which party to join?

[socialist_chick]

I live in Scotland so I thought I should join the SSP but someone told me they were reformist, is there any alternatives? <_<

[Sandanista]

Oh there are thousands in britain ranging from the bullshit reformism of the SSP to the outright craziness of the International Bolshevik Tendency and back in time to the 1930&#39;s with the Spartacus League.

Obviously i would suggest u join the party im about to join, the Socialist Party of Great Britain.

Check out their website http://www.spgb.co.uk and read their declaration of principles and read some of their stuff.

Im from Scotland too comrade and was in the SWPlatform in the SSP, and I have just left them.

Where abouts are u in scotland?

[il Commy]

Here&#39;s a link to a page at the "Broad Left" site of left parties in Europe. Go to &#39;Great Britian&#39; and browse through the list of links. I personaly recommend "Socialist Party", because it&#39;s a part of the CWI international movment which I have the deepest appreciation for. "Socialist Appeal" is also a part of a good world movment, the CMI.

Broad Left - http://www.broadleft.org/westeuro.htm
Socialist Party - http://www.socialistparty.org.uk/
Socalist Appeal - http://www.socialist.net/

[socialist_chick]

Thanx

I am from Dundee, and you

[Saint-Just]

There are lots, here are some others:

New Communist Party
Communist Party of Britain
Revolutionary Communist Party of Great Britain M-L
Socialist Labour Party

All the people who replied to you are Trotskyites and referred you to Trotskyite parties.#

The ones I mentioned are the only ones I might recomment. SLP is dieing though. CPB are a little revisionist. RCPGB M-L are dogmatic. i.e. they only support the USSR and socialist Albania, not totally true. The RCPGB don&#39;t have many members either.

[socialist_chick]

What is a revisionist, any arent these parties tiny and irrelivant?

[Saint-Just]

Revisionist means they revise Marxism-Leninism. They say when Marx and Lenin were alive things were different etc. Which means they&#39;ll say for example, we should still have a multi-party democracy and private enterprise. That the USSR etc. were not socialist.

Every leftist party in the UK is small and irrelevant. Thats why I have not joined any of them. The Socialist Worker&#39;s Party is perhaps the biggest, but even that has a small number of members. The parties that gain votes are the Socialist Alliance and Socialist Labour Party, they stand in most costituencies but only ever gain a few hundred votes.

Choose a party that reflects your views. What are your views? Are you simply a socialist? A Marxist, Marxist-Leninist? Do you support Stalin, Mao, Che. Or, are you a Trotskyist.

I choose not to join any of these parties as I am already a member of a leftist organisation, although not a political party.

[stonerboi]

Communist Party of Great Britain (CPGB)

www.cpgb.org.uk

They are the only non-Stalinist party which is not Maoist or Trotskyist&#33;

The CPGB are communist and follow Marx, Engles and Lenin, but only take SOME of the ideas of other communist thinkers like Luxemburg and Trotsky.

Thus they do not give themselves sectarian titles (ie: Trotskyist and Stalinist) and are thus a healthy break from the factionalism of the far-left.

[Collective]

The SWP and Communist Party of Britain are the biggest parties I believe.

The CPGB is a small sect that is highly sectarian. Just read their paper, the Weekly Worker and you&#39;ll see how ridiculous it is.

Personally I&#39;d go with the Communist Party of Britain. They&#39;re growing and are extending their influence (eg the Chair of the Stop The War Coalition was a leading member). They accomodate a broad range of opinion and are best described simply as &#39;communist&#39;. The paper, the Morning Star, is being rebuilt after the collapse of the original CPGB in the 1980&#39;s and is the worlds only english language working class daily. It is like a real newspaper with actual news not just attacks on other left groups (which is what socialist papers tend to be in Britain) and is I think the only socialist paper with a real readership.

I think they are the party to be taken most seriously. Tony Benn called the CPB a &#39;university of socialism&#39;. If you consider yourself a &#39;trotskyite&#39; or &#39;stalinist&#39; go with any of the sects. If you just call yourself a communist or socialist go with the CPB.

http://www.communist-party.org.uk/

[Comrade Raz]

Originally posted by [email protected] 3 2003, 03:24 PM
Personally I&#39;d go with the Communist Party of Britain. They&#39;re growing and are extending their influence (eg the Chair of the Stop The War Coalition was a leading member). They accomodate a broad range of opinion and are best described simply as &#39;communist&#39;. The paper, the Morning Star, is being rebuilt after the collapse of the original CPGB in the 1980&#39;s and is the worlds only english language working class daily. It is like a real newspaper with actual news not just attacks on other left groups (which is what socialist papers tend to be in Britain) and is I think the only socialist paper with a real readership.

I think they are the party to be taken most seriously. Tony Benn called the CPB a &#39;university of socialism&#39;. If you consider yourself a &#39;trotskyite&#39; or &#39;stalinist&#39; go with any of the sects. If you just call yourself a communist or socialist go with the CPB.

http://www.communist-party.org.uk/
They sound like the kind of party i&#39;d be interested in joining but that site cannot be found are you sure it&#39;s not an old link etc.

[Comrade Raz]

It works now, sorry&#33;

Are they revolutionary or reformists?

[guerrillaradio]

All the UK parties are fucked and full of *****ing infighting, just like the left in general. In fact, the idea of joining a party seems ridiculous to me. Don&#39;t bother. I was harassed into joining the SWP last year (anyone whose been on a big demo in the UK will know what I&#39;m talking about), but I didn&#39;t renew my membership.

Alan :ph34r:

[Collective]

All the UK parties are fucked and full of *****ing infighting, just like the left in general. In fact, the idea of joining a party seems ridiculous to me. Don&#39;t bother. I was harassed into joining the SWP last year (anyone whose been on a big demo in the UK will know what I&#39;m talking about), but I didn&#39;t renew my membership.

