Leninist movement in Britain.

[ls]

You're quite the whiny little one, aren't you? I speak only from what I hear, so unbunch your underwear. However, it's impossible for me to debate with your one example. Regardless, however inefficient you think the Socialist Workers Party (UK) is, they will likely gain more strength from the continued division of the Marxist-Leninist movement in Britain.

Oh really, you know this how?

From your family members, right. :rolleyes:

[Kassad]

Oh really, you know this how?

From your family members, right. :rolleyes:

From my experiences in the socialist movement and basic math, I'd infer that when you have two anti-revisionist parties and you create a third with a slightly varying ideology, you increase division, sectarianism and promote disunity. Do you know basic math, or should I dumb this down for you?

[ls]

From my experiences in the socialist movement and basic math, I'd infer that when you have two anti-revisionist parties and you create a third with a slightly varying ideology, you increase division, sectarianism and promote disunity. Do you know basic math, or should I dumb this down for you?

So you believe that most MLs will be inclined to join a Trots organization out of unsectarianism, even though their beliefs completely differ?

[Spawn of Stalin]

I don't think the SWP dominates the anti-capitalist movement here, though they do hold something of a monopoly on the public face of British socialism thanks to their ability to mobilise large numbers to trendy lefty types, most of whom can not even be called Leninists, most of whom probably do not even know that they are involved in a group which claims Leninism. I've said it a thousand times before but the SWP (and the CPB too) don't have many more active cadres than any of the smaller groups like CPGB-ML, Socialist Resistance, etc. The only really big party here who have a large number of cadres is the SP(CWI). Although another anti-revisionist party will no doubt further split the left, I don't see the size of the SWP as being too much of a problem because sooner or later the SWP and the CPB are going to either destroy themselves of be exposed as do-nothing groups with no ideological convictions whatsoever. They will never be the vanguards of anything because they are controlled by a few elites and their inner circles; the big boys at the top of StW/UAF, the editors of the Morning Star, etc. There's no democratic centralism, just centralism. I think it's best to just leave them to it, in my experience most serious people who join these parties end up leaving anyway, we have a few ex-CPBers and I know that the SP have quite a few ex-SWPers too.

[Kassad]

So you believe that most MLs will be inclined to join a Trots organization out of unsectarianism, even though their beliefs completely differ?

Are you high? I'm saying that a third anti-revisionist party will make it harder for workers and revolutionaries to decide which to join, which will lead to fragmentation. It will make it much more difficult to achieve victory in the struggle with a lack of unity.

[Vladimir Innit Lenin]

Ah dear, this thread is a perfect example of why the left fails so badly in Britain.

People acting like tiny little sects such as CPGB-ML and NCP, comprising of little more than 100 people between them, are some important issue worth debating on the left.

And what good will creating a Maoist party do in the UK? Another small sect of probably a few dozen, to further split the left, create arguments, splinters, yet more tendencies, and to encourage further alienation from the actual cause of emancipating the working class.

If the British left had any guts it would unite, permanently, under the banner of Socialism. Seems to me that members of one tendency would rather the continuation of Capitalism, rather than see another tendency make progress, simply out of the need of intellectual elitism and unnecessary theoretical self-indulgence.

[FSL]

If the British left had any guts it would unite, permanently, under the banner of Socialism. Seems to me that members of one tendency would rather the continuation of Capitalism, rather than see another tendency make progress, simply out of the need of intellectual elitism and unnecessary theoretical self-indulgence.


Anyone who calls for unity for the shake of "increasing manpower", only does so because he's unable to actually take a stance on matters.

Praising one's inadequacies also does very little. Raising one's own inadequacies to the level of theory is, if anything, pushing him further back.


Nice things the Maoists aim in their own party, that way many of -what I think are- theoretical errors on their behalf will only be a burden to them.

[bailey_187]

Ah dear, this thread is a perfect example of why the left fails so badly in Britain.

People acting like tiny little sects such as CPGB-ML and NCP, comprising of little more than 100 people between them, are some important issue worth debating on the left.

And what good will creating a Maoist party do in the UK? Another small sect of probably a few dozen, to further split the left, create arguments, splinters, yet more tendencies, and to encourage further alienation from the actual cause of emancipating the working class.

If the British left had any guts it would unite, permanently, under the banner of Socialism. Seems to me that members of one tendency would rather the continuation of Capitalism, rather than see another tendency make progress, simply out of the need of intellectual elitism and unnecessary theoretical self-indulgence.

You basically said the same bullshit at the start of this thread.

