90 Years since the formation of the CPGB [Archive]

Serge's Fist

26th July 2010, 07:59

Why is the release of a new left-nationalist programme something to celebrate?

It isn't, it was a factual statement that the Morning Star's CPB are launching a new edition of the BRS amongst other things to coincide and celebrate the formation of the CPGB. They are a walking cadaver of stalinism that represent everything that went wrong politically to the old party.

What a terrible tradition to 'celebrate', the dysfunctional descent into what is now, basically, another left-nationalist left ghetto sect. Had the party been taken over by its left-wing and left-communist agitators outside the party been successful in their agitation, we would probably be seeing a very different reality today and, potentially, a successful revolution in this country.

So the highest achievement of the working class in Britain, that is the formation of the CPGB is not something to celebrate? I consider it very odd, even from a left-communist that you would not see the step forwards that was made into bringing the disparate communist forces into the CPGB after the Russian Revolution and the failiure of the pre-war strike movements as something worth celebrating. Without doubt the CPGB degenerated quickly and became a vulgar organisation that was inbedded into the working class movement but became parasitic and damaging, that is the history of the comintern communist parties the world over. The point of marking 90 years since the CPGB was formed is not simply to look at the positives of its history but to pick over the disaster that was the CPGB as well.

Revolution is not solely based on the policy of this or that party and even if the left-wing did win out, which no doubt would have been a positive turn of events, would it have been able to become the leadership of the class superseding the Labour Party and the TUC?

The CPGB that I a member of only holds the name of the CPGB after the 1991 congress disolved the old party under the leadership of the Eurocommunists who then moved en-masse into the Labour Party. It certainly isn't a left-nationalist organisation, we have consistently fought for internationalist positions against large sections on the left around such things as Hamas and socialism in one country i.e. Scottish independence. What do you mean by it being a "left ghetto sect"?

mountainfire

26th July 2010, 08:13

So the highest achievement of the working class in Britain

In what way was the formation of the CPGB the highest achievement of the working class in Britain? If you think that achievements should necessarily take the form of organizations or movements - which is any case a problematic assumption - then surely Chartism would rank higher than an organization that, in common with the other official Communist Parties of Europe, submitted itself to the increasing opportunist dictates of the Comintern and became a break on the development of class consciousness.

Serge's Fist

26th July 2010, 08:28

In what way was the formation of the CPGB the highest achievement of the working class in Britain? If you think that achievements should necessarily take the form of organizations or movements - which is any case a problematic assumption - then surely Chartism would rank higher than an organization that, in common with the other official Communist Parties of Europe, submitted itself to the increasing opportunist dictates of the Comintern and became a break on the development of class consciousness.

Most of what you wrote I agree with, the way the formation of the CPGB (not its entire life) was the highest achievement of the working class in Britain, comes down firstly to politics and the political programme it put forward in 1920, which was for the power of the working class expressed through workers councils. Whilst other smaller groups had held such a position prior to the 1920 unity convention the CPGB brought together all those forces that were committed to the learning the lessons of the October revolution and had a considerable basis of support, though not membership, in the most combative sections of the working class. What happened to the CPGB was similar to all of the other comintern parties of that period, it became a bureaucratic regime under a stalin inspired programme committed to class collaboration and parliamentary socialism. You cannot simply write off the experience and lesson of formation of the CPGB because of what it became. Victor Serge wrote in his memoirs that "to judge the living man by the death germs which the autopsy reveals in a corpse – and which he may have carried in him since his birth – is this very sensible?’" We must learn from the best and the worst of the history of the CPGB.

Optiow

26th July 2010, 08:36

I don't know about about the CPGB. I may have a look into its history.

Serge's Fist

26th July 2010, 08:45

I don't know about about the CPGB. I may have a look into its history.

We have quite a lot of stuff in our Weekly Worker archives (http://cpgb.org.uk/archive.php)on different aspects and periods of the CPGB's history. We also have a video on where the current CPGB(PCC) came from taken at Communist University 2009: 30 Years since the formation of the Leninist faction (http://vimeo.com/6185943)

There is also a section on MIA with documents and stuff: link (http://www.marxists.org/history/international/comintern/sections/britain/index.htm)

Lawrence & Wishart have published a 6 part series of books on the CPGB's history which you could probably get from your library if you are interested in reading beyond what is online.

Wanted Man

26th July 2010, 09:14

Why do these people claim the name "CPGB" anyway?

Serge's Fist

26th July 2010, 09:22

Why do these people claim the name "CPGB" anyway?

Two reasons, firstly because we were the only ones left in the CPGB after 1991, a group of CPGB members organised around the Leninist faction said that the liquidationists could not take away their membership and their party. Secondly because it is the party we wish to create, a unified communist party under a revolutionary programme.

Devrim

26th July 2010, 09:52

The CPGB that I a member of only holds the name of the CPGB after the 1991 congress disolved the old party under the leadership of the Eurocommunists who then moved en-masse into the Labour Party.

This is true. Today's CPGB, and if you read the small print they even refer to themselves as the 'Provisional CPGB', is not the same party. It did come out of the original CPGB, as did the CPB, who are probably pretty pissed off that they grabbed the name first.

Two reasons, firstly because we were the only ones left in the CPGB after 1991, a group of CPGB members organised around the Leninist faction said that the liquidationists could not take away their membership and their party.

The Leninist was, as stated here, a faction and a newspaper in the old CPGB. Incidentaly I believe it was sort of the UK 'franchise' of the Turkish Yeni Yol.

I consider it very odd, even from a left-communist that you would not see the step forwards that was made into bringing the disparate communist forces into the CPGB after the Russian Revolution and the failiure of the pre-war strike movements as something worth celebrating. Without doubt the CPGB degenerated quickly and became a vulgar organisation that was inbedded into the working class movement but became parasitic and damaging, that is the history of the comintern communist parties the world over. The point of marking 90 years since the CPGB was formed is not simply to look at the positives of its history but to pick over the disaster that was the CPGB as well.

It certainly did degenerate, and very rapidly at that. I think though that it was formed in the first place on an opportunistic basis, and an unclear split from social democracy.

Devrim

Serge's Fist

26th July 2010, 10:07

It certainly did degenerate, and very rapidly at that. I think though that it was formed in the first place on an opportunistic basis, and an unclear split from social democracy.

Devrim

Yes that is true to an extent, you can see by the unity convention documents that the wider argument over the social democratic parties was probably the sharpest debate on the floor. Affiliation to the Labour Party as suggested by Lenin and failed by the CPGB did pose a serious challenge, in terms of who represents the working class politically.

On Yeni Yol and the CPGB, there was significant cross-over in terms of political solidarity during period before that and the early days of the Leninist, but that relationship is now one of friendship between individuals instead of sharing the same politics.

DunyaGongrenKomRevolyutsi

26th July 2010, 12:07

So the highest achievement of the working class in Britain, that is the formation of the CPGB is not something to celebrate?

Red clydeside, the 1926 strike etc? The CPGB started wrongly in the first place, I'm curious though that you support the left-communists. The CPGB website runs a very slanderous article against Sylvia Pankhurst, perhaps you are in the wrong organisation? :) (which is a good thing BTW)

Of course, the vindication of my words is that the 1926 strike was completely betrayed.

I consider it very odd, even from a left-communist that you would not see the step forwards that was made into bringing the disparate communist forces into the CPGB after the Russian Revolution and the failiure of the pre-war strike movements as something worth celebrating. Without doubt the CPGB degenerated quickly and became a vulgar organisation that was inbedded into the working class movement but became parasitic and damaging, that is the history of the comintern communist parties the world over. The point of marking 90 years since the CPGB was formed is not simply to look at the positives of its history but to pick over the disaster that was the CPGB as well.But it never really got over its first issue which was just that, unity, led by the right faction. Once a powerful, holistic workers' party had been created it was time to quickly and powerfully move onto massive issues facing a very possible revolution here.

Revolution is not solely based on the policy of this or that party and even if the left-wing did win out, which no doubt would have been a positive turn of events, would it have been able to become the leadership of the class superseding the Labour Party and the TUC?Don't see why not. The TUC and the Labour party thoroughly betrayed the biggest chance of a revolution in 1926, that alone should show the errors of supporting a group like the TUC, but they (Leninists of all stripes) continue to support the TUC to this day.

The CPGB that I a member of only holds the name of the CPGB after the 1991 congress disolved the old party under the leadership of the Eurocommunists who then moved en-masse into the Labour Party. It certainly isn't a left-nationalist organisation, we have consistently fought for internationalist positions against large sections on the left around such things as Hamas and socialism in one country i.e. Scottish independence. What do you mean by it being a "left ghetto sect"?It's not actually as insulting as it may sound, we're all a little stuck in the left ghetto right now anyway, we're not really in revolutionary times.

Serge's Fist

26th July 2010, 12:32

DunyaGongrenKomRevolyutsi

26th July 2010, 17:35

No doubt there were tactical blunders that went hand-in-hand with its political degeneration. I wouldn't support the left-communists per se but support the political opposition to bureaucratisation of the CPGB throughout the mid-20's and against the line being taken up by the comintern in the same period. I think it was correct to seek affiliation, even if it was a smash and grab approach to help flesh out the CPGB. It was also a political statement announcing the CPGB's struggle in winning the leadership of the movement from the Labour Party and the Trade Unions.

And against parliamentary representation, a major question plaguing the British left at the time.

What article do you consider scandalous?cpgb.org.uk/article.php?article_id=1000153

I like the fact it's specifically called "beyond sectarianism".

Even with the correct leadership in 1926 would the CPGB have been able to lead a revolution whilst the Labour Party and the unions held leadership of the movement?That's the millions of workers on strike question, yes, I think they could have been, there was a very, very strong possibility of revolution in this country and the Labour party with the TUC were scared out of their wits, they did their best to fool workers into compliance as a result.

The unity convention was not simply led by the right faction, it involved comrades from different traditions and backgrounds and in 1921 (iirc) the majority of Pankhurst's organisation joined with the CPGB. Pankhurst unfortunately drifted off into national liberation struggles.CP(BSTI) merged with the CPGB in January 1921 after Lenin had a persuasive talk with Pankhurst at the 2nd comintern congress, she certainly believed she had a good chance of fighting for abstentionism, against collaborationism with unions/Labour party and of pulling off most of her other demands, you are right though.

The groups the CPGB consisted of never really bonded well enough into being a party, a lot of groups left and pulled in all kinds of different directions practically as soon as the party was formed, there is factionalism and then there is just a mess of a party that doesn't know what it's doing, I tend to believe the CPGB was the latter. That coupled with the increasing right-shift in the comintern basically buried the party's chances of leading a revolution. Sadly, it never really did live up to the name of its organ for a time, "Worker's Dreadnought".

Serge's Fist

27th July 2010, 15:53

DunyaGongrenKomRevolyutsi

28th July 2010, 16:56

I think they took the correct position on parliament, and it is certainly an issue still for communists. With that in mind Communist Students will be organising an educational dayschool where we will be focusing on communists and parliament as the left/councilist members of CS brought a motion and created a long debate at our last conference. The dayschool will be in London so you should come down, it will be in early October at a central London location and we would be happy to have left-communists participating in the discussion.