That&#39;s what I think is attractive about the CPB. They&#39;re the only party I&#39;ve seen that don&#39;t take part in that.


Are they revolutionary or reformists?

Revolutionary, however right now they advocate building a mass movement and getting a socialist majority in parliament because the situation doesn&#39;t exist for a more agressive struggle in Britain. That is a tactic, not a principle. I mean they support armed struggle and revolution abroad but just don&#39;t believe it is suitable to Britain at the current time and thefore the labour movement is the brightest option for us to use.

I agree with that view. The objective conditions for revolution are absent today in Britain and so the peaceful route is the only one, with the party and movement acting as a catalyst for bringing about socialism. However if the situation changed there may come a time when the peaceful struggle is abandoned.

[Saint-Just]

The CPB want to gain power not by standing for election but by influencing the Labour Party. They want to influence it through the trade unions by getting their people to be influential in the trade unions. Then from that the trade unions will influence the Labour Party.

You are right they don&#39;t support Stalin, or Mao and are not Trotskyist. This is because they are revisionist but see Trotsky as unimportant.

There are Juche Idea Study Group members in the CPB though.

[stonerboi]

Collective, I used to be a member of the CPB but left becuase they WERE reformist.

Like Chairman Mao (the forum user that is) said, they want to influence the Labour Party and the CPB do not get involved in any struggles (student, gay liberation, womens liberation or anti-capitalism) and their only contribution to the anti-war movement is the STWC chair Alan Simpson.

The CPB have fucked up the anti-war movement by siding with the SWP position of aligning themselves to far-right Islamic clerics, as if somehow the clerics can speak for the muslim masses. What the CPB have done is to take out the class stuggle element out of the anti-war movement and insted give a platform for fundamentalism.

The CPB also sticks to a now very out of date &#39;British Road to Socialism&#39;. This is a mixture of reformist social democratic/eurocommunism and Stalinism.

It is based on the situation in Britain in the 1970s, when the Labour Party was a little bit more left-wing and there were many strikes and the unions had a lot more power both in members and within the law. Basically the CPB still thinks we are in the 1970s and has not even reconised the impact of Thatcherism and other events in the last three decades.

When I was with the CPB they never did demos, meetings, socialist education and they never ask you for your opinions. They are like the SWP but without the activism&#33;

The Mornig Star is the most popular leftist paper and is a daily, but it isn&#39;t actually the CPB newspaper like Socialist Worker is to the SWP. The Morning Star is just SUPPORTIVE of the CPB and is actually independent of the party.

Also you bring Tony Benn into this. Well like all so called &#39;leftists&#39; inside Labour, they like to talk socialism but NEVER do anything about it. The likes of Benn and Corbyn are to keep the workers tied to capitalist Labour when Labour loses its appeal to the working class, like it is under Blair. So Benn comes along to rescue Labour by rallying the workers around with a few fancy speeches.

Benn and his ilk simply exist to prevent the workers from breaking from Labour, which is what we communists actually want&#33;

Besides if Benn actually thought the CPB were that great he would join them&#33; Obviously the CPB aren&#39;t woth joining in Benn&#39;s opinion&#33;

Lastly Socialist Chick said that he/she would not join the SSP because their REFORMIST, so why would he/she want to join the CPB who are far more reformist than the SSP.

Collective, don&#39;t fall for the immature trick of supporting a party (ie: CPB) because they have the word communist in their name. Look at what they actually stand for&#33; Look at the Iraqi &#39;Communist&#39; Party, it is now COLLABARATING with the US occupation, they are not communist despite their name.

Lastly Collective, don&#39;t be such a fucking hypocrite&#33; You accuse the CPGB of sectarianism yet your post about the CPGB was nothing but sectarian bickering&#33; Yes the CPGB has it&#39;s opinions about the CPB and others, but don&#39;t attack us for sectarianism when you have done so yourself&#33;

Besides calling the CPGB a "little sect" (like the CPB is somehow a large organisation :rolleyes:) what ACTUAL criticisms, (not insults) about the CPGB can you give us.

Practise what you preach&#33;

[il Commy]

Originally posted by Chairman [email protected] 3 2003, 02:29 PM
Every leftist party in the UK is small and irrelevant. Thats why I have not joined any of them.
Than why don&#39;t you work for their unification? In Israel we had three diffrent movments who joined together and formed the Communist Party.

And I still recomend you to join a party who supports the Fourth Internationale. In my view Trotzkyism is the direct successor (I hope that&#39;s the word) of Marxism-Leninism. It calls for a worldwide revolution (like Marx & Engles did on "The Communist Manfesto" and "Principles of Communism") instead of a Stalinist one country revolution. It supports workers&#39; democracy and not bureaucracy&#39;s dictatorship. It objects the "Popular Front" and "Two Stages" destructive theories who brought to the failure of many revolutions (including the Spanish), and supports the idea that only a socialist revolution can win over Facism and achieve self-determination, which was proved correct by the 20&#39;s century.

For more information, "The Transitional Programme" - http://www.marxist.net/trotsky/programme/index.html

[Felicia]

This thread is in practice....it might help you.

http://www.che-lives.com/forum/index.php?a...t=ST&f=7&t=6653 (http://www.che-lives.com/forum/index.php?act=ST&f=7&t=6653)

[Collective]

Okay. First of all the CPB. The CPB comes under a lot of criticism for being reformist, I think it is more a case of realism. The conditions do not exist for socialist revolution today in Britain, anybody can see that. There is not going to be a mass uprising or conflict in the streets while we are in this situation. The working class in Britain lost much of its organisation and unity and is still reeling from the effects of Thatcherism, with the attack continuing under New Labour. What we need to do is rebuild working class organisation, put socialism back on the agenda and awaken the giant, as it were. The unions need to be made more &#39;militant&#39;, the rank of file of Labour - a party with the mass support of the working class - needs to be convinced that adopting a socialist programme is correct and a movement needs to be built. That is exactly what the CPB is doing. You&#39;ll find supporters or the DPRK alongside people who despise Stalin and Kim Il Sung, supporters of China alongside those who loved the USSR. That doesn&#39;t divide them in trying to build a movement capable of bringing about socialism.