[Spawn of Stalin]

Ah dear, this thread is a perfect example of why the left fails so badly in Britain.

People acting like tiny little sects such as CPGB-ML and NCP, comprising of little more than 100 people between them, are some important issue worth debating on the left.

And what good will creating a Maoist party do in the UK? Another small sect of probably a few dozen, to further split the left, create arguments, splinters, yet more tendencies, and to encourage further alienation from the actual cause of emancipating the working class.

If the British left had any guts it would unite, permanently, under the banner of Socialism. Seems to me that members of one tendency would rather the continuation of Capitalism, rather than see another tendency make progress, simply out of the need of intellectual elitism and unnecessary theoretical self-indulgence.
Uniting for a cross-tendency party is not simple, there are some very real ideological issues which need to be ironed out first, and there are some which simply can't be ironed out, it's not a problem, look at the Russians, do you think they would have succeeded if the had united? No chance, working with opportunists, closet-social democrats and liberals is something which I will never be prepared to do.

[ls]

Are you high? I'm saying that a third anti-revisionist party will make it harder for workers and revolutionaries to decide which to join, which will lead to fragmentation. It will make it much more difficult to achieve victory in the struggle with a lack of unity.

What in the world? Seriously..

You wrote: Regardless, however inefficient you think the Socialist Workers Party (UK) is, they will likely gain more strength from the continued division of the Marxist-Leninist movement in Britain.

If you can't understand how people could perceive your posts, then phrase them better. The implication appears to be that people will drift towards the SWP out of wanting to be part of a "mass party" and not a tiny sect, the division will lead to a bigger "monopoly" by the SWP etc etc. I am telling you that this is a completely false dichotomy because, quite simply, the SWP does not hold a monopoly at all, if any movement does, it is the reformist trade union and pro-left-of-labour party movement that the SWP consistently attempts to practice entryism on but ultimately fails at.

[turquino]

Ha, they are better than a hell of a lot of other ML parties in the UK, probably than whatever ones you support, this is me coming out and saying this so consider it carefully.

People like you, Kassad and Alastair etc are making wrong assumptions.

At least,some MLs remain unsectarian in the ML bubble, supporting the majority of ML states at any period, it's absolutely ridiculous to say that NK, Cuba and Albania are/were revisionist but that Maoist period China, Nepal's and India's Maoist parties aren't.
For communists, revisionist = capitalist. It's as simple as that. Failing to criticise blatant revisionism is a form of sectarianism itself because it prioritizes the party's integrity over the validity of its political line. Marx, Engels, Lenin were ruthless critics of the revisionists in their day, so why should today's communists instead encourage them in the interests of fake communist unity?

'Marxism-Leninism' is dead dogma. Even the states these groups flatter have mostly abandoned it.

[Tzadikim]

The working class really doesn't care a whit about any of this - to them, the differences between a Maoist Party and a Trot Party seem less than negligible. So why continue conflating these asinine differences? The very process of genuine democracy itself would seem to level them out, as workers vote on which steps to take towards the desired end of their class.

[ls]

Marx, Engels, Lenin were ruthless critics of the revisionists in their day, so why should today's communists instead encourage them in the interests of fake communist unity?

I personally do not support any of the states and do not encourage fake communist unity, I'm just saying that it's ridiculous to say that China is more revisionist than Albania, or that Albania is more revisionist than Nepal and so on, that is all.

[Saorsa]

I don't think some useless debate about Hoxha vs Prachanda is behind the WPRM's push to build a MLM party in Britain. People like Harry Powell and Nick Glais from their group have been talking about this for some time. And I suspect some recent declarations of the UCPN (M) may have inspired this move too.

b) On the International Communist Movement (http://southasiarev.wordpress.com/2010/01/31/nepal-ucpnmaoist-tactical-summation-and-tasks-ahead/#comment-3012)

Aforesaid brief analysis of the world situation clarifies that the objective condition to build up communist parties based on MLM and develop revolution is speedily getting favourable in various countries of the world. However, compared to the objective situation, the subjective condition of the world communist movement is very weak.

MLM, the only scientific and revolutionary world outlook and principle, has developed as an ideological weapon of the proletariat. As a science, communist revolutionaries must grasp the question of defending, applying and developing MLM very seriously. In the context of defending, applying and developing MLM, right revisionism remains as the main deviation and ideological foe of the communist movement even today. Real defence, application and development of MLM is not possible without undergoing strong ideological struggle against right revisionism that backs class collaboration, reformism and national capitulation. While waging this struggle, the proletarian revolutionaries must remain vigilant on the danger of mechanical and sectarian dogmato-revisionism and eclecticism and centrist deviation as well. Finally, in the communist movement, Marxism has developed to Marxism-Leninism-Maoism in the midst of struggles against all sorts of deviations.