Sounds good, might just attend that (usually try to avoid UK official 'left events'). The CPGB does seem to have a lot of non ML members, which is odd, I have a friend who is a self-described Luxemburgist in there for example.

The Pankhurst article isn't fair on her, but it is not scandalous. A more rigorous look at her politics and life were surely needed.

True, but it is overly slanderous I would say. The stuff on her later life is pretty much accurate.

I think you are being slightly optimistic of the ability of the small communist party to break the hold of the Labour Party and the general council. The prevailing conditions were not excellent and I think the Trotskyist mass-strike equals power myth (to put it crudely) doesn't fit with the over all dynamic and contending forces at play within the working class. Maybe you are right, and I suppose it would make an excellent edition of "What If" on the BBC and does provide us with lessons for next time.

They had about 10-11,000 members at first after everyone merged, that's not great but it's an okay start, certainly they needed to work for radicalisation within the working-class fast and hard, quickly overcoming any internal issues in order to get the working class on track. Groups like the Wales socialists were a good start because they came from a strong tradition of opposing right-wing union leaders.

On the mass strike itself, it was obviously called by the TUC to pacify the working-class, by allowing the venting of their anger in a highly controlled manner, of course this had consequences they couldn't fully predict ie wildcat strikes in solidarity in unknown places, ironically leaving the last day of the strike with more workers striking than on the first. The 1920 strikes were probably more militant in themselves, but the 1926 strike definitely had potential and it's a great shame the CPGB hadn't built up a strong, independent left-communist leaning influence before the time..

You are right that the CPGB because of its size was subject to the rightward trajectory of the Comintern more easily than the mass parties. But I do think it did have a clear idea of what it should do, the 1924 Draft-programme was quite clear and did share near identical demands to the rest of the comintern parties.

It walked straight into a trap, the party wasn't a hundred percent committed to the cause anyway if you get my drift, probably because only large mass parties can achieve those things without being completely subverted/bulldozed by the bourgeoisie. The British bourgeoisie being one of the most daring, calculating and powerful. It should have been clear that playing the unions and parliaments with them, especially in those days, was an incredibly dangerous game.

I do not think the factionalism of the CPGB was a bad thing, factions and tendencies are important democratic leverages for the rank-and-file to keep the communist party on track and committed in practice to the congress decisions and the programme. There have been times when factionalism has been damaging, the best example I can think of is the collapse of the IMG, but that was down to the ending of democracy and factional rights within, not the existence of factions.

But that's what happens if there are conflicting factions, it's what should happen anyway, you can't have a party where people completely disagree on basic issues, that's why parties come to a mostly concrete stance on issues and stick with it - even if the various conflicting factions exist within, for a time, until the conflict is resolved one way or the other.

Serge's Fist

28th July 2010, 17:25

Thanks for your reply, just a couple of points:

It is not a CPGB event, it will be organised by Communist Students whose leadership has 1 CPGB member and four non-CPGB'ers including a member of the Anarchist Federation and a member of the Commune. CS is an autonomous Marxist organisation whose membership is largely unaligned when it comes to political organisations off campus. Hope to see you there, if you're in one of these left-communist groups feel free to bring along your papers etc.

In general, CPGB members would not class themselves as Marxist-Leninists, the new Draft Programme and rules for the CPGB has removed the phrase calling us a Marxist-Leninist organisation as we consider ourselves a Marxist organisation that contains different elements and ideas from across the revolutionary tradition including and definitely not limited to Luxemburg, Lenin, Kautsky and Trotsky.

On the General Strike, you are right if a little bit unfair on the comrades. The reality of the CPGB at the period was that it had very little money and many of its leaders were in prison under the Mutiny Act of 1797. The CPGB did warn the working class about the betrayal of the TUC General Council and the Labour Party before and during the strike, the problem was they also undermined that criticism with silly slogans such as "All power to the general council". It was a confused affair in part as well, the Councils of Action tended to be nothing more than the local trades council renamed and were more "Councils of Paralysis" than of action and the formation of political centres of power.

I think you have the same factionalphobia that a lot of people on the Left have. Factions give life to an organisation, they represent the reality of how a good dynamic organisation can clarify and organise itself through a method of constant scrutiny and discussion. You do not need 100% agreement, what is needed is the acceptance of the programme and the widest possible debate on all issues of importance facing the class. It is essentially the physical crystalisation of the dialectical process that goes on within the communist movement whether in a single party or many different groups. It is also important in terms of democracy, for a minority to be able to become a majority there needs to be ample space and openness. Such a party method is important for raising the political consciousness of the class as a whole, you have your arguments and debates before the class, warts and all, and draw class conscious workers into the debate and discussion to help illuminate what the party is debating.

bricolage

28th July 2010, 18:40

Serge's Fist

28th July 2010, 18:50

I've never met a CS member who wasn't in the CPGB except for one who made that point quite emphatically... then a few days later joined the CPGB.

Even if there a few 'members' here and there who may not be in the CPGB it seems quite disingenuous to claim the two are completely separate.

You cannot have met that many CS members then ;)

I did not claim CS and CPGB were seperate, I said that CS was an autonomous organisation from the CPGB which means it decides its own leadership, actions, positions and platform. We are hoping to have different tendencies and platforms in CS as things move forward as part of our campaign for Marxist unity on campus.

bricolage

28th July 2010, 19:12

You cannot have met that many CS members then ;)
I did not claim CS and CPGB were seperate, I said that CS was an autonomous organisation from the CPGB which means it decides its own leadership, actions, positions and platform.

But when have any of these been any different to that of the CPGB?

We are hoping to have different tendencies and platforms in CS as things move forward as part of our campaign for Marxist unity on campus.Since the various left student groups are mainly sub-sections of various left groups I hardly see how you can get 'unity' here when the groups themselves are not united.
Additionally my experience of working with CS is that they actually sabotaged unity we were building in a, mainly student, group by trying to ram an ten point Marxist programme into a direct action network that it was wholly inappropriate for.

Serge's Fist

28th July 2010, 19:28

But when have any of these been any different to that of the CPGB?

The platform is being amended at every conference, at our last one we agreed to have a different formulation to the CPGB on LGBT liberation, including Queer as part of CS's formulation. Our second candidate for the executive was defeated this year by a member of the Anarchist Federation in a free ballot.

Since the various left student groups are mainly sub-sections of various left groups I hardly see how you can get 'unity' here when the groups themselves are not united.

Additionally my experience of working with CS is that they actually sabotaged unity we were building in a, mainly student, group by trying to ram an ten point Marxist programme into a direct action network that it was wholly inappropriate for.

I think it is a narrow approach to simply write off unity on campus because lots of these groups are bureaucratically controlled by an "adult" party with an iron fist. It is a long term strategy of unity, it is not a get rich quick scheme like the dead end unity projects like ENS or Another Education is Possible.

If you experienced us putting forward our platform at one of these "unity" conference, then I was probably at the conference. We do not think that Revo or the SWP or the AWL setting up little "direct action" groups are of much use to the long-term interests of the class. We are happy to work with all such groups in action, and we do, you may want to look at our role in forming the Postal Strike solidarity group in Manchester (link (http://communiststudents.org.uk/?p=3900)). We consider unity on the basis of social democracy or leftist activism to be a barrier in forming effective political organisations that can not only organise anti-cuts meetings but the struggle or Marxism on campus and the education of a new generation of communist militants. You can always PM me if you have any gripes or questions about our interventions at some of these events, which at times we have criticised ourselves as being ill thought out or over the top. So we know we have not been excellent at everyone of these events but our approach has been to consistently fight for unity on politics not just action.

bricolage

28th July 2010, 19:45

The platform is being amended at every conference, at our last one we agreed to have a different formulation to the CPGB on LGBT liberation, including Queer as part of CS's formulation.
Not meaning to be rude but that is just one example.
To me and to many other people both CS and CPGB are seen as the same thing, I think especially when your site says "Independent but closely linked to the Communist Party of Great Britain (CPGB)." this is with fair grounding.

Our second candidate for the executive was defeated this year by a member of the Anarchist Federation in a free ballot.Yeah I'm not doubting leadership is different.

It is a long term strategy of unity, it is not a get rich quick scheme like the dead end unity projects like ENS or Another Education is Possible.I think ENS has been quite a successful project and one worth supporting, obviously I cannot say the same for AEIP. What are your problems with ENS?

If you experienced us putting forward our platform at one of these "unity" conference, then I was probably at the conference.Well the incident I was referring to was at specific group at the university I have just graduated from but yeah I was at the campaign against cuts and fees convention thingy where you did the same thing, ironically the same two people who argued either side of the argument at my university were the same two people arguing at that convention.

We do not think that Revo or the SWP or the AWL setting up little "direct action" groups are of much use to the long-term interests of the class.Student action is on the whole not of much use to long-term class interests, which brings me on to my next point...

We consider unity on the basis of social democracy or leftist activism to be a barrier in forming effective political organisations that can not only organise anti-cuts meetings but the struggle or Marxism on campus and the education of a new generation of communist militants.No matter how much students activists might like to imagine themselves as saviours of the working class (I once heard Lindsey German describe students as a 'vanguard', which served to inflate several egos), the University is not, for students, a workplace. There are a number of problems with how universities are run (arms trade funding, narrow teaching paradigms etc) and of course education workers and other workers in universities are often treated very badly. As such I do not think the clarity needed in most political projects is so needed on campus. Communism is not going to be won in the lecture theatres and while students can help with worker disputes where they study or can help to spur on wider action it is not the hub at where capital operates. I think in many ways students fall outside of class analysis (unless of course they take part time jobs during their studies) and so the need to be specific in our politics is not the same there as in, and I use the term ironically, the 'real world'. It is fair enough to want to spread radical ideas on campus but, and here is another example of a CS member, running for the role of Union President with a manifesto to 'abolish capitalism', is hardly very relevant to most people and is obviously not going to 'abolish' anything... unless of course we are fighting for socialism in one SU :)

Serge's Fist

28th July 2010, 20:08

Thanks for your points,

Nowhere does our site say that CS is independent from the CPGB. We debated this issue at our last conference, where it was decided that designating CS as an independent entity would be false considering our monetary reliance and the political foundations of CS. This was the compromise formulation: 'It was set up by members and supporters of the Communist Party of Great Britain, but is now run autonomously of them.' Nowhere do we deny our links between us and the CPGB but we are an organisation beyond the CPGB with a life of its own. Do you think we should be dishonest like the SWP or Socialist Party when they organise youth/ student organisations?

ENS has had limited successes on its own terms, that is cohering a nice little conference every year to have workshops on how bad cuts are etc and organise in a couple of cuts groups but in terms of winning people to the political programme of communism it has been used as a vehicle by the AWL to pick off ones and twos of contacts who are revealed socialism behind ENS. It is the same way the SWP behave in their "united fronts". I am happy working with ENS and AWL comrades on many issues but also do not think these groups are of much use for what is needed.

As you probably know there are some places where we have more CPGB members than non-CPGB members in CS and in other places it is the other way round like Manchester.

You are correct that "student action is on the whole not of much use to long-term class interests", that is why we oppose the formations like ENS as a model for unity as they only present us with temporary and fleeting interventions whilst we are arguing for political bodies on campus, not just action orientated front-groups for this or that group to recruit from.