The CPB is quietly but surely rebuilding itself, rebuilding the Morning Star readership (which supports Britains Road to Socialism and identifies closely with the party). As it stands, the labour movement and Labour party are the best route open to us. The situation isn&#39;t right for a new mass working class party. The failure of the Socialist Alliance demonstrated that. It got basically nowhere and was full of sectarian troubles. While the various groups were arguing the CPB was just getting on with it. Building a mass movement, a labour movement dedicated to socialism and a Labour party with a socialist programme is the route open to us at the moment. That is purely a practical thing. They do have meetings, education and demos. But they are seriously interested in building a movement capable of bringing about socialism and SWP style activism doesn&#39;t achieve that.

You can say its reformism, but tell me, what are the other parties like the CPGB doing different? Are they in the hills with their rifles? Are they leading general strikes? Are they confronting the state at every turn? Bollocks. They are doing nothing to prove their strategy different to the CPB except trying and failing to form the SA.

As for your assertion that the CPB does "not get involved in any struggles", that is ridiculous. The CPB is heavily involved in all struggles. The difference here is Communist Party members work quietly to build a movement, then don&#39;t turn up and scream "Look at us&#33; We&#39;re communists&#33; Join our party&#33; Buy our paper&#33;" as some seem to do. The CPB is interested in the struggles, not in seeing them as recruiting drives and that is why their profile is lower. The Morning Star is vital in the struggle, and lets face it, although it has the support of groups as wide as the SSP, Greens and unions...it wouldn&#39;t exist without the CPB.

Your criticism of the anti-war movement I find to be totally ultra-leftist and quite bigoted. We were trying to build the broadest movement possible to stop an imperialist war and that involved muslims. People bring islamic fundamentalism into it and it just reveals their own biases. I don&#39;t see anybody raising the issue of bigoted christians who were certainly part of the anti-war movement. There we even Tories involved they say. You go an try to protest with just pure and righteous CPGB and AWL&#39;ers and see if you can get 2 million people on the streets.

As for the CPGB, yes I do think it is a slightly loony little sect. They aren&#39;t a party, just a group, as they admit, ruled by a &#39;provisional central committee&#39;. The Weekly Worker is full of vicious and often ridiculous attacks on other groups and out of all socialist papers is the most sectarian. I can&#39;t believe anybody would be drawn in by it.

The CPB is a serious party who are seriously trying to bring about socialism. You can call realism reformism if you want, but ultra-leftism won&#39;t get us anywhere.

[Invader Zim]

Originally posted by Chairman [email protected] 3 2003, 02:29 PM
Revisionist means they revise Marxism-Leninism. They say when Marx and Lenin were alive things were different etc. Which means they&#39;ll say for example, we should still have a multi-party democracy and private enterprise. That the USSR etc. were not socialist.

Every leftist party in the UK is small and irrelevant. Thats why I have not joined any of them. The Socialist Worker&#39;s Party is perhaps the biggest, but even that has a small number of members. The parties that gain votes are the Socialist Alliance and Socialist Labour Party, they stand in most costituencies but only ever gain a few hundred votes.

Choose a party that reflects your views. What are your views? Are you simply a socialist? A Marxist, Marxist-Leninist? Do you support Stalin, Mao, Che. Or, are you a Trotskyist.

I choose not to join any of these parties as I am already a member of a leftist organisation, although not a political party.
Dont listen to him he eats babies... :P like all Marxist leninists.

But on a serious note as I believe all Marxism in general to be unworkable (not that he was not a great man and all), history has repeatedly proven this. Marxism if it is ever going to work must be heavily adapted to fit the modern world and modern economys and political sitiuation. This is not 1870&#39;s europe after all.

I would join a political party yet I have yet to find one which conforms to my ideology... perhaps I am just looking for perfection? Should I set my sites lower on a lesser party? The only organisation which looked any good was the socialist aliance, because of its attempts to accomodate all socialists, however it is on its last legs so to speak.

If I won the lottery I would create my own party... but as I dont even play the lottery, the chanses of that occuring are remote.

[Moskitto]

I have so far found no party which supports all the issues I support, I have found parties which support a broard base of issues which i support, yet many minor details of those which i don&#39;t, I have found parties I simply disagree with everything except their left-wing nature, I found one party (I believe it was the socialist party) which looked absolutely perfect, however had some very questionable views on northern ireland. Hey, I even found a few conservative party ideas which made alot more sense than some of the labour party crap.

I&#39;d suggest finding a party with ideas you like rather than a party because someone else suggests it to you, if you can&#39;t, then find one with a broad appeal base which isn&#39;t too dogmatic.

[FAB]

I see there is no Maoist Party in UK :unsure: Change that&#33;

[Saint-Just]

&#39; I see there is no Maoist Party in UK Change that&#33; &#39;

Simply join a Marxist-Leninist party; they generally support Mao.


&#39;but as I dont even play the lottery, the chanses of that occuring are remote.&#39;

They are not even remote if you don&#39;t play, AK47.

[Sandanista]

At the end of the day you should go with what ever ur ideology is.

If ur a trotskyite then join the Socialist Appeal Tendency.

If ur a stalinist then join the CPGB (or alternatively shoot urself in the head)

if ur a marxist then join the SPGB

its totally up to u

im from port glasgow btw.