We can correctly accomplish our historical task only by waging struggles against mainly the right revisionism and also dogmatism prevailing in the international communist movement today. For this, maintaining relation with MLM parties in and outside of Revolutionary Internationalist Movement (RIM), we should go ahead on the way to building a new international amidst lively ideological struggle. In the context of defence, application and development of MLM, we, as a party that has acquired experiences in the midst of 10 years of people’s war and a range of mass movements and as a big force against feudalism and imperialism and also accepting heartily that we have a historical responsibility upon our shoulder to develop ideological struggle and international movement, should step up initiative to that direction.

[Saorsa]

IS THIS THE END?

It is nearly twenty years since there has been a Maoist political organisation
in Britain. Even during the revival of interest in revolutionary politics back
in the late sixties and early seventies there were never more than a few hundred
Maoists in this country and their numbers rapidly diminished after the
capitalist roader coup in China in 1976. During the late eighties there were a
couple of short-lived Maoist groups but since then no explicitly Maoist
political organisation has existed in Britain.

On a number of occasions since that time I have called meetings of some of the
few remaining Maoists in Britain to propose that we form a Maoist political
organisation with the eventual aim of forming a proper Marxist-Leninist-Maoist
revolutionary party. On each occasion the response was negative with people
giving no very definite reasons as to why we could not form an organisation
other than vague assertions that the “objective conditions” were not favourable.

In the latter part of 2008 I was encouraged when three other Maoists invited me
to join with them in convening a meeting to consider whether a MLM organisation
could be formed in Britain. Since then there have been a number of meetings
with a somewhat shifting range of people participating. At the last meeting I
reluctantly reached the conclusion that practically all of these people had no
real intention of trying to form a Maoist organisation. They don’t mind talking
about the proposal in the abstract and discussing issues of the day such as the
economic recession. But they are not going to take any effective political
action about anything.

At first sight it seems strange that people who present themselves as Maoists -
hardly a popular political affiliation - should hold back from getting organised
and engaging in collective political action. An explanation of such perversity
is required.

THE LONDON POLITICAL SCENE

Most of the remaining Maoists in Britain live in London, a large cosmopolitan
capital city. Indeed the Maoists themselves are of an international
composition, some of them being political refugees from their countries of
origin. In London there is a continuous round of leftist political meetings,
demonstrations and pickets. If one wants to, it is easy to spend all of one’s
available time attending such occasions and this is what some of the Maoists do.
A lot, but not all, of this political activity is focussed on events abroad such
as developments in Nepal, India and Iran. To a far lesser degree are these
occasions directly concerned with what is happening within British society. Of
course, communists are internationalists and should necessarily see and conduct
the struggle against capitalism on an international basis rather than a narrow
national one. Even so, many of these people seem far more concerned and
knowledgeable about political struggles thousands of miles away rather than on
their own doorstep. We should not forget that Lenin and Mao asserted that the
best form of internationalism is to engage in and develop revolutionary struggle
in whatever place one happens to be.

The effectiveness of many of these activities is questionable. For example,
picketing the Indian High Commission or the Peruvian Embassy in support of
imprisoned comrades in those countries almost certainly has no impact on their
reactionary governments. Many of the “national demonstrations” which are held
in London, to which the Maoists sometimes half-heartedly tag on, go unnoticed by
the nation and the government. There is a large element of ritualism in this
sort of behaviour. People do it simply because that is what they have always
done. They do not reflect critically on whether these activities are achieving
any worthwhile political objectives. (In this respect the Maoists are no
different from most of the other leftists.)

This round of political activity in London is essentially inward-looking. On
each occasion it is the same people from the same loose political network who
are present. “You picket my embassy and I’ll picket yours.“ Usually there are
few, if any, new faces present. Indeed, no serious efforts are made to reach
out to and involve newcomers. The fact of the matter is that the great mass of
the people, especially the working class, are oblivious of and untouched by such
“political activity”. What is more, one gets the impression that most of the
people who participate in these ritualised activities are quite content with
this way of life. They like going along to a picket or “public meeting” (at
which the public are not usually present). There is a large element of social
activity here often involving having a chat and a drink with old friends and
acquaintances. It passes the time.