I would have to disagree with comrade German on students being the vanguard, and you are right that the university is not a workplace for students but you are wrong that "communism is not going to be won in the lecture theatres", it is wrong to not organise students as students on campus, yes involved in strikes and workers solidarity but never to abandon the opportunity of engaging with students about politics, where they have time and space to think and discuss different ideas and ways of doing things. The university is not the most important area of work for communists but is certainly a key arena in the battle of ideas communists need to win.

I take it you went to Sheffield University? We probably haven't always got the right balance between communist propoganda and student issues when we have stood in our early years but I think it is essential for communists to stand as communists clearly stating what your politics are. What good have these left-bureaucrats been in the NUS when they have been elected on a social democratic platform but were members of the AWL or the SWP? Very little. We consider elections an opportunity to engage people with our politics far more so than an opportunity to wriggle our way into the bureaucracy.

bricolage

28th July 2010, 20:26

Thanks for your points,
And the same to you. Apologies if any of my comments come across as aggressive or whatnot, I do find this a useful and interesting discussion.

Nowhere do we deny our links between us and the CPGB but we are an organisation beyond the CPGB with a life of its own.
Ok this is fair enough but I feel you may have trouble seeking to broaden CS considering the fact that these links exist and that many are hostile to the CPGB.

Do you think we should be dishonest like the SWP or Socialist Party when they organise youth/ student organisations?No, of course not.

ENS has had limited successes on its own terms, that is cohering a nice little conference every year to have workshops on how bad cuts are etc and organise in a couple of cuts groupsWell I think it's had about as much success as any student group seeking changes within Universities can have...
As far as I see it this kind on micro-reformism (placing xyz demands on the University) may not yet be a dead end but it is getting there. I think there is a very real reason that the 'demand nothing' movement arose in the US and that is because groups like these simply place demand upon demand upon educational institutes (nine times out of ten having them ignored) but never go beyond that. I don't actually think it is possible to go beyond that (except perhaps the contiual appropriation of space...) but as for doing what is done at the moment ENS is just as good or bad as any other group.

but in terms of winning people to the political programme of communismQuite clearly it has not done this you are right. But I would question whether we are ever really going to do this in Universities, the battle for communism will be won in the workplaces and the communities where people experience the effects of capital and recognise bonds between each other, students (who as I said I don't think are necessarily placed within class categories) I would argue are unable to recognise these bonds and create such solidarity. I could well be wrong here and I would like to be but I am so far unconvinced.

Actually though on this point I think with the decrease in the job market and the fact that more and more graduates are leaving unemployed or in jobs the rhetoric of higher education promised them they could escape things may well be changing in this respect. All hail the lost generation...

it is wrong to not organise students as students on campus,Yes of course I agree with you here, despite my cynicism, students with their free times, access to printing facilities and other such practical considerations are in many ways prime agents in agitating for change. I just question (as you do evidently) the way this organisation is taking place.

but is certainly a key arena in the battle of ideas communists need to win.This I am not necessarily sure about, considering many (albeit less than before) students will go on to managerial, bureaucratic and other anti-working class roles and considering the complete 'communisation' of the student populace can not really damage capital in any way, can it really be considering a 'key arena"?

I take it you went to Sheffield University?Ha! Yes. I've probably been in quite a few places at the same time as you.

What good have these left-bureaucrats been in the NUS when they have been elected on a social democratic platform but were members of the AWL or the SWP? Very little.Of course, very little indeed. But in all fairness what good can anyone do through NUS? Years ago NUS would pace motion after motion declaring support for socialism and whatnot and it didn't make any difference to anything, now CS fights the SWP fighting AWL fighting Respect for the change to fight Labour students for the chance to fight the government knowing full well the government will ignore them. Surely there are better pursuits we could be following?

Serge's Fist

28th July 2010, 22:05

Cheers comrade, you never came across as aggressive and even if you did it wouldn't matter sometime discussions do get sharp. Plus I am in the CPGB, not exactly mr popular on the left eh? :lol:

We are having trouble broadening CS, down to links with the CPGB but also because of the general lack of trust on the left fall stop. We already have a broad spectrum of opinion in the organisation and that is reflected in our press and the meetings we have held over the last couple of years. In some cases, groups use the links with the CPGB as an excuse to keep their members from engaging with us.

ENS is comparable with the rest of left groups on campus and that is one of our points, instead of having three to four different "broad campaigns" and six or seven marxists groups why not unite these forces into a single body.

Communism will be won the the workplace or communities, but students are part of a workplace either through part-time or summer work and they do live in communities. They are workers in waiting in most instances, it is a good idea to speak to as many people as possible in their formative years so that when they do enter work or whatever they go on to do, that they are at the very least aware of the communist programme. This is why i call it a key arena, it is here where ideas and programmes are assessed and discussed in a thorough way, where individuals have an opportunity to assess new ideas and society as a whole. Universities are also the power-houses of cultural, scientific and more importantly political ideas in society, we need to contest bourgeois domination in all spheres of life, universities and the education system as a whole is an important part of this.

bricolage

28th July 2010, 22:52

instead of having three to four different "broad campaigns" and six or seven marxists groups why not unite these forces into a single body.
I don't this unity argument is as important as it is often made out to be, there are so many groups and fractions because of the low level of struggle in society meaning all groups that exist are naturally basing themselves on not very much. As struggle intensifies and (if we ever) enter a genuinely revolutionary situation pretty much all groups and organisations that currently exist will be swept away and we will see who is on what side of what. It is at this point I believe 'unity' will emerge and I see attempts to do so at the moment as doomed to failure. We would be better suited to putting our efforts into our workplaces and communities, trying to interact with one another, forge links and generally find the affinity that is consistently wrenched away from us by capital. In turn I believe efforts are additionally better put into identifying ruptures and cracks in everyday life and enlargening them, bringing us ever closer to social revolt. If this sounds convoluted and vauge I suppose that's because it is but what I am trying to say (and this is probably no longer about universities at all!) is that organisations in the present can have a role in spreading ideas and agitating in areas but I don't think real revolutionary organisations can be formed outside of struggle and it is only when we enter this decisive struggle that they will truly emerge. I know this contradicts the party building mentality of the present but to me that is a lot of where we have all gone wrong.

Communism will be won the the workplace or communities, but students are part of a workplace either through part-time or summer work and they do live in communities. They are workers in waiting in most instances, it is a good idea to speak to as many people as possible in their formative years so that when they do enter work or whatever they go on to do, that they are at the very least aware of the communist programme. This is why i call it a key arena, it is here where ideas and programmes are assessed and discussed in a thorough way, where individuals have an opportunity to assess new ideas and society as a whole. Universities are also the power-houses of cultural, scientific and more importantly political ideas in society, we need to contest bourgeois domination in all spheres of life, universities and the education system as a whole is an important part of this.

I pretty much agree with all of this.

DunyaGongrenKomRevolyutsi

28th July 2010, 23:40

On the General Strike, you are right if a little bit unfair on the comrades. The reality of the CPGB at the period was that it had very little money and many of its leaders were in prison under the Mutiny Act of 1797.

Yes, also the CPGB was roughly half its original size, an important point because many of CPGB activists were directly affected by the strike itself; it was used as a vehicle to further suppress the party.

The CPGB did warn the working class about the betrayal of the TUC General Council and the Labour Party before and during the strikeCould you show me examples? This is news to me, certainly some activists may have, but the leadership did not, Trotsky being the closest political opposition to the British trade unionists selling out the strikes, that workers may have listened to.

the problem was they also undermined that criticism with silly slogans such as "All power to the general council". It was a confused affair in part as well, the Councils of Action tended to be nothing more than the local trades council renamed and were more "Councils of Paralysis" than of action and the formation of political centres of power.Indeed, this just proves my point that they were ineffective during this strike, but that was really down to bad leadership.. both by Zinoviev and also by the CPGB CC itself.

I think you have the same factionalphobia that a lot of people on the Left have. Factions give life to an organisation, they represent the reality of how a good dynamic organisation can clarify and organise itself through a method of constant scrutiny and discussion. You do not need 100% agreement, what is needed is the acceptance of the programme and the widest possible debate on all issues of importance facing the class. It is essentially the physical crystalisation of the dialectical process that goes on within the communist movement whether in a single party or many different groups. It is also important in terms of democracy, for a minority to be able to become a majority there needs to be ample space and openness. Such a party method is important for raising the political consciousness of the class as a whole, you have your arguments and debates before the class, warts and all, and draw class conscious workers into the debate and discussion to help illuminate what the party is debating.You're right, that's very well put, I'm thanking your post for this bloc, but my point was factions that sharply disagree on an issue, sometimes you just can't reconcile certain points or it will tear the entire party up, or worse. So it comes at too great a cost.

I'll try and be at the Oct thing if possible.

Liking the other replies in the thread by the way, I am impressed by the level of conversation on Revleft sometimes (although there is some very unnecessary hostility I have encountered in other threads too).

Serge's Fist

29th July 2010, 22:06

bricolage,

There is a certain chicken versus the egg/ horse before cart problem in this debate. Can you build a mass revolutionary organisation before a pre-revolutionary/revolutionary period or do revolutionary organisations only come about during revolution. For me I would say it is somewhere in between, you need a mass organisation that is committed to the communist programme to be able to intervene and lead struggles instead of leaving the working class at the hands of the trade unions and the Labour Party, but you will only win the majority of the class to our programme in the heat of struggle and by it being proven in the battle against the capitalists and their state. I am a partyist as the communist party is the greatest weapon our class has ever forged, and if wielded correctly we can not only make gains but make revolution.

DunyaGongrenKomRevoolyutsi,

There were instances of the CPGB warning the class of the coming betrayal, I know volume 2 of Klugman's 'History of the Communist Party' mentions this, though I do not have it to hand to quote. But here is a few quotes from different sources prior, during and after the general strike:

The Communist Party is under no illusions about this. It has not the slightest confidence in any of the leaders of the Labour Government, and it warns the working masses (Resolution on the Labour Government (http://www.marxists.org/history/international/comintern/sections/britain/congresses/06/02.htm) - 1924 Sixth Congress of the CPGB)

The Communist Party has on all occasions assisted in the development of this Movement, and will continue to do so, but at the same time warns those active workers who participate in it, that only a revolutionary Communist struggle can serve to achieve the object they have in view. The old Trade Unionism, with its bartering with the employing class, can offer them nothing: there must be a complete break with the idea of class collaboration, and the movement must centre more and more on unifying the whole working class for the political struggle for power. It is the task of the Communist Party to take the lead in this struggle. It is the vanguard of the working class and will, therefore, have to bear the heavy brunt of the fighting as the struggle develops. It is essential, therefore, that the Communist Party should strive at all times for working class unity behind a working class programme. (Chaiman's Opening Address (http://www.marxists.org/archive/gallacher/1924/05/opening.htm) - Willie Gallacher - 1924 Sixth Congress of the CPGB)

The whole Party worked as one, advocating the same policy everywhere, seeking to stimulate the initiative of the workers in organising and defending the strike, interpreting the daily events, warning the workers against the possibility of betrayal. (The Reds and the General (http://www.marxists.org/history/international/comintern/sections/britain/pamphlets/1926/reds.htm)Strike - 1926)

This astounding accord between leaders of the Labour Party in Parliament and out of it, in the I.L.P. and in the General Council, in attempting to conduct a General Strike, lies at the bottom of the betrayal and disaster, the confusion of orders, the limited nature of the call to action, the surrender of the food supplies to the Government, the failure to make an alliance with the Co-operatives, the denunciation of the General Strike as a political weapon, the attempt to divert the masses into formal parliamentarism, pacifism and craft unionism. For the Labour Party leaders Messrs. MacDonald, Thomas, Clynes, and the I.L.P. to now play the role of Pontius Pilate, washing their hands of responsibility for what has happened in the strike is downright hypocrisy following upon complete political bankruptcy. (The Political Meaning of the Great Strike (http://www.marxists.org/archive/murphy-jt/1926/strike/08.htm) - J.T. Murphy - 1926)

From July 1925, right until May 1926 the Minority Movement ceaselessly endeavoured to get the General Council to make the necessary preparations to meet the inevitable struggle that it felt sure would take place in May. No preparations were made—only deprecatory speeches to the effect that to talk about preparing for war, simply played into the hands of our opponents. The readers of this pamphlet have now had the experience and opportunity of seeing which leadership was right, the existing leadership which led to defeat, or the leadership of the Minority Movement which clearly pointed out the important tasks ahead in order that victories might have been achieved. (Is trade unionism played out? (http://www.marxists.org/history/international/comintern/sections/britain/subject/minority/played_out.htm) - National Minority Movement - 1926)

I am not saying that the CPGB were consistent in their struggle against the bureaucracy especially when they raised confusing slogans for power to pass to the TUC General Council.