[Moskitto]

Originally posted by Chairman [email protected] 3 2003, 11:01 PM
&#39; I see there is no Maoist Party in UK Change that&#33; &#39;

Simply join a Marxist-Leninist party; they generally support Mao.


&#39;but as I dont even play the lottery, the chanses of that occuring are remote.&#39;

They are not even remote if you don&#39;t play, AK47.
They might be "remote", you might pick up a ticket off the road which just so happens to be a winning ticket.

It&#39;s extremely remote though.

[stonerboi]

[QUOTE]Your criticism of the anti-war movement I find to be totally ultra-leftist and quite bigoted. We were trying to build the broadest movement possible to stop an imperialist war and that involved muslims. People bring islamic fundamentalism into it and it just reveals their own biases. I don&#39;t see anybody raising the issue of bigoted christians who were certainly part of the anti-war movement. There we even Tories involved they say. You go an try to protest with just pure and righteous CPGB and AWL&#39;ers and see if you can get 2 million people on the streets.[QUOTE]

Well for your information Collective, I am half Arab and was until I became an athiest a Muslim. All you have just done is highlighted your own stupidity and ignorance. If you actually had bothered to read my post I said that Muslim fundamentalist clerics are not representative of working class muslims.

We should appeal to the muslim working class, not far-right clerics who would not think twice about putting ALL communists (you included) up against a wall and shot.

Lets just get an overview of the type of people the SWP and CPB align themselves with.

In Iran in 1979, the Tudeh Party (Iranian version of CPB) supported the Ayatollahs path to power on the back of what started as a workers revolution. The clerics steped in and pushed the far-left out of the picture. The first to be shot and tortured were the &#39;ultra-leftists&#39; which sent the Tudeh Party over the moon in a sickening example of petty sectarianism. Ironically a few years later the clerics turned on the Tudeh and they were slaughtered.

In Afghanistan, one of the first thing the Taliban did when takingpower in 1996 was to destroy the graves of Afghans who were communist or worked with the USSR in the PDPA government.

In Algeria many female communists who advocate womens rights, equality and socialist feminism are killed or guned down by Islamists.

So Collective, my opposition to fundamentalism is based upon a belief in upholding justice, equalityand human rights, something the CPB is unable to do or grasp&#33;

The Muslim Working class live with immense inequality and yet what have the clerics you so fanatically defend done for them? Nothing but preach reactionary anti-semtic fundamentalist drivel. The clerics have no desire to improve the lot of the masses as it doesn&#39;t benefit their cause and in their eyes it is better to put up with shit and injustice in this live because according to them something great awaits people in some remote place known as the afterlife.

You also mentioned Christians, yet I was refering to here was the Socialist Alliance not the anti-war movement. Why on earth should socialists share a platform with far-right clerics? This would mean that the Socialist Alliance is no longer left-wing as it would have to compramise on sexism. homophobia. anti-semtism and even basic socialist economics as the clerics favour the free market economy (look at Bin-Laden, the ultimate capitalist). the SWPbacked by the CPB have RUINED the Socialist Alliance because of your insistance with supporting a platform with far-right fundamentalist reaction.

The reason why Islam as opposed to Christianity is the issue here is because of the SWP/CPB project to align with the Islamic clerics. In fact you have played into the hands of the far-right/BNP and Tory media, because thanks to the SWP and CPB the Socialist Alliance is no longer a workers movement but is some nutcase group that is in league with fundamentalist far-right terrorism.

Funny how the CPB and SWP denounce any Leftist guerrilla movements, but have no problem with sitting next to fascist clerics who not only see nothing wrong with killing innocent civilians (many working class and muslim people were killed on Sep. 11th) but who if had the power would kill ALL communist/socialist/feminist/gay people like they have done in Iran and Afghanistan and will do elsewhere if we communists don&#39;t make a stand against them.

You show how RIGHT-WING you and the CPB are if you rejoce at the news that some Tories were at the anti-war demo. The whole POINT of the anti-war demo was not only to show opposition to this war (in Iraq) but to ALL wars and its causes. The Tories do not support this as their governments started many wars (remember Northern Ireland, Gulf War 1, Falklands etc...)
and beside once the bombs start falling they will revert to their typical far-right mentality of &#39;support our boys&#39; bullshit.

If you wanted to know the BNP were opposed to the Iraq war, yet you would probably have rejoced at the news of them being at the anti-war demo as well.

You say that you detest the SWP tactict of being obsessed with recuiting people for the sake of it. Yet you are guilty of the same obsession as you then say that with fascist clerics and the Tories the demo had 2 million people. The message of the demo is MORE important than numbers.

Not accoding to you, as you have no problem holding hands with fascist clerics and Tories, What kind of fucking communist (if you are one at all) are you Collective???

Lastly, you have just shown how out of date and out of touch with reality the CPB really is.

Do you REALLY think that you can not only turn Labour leftwards but actually share government with them???

Yes I mean how could I have been so blind, I mean Tony Blair really is going to give up the almost TOTAL POWER he has in parliament so he can share it with the CPB. Or failing that, along comes some turncoat ***** like Claire Short (I bet the CPB just love her, despite her being the cause of Blair winnig the parliamentary vote on the Iraq war due to her treason). Well with Claire Short in Downing Street with the likes of the CPB being her personel cheerleaders I can so see Britain becoming a socialist soceity :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: &#33;

Yes the CPB are REFORMIST and they are NOT communist, but rather fabians and social democrats who look to the likes of Polly Toyenbee and Jeremy Corbyn than they do to Marx/Engles/Lenin.