Much of this political activity - if that is what it is - is poorly organised
even in its most elementary aspects. It is quite typical to find that a room
for a meeting has not been booked, that the event has not been properly
publicised, that the speaker is late or does not turn up, that a leaflet has not
been printed, that placards have not been made, etc. etc.. Most of the Maoists
in Britain - with one or two notable exceptions - are organisationally
incompetent even at the most basic level but they don’t seem to care..

In so far as any of the Maoists engage in any “mass work”, go out and try to
- Show quoted text -
Indeed there is a certain latent religiosity at work here. (In my talk ‘Against
Religiosity in Politics’ I have discussed this quite widespread phenomenon
whereby people use secular doctrines such as Marxism as substitute religions.)
These people are going to do nothing except continue to pour forth a torrent of
words on the internet.

IS THIS REALLY THE END?

The truth is that in Britain Marxism of any kind as a live political trend is in
steady decline. The remaining revisionist and Trotskyist organisations are
slowly dwindling away. People, especially young people, of radical inclinations
are attracted towards anarchism and environmentalism (with all their obvious
limitations) but not to Marxism. What is more, this is happening at a time when
capitalism is embroiled in major economic difficulties and debilitating
imperialist wars. The reason that Marxism in general, and Maoism in particular,
is on the way out in Britain is because communists are failing to seriously
address, both in theory and practice, the major issues of our time. These
include the impact of new productive forces, changes in class structure,
environmental degradation, the quality of life, etc.. (See my talk ‘The Death
of Marxism?’ for more on these issues.)

I remain convinced of the essential correctness of Marxism-Leninism-Maoism but
it is not a fixed formula set in tablets of stone. For MLM to be of any use in
making the world a better place it needs to change and develop in intimate
response to the contemporary world. In this part of the world this is not
happening. My reluctant conclusion is that Maoism in Britain is finished.

Convince me that I am wrong.

Harry Powell
July 2009

[Vladimir Innit Lenin]

You basically said the same bullshit at the start of this thread.

If what I say is such bullshit, then why is it being corroborated by reality even as we speak? No more than modest progress on any issue has been made by any of the sectarian parties on the British left in recent decades, let alone in the recent financial crises and subsequent recession. No doubt you will wheel off the same tangled web of excuses; 'it's more complicated than your bullshit generalisations' seems to be the favourite.

Yet I think that, as a Socialist, I have a right to ask, why is there no single party out there that caters for mine, nor a lot of workers' needs?

The answer to me seems to be in the question. There is no single party out there for the working class (and this has been proven by the lack of mobilisation of any anti-revisionist party beyond 100 or so cadres, and by the failure of Trot parties to get past the membership of student-liberals), because there is a multitude of parties out there which do not cater for the needs of British workers. We have Marxist-Leninist parties (an ideology from and for the old Eastern Bloc), Trotskyist parties, and now you want to create a party of the Maoist tradition, a tradition which has historically been evident in the far east and south east asia. Britain is not the USSR, nor is it the PRC nor Nepal. It needs a party that is tailored to its needs. It needs a Socialist party that combines the teachings of Marx, Engels and other great Socialist theoreticians, instead of having many little parties that fight over whether it was Stalin/Trotsky who were right.

[FSL]

The answer to me seems to be in the question. There is no single party out there for the working class (and this has been proven by the lack of mobilisation of any anti-revisionist party beyond 100 or so cadres, and by the failure of Trot parties to get past the membership of student-liberals), because there is a multitude of parties out there which do not cater for the needs of British workers. We have Marxist-Leninist parties (an ideology from and for the old Eastern Bloc), Trotskyist parties, and now you want to create a party of the Maoist tradition, a tradition which has historically been evident in the far east and south east asia. Britain is not the USSR, nor is it the PRC nor Nepal. It needs a party that is tailored to its needs. It needs a Socialist party that combines the teachings of Marx, Engels and other great Socialist theoreticians, instead of having many little parties that fight over whether it was Stalin/Trotsky who were right.



British party for British workers!


If maoists in the UK wanted to get close to the british peasantry and start a people's war that would aim in surrounding London, you could be justified in saying these are tactics tailored for other types of societies. They don't want that though and what you're basically saying is that you know what kind of party the british workers need and that those disagreeing with you are petty sectarians.
There are vaguely "leftist" parties in countries like the UK (France, Germany being prime examples). Not only they haven't united the working class under the banner of socialism, they have united all anticapitalist trends under the banner of capitalism.