I still do not think that it was down to bad leadership, you had the likes of Wal Hannington and Albert Inkpin stuck in jail during the strike. The british state attempted to decapitate the CPGB before the strike which wounded the organisation deeply. These issues do not absolve the comrades from the mistakes and errors they made though.

If factionalism becomes damaging then there will be a split, there have been on times healthy splits, the split from the Second International is the best example or more recently the belated withdrawal of the Mandelite USEC forces from Rifondazione after they joined the government.

Would be great to have you there in October, I also am pleasently surprised by RevLeft on the whole, too many maoists but apart from that the discussion I have had have been good.

Serge's Fist

29th July 2010, 22:12

The new edition of the Weekly Worker has two pieces on the formation of the CPGB.

Mark Fischer (CPGB National Organiser) looks at the role the Russian revolution had on spurring the disparate communist groups into forming a Communist Party: Learning Russian (http://cpgb.org.uk/article.php?article_id=1004048)

And I have a biography of communist leader Albert Inkpin, it looks mostly at his role in the formation of the CPGB and not the struggles of 1929: A Tireless Internationalist (http://cpgb.org.uk/article.php?article_id=1004049)

Comments, letters and suggestions all welcome :)

Devrim

30th July 2010, 22:50

Serge's Fist

30th July 2010, 23:00

This piece (http://libcom.org/library/anti-parliamentary-communism-mark-shipway-3) covers the questions about the Labour Party at the time of the formation of the CPGB from a council communist perspective.

Devrim

Thanks, I read this before, might be an idea to distribute as part of the prepatory reading for our dayschool in October.

Devrim

31st July 2010, 08:47

Thanks, I read this before, might be an idea to distribute as part of the prepatory reading for our dayschool in October.

As you probably know then it is part of a book, the first few chapters of which are relevant to this topic. The complete text is here (http://libcom.org/library/anti-parliamentary-communism-mark-shipway), with the first four chapters being relevant to this discussion.

The ICC has a book devoted to the subject, but can be read from 'looking inside' on this page (http://www.amazon.co.uk/British-Communist-Left-1914-45-Revolutionary/dp/1897980116).

This pamphlet (http://libcom.org/library/left-wing-communism-britain-1917-21an-infantile-disorder-bob-jones), which I haven't read discusses the issue too.

The 13th session of the 2nd Congress of the 3rd International (http://www.marxists.org/history/international/comintern/2nd-congress/ch13.htm) is also directly relevant to the issue.

I think they took the correct position on parliament,

That of course is a matter of opinion. It was I think though a very close thing:

The trade unions and the Labour Party - hardly trivial issues in a country like Britain. Indeed, the founding conference was split almost 50-50 on the question of Labour, with the vote for the new party to seek affiliation only being won by 100 to 85 of the delegates present.

It was indeed a close run thing, and only just won with the considerable prestige of Lenin, and his diatribes against the arguments of the left.

I want to comment on more detail on the subject, but need to read up a little more first.

Devrim

Serge's Fist

31st July 2010, 12:50

Cheers I have read Shipway and Bob Jones on this a good while ago, I have been meaning to the get the British Communist Left book from the ICC for a while, I will try and pick it up at the Manchester Anarchist Bookfair. Thanks for the link on the Third Congress discussion, not read that before will have a look now.

For me, and I expect everyone in the CPGB, standing in elections is a tactical consideration dependent on what uses it has for getting our programme and politics out to the class. It should not, like it did with the Second International become the focus of work, it is a small area of work though even if we were a much larger organisation.

Look forward to your comments, if you do spend time writing something out on this please send it in for the letters page of the Weekly Worker (weeklyworker(at)cpgb.org.uk) than just for a dozen people on RevLeft.

Android

31st July 2010, 15:22

I have been meaning to the get the British Communist Left book from the ICC for a while, I will try and pick it up at the Manchester Anarchist Bookfair.

I have got 'British Communist Left', so I can lend it to you when I am back in Manchester if you want.

For me, and I expect everyone in the CPGB, standing in elections is a tactical consideration dependent on what uses it has for getting our programme and politics out to the class.

I do not think this is accurate though. CPGB is committed to standing for election to parliament as a strategic orientation not as a tactical consideration. For instance, CPGB did not stand anyone in the recent general election, but that was due to judging that you did not have the necessary resources to mount an effective campaign and warrant it as I remember. And this strategic orientation is expressed in your 'what we fight for' column that appears in the Weekly Worker.

Communists favour using parliament

Serge's Fist

31st July 2010, 21:29

Ronan,

Thanks would be good to get it off you when you're back.

Parliament is a tactical consideration, in the discussions whether to stand candidates in the last election money was not a factor, we can always raise the money for such campaigns. The consideration was tactical, it is not an "orientation" which would imply some parliamentary road to socialism, which is something we have condemned since the days of the Leninist Faction of the CPGB. Maybe you would like to have a read of 'In the enemy camp' or 'Which Road' by Jack Conrad?

Our 'What we fight for' on this reads:

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.

So please try to keep your quotes in context ;)

Dimentio

31st July 2010, 21:38

What a terrible tradition to 'celebrate', the dysfunctional descent into what is now, basically, another left-nationalist left ghetto sect. Had the party been taken over by its left-wing and left-communist agitators outside the party been successful in their agitation, we would probably be seeing a very different reality today and, potentially, a successful revolution in this country.

Probably a different party. But the more left-wing a party is, the smaller it tend to be. Compare the size of "euro-communist" reformist parties with the size of pure revolutionary parties. There is a discrepancy there which ought to be discussed.

Android

31st July 2010, 21:49

I never said or implied CPGB adhered to a "parliamentary road to socialism" type strategy. The point I was making was that CPGB is committed to standing or supporting candidates (whether it be critical or conditional support) standing. That is the framework into which elections are approached, so it is a strategic orientation and in that sense my quote was perfectly in context.

Serge's Fist

31st July 2010, 22:19

Maybe this is just semantics, but we are not committed to standing or backing candidates absolutely. It is something to be discussed as part of a wider consideration on what it means for the class and getting our programme publicised.

Android

31st July 2010, 22:54

It is not semantics.

but we are not committed to standing or backing candidates absolutely. It is something to be discussed as part of a wider consideration on what it means for the class and getting our programme publicised.

CPGB are committed to standing candidates under current conditions for "getting [your] programme publicised". So this is a strategy rather than a tactic. During discussions in your paper it is framed in that sense of what to do in order to publicise your programme or advance it by standing or backing certain candidates (critically or uncritically and/or placing certain conditions for support). That is the tactical consideration of who to back or whether to stand yourselves. So for instance giving blanket support to Labour in Euro elections was a tactical application of your strategy. The reason I brought it up was it is constantly presented as a tactic by advocates of 'revolutionary parliamentarism'. when it is not.

On the wider question of parliament you know I disagree with you on that.

welshexile1963

1st August 2010, 16:58

I am an ex CPB member and believe the formation of the CPGB 90 years ago was a historic occasion and many good Communists & Socialists have been members of this great organisation over the years and striven for better times for the working class of this great country and beyond, whether it be as TU Reps, members of CND, Anti Aparthied campaigners etc. So I salute the current members of the CPGB.

Die Neue Zeit

1st August 2010, 17:56

I see Serge's Fist here trying to defend the Communist Students group.

Let it be publicly known two things:

1) The advocacy of student militias is totally uncalled for, just as Trotsky's advocacy of picket militias was totally uncalled for.
2) Whatever advocacy or public support for free tuitions or "graduate tax" crap should be replaced instead by advocacy of Training Income (http://www.revleft.com/vb/reinventing-education-replace-t125147/index.html).

DunyaGongrenKomRevolyutsi

1st August 2010, 20:07

Probably a different party. But the more left-wing a party is, the smaller it tend to be. Compare the size of "euro-communist" reformist parties with the size of pure revolutionary parties. There is a discrepancy there which ought to be discussed.

That hasn't been the case historically during revolutionary periods, I am not really surprised that it's the case today because I wouldn't expect a left-wing faction or party to arise out of nowhere, how could it? That wouldn't be in line with Marxism at all.

Die Neue Zeit

1st August 2010, 23:33

Both Dimentio and Dunya have ignored the mass size of the pre-war SPD and inter-war USPD outside of revolutionary periods. Both these parties were to the left of the "Eurocommunist" reformist parties.

Zanthorus

2nd August 2010, 00:46

2nd August 2010, 01:09

I don't this unity argument is as important as it is often made out to be, there are so many groups and fractions because of the low level of struggle in society meaning all groups that exist are naturally basing themselves on not very much. As struggle intensifies and (if we ever) enter a genuinely revolutionary situation pretty much all groups and organisations that currently exist will be swept away and we will see who is on what side of what. It is at this point I believe 'unity' will emerge and I see attempts to do so at the moment as doomed to failure. We would be better suited to putting our efforts into our workplaces and communities, trying to interact with one another, forge links and generally find the affinity that is consistently wrenched away from us by capital. In turn I believe efforts are additionally better put into identifying ruptures and cracks in everyday life and enlargening them, bringing us ever closer to social revolt. If this sounds convoluted and vauge I suppose that's because it is but what I am trying to say (and this is probably no longer about universities at all!) is that organisations in the present can have a role in spreading ideas and agitating in areas but I don't think real revolutionary organisations can be formed outside of struggle and it is only when we enter this decisive struggle that they will truly emerge. I know this contradicts the party building mentality of the present but to me that is a lot of where we have all gone wrong.

bricolage,

There is a certain chicken versus the egg/ horse before cart problem in this debate. Can you build a mass revolutionary organisation before a pre-revolutionary/revolutionary period or do revolutionary organisations only come about during revolution. For me I would say it is somewhere in between, you need a mass organisation that is committed to the communist programme to be able to intervene and lead struggles instead of leaving the working class at the hands of the trade unions and the Labour Party, but you will only win the majority of the class to our programme in the heat of struggle and by it being proven in the battle against the capitalists and their state. I am a partyist as the communist party is the greatest weapon our class has ever forged, and if wielded correctly we can not only make gains but make revolution.