The CPB are NOT even a party because they just act as social-democratic cheerleaders for the Labour Party and pick up what little crumbs the LP leave on the floor in order to survive.

the CPB have existed more as a social club for people who have some strange nostalga for 1970s social democracy and have no claim to being a party. At leat the CPGB admits it is a group and is being modest. Yet you pomposly in typical Stalinist manner claim that the CPB is THE workers party, despite you being smaller than the CPGB, having very little left in working class support and having no influence in the tades unions and the LP&#33;

It is only a matter of time before the CPB dissapears(the sooner the better)&#33;&#33;&#33;

[stonerboi]

Sandanista, the CPGB in NOT Stalinist&#33;

Are you confusing the CPGB with the CPB, RCPB(M-L) or the CPB (M-L)?

The CPGB is anti-stalinist, yet we are NOT trotskyite&#33;

Check it out for yourself if you want to.

My Webpage (http://www.cpgb.org.uk)

[Collective]

Okay. I think you are reading too much of the Weekly Worker . I&#39;m obviously not speaking for the CPB here, I&#39;m speaking personally and basing this on what I know and what I can see.

First of the anti-war movement. The anti-war movement was exactly that, something to stop an imperialist war. It was never going to spark revolution, it was never going to be a purely working class thing. For this it was necessary to build an alliance with people who weren&#39;t communists, a popular front against imperialism. If that meant working with the MAB to get muslims in support then so be it. We would rather have 60 million people on the streets actually stopping the war rather than turning it into a communists only club with a few thousand people standing about arguing over whose programme is correct. Stopping imperialism was the priority and that involved compromises, including working with people who were far from communists. It meant traditional muslims marching alongise femenists and homosexuals, it meant CPGB&#39;ers doing sit ins with the LibDems. It wasn&#39;t a communist movement, it was an anti-imperialist movement. Our job was to give the anti-war movement guidance and direction, turn it from merely demanding peace into being anti-imperialist. That is what was done with the STWC, a democratic organisation which was, lets face it, run by socialists.

Never once has a communist, a member of the CPB or SWP or any socialist defended Islamic fundamentalism. The clerics have no support from them nor from me. Muslims were important to the anti-war movement but that doesn&#39;t mean everybody became supporters of Islamic clerics. That is ridiculous. Just in the same way the leadership of christians in the UK were involved, as were working class christians, but that doesn&#39;t mean the CPB or SWP supports christianity. It was a broad alliance, not a socialist movement. It had a working class element, spearheaded by socialists who took the lead in the movement, but we had to build something to actually stop the war, not make a point. As such it was right to work with muslims.

Now on the Socialist Alliance. The SA was made up of people like yourselves who rejected Labour and tried to build a new party with the mass support of the working class. It failed. It failed a the ballot box, in the workplace and as an organisation. Your answer to the current situation didn&#39;t work. You somehow blame the CPB for its failure but the CPB was NEVER involved in the SA. It always said that the time wasn&#39;t right to try to build a left alternative to Labour and so it was best to work within the party. That was unpopular when the SA is formed, now it is being seen more and more as the only option. History has absolved the CPB.

Your assertion that the CPB denounces leftist guerrilla movements shows your lack of knowledge about the party. You&#39;ll notice it sells the journal of the FARC-EP, a contraversial movement many liberals and ultra-leftists oppose. You will find the CPB denouncing terrorism and islam fundamentalism always.

You say,

"The whole POINT of the anti-war demo was not only to show opposition to this war (in Iraq) but to ALL wars and its causes"

I don&#39;t personally believe the thing about Tories but it was an example of how wide an alliance it was. It wasn&#39;t a socialist movement was the point I was trying to make. It wasn&#39;t a pacificist movement to oppose "all wars", the socialist involvment helped ensure that despite being different groups it was anti-imperialist.

Now as for your attacks on CPB policy concerning Labour, as I say, history has absolved them. An attempt to build an alternative, YOUR attempt, failed miserably. You can&#39;t blame Britain&#39;s Communists, they weren&#39;t involved. As it stands therefore the only route open is to unite the labour movement under a socialist platform, defeat New Labour and persuade Labour members to adopt a working class socialist programme. Rather than attacking that offer me another solution. Building an opposition party hasn&#39;t worked because the conditions aren&#39;t right, so what is there to do?


Yet you pomposly in typical Stalinist manner claim that the CPB is THE workers party, despite you being smaller than the CPGB, having very little left in working class support and having no influence in the tades unions and the LP&#33;

That is very ignorant and just unfounded boasting. The CPGB has a hanful of members and is a fraction of the CPB, the latter being along with the SWP amongst the largest parties on the left. The CPB is a party that has been strengthening its routes amongst ordinary people rather than refusing to work with anybody who isn&#39;t communist. Their programme is being looked at in the Labour movement as the ultra-leftists are defeated at conference after conference and the link is kept with labour. They have members in important positions (eg the general council of the TUC) and are extending their influence (Morning Star sales were at their highest for 25 years at conferences this year).

The CPB is an organisation that has a long way to go but is at ease with itself and is certainly growing rather than dying. The new HQ for them and the Morning Star show that. The quicker the little sects start trying to bring about socialism seriously rather than attacking everybody in their papers the better.

[il Commy]

Stonerboi, I know nothing about these parties, but I want to respond to the part in your post objectng an alliance with the Islamists for the anti-war struggle. In my opnion that was a very correct move. Many workers are under the influence of clerics, Muslim ones too. If you wanted to form a big movment against the war, you had to cooporate with all organizations opposing it including ones you oppose or even hate. That doesn&#39;t mean you should build religios muslim parties, that only means you should demonstrate with them on this demands.

We had no problem here demonstrating with Social-Democratic Zionists against pension cuts and no problem demonstrating with muslims against the occupation. For a struggle to succeed it must be united, and especially things like religion or fundementalism shouldn&#39;t disturb it. Plus, by that way we reached many muslims and zionists workers who became farmiliar with Communism through these cooporations.