People, especially young people, of radical inclinations
are attracted towards anarchism and environmentalism (with all their obvious
limitations) but not to Marxism. What is more, this is happening at a time when
capitalism is embroiled in major economic difficulties and debilitating
imperialist wars. The reason that Marxism in general, and Maoism in particular,
is on the way out in Britain is because communists are failing to seriously
address, both in theory and practice, the major issues of our time. These
include the impact of new productive forces, changes in class structure,
environmental degradation, the quality of life, etc



He is considered a Maoist? Why?

[bailey_187]

If what I say is such bullshit, then why is it being corroborated by reality even as we speak? No more than modest progress on any issue has been made by any of the sectarian parties on the British left in recent decades, let alone in the recent financial crises and subsequent recession. No doubt you will wheel off the same tangled web of excuses; 'it's more complicated than your bullshit generalisations' seems to be the favourite.

Yet I think that, as a Socialist, I have a right to ask, why is there no single party out there that caters for mine, nor a lot of workers' needs?

The answer to me seems to be in the question. There is no single party out there for the working class (and this has been proven by the lack of mobilisation of any anti-revisionist party beyond 100 or so cadres, and by the failure of Trot parties to get past the membership of student-liberals), because there is a multitude of parties out there which do not cater for the needs of British workers. We have Marxist-Leninist parties (an ideology from and for the old Eastern Bloc), Trotskyist parties, and now you want to create a party of the Maoist tradition, a tradition which has historically been evident in the far east and south east asia. Britain is not the USSR, nor is it the PRC nor Nepal. It needs a party that is tailored to its needs. It needs a Socialist party that combines the teachings of Marx, Engels and other great Socialist theoreticians, instead of having many little parties that fight over whether it was Stalin/Trotsky who were right.


If the left is so irelevent as you say (it is), why does forming another party piss u off so much?

There are various Maoists scatered around in different groupings, wouldnt it make sense for them to unify into one party? If the revolutions in Nepal, India etc are succesful there WILL be an increase in interest in MLM. It would make sense to have a party that people can go to if they are interested rather than the odd bloke from RIM selling books, the WPRM or any other small grouping.

What are you proposing then? You are just stating the same old criticisms of the British left that WE KNOW ARE TRUE. And every time a thread on parties comes up some twat like you comes along and thinks he is somehow pointing out stuff no one knew and has it all figured out.

[ls]

Unless there's a secret peasant society that have lived underground for the past 80 or so years, there are no peasants in this country. Not to mention that London is probably more radical the the surrounding places. Historically the North was much, much much more radical than the south, but I'm not verty sure now, I think it's about equal throughout, also the geographical spreadout would be from the cities to the towns to the countryside in the event of any revolution here.

[Vladimir Innit Lenin]

If the left is so irelevent as you say (it is), why does forming another party piss u off so much?

There are various Maoists scatered around in different groupings, wouldnt it make sense for them to unify into one party? If the revolutions in Nepal, India etc are succesful there WILL be an increase in interest in MLM. It would make sense to have a party that people can go to if they are interested rather than the odd bloke from RIM selling books, the WPRM or any other small grouping.

What are you proposing then? You are just stating the same old criticisms of the British left that WE KNOW ARE TRUE. And every time a thread on parties comes up some twat like you comes along and thinks he is somehow pointing out stuff no one knew and has it all figured out.

First off I think you can take back calling me a 'twat'. I'm not really into reporting people, as it's obvious emotions get the better of us all, but that was uncalled for and i'll take it to the mods if you don't respond with an apology for that particularly unnecessary jibe.

Secondly, if you know these criticisms are true, why do you not address them? I will leave out the words 'try to'. Clearly, it is not effort, endeavour and willing that the left lacks (in the majority of cadres' cases). However, it is clear, and i'm sure you'll agree, that we've been on the wrong path for many, many years. If that is the case, why continue on it?