I'd like to point to this text (http://go2.wordpress.com/?id=725X1342&site=cpgb.wordpress.com&url=http%3A%2F%2Fcpgb.files.wordpress.com%2F2010%2 F07%2Fwe-must-dream-echoes-of-witbd.doc&sref=http%3A%2F%2Fcpgb.wordpress.com%2F) of Lars Lih, which was used as a contribution at Socialism 2010 last June in the US. In particular this bit:

V. Miracles

We’ve now looked at worker-followers and worker-leaders. Now let’s look at what happens when these two meet, when they interact. What happens can be summed up in one word: a miracle. This is Lenin’s word, chudo in Russian, and, when you start looking, words like ‘miracle’, ‘miraculous’, are fairly common in Lenin’s vocabulary. Here I would just like to cite a remark from What Is to Be Done?, which, if I had my way, would be the most famous sentence in the book.

The passage starts off with Lenin looking back to the Russian populist revolutionaries of an earlier generation in the 1870s. Lenin asks: why are these people heroes? Why do we look up to them as model? Because they had a centralized, conspirational underground organization? No, they are heroes because they were inspiring leaders. Here’s what Lenin says about these earlier revolutionaries: ‘their inspirational preaching met with an answering call from the masses awakening in elemental [stikhiinyi] fashion, and the leaders’ seething energy is taken up and supported by the energy of the revolutionary class’.

And then Lenin goes to say there’s no reason why the Social Democrats of today—that is, in 1902—can’t produce leaders of equal caliber. Lenin turns to his critics and says (and this is the sentence I would like to see quoted in all the textbooks): ‘You brag about your practicability and you don’t see (a fact known to any Russian praktik) what miracles for the revolutionary cause can be brought about not only by a circle but by a lone individual’ (Lenin Rediscovered, p. 770).

The same thinking is behind another phrase in What Is to Be Done? that is already quite famous: ‘Give me an organization of revolutionaries and I will turn Russia around!’ In context, what does Lenin mean by this phrase? Does he mean that a band of intelligentsia conspirators can somehow wave their hands and destroy tsarism? No! Lenin is saying this (my paraphrase):

Comrades, look around you! Can’t you see that the Russian workers are champing at the bit to receive the message of revolution and to act on it? Can’t you see the potential for leadership that already exists among the activists, the praktiki? Can’t you see how many more leaders would arise out of the workers if we set our minds to encouraging their rise? Given all this potential, what is holding things up? Why is the tsar still here?

Us, comrades—we’re the bottleneck! If we could hone our underground skills and bring together what the tsarist regime wants so desperately to keep apart—worker leaders and worker followers, the message and the audience—then, by God, we could blow this joint apart! (or words to that effect).
This is Lenin’s message in 1902. A decade or so later, in 1913, the revolutionary situation in Russia started hotting up again, after many years of relative quiet. And Lenin again emphasizes how a very small group could have a very large effect—in other words, how a small and persecuted underground organization could be the lever that moved Russia. In St. Petersburg in 1913, there were mass protest demonstrations and strikes. Here’s how Lenin described the cause and impact of these strikes and demonstrations:

The St. Petersburg underground consists of several hundred workers who are nevertheless ‘the flower of the St. Petersburg proletariat’ [NB: the image of the ‘flower of the proletariat’ recurs in the Sverdlov eulogy], who are ‘esteemed and appreciated by the entire working class of Russia’. These workers issue some hasty, poorly printed, and unattractive looking pamphlets. ‘And lo, a miracle!’—a quarter of a million workers rise up ‘as one man’ in strikes and demonstrations in Petersburg. ‘Singing revolutionary songs, with loud calls for revolution, in all suburbs of the capital and from one end of the city to another, with red banners waving, the worker crowds fought over the course of several hours against the police and the Okhrana [security police] that had been mobilized with extraordinary energy by the government.’

The leaflets and the revolutionary speeches by workers carry the message that a revolution to install the democratic republic is the only way to ensure freedom. This message does not stop at the city limits of Petersburg. The industrial proletariat is able to ‘draw into revolutionary actions the labouring and exploited masses, deprived of basic rights and driven into a desperate situation’. The revolutionary strikes of the Russian proletariat—the mighty weapon it forged for itself in 1905— are therefore ‘stirring, rousing, enlightening, and organizing the masses of the narod for revolution’. In fact, the May Day strikes and demonstrations will show ‘to the whole world that the Russian proletariat is steadfastly following its revolutionary course’.

Thus, in Lenin’s exalted view, the small Social Democratic underground of Petersburg sent a message heard around the world. And why?—because it told the truth to millions about their hopeless position under tsarism, thus ‘inspiring them with faith in revolutionary struggle’ (Lenin, PSS, 23:296-305).
The power of the Social Democratic message—this is what, for Lenin, is the source of the miracle, and the reason why the lever of even a feeble underground organization can move the world: the truth of the message on one hand, and the ability of the masses to respond to it on the other.

(Forgive me for any poor formatting, I recommend to read the whole text!)

So yes, I do think a relatively small group can have an impact, but such a small party has to consider its relative position within the workers movement, in other words: how do workers see the party? Is it just one splinter among many or is it seen as their party? To achieve this position in the UK today, I agree with the premise that the many left splinters have to unite based on a Marxist program.

Secondly, the article also mentions some useful bits on the relation between worker-leaders and worker-followers:

Lenin treats Sverdlov as the ideal example of the perfect professional revolutionary—or, as I translated the term in my book, revolutionary by trade. Lenin again insists that one quality of an ideal professional revolutionary such as Sverdlov is that he or she comes forth from the people. Lenin uses the same image and even the same word as in What Is to Be Done?: the leaders are ‘pushed forth’ by the workers. In fact, Lenin specifically says that workers started to replace the older generation of intellectual revolutionaries at the turn of the century—in other words, just at the time he was writing What Is to Be Done?.

And

In his eulogy of Sverdlov, Lenin runs through the list of the qualities of an ideal vozhd/ professional revolutionary/organizer. This list will be pretty familiar to any attentive reader of What Is to Be Done?. The ideal leader:

comes forth from the people;
earns love and respect from the workers, due to his complete devotion to the cause;
always maintains links with the advanced workers, despite underground conditions;
works hard to instill in himself the necessary practical knowledge and flair;
helps make the basic idea of Soviet power an inspiring force throughout the world (that is, there is a global dimension to the inspiring leader).

Lenin does not only emphasize how much the inspiring leader can do for the proletarian cause. He also emphasizes how much the proletarian cause can do for the leaders. It almost seems sometimes as if the revolutionary workers are a means to the self-realization of the leaders.

...

In each case, Lenin is saying: now, and only now, do individual heroes, would-be leaders, really get to be leaders.

In other words, it takes time to create a politically aware leadership within the working class and this task is a primary one of any communist party.

So yes, a communist party will only flourish in revolutionary times, but if you don't prepare for those times in a political sense, much revolutionary energy is wasted and lost, making a positive outcome uncertain.

Die Neue Zeit

2nd August 2010, 01:12

My formulation is more rev-centrist:

1) Outside of a revolutionary period, you definitely need a mass party-movement committed to class struggle and social revolution. The question of majority political support is already posed.
2) In a revolutionary period, tactics associated with "revolutionism" are brought to the table.

bricolage

2nd August 2010, 13:19

1) The advocacy of student militias is totally uncalled for, just as Trotsky's advocacy of picket militias was totally uncalled for.
Who mentioned militas?

2) Whatever advocacy or public support for free tuitions or "graduate tax" crap
You'll be hard to pushed to find any student group (outside of NUS) that supports a graduate tax.

should be replaced instead by advocacy of Training Income (http://www.revleft.com/vb/reinventing-education-replace-t125147/index.html).
Ah yeah your genius idea where education for the sake of learning is consigned to the scrapheap and we all learn how to be good loyal workers.
Because who really needs to learn about old german philosphers? Certainly not people who spend their time writing about old german philosophers in e-treatises... (hint hint).

bricolage

2nd August 2010, 13:19

Die Neue Zeit

2nd August 2010, 17:57

Who mentioned militias?

The CPGB wrongly agitates, on a regular basis, for militias in its student campaigns.

You'll be hard to pushed to find any student group (outside of NUS) that supports a graduate tax.

Ah yeah your genius idea where education for the sake of learning is consigned to the scrapheap and we all learn how to be good loyal workers.
Because who really needs to learn about old german philosphers? Certainly not people who spend their time writing about old german philosophers in e-treatises... (hint hint).

Training income: you actually receive money instead of paying tuitions. If you take pre-PhD Philosophy, you still don't pay tuitions. You just don't get training income.

bricolage

2nd August 2010, 18:10

The CPGB wrongly agitates, on a regular basis, for militias in its student campaigns.
Does it? Do you have examples of this?
If so it is pretty odd, arming the students?

Training income: you actually receive money instead of paying tuitions.This existed prior to tuition fees with grants.
It actually continues today in some small way too.
Of course I am just talking about the UK here so can't comment on other countries.

If you take pre-PhD Philosophy, you still don't pay tuitions. You just don't get training income.Doesn't this make an unjust distinction between what is 'valid' or not, it reinforces the capitalist notion that education should be geared towards preparation for the workforce and that knowledge gained in this area is more relevant that knowledge that does not have a direct link to it. And what's wrong with philosophy? It probably won't help you to get a job but what about learning for the simple sake of learning.

Die Neue Zeit

2nd August 2010, 18:19

Does it? Do you have examples of this?
If so it is pretty odd, arming the students

There are past threads here on RevLeft criticizing Communist Students for this particular agitation.

Communist Students respond by saying that not calling so is economistic, but I too don't think it's the case.

This existed prior to tuition fees with grants.
It actually continues today in some small way too.
Of course I am just talking about the UK here so can't comment on other countries.

How big was the income scheme? Betcha it was less than minimum wage, let alone living wage.

Doesn't this make an unjust distinction between what is 'valid' or not, it reinforces the capitalist notion that education should be geared towards preparation for the workforce and that knowledge gained in this area is more relevant that knowledge that does not have a direct link to it. And what's wrong with philosophy? It probably won't help you to get a job but what about learning for the simple sake of learning.

"Free education for all children in public schools. Abolition of children’s factory labour in its present form. Combination of education with industrial production, &c, &c."

bricolage

2nd August 2010, 18:25

There are past threads here on RevLeft criticizing Communist Students for this particular agitation.
Yeah but I don't think they were ever calling for student militas just general militas, I think this comes from the CS idea that it is worthwhile having a mass programme for society (ie. abolish capitalism) in 'student politics' (ie. NUS/SU elections), I don't think it is very worthwhile at all.

Communist Students respond by saying that not calling so is economistic, but I too don't think it's the case.
I'd agree with you, which doesn't happen often.

How big was the income scheme? Betcha it was less than minimum wage, let alone living wage.
Not sure, but yeah I imagine it wasn't very much. Of course we should all be in favour of extending them further than they were at, but my point is this doesn't make your proposal that different from what existed before.

"Free education for all children in public schools. Abolition of children’s factory labour in its present form. Combination of education with industrial production, &c, &c."
Sorry, I don't know that quote. Where is it from? If we are talking about countries like the UK it seems very outdated though talking about 'children's factory labour', and seeing as free education does exist for schoolchildren (although it is of course being hammered down by extensive cuts).

Die Neue Zeit

2nd August 2010, 18:28

Yeah but I don't think they were ever calling for student militas just general militas, I think this comes from the CS idea that it is worthwhile having a mass programme for society (ie. abolish capitalism) in 'student politics' (ie. NUS/SU elections), I don't think it is very worthwhile at all.

There is a difference between the two. Calling for general or worker militias for program discussions is good. Calling for student or picket militias (Yoo hoo, Trotsky :rolleyes:) in agitation leaflets is bad.

Not sure, but yeah I imagine it wasn't very much. Of course we should all be in favour of extending them further than they were at, but my point is this doesn't make your proposal that different from what existed before.

More and more education today is tied to one career option or another. That's the difference. As I said, even Philosophy, at higher studies, has a career option.

Sorry, I don't know that quote. Where is it from? If we are talking about countries like the UK it seems very outdated though talking about 'children's factory labour', and seeing as free education does exist for schoolchildren (although it is of course being hammered down by extensive cuts).

I quoted from the Communist Manifesto itself. ;)

bricolage

2nd August 2010, 18:33

There is a difference between the two. Calling for general or worker militias for program discussions is good. Calling for student or picket militias (Yoo hoo, Trotsky :rolleyes:) in agitation leaflets is bad.
Well I don't think either is that useful right now to be honest.

More and more education today is tied to one career option or another. That's the difference. As I said, even Philosophy, at higher studies, has a career option.
Yes and I'd say we should be trying to counter that.

I quoted from the Communist Manifesto itself. ;)
Ha! Well I suppose the Communist Manifesto is pretty outdated then!

Die Neue Zeit

2nd August 2010, 18:41

If you read my thread on Training Income, there is another reason: to reduce wage differentials.

It is usually argued that lawyers, doctors, etc. who nab the big bucks spend so much tuition money and go into debt during their studies. Training Income attempts to reverse this (at the expense of lower pay later on).

Serge's Fist

2nd August 2010, 21:50

Sorry for the slow response to some comrades points here.

Ronan,

When it comes to the elections the process we go through is pretty straightforward. Firstly what are the overall political situation and the situation within the movement. Secondly is it desireable to back any any candidates or should we stand ourselves? If why or why not? We do not have a strategy that revolves around electoralism, generally we use our interventions into elections to make a political point.

On Parliament in general I do think you are wrong, and look forward to you finishing your re-sits and you submitting something to the discussion document in the run up to the October meeting. I think James is writing one for the CPGB comrades on this.

Welsheexile1963,

Thanks, maybe you should consider getting involved in the CPGB?

Die Neue Zeit,

We have never ever called for student militias. That would be utterly bizarre. Our platform does not contain a call for the the arming of the working class, we have raised it as part of manifestos or literature of CS but not as the lynchpin of those campaigns. Granted there was a case of one comrades election in Sheffield in our first year as an organisation that was too unbalanced in the direction of democratic demands. The way we approach elections is usually with balance, using the space to campaign on immediate struggles such as cuts and closures whilst utilising the opportunity to speak to thousands of students.

For us it is short sighted and does not produce significant gains for the Left when we simply stand on narrow platforms which focus on how bad cuts are, how nasty fascists are or climate change being rather dangerous. What we have in the UK, is a cycle of Marxist groups establishing front groups, drawing in a couple of anarchists and hippy's but not forwarding socialism amongst students as they promote a student version of trade unionism. We want University campuses to become bases of Marxism.

You can have a look at the programme we used for the NUS in 2008 here (http://communiststudents.org.uk/?p=1129)which does not mention the arming of the people. At Manchester this year we did not call for militias, but we did call for the democratic republic. I would also say that whilst we do on occassion use economism as a easy defence of our actions, the British student left is notoriously economistic in the way it operates. I have a whole host of examples if needed ;)

In terms of education, we are for free-education and universal grants.

Q,

Thanks for the Lih text, you are spot on when you wrote:

I do think a relatively small group can have an impact, but such a small party has to consider its relative position within the workers movement, in other words: how do workers see the party? Is it just one splinter among many or is it seen as their party? To achieve this position in the UK today, I agree with the premise that the many left splinters have to unite based on a Marxist program.On the SPD and USPD,

I think comrades must remember when assessing the USPD that firstly the KPD came out of it, and secondly like the SPD it is unwise and a misreading of history to write these organisations off, they have so many positive lessons for the communist movement today as well as their negative lessons.

Android

2nd August 2010, 23:32

When it comes to the elections the process we go through is pretty straightforward. Firstly what are the overall political situation and the situation within the movement. Secondly is it desireable to back any any candidates or should we stand ourselves? If why or why not?

Yes. This is my point. That it is approached from the frame of either standing yourselves or backing a candidate. This could get quite repetitive ultimately I think the difference is down to different interpretation of CPGB's approach. I am right though! :)

We do not have a strategy that revolves around electoralism, generally we use our interventions into elections to make a political point.

My point is CPGB does pursue a strategy of advancing your programme through participating in parliamentary elections.

DunyaGongrenKomRevolyutsi

3rd August 2010, 00:01

The PSI was a powerful party that formed out of the masses in the late 18's. I don't see how it's relevant to our discussion to say that the USPD and the SPD are special cases really. The USPD and SPD existed in a completely different epoch too, can we really say whilst knowing what social-democracy always was, that we should work with the social-democratic 'left', AGAIN? Isn't that just asking for history, which reports this as failing, to repeat itself?

It's a little strange to call for 'left unity' without mass backing by workers, for workers, through their genuinely representative organisations. And if you don't follow every stage of the class struggle through to fruition..
To be quite frank, the large number of splits and the strong factionalism currently existent within the official 'left' kind of says it all really.

What the movement will probably produce in the short-term, if it is healthy and it picks up pace, is a larger quantity of groups with a medium size number of very dedicated militant workers. This is not a bad thing and there is no reason to believe that 'economistic demands' are not our demands, because they are. Every 'economistic struggle' that workers win helps infinitely more than building a new international that attracts a few members.

Die Neue Zeit

3rd August 2010, 00:23

You need to read more about the pre-war SPD and inter-war USPD before rushing to judgment. Fortunately, this thread should be a starter:

http://www.revleft.com/vb/uspd-current-views-t136732/index.html

DunyaGongrenKomRevolyutsi

3rd August 2010, 01:00

That doesn't really help your point unless I've missed something. Isn't the fact that the KPD came out of the USPD, too late, something that you at least acknowledge?

Edit: I guess not, you even seem to think they should've folded back into the USPD? :confused:

Can you please justify your reasons for thinking that, in the most concise way possible?

Die Neue Zeit

3rd August 2010, 01:05

The KPD was an ultra-left sectarian split from the USPD. When the revolutionary period subsided, what was needed was left unity and to prevent the right-wing leadership from liquidating the best vehicle for left unity: the USPD.

DunyaGongrenKomRevolyutsi

3rd August 2010, 01:58

You mean after the revolution had been squarely crushed? You could have just said that to avoid confusion, but you still seem to think the KPD shouldn't have separated from the USPD in the first place why? Do you believe that the rest of the left in the USPD separating, later on, to form the VKPD out of the KPD and the USPD was the only other potential way forwards? Overall your perspective is kind of confusing to be honest..

Serge's Fist

4th August 2010, 12:58

I think you are placing unity before programme Die Neue Zeit. Whilst it is certainly true that the KPD made serious blunders from day one and as Radek commented there was no doubt the youth and inexperience of the majority of its cadres was a problem, it also organised the best fighters of the class into a single revolutionary party with a clear programme that was committed to the overthrow of the capitalist state and the victory of the dictatorship of the proletariat.

Also, a split was inevitable. Months before the Halle Congress of the USPD local branches and districts were clearly withdrawing from common work on the basis of the left and right of the party. Party papers and resources were being taken by local branches, and in the run up to the Halle Congress there is an almost cessation of party work by both the right and the left. It should also be clear that the Left did not split away from the USPD, the Left at the Halle Congress won the vote and the right-wing minority walked out and reconstituted USPD.

Devrim

4th August 2010, 13:54

It should also be clear that the Left did not split away from the USPD, the Left at the Halle Congress won the vote and the right-wing minority walked out and reconstituted USPD.

Shush, it will upset Jacob's cosy worldview. Of course it is well know that the left had the majority and the right expelled them, just as equally so later within the KPD itself, the minority expelled the majority of the membership, which later formed the KAPD.

However, none of this fits with his ideas about ultra-left splitters at all.

Devrim

Die Neue Zeit

4th August 2010, 14:10

I think you are placing unity before programme Die Neue Zeit.

The program re-adopted was the Erfurt Program.

Also, a split was inevitable. Months before the Halle Congress of the USPD local branches and districts were clearly withdrawing from common work on the basis of the left and right of the party. Party papers and resources were being taken by local branches, and in the run up to the Halle Congress there is an almost cessation of party work by both the right and the left. It should also be clear that the Left did not split away from the USPD, the Left at the Halle Congress won the vote and the right-wing minority walked out and reconstituted USPD.

My main critique is levelled at the KPD and KAPD outside the USPD before the Halle Congress, not what was left of the left - or center (as opposed to the right-wing) - in the USPD. What Lenin should have written in LWC was that the KPD and KAPD fold back into the USPD leading up to the Halle Congress. That congress could have then passed a majoritarian resolution to kick out the SPD-ass-kissing renegades.

For non-revolutionary periods, the USPD model (without right-syndicalists like Ebert, something which Haase and Bernstein were not) was nothing less than "an outstanding role model for left politics today" which "paid attention to the daily demands and needs of workers without yielding its claim to revolutionary, anti-capitalist politics." (http://www.revleft.com/vb/uspd-current-views-t136732/index.html)

4th August 2010, 14:43

It should also be clear that the Left did not split away from the USPD, the Left at the Halle Congress won the vote and the right-wing minority walked out and reconstituted USPD.

If that was the case, shouldn't the leftwing have taken the name, party structures and following of the USPD instead of starting from scratch?

Die Neue Zeit

4th August 2010, 14:55

Remember, though: they wanted to join the Communist International, and one of the conditions was to adopt the Communist label. Those leftists who wanted to be independent of the Comintern (especially the center of the USPD) should have forcibly taken the name, party structures, and following of the USPD instead of tailing the ultra-left KPD.

Devrim

4th August 2010, 14:56

If that was the case, shouldn't the leftwing have taken the name, party structures and following of the USPD instead of starting from scratch?

No because they were trying to reconsitute themselves as a communist party.

Devrim

4th August 2010, 15:08

Remember, though: they wanted to join the Communist International, and one of the conditions was to adopt the Communist label.

No because they were trying to reconsitute themselves as a communist party.

Devrim

True, I think this demand was rather stupid and made the communists lose mass support in several countries (France, Italy...), while that wasn't needed. Also, to respond to Devrim, a relabling from USPD to KPD was more cosmetical than anything else as far as I understand.

Those leftists who wanted to be independent of the Comintern (especially the center of the USPD) should have forcibly taken the name, party structures, and following of the USPD instead of tailing the ultra-left KPD.
In 1920, at the Halle conference, that would have been a mistake. The Russian revolution was happening, Germany was in turmoil and you think the best course of action woul be to remain independent from the comintern? I would rather say that Moscow had to be more flexible in regard to the naming question of existing organisations instead of forcing parties the world over to start from scratch under a cosmetical communist flag.

Serge's Fist

4th August 2010, 16:59

I am not sure whether it was necessary to junk the name, names are not important and instead of branding exercise the key point of the USPD left joining the Comintern was to put organisational weight onto the KPD. In any of these situations whether big splits or even little ones, politics has to be the prime driving force. There was no chance of an organisation that straddled the divide between the SPD and the Comintern could have lasted much longer. Eventually there had to be a point where a decision was made whether the USPD was for the world revolution and the dictatorship of the proletariat or social democracy. The victory at the Halle Congress seems somewhat bitter-sweet as the USPD did have a mass following and the KPD especially in its ealy years had a tendency to alienate wokers not bring them under communist leadership. But I think many of the young communist parties in the 20's had this problem, so in many ways the KPD is not unique to the problems faced by the Comintern during this period.

Anyways, I hope all of you buy Ben Lewis' book when it is released in the next few months, which directly deals with the Halle Congress and what actually happened.

Also are you arguing that the Erfurt Programme, with its clear deficiency with regards to the state was a programme superior to that of the KPD?

DunyaGongrenKomRevolyutsi

4th August 2010, 20:23

My main critique is levelled at the KPD and KAPD outside the USPD before the Halle Congress, not what was left of the left - or center (as opposed to the right-wing) - in the USPD. What Lenin should have written in LWC was that the KPD and KAPD fold back into the USPD leading up to the Halle Congress. That congress could have then passed a majoritarian resolution to kick out the SPD-ass-kissing renegades.

And in 1918-1919? What do you think should have happened before the Halle congress, that was what I was trying to understand, as opposed to after the revolution had been crushed.

Do you think that the USPD, 'democratically' talking with the SPD who wanted to completely liquidise opposition in Germany were doing the right thing and that the KPD should have put up with that?

Die Neue Zeit

5th August 2010, 05:33

There was no chance of an organisation that straddled the divide between the SPD and the Comintern could have lasted much longer. Eventually there had to be a point where a decision was made whether the USPD was for the world revolution and the dictatorship of the proletariat or social democracy.

But the revolutionary period had passed.

Also are you arguing that the Erfurt Programme, with its clear deficiency with regards to the state was a programme superior to that of the KPD?

I don't recall the KPD having had a formal program. Also, the Erfurt Program did need a few changes here and there, but that could and should have been arranged at the Halle Congress.

Serge's Fist

5th August 2010, 10:09

The high point of the revolutionary period had passed but it was only a few years until the German state was brought to breaking point. In anticipation of such a coming storm and the ongoing revolutionary struggles of workers in Germany it was important to build an organisation that was clear on reform or revolution, dictatorship of the proletariat or bourgeois democracy and the nature of the state. The USPD was a centrist organisation (and not in the good Second International way either) its existence was predicated on the interwar period that had thrown up a clear battle within the workers movement. Those who are for revolutionary struggle and the overthrow of capital or those who wish to seize the state and be at the bidding of the capitalists to send millions to their deaths.

The KPD was part of the Comintern, a body that had a clear programme. Also if I remember correctly the KPD did have a programme, I remember reading of Brandler's submissions to the Comintern on an the creation of an Action Programme for Germany which included in some way transitional demands. There is the KPD's 1918 programme on MIA: Programm Der Kommunistischen Partei Deutschlands (http://www.marxists.org/deutsch/geschichte/deutsch/kpd/1918/programm.htm) whether this was still in use after Halle I do not know, something that would be good to research.

Tower of Bebel

5th August 2010, 14:48

The KPD adopted a programme in de winter of 1918/19. This was not the Spartacus programme although the writer of it was Rosa Luxemburg. It contains a set of minimum demands but breaches the distinction between both minimum and maximum by stating that its goal is the immediate implementation of "socialism". Clearly Luxemburg's take on bridging the distinction is not Trotsky's, though the approaches of Luxemburg, The early Comintern and Trotsky contain similarities.

Serge's Fist

5th August 2010, 14:54

New Weekly Worker is now online with three articles dealing with the history of the CPGB.

We have published articles and extracts from The Call, the paper of the British Socialist Party which deals with the Russian Civil War: Hands Off Russia (http://www.cpgb.org.uk/article.php?article_id=1004056)

There is a review by Lawrence Parker of the biography of Arthur Horner written by Nina Fishman: Coal and Clausewitze (http://www.cpgb.org.uk/article.php?article_id=1004053)

And lastly from the Weekly Worker there is my brief biography of Tom Mann: A Class Act (http://www.cpgb.org.uk/article.php?article_id=1004057)

Comrades may also be interested to read a chapter from the now out of print book by Raymond Challinor 'The Origins of British Bolshevism' which deals with the SLP and the the moves to unity on the Commune website: Ninety years of the communist party (http://thecommune.wordpress.com/2010/08/02/ninety-years-of-the-communist-party/)

The Morning Star's CPB finished their Communist University on August 1 with a revised version of the British Road to Socialism, you can see reports of their events on their website (http://communist-party.org.uk/). I do hope they filmed the session on programme, I can't wait to see how they explain moving from the revolutionary overthrow of the capitalist state to propping up the state as a junior partner to the Labour Party.

Serge's Fist

5th August 2010, 14:56

Die Neue Zeit

6th August 2010, 05:52

The Morning Star's CPB finished their Communist University on August 1 with a revised version of the British Road to Socialism, you can see reports of their events on their website (http://communist-party.org.uk/). I do hope they filmed the session on programme, I can't wait to see how they explain moving from the revolutionary overthrow of the capitalist state to propping up the state as a junior partner to the Labour Party.

If the senior partner were a proletarian-not-necessarily-communist party and not some bourgeois or petit-bourgeois worker party, then the idea of a communist worker party being a junior partner to or a minority tendency in the PNNC united under a Marxist minimum program is quite reasonable.

The KPD adopted a programme in de winter of 1918/19. This was not the Spartacus programme although the writer of it was Rosa Luxemburg. It contains a set of minimum demands but breaches the distinction between both minimum and maximum by stating that its goal is the immediate implementation of "socialism". Clearly Luxemburg's take on bridging the distinction is not Trotsky's, though the approaches of Luxemburg, The early Comintern and Trotsky contain similarities.

I read it just now, and except for wordings here and there it looks very similar, in fact, to the "maximalist" program of the KAPD.

Victory

6th August 2010, 07:07

Lets just make the point clear that the CPGB of today is an entirely different party than the one 90 years ago.

I also think the CPGB's front "Hands off the Iranian People" is completely reactionary.
At this current stage, the Iranian Regime is progressive for the Communist Movement worldwide because it is staunchly against US imperialism. A blow to US imperialism is a victory for Socialism. Yet people think that because Iran is an oppressive regime, that it is automaticly "more bad". This is not true, it is progressive because it's resisting US imperialism.

Serge's Fist

6th August 2010, 09:09

Die Neue Zeit,

Such a scenario is only conceivable in a vaccuum where history and the development of the movement does not impact on what these social democratic organisation are. Is it plausible that the Labour Party would support the minimum programme in any way? The disbanding of the army or the arming of the people? No, whilst we may get a left-wing leadership that would like to have a repeat of the Atlee government but can Labourism go any further? Especially when the bourgeoisie of the west is not seeking to buy off the working class to stop revolutionary movements emerging?

Victory,

The CPGB of 1920 and 2010 have more in common with each other in terms of politics than any other group claiming the tradition of the CPGB in 1920. After the liquidationists dissolved the CPGB in 1991 it was only the older members of the current CPGB who were left, and stated that the Eurocommunists could take their membership of the CPGB away and constituted a provisional central committee to attempt to reforge the party, but on clear revolutionary lines. The CPGB today does differ from the CPGB in 1920 in many ways and that is something we have sought to bring out in the articles we have printed over the last two weeks. We are thankfully not the same party that existed prior to 1991, it was a disgusting organisation crippled by stalinist reformism and Labourism.

It is a remarkable feat of ignorance that in the age of the internet comrades do not do even some basic reading before passing judgement on an organisation. Hands Off the People of Iran was established by a call from Iranian exiles in Britain, Europe and Turkey involved in different Iranian working class organisations. The CPGB got involved then, has held a minority at every conference and also on the steering committee. HOPI is first and foremost an anti-war campaign that clearly states that "the main enemy is imperialism". As an anti-imperialist campaign we recognise that it is only the working class that are the most consistent fighters against imperialism. The Islamic Republic is not an anti-imperialist force, it has done and continues to aid the occupations of Iraq and Afghanistan, and continues with the help of the Turkish government to bomb and oppress the Kurdish people.

Nowhere have we ever said that Iran is worse than the USA or many other regimes. We are the only organisation in Britain that is running a national anti-sanctions campaign that is based in the organisations of the working class.

How is Iran "progressive"? Do you know what the regime would do to a stalinist like you? They would hang you. It is a joke when simple minded stalinists in the west defend the Iranian regime, it is a lot easier to celebrate and support the mass murder of communists and oppositionists by "anti-imperialist" regimes when you're so far away isn't it. I suggest you come to a HOPI meeting and meet some Iranian communists and learn what is actually going on in Iran, and what we need to do in the UK.

Die Neue Zeit

6th August 2010, 14:25

Serge's Fist

6th August 2010, 15:37

I wasn't referring to the Labour Party as the senior partner in any scenario, actually. I just don't see it implementing the minimum program as per my previous posts (juries replacing judges entirely, demarchy / random selection, average skilled workers' standard of living, parallel recallability, freedom of workers' class-strugglist assembly and association, etc.).

The vehicle for such a minimum program could (not necessarily would) potentially be a new Left Party, implementing that program while at least rhetorically committed to "overthrowing capitalism" (so think Paris Commune politically + Oskar Lafontaine economically).

Ok, now I understand what you mean. Considering what we have as the minimum programme, which is the coming to power of the working class and the content of that rule could Die Linke ever be a partner in carrying such a programme out? Considering where Die Linke has come from it is not a stretch to say they would defend the existing state institutions against revolutionary movements, so I am still not convinced that it could happen in such a way.

Die Neue Zeit

7th August 2010, 01:27

Ok, now I understand what you mean. Considering what we have as the minimum programme, which is the coming to power of the working class and the content of that rule could Die Linke ever be a partner in carrying such a programme out? Considering where Die Linke has come from it is not a stretch to say they would defend the existing state institutions against revolutionary movements, so I am still not convinced that it could happen in such a way.

I wasn't referring to Die Linke, either. What I meant to say was that a PNNC could use the brand label "Left Party" for combining the Marxist minimum program with at least left-reformist economic measures (and more, per Lafontaine's bank nationalization stuff).

Go look up something called "Ricardian Socialism" or "Economic Republicanism" to see the basis of a PNNC's economic program:

http://www.revleft.com/vb/prospects-russian-revolution-t126942/index.html?p=1719523

Victory

7th August 2010, 02:42

How is Iran "progressive"? Do you know what the regime would do to a stalinist like you? They would hang you. It is a joke when simple minded stalinists in the west defend the Iranian regime, it is a lot easier to celebrate and support the mass murder of communists and oppositionists by "anti-imperialist" regimes when you're so far away isn't it. I suggest you come to a HOPI meeting and meet some Iranian communists and learn what is actually going on in Iran, and what we need to do in the UK.

If you read my post, you would see why it is progressive.
I am well aware that the Iranian regime would hang me. However, due to the fact Iran is opposing US Imperialism and is placing a serious problem for it, because as I said, a blow to US imperialism is a victory for Socialism.

You are letting your emotional feelings get in the way of rational thinking.
I don't support the Iranian Regime. But I see it as a progressive movement because it's actually doing more for Socialism than not by resisting US imperialism.

And by the way, I'm not a Stalinist. Good try on that though.

Victory

7th August 2010, 02:44

Serge's Fist

7th August 2010, 13:32

If you read my post, you would see why it is progressive.
I am well aware that the Iranian regime would hang me. However, due to the fact Iran is opposing US Imperialism and is placing a serious problem for it, because as I said, a blow to US imperialism is a victory for Socialism.

You are letting your emotional feelings get in the way of rational thinking.
I don't support the Iranian Regime. But I see it as a progressive movement because it's actually doing more for Socialism than not by resisting US imperialism.

And by the way, I'm not a Stalinist. Good try on that though.

Note; I also never claimed Iran was "Anti-Imperialist". I claimed it was opposing US imperialism, the biggest problem in delaying Socialism.

I read your post and it was ahistorical and lacking in any justification apart from it is under threat from the USA. Quick history lesson, Iran supported the invasions of Iraq and Afghanistan, supports both puppet regimes and was central in ending the resistance in Iraq against the US-led occupation. You can oppose sanctions and military actions on Iran whilst supporting the struggles within Iran against the theocratic regime. In fact you cannot be a consistent anti-imperialist if you do not support the only force within Iran that is capable of defeating imperialism. The central task in the West is to organise opposition to our governments involvement in the strangling of Iran and the preparations for bombings. Our next task is to build solidarity internationally, not for the murderous regime but those fighting the Islamic Republic. It is a key internationalist duty to build a pole of support and attraction for the workers movement in Iran, if we do not build solidarity and aid their stuggles. Other forces will, the USA has pumped money into all kinds of opposition groups, we must ensure that is undermined through genuine class solidarity. This is a rational internationalist approach, anything else you either fall into the trap of supporting those who crushed the working class in Iran or the imperialists. Neither are sensible strategic or principled positions to hold.

You're not a stalinist? Sorry the Castro picture, the Guevara quote and the stalinist position on Iran is like a big flashing arrow over you're head with stalinist written on it....

Tower of Bebel

15th August 2010, 22:16

I've made a mistake in my earlier post. The first programme of the KPD was the programme of the Spartacist ligue. In English it's well known under the name "What does the Spartacist league want? (http://www.marxists.org/archive/luxemburg/1918/12/14.htm)".

Rosa's breach consists of:

- a firm belief in the logic of struggle: the strike is the form of the class struggle towards socialism;
- the replacement of bourgeois state power by the workers' councils and the councils only.

This is still far from a total retreat from the Erfurt programme. The programme is still based on the democratic question, but the logic of struggle and the emphasis on the "economic revolution" tends towards the kind of "transitionalism" that came about in the late mid 20's. See for example the question of working hours (see below). It is still recognized as a political demand but is explained in the economic sense.

In "On the programme" Rosa claims that:

The fight for socialism is the mightiest civil war in world history, and the proletarian revolution must procure the necessary tools for this civil war; it must learn to use them – to struggle and to win.

Such arming of the solid mass of laboring people with all political power for the tasks of the revolution-that is the dictatorship of the proletariat and therefore true democracy. No where the wage slave sits next to the capitalist, the rural proletarian next to the Junker in fraudulent equality to engage in parliamentary debate over questions of life or death, but where the million-headed proletarian mass seizes the entire power of the state in its calloused fist – like the god Thor his hammer – using it to smash the head of the ruling classes: that alone is democracy, that alone is not a betrayal of the people.

The time has arrived when the entire socialist programme of the proletariat has to be established upon a new foundation. We are faced with a position similar to that which was faced by Marx and Engels when they wrote the Communist Manifesto seventy years ago. As you all know, the Communist Manifesto dealt with socialism, with the realization of the aims of socialism, as the immediate task of the proletarian revolution.

[...]

When, after the disillusionments of 1848, Marx and Engels had given up the idea that the proletariat could immediately realize socialism, there came into existence in all countries socialist parties inspired with very different aims. The immediate objective of these parties was declared to be detail work, the petty daily struggle in the political and industrial fields. Thus, by degrees, would proletarian armies be formed, and these armies would be ready to realize socialism when capitalist development had matured. The socialist programme was thereby established upon an utterly different foundation, and in Germany the change took a peculiarly typical form. Down to the collapse of August 4, 1914 (http://www.marxists.org/glossary/events/w/ww1/germany.htm#fsd), the German Social Democracy took its stand upon the Erfurt programme (http://www.marxists.org/glossary/terms/e/r.htm#erfurt-programme), and by this programme the so-called immediate minimal aims were placed in the foreground, whilst socialism was no more than a distant guiding star. Far more important, however, than what is written in a programme is the way in which that programme is interpreted in action.

[...]

Our programme is deliberately opposed to the leading principle of the Erfurt programme; it is deliberately opposed to the separation of the immediate and so-called minimal demands formulated for the political and economic struggle, from the socialist goal regarded as a maximal programme. It is in deliberate opposition to the Erfurt programme that we liquidate the results of seventy years evolution, that we liquidate, above all, the primary results of the war, saying we know nothing of minimal and maximal programmes; we know, only, one thing, socialism; this is the minimum we are going to secure.

There's an element of "the logic of struggle" contained in Rosa's reasoning:

Now, I regard it as the very essence of this revolution that strikes will become more and more extensive, until they constitute at last the focus of the revolution. (Applause) Thus we shall have an economic revolution, and therewith a socialist revolution. The struggle for socialism has to be fought out by the masses, by the masses alone, breast to breast against capitalism; it has to be fought out by those in every occupation, by every proletarian against his employer. Thus only can it be a socialist revolution.

[...]

What is the external form of struggle for socialism? The strike, and that is why the economic phase of development has come to the front in the second act of the revolution. This is something on which we may pride ourselves, for no one will dispute with us the honour. We of the Spartacus Group, we of the Communist Party of Germany, are the only ones in all Germany who are on the side of the striking and fighting workers.

[...]

What general tactical considerations must we deduce from this? How can we best deal with the situation with which we are likely to be confronted in the immediate future? Your first conclusion will doubtless be a hope that the fall of the Ebert-Scheidemann government is at hand, and that its place will be taken by a declared socialist proletarian revolutionary government. For my part, I would ask you to direct your attention, not to the apex, but to the base. We must not again fall into the illusion of the first phase of the revolution, that of November 9; we must not think that when we wish to bring about a socialist revolution it will surfice to overthrow the capitalist government and to set up another in its place. There is only one way of achieving the victory of the proletarian revolution.

We must begin by undermining the Ebert-Scheidemann government, by destroying its foundations through a revolutionary mass struggle on the part of the proletariat. Moreover, let me remind you of some of the inadequacies of the German revolution, inadequacies which have not been overcome with the close of the first act of the revolution. We are far from having reached a point when the overthrow of the government can ensure the victory of socialism. I have endeavoured to show you that the revolution of November 9 was, before all, a political revolution; whereas the revolution which is to fulfill our aims, must, in addition, and mainly, be an economic revolution.

[...]

We have to seize power, and the problem of the seizure of power assumes this aspect; what, throughout Germany, can each workers and soldiers council achieve? (Bravo!) There lies the source of power. We must mine the bourgeois state and we must do so by putting an end everywhere to the cleavage in public powers, to the cleavage between legislative and executive powers. These powers must be united in the hands of the workers and soldiers councils.

[...]

The masses must learn how to use power, by using power. There is no other way. We have, happily, advanced since the days when it was proposed to “educate” the proletariat socialistically. Marxists of Kautsky’s school are, it would seem, still living in those vanished days. To, educate the proletarian masses socialistically meant to deliver lectures to them, to circulate leaflets and pamphlets among them. But it is not by such means that the proletarians will be schooled. The workers, today, will learn in the school of action.

The programme states:

I. As immediate measures to protect the Revolution:

Disarmament of the entire police force and of all officers and nonproletarian soldiers; disarmament of all members of the ruling classes.
Confiscation of all weapons and munitions stocks as well as armaments factories by workers’ and soldiers’ councils.
Arming of the entire adult male proletarian population as a workers’ militia. Creation of a Red Guard of proletarians as an active part of the militia for the constant protection of the Revolution against counter-revolutionary attacks and subversions.
Abolition of the command authority of officers and noncommissioned officers. Replacement of the military cadaverdiscipline by voluntary discipline of the soldiers. Election of all officers by their units, with right of immediate recall at any time. Abolition of the system of military justice.
Expulsion of officers and capitulationists from all soldiers’ councils.
Replacement of all political organs and authorities of the former regime by delegates of the workers’ and soldiers’ councils.
Establishment of a revolutionary tribunal to try the chief criminals responsible for starting and prolonging the war, the Hohenzollerns, Ludendorif, Hindenburg, Tirpitz, and their accomplices, together with all the conspirators of counter-revolution.
Immediate confiscation of all foodstuffs to secure the feeding of the people.

II. In the political and social realm:

Abolition of all principalities; establishment of a united German Socialist Republic.
Elimination of all parliaments and municipal councils, and takeover of their functions by workers’ and soldiers’ councils, and of the latter’s committees and organs.
Election of workers’ councils in all Germany by the entire adult working population of both sexes, in the city and the countryside, by enterprises, as well as of soldiers’ councils by the troops (officers and capitulationists excluded). The right of workers and soldiers to recall their representatives at any time.
Election of delegates of the workers’ and soldiers’ councils in the entire country to the central council of the workers’ and soldiers’ councils, which is to elect the executive council as the highest organ of the legislative and executive power.
Meetings of the central council provisionally at least every three months – with new elections of delegates each time – in order to maintain constant control over the activity of the executive council, and to create an active identification between the masses of workers’ and soldiers’ councils in the nation and the highest governmental organ. Right of immediate recall by the local workers’ and soldiers’ councils and replacement of their representatives in the central council, should these not act in the interests of their constituents. Right of the executive council to appoint and dismiss the people’s commissioners as well as the central national authorites and officials.
Abolition of all differences of rank, all orders and titles. Complete legal and social equality of the sexes.
Radical social legislation. Shortening of the labor day to control unemployment and in consideration of the physical exhaustion of the working class by world war. Maximum working day of six hours.
Immediate basic transformation of the food, housing, health and educational systems in the spirit and meaning of the proletarian revolution.