[stonerboi]

Collective, the point I make about an alliance with the Islamic clerics was in regards to the Socialist Alliance (SA) NOT the anti-war demo&#33;

You are wrong about your party (CPB) not being part of the problems that the SA is facing. For one the SWP is the MAIN culprit in the SA fiasco, because they want to change the SA into a non-socialist movemnt ie: a &#39;popular front&#39;.

The whole POINT of the SA was to be a SOCIALIST alternative to the LP&#33; How can the SA be socialist if it changes its policies to accomodate far-right reaction? The SA should stand for econimic redistribution, equality, anti-racism and justice. These BASIC socialist principles will have to go so the SWP can have its way and cosy up to clerical fascism.

The CPB comes in because the CPB has shown it&#39;s support for the SWP SA/clerical fascism alliance initiative by not only supporting the policy but saying that it might conisder joining this alliance.

The vast majority of SA members, whom are non-SWP OPPOSED the alliance between the SA and the clerics&#33;

Yet the SWP has either ignored the opposition or has used intimdation and in some cases physical provocation to get it&#39;s way. The result has been that Workers Power(WP) and the AWL have both left the SA&#33; The CPGB opposes the SWP form within the SA and many individuals have left in disgust.

Until the SWP fucked everything up things were looking GOOD for the SA, but the last year has been one fucking disaster after another.

The CPB is not a member of the SA yet get their dirty little paws involved by supporting the SWP line. WTF is the CPB doing? Well Collective it seems your pathetic excuse for a party (CPB) has been involved in the SA downfall. Why should the hard work of decent socialists be fucked up by stalinist crazies (SWP) and fucked up from the outside by irrelevant has-beens like the CPB??? I would like you to answer that question Collective&#33;

So it&#39;s very easy for you to say the SA was a failure when the party you belong/support has been involved in that failure&#33;&#33;&#33;

Actually I think the SA is now beyond repair. The CPGB should leave as there is very little to slavage. Let the SWP and the johnny come lateleys (CPB) form their pathetic alliance with the clerics.

The whole thing the SWP and CPB have going is doomed form the start and the SWP and CPB would make quite good bedfellows with the wannabe Osama bin-Ladens, especially as their so close ideologically. I mean there SWP is just power crazy and cannot give a fuck about anything else and the CPB has nothing socialist about it at all, so the CPB shouldn&#39;t have any problems with the rather unsavory ideas of the clerics&#33;

Collective, before I go why don&#39;t you make an effort in your next post to answer the bits of my post that actually catch the CPB and what it stands for out.

I mean instead of ignoring what I said about what the clerics did to socialists/communists in Iran, Algeria and Afghanistan, why don&#39;t you actually dwell on what type of people you actually say we should join forces with. What your are saying is give legitimacy to people who would desecrate your grave because you called yourself a communist&#33;

With that type of thinking why don&#39;t you take it to its logical conclusion and form an alliance with the BNP/NF

Don&#39;t just parrot the bullshit the CPB told you to say, next time answer in your own capacity, because if I want to read bullshit I can go to the CPB website&#33;

[stonerboi]

Many workers are under the influence of clerics, Muslim ones too. If you wanted to form a big movment against the war, you had to cooporate with all organizations opposing it including ones you oppose or even hate.

il-Commy, in Britain the vast majority of muslim workers are NOT fundamentalists. The radical clerics a a VERY small minority and have little support in their own community. I should know because not one of my muslim friends has his/her life dictated to by some cleric.

As for the rest of Britain, only 5% of British people go to church&#33; Britian is a very unreligous country (a good thing in my opinion).

So why, if both Christianity and Islam are weak in Britain, should socialists bend to the will of the clerics (who are all violently anti-communist)? It doesn&#39;t make any sense, but then agian the CPB and SWP never did make any sense&#33; :P

You can only fight for socialism on a CLASS basis not by dividing people between religions and playing them off against each other (the SWP/CPB strategy), thats what capitalists do&#33;

[Collective]

Okay. I&#39;m talking about the anti-war movement when it comes to Muslims, not the SA.

I don&#39;t know how you can blame the CPB for anything to do with the failure of the SA. That is ridiculous. They were never involved, never allied to it, never at its meetings, never supported it. The CPB is NOT allied with the SWP and doesn&#39;t support it. I don&#39;t know where you are getting these ideas from. It doesn&#39;t support the clerics, I&#39;m not even sure the SWP does. Where does that impression come from?

The SWP recently approached the CPB to ask it to join an electoral alliance with it and its "peace and justice" thing. I assume that is what you are talking about? If you paid attention you&#39;d notice tha the CPB declined to join such an alliance.

You are calling the CPB reformist islamic fundamentalists basically. I don&#39;t think I&#39;ve ever heard such ridiculous charges even in the Weekly Worker.

If you want to accuse the CPB of supporting Islamic clerics, working with the SWP and destroying the SA show me some proof. Otherwise you are just making pathetic pointless accusations. I mean, calling the SWP "stalinist" doesn&#39;t make yourself look particularly knowledgable.

[stonerboi]

Collective, as far as I know you have never been a SWP member. The SWP in theory are semi-trotskyist, but in practice their methods are stalinist&#33; Anyone who doesn&#39;t agree with the party line in hounded out and the leadership allow no roon for dissent or a divergence of opinion.

True trotskyism allows for factions and inter-psrty democracy, the SWP has none of that and therefore this political legacy the SWP has comes direct from stalinism.

And yes, I was refering to the so-called &#39;Peace and Justice&#39; project. The SWP is the main force behind it and the CPB HAVE given it support to it. Just look up on your website or the SA website to see for yourself.

If you do not know of CPB involvement in the SA then either you have been asleep for the last year or your extremely stupid (I think the latter)&#33;

Like I said before why should those who put effort into the SA like the AWL, WP, CPGB etc... have to see the SA destroyed by the undemocratic methods of the SWP and the CPB being the SWP cheerleaders on the outside&#33;

The CPB is just a shit little sect made up of pathetic dickheads who have an unhealthy nostalga for the stalinist USSR.

[Collective]

the Socialist Workers Party recently approached the Communist Party with proposals for building a broad &#39;peace and justice&#39; alliance to contest the Greater London Authority and European Parliament elections in 2004.

Such an alliance could draw in people who have participated in the huge anti-war movement, including progressive Muslims and youth who have been alienated by establishment politics in general and by New Labour policies in particular. A peace and justice alliance could provide an electoral focus for widespread anti-New Labour sentiment.

The Communist Party&#39;s executive committee gave full and careful consideration to this proposal at its meeting on July 13-14. We were aware of the major and positive role that the SWP continues to play in the Stop the War Coalition.

But the executive came overwhelmingly to the view that such an alliance would be likely to create confusion and disunity in the labour movement at a crucial time, when the maximum clarity and unity are required. Why so?

Firstly, an anti-New Labour electoral alliance would inevitably come to be seen as an anti-Labour Party alliance. Ironically, this impression would be all the greater the broader the alliance and the more seats it contests.

Such a perception would be reinforced by the well-known and perfectly legitimate aspiration of the SWP and its other partners in the Socialist Alliance to build a mass alternative to the Labour Party. Because they regard the Scottish Socialist Party as just such an alternative north of the border, the proposed alliance would not contest seats in Scotland.

These perspectives are fundamentally different to those of the Communist Party. We regard the fight against New Labour within the labour movement - and therefore within the Labour Party also - as the primary political task in the current period. Therefore Communists could not enter into electoral arrangements which would imply that the Labour Party should be written off, that a mass alternative can or should be constructed at the very time that unions and socialists are striving to reclaim it.

Nor could we implicitly endorse the Scottish Socialist Party&#39;s current political line. Its blanket electoral opposition to all Labour candidates is sectarian and divisive, while its separatist stance would be disastrous for the unity of the British labour movement should the people of Scotland ever embrace it.

The positions taken at the RMT and Bectu conferences, and the understandble anti-Labour mood of many FBU members, show that more clarity and unity remains to be achieved in the labour movement.

The defection of the Communist Party now to what would be unavoidably seen as an anti-Labour Party alliance would sow confusion among our allies, and weaken the drive to unite around the very perspectives shaped and projected by Communists and others.

There is also the danger that any electoral alliance for peace and justice which embraces too many of the leading elements in the Stop the War Coalition could weaken support for the coalition among unions and Labour Party members.

So the Communist Party will continue along its present and increasingly influential trajectory in the labour movement. There will also, again, be a vigorous Communist intervention in the GLA elections to project our programme, which includes the need for the labour movement to fight for an alternative economic and political strategy.

We also understand that there will be no fundamental changes in the political situation in Britain, including in the Labour Party, without higher levels of mass activity on the anti-war, industrial and other fronts. On many issues, the Communist Party is prepared to cooperate with the SWP and other socialists and progressives.

Despite strategic differences, the anti-war movement demonstrates what can be achieved when unity is built on the basis of common aims, openness and mutual respect.

- General Secretary of the CPB, http://www.communist-party.org.uk/home/mod...order=0&thold=0 (http://www.communist-party.org.uk/home/modules.php?op=modload&name=News&file=article&sid=98&mode=thread&order=0&thold=0)

The CPB is not involved in and does not support the "peace and justice" alliance. The CPB refused to be involved. So your information is incorrect.

As for your blaming the CPB for the collapse of the SA, that is again ridiculous. You haven&#39;t shown a scrap of evidence&#33; The CPB was never involved in the bloody project in the first place.

"The CPB is just a shit little sect made up of pathetic dickheads who have an unhealthy nostalga for the stalinist USSR."

In terms of the left in Britain, the CPB is one of the biggest parties there is, as is the SWP. "sect" isn&#39;t exactly accurate. You&#39;ll notice they exist seperatly from the world of the CPGB and AWL, petty sectarian fights between ultra-leftists. I know exactly what you and the AWL and co. are like - absolute loonies. The CPB is effectively the successor of the actual CPGB - the CPGB you belong to is a small bunch (membership once estimated at 50) of Trotskyite ultra-leftists. You&#39;ll notice that the AWL and CPGB ***** and moan because they had no say in the anti-war movement (or any movement for that matter), its because they&#39;ll never get anywhere.

You can stay in that little self contained world of ultra-leftists moaning about their failures and blaming "stalinists" at every turn, or you can get serious about socialism. Its up to you.

[stonerboi]

If you think the SWP is democratic or allows freedom of thought within the party, then think again&#33;

I was a former SWPer but left due to their stalinist manner, you say the SWP is not stalinist, you have no right to say that as you have never been a member so you wouldn&#39;t no any better.

Just join the SWP for ONE month and put forward a few of your own opinions and I can assure you that you will be gagged and if that doesn&#39;t shut you up, they will boot you out.

As for calling the CPGB trotskyist, if you think thats some type of insult your wrong. Trotsky was a sound revolutionary and was the desired choice of Lenin for succesion to the USSR leadership. Trotsky wasn&#39;t the one who destroyed the USSR and killed millions of people and then sign a friendship treaty with Hitler. That was the work of Stalin, a figure which the CPB have never critised or disonwed.

The CPGB isn&#39;t trotskyist it just beliefs that he was a preferable choice to Stalin and that some of his ideas were right. On this forum more people will identify with the CPGB line on Stalins USSR than the CPB line which was just Stalins cheerleader.

So before calling the CPGB whatever ideology, stop being ignorant and actually do your research beofre making ill-informed statements about the CPGB.

As for the fantasy of the CPB being the true heir of the old CPGB, it was you lot who left the party first and were just small split. The CPGB stayed with the party to the end and your CPB was just another splinter like the NCP.

The CPB is a bunch of small and irrelvant old stalinists with not much of a future (thank goodness)&#33;

As for your estimate of the CPGB membership is not only stupid but shows what kind of looney fantasy world you live in&#33; I have been to CPGB meetings and pary membership is in the hundereds.

So next time think before you speak fuckface, ohh I almost forgot you CAN&#39;T think as the CPB leadership does that for you, silly me&#33; :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes:

[ernestolynch]

So tell us stonerboi how the fake-cpgb(pcc) aka the Weekly Worker Party are funded, as they do not have more than two-dozen members.

Not that dry cleaners capitalist businessman is it? Very sketchy.

Also the fake-cpgb&#39;s demands for the removal of the age of consent. A paedophile&#39;s dream.

If you are in league with those NATO-loving, Nazi-supporting AWL then you really have no hope.

Where did Lenin say that he wanted that Menshevik (&#39;Judas Trotsky&#39; as Vlad called him) in charge of the CP? Have you been reading more of Uncle Jack&#39;s bedtime stories? :lol:

[Vinny Rafarino]

Originally posted by [email protected] 6 2003, 01:02 AM
If you think the SWP is democratic or allows freedom of thought within the party, then think again&#33;

I was a former SWPer but left due to their stalinist manner, you say the SWP is not stalinist, you have no right to say that as you have never been a member so you wouldn&#39;t no any better.

Just join the SWP for ONE month and put forward a few of your own opinions and I can assure you that you will be gagged and if that doesn&#39;t shut you up, they will boot you out.

As for calling the CPGB trotskyist, if you think thats some type of insult your wrong. Trotsky was a sound revolutionary and was the desired choice of Lenin for succesion to the USSR leadership. Trotsky wasn&#39;t the one who destroyed the USSR and killed millions of people and then sign a friendship treaty with Hitler. That was the work of Stalin, a figure which the CPB have never critised or disonwed.

The CPGB isn&#39;t trotskyist it just beliefs that he was a preferable choice to Stalin and that some of his ideas were right. On this forum more people will identify with the CPGB line on Stalins USSR than the CPB line which was just Stalins cheerleader.

So before calling the CPGB whatever ideology, stop being ignorant and actually do your research beofre making ill-informed statements about the CPGB.

As for the fantasy of the CPB being the true heir of the old CPGB, it was you lot who left the party first and were just small split. The CPGB stayed with the party to the end and your CPB was just another splinter like the NCP.

The CPB is a bunch of small and irrelvant old stalinists with not much of a future (thank goodness)&#33;

As for your estimate of the CPGB membership is not only stupid but shows what kind of looney fantasy world you live in&#33; I have been to CPGB meetings and pary membership is in the hundereds.

So next time think before you speak fuckface, ohh I almost forgot you CAN&#39;T think as the CPB leadership does that for you, silly me&#33; :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes:
Stonerboi you should be ashamed of yourself spouting all that nonsence about Stalin killing millions&#33; Don&#39;t make me spank you.

You know better, you are just breaking balls I think. They killed the Maoism in britain thread before you got to reply to my post...I recommend reading it as perhaps it may change your view of the Soviet/German pact of non-aggression. You know FULL WELL who destroyed the USSR. It ain&#39;t Trotsky or Stalin. What&#39;s the matter with you today? Did you take a Trotsky pill this morning or something? I fear at this rate you may in the near future blame Stalin for the death of Joe Strummer&#33;

It&#39;s too bad we can&#39;t ask comrade Lenin today who his "REAL" choice for successor was....Unfortunately he&#39;s dead and gone and so is this topic. It means fuck all.

[Collective]

Again of course, if you knew anything about the CPB I expect you&#39;d see their criticism of socialism in eastern europe. But it was socialism. Stalin was a communist. The USSR made huge mistakes and there were criminal acts. The difference is people like you choose to shy away from tackling why that happened and how we have to prevent it while some people are willing to admit our failures and learn from them.

Now, you call the SWP &#39;stalinist&#39;. That just proves that stalinist has become a worthless insult. The SWP has nothing in common with Stalin and indeed identify themselves with Trotsky. They believe the USSR was &#39;state capitalist&#39;. Therefore to call them stalinist shows a lack of understanding at the most basic level.

Your talk of Stalin - as Fidel said, blaming everything on him would be historical simplism. I wouldn&#39;t expect a Marxist to lay everything at one mans door. Attempts to portray the CPB as supporters of Stalin is ridiculous. Of course, some people in the party support him. Some don&#39;t. Some support the DPRK. Some don&#39;t. Some support China. Some don&#39;t. On those issues you have to look at actual policy, which criticises the USSR and eastern europe, and quite rightly. However, it doesn&#39;t disown them.

Here is something quite significant. The CPB split when the actual CPGB was dominated by revisionists who wanted to abandon Marxism-Leninism and the party was tearing itself apart...the &#39;CPGB&#39; stayed with that. Says something about them. And yes, as the comrade points out, anybody in bed with the AWL must have a few screws loose. This isn&#39;t petty sectarianism, the AWL are just completely ridiculous.

I think my estimate of CPGB membership was fair enough. Ultra-leftism has never achieved anything and isn&#39;t likely to.

[stonerboi]

Regardless of what the CPGB relationship with the AWL is I do not support the AWL, so it is pointless to talk of any supposed links between me and the AWL. When I left the SWP i did thought of joining the AWL but when I had a closer look at them I saw that the AWL wasn&#39;t for me.

If you must know the only other party I have respect for is the SPGB and if things didn&#39;t work out for me in the CPGB I would most likely join them. As for Workers Power I