The left is (generally) composed of people with an above average intellect, and more than a semblence of understanding of the path of history, of historical materialism and so on. We all know the basic Socialist principles - overthrow the Capitalist state, change the ownership of the means of production from being in an elite group of hands, to being in the hands of the entire working class, abolish the practical evidence of class, of money and of 'the market'. That is probably not an entirely accurate, nor complete list. However, you get the jist of what i'm trying to say. If we all know the basic Socialist principles, and we all know that Marxism-Leninism, Trotskyism, Maosim have not attracted the attention of the workers, nor has any reformist trend such as Social Democracy, in the past few decades, as individual tendencies, then surely it is the case that we should unite and present the case for Socialism, not for the politics of Anti-Revisionism, Trotskyism or such like. In the 19th century, British workers had a rich tradition, as with many other western European workers, of banding together and uniting as a class, behind the banner of class interest - the events of 1830-32, Chartism, Reform League and so on. As such, it surely makes sense to present Socialism as a united current in Britain, for all workers, rather than presenting different tendencies which either treat the workers with contempt, or are open only to those who support certain policies, or have a certain interpretation of history. Alas, I am humble enough to say that I simply do not have the intellect, nor the understanding of the rigours of Marxism, to expound this little theory, but it seems to me that, even if one accepts the process would be painful and certainly fraught with complications and obstacles, a united Socialist movement in Britain - based around the most basic of Socialist principles, as opposed to being rooted in a deeply theoretical and somewhat prohibitively discouraging Marxist jargon -, would be the best path to follow.

[bailey_187]

No offense but i CBA to read your post right now

sorry for calling you a twat

What can i do? nothing, im not even a member of a party, im just an 18 year doing a levels still

join a party and do what you think will lead to more success

[Tzadikim]

We do not need another Party, of any tendency - if capitalism inclines towards material overproduction, Communism certainly seems to overproduce 'tendencies'. What we need instead is a confederacy of scientific activists who engage in economic experimentalism.

[ls]

What we need instead is a confederacy of scientific activists who engage in economic experimentalism.

What the hell?

[Saorsa]

Maoism is not just Marxism with a hardon for the peasantry.

[black magick hustla]

i for one, await the kid with the goattee and goofy hammer and sickle tshirts and his dog and his friend billy to proclaim the new vanguard party and wage a peoples war in the british sewers

[bailey_187]

i for one, await the kid with the goattee and goofy hammer and sickle tshirts and his dog and his friend billy to proclaim the new vanguard party and wage a peoples war in the british sewers

Hilarious joke, will read again.

[Saorsa]

i for one, await the kid with the goattee and goofy hammer and sickle tshirts and his dog and his friend billy to proclaim the new vanguard party and wage a peoples war in the british sewers

omg LOL you are so FUNNY lol lol lol

[ls]

How do you lot propose to adapt Marxism-Leninism-Maoism to conditions in the UK?

This should be interesting, please do go on.

[bailey_187]

How do you lot propose to adapt Marxism-Leninism-Maoism to conditions in the UK?

This should be interesting, please do go on.

I have nothing to do with this party (or any party) but i assume pretty much the same as Marxism-Leninism. Other than PPW (which can not happen in the UK), Maoism refers more to the period of Socialism and class struggle within it.

[RHIZOMES]

it's absolutely ridiculous to say that NK, Cuba and Albania are/were revisionist but that Maoist period China, Nepal's and India's Maoist parties aren't.

...why?

Do you know anything about Marxism-Leninism at all? That is probably the most ignorant statement I've heard from an anarchist regarding MLs ever.

[ls]

...why?

Well 'new democracy' in the Nepalese case and you can see much of the Maoist left criticising them quite scathingly at times, perhaps the Naxals not so much although they are getting quite a lot of stick too, partially for not being so active in the cities. For China, one only need look and see how Albania won in a war of liberation; once again a coalition with Nationalists and a hard line (by ML standards) on revisionism - as it goes, I do not see a major difference in practice and theory regarding third-world liberation in Hoxhaism and Maoism. That old Hoxhaist hatred of the "three worlds theory" that led to quite a bit of hostility is largely irrelevant. After all, most modern Maoists don't really agree with the TWT. Hoxhaists do not condemn guerrilla or people's war at all.

And what leads you to think NK is any more revisionist than those other states?

You can tell me that "it's not about which one is more revisionist" all you like, but that's not how most people see it. If you look at most of the policies and inclinations in every one of those states I mentioned, you will find they were/are very similar to the point of obvious compatibility.


Do you know anything about Marxism-Leninism at all? That is probably the most ignorant statement I've heard from an anarchist regarding MLs ever.

It was entirely reasonable. By the way, I'm not an anarchist and even if I was as it happens I've seen MLs make the same criticisms and condemn Hoxhaists and Maoists for remaining divided today. Seeing as what it boils down to, is basically historical bitterness between two parties over a few abstract and unrealistic theories that had little importance if you view it historically, it seems pretty strange to say, especially in the case of Sino-Albanian politics, that one or the other was more revisionist. Khrushchev and Xiaoping aren't part of my argument, the USSR and PRC were 'revisionist' by ML standards when they got in and I am fully aware of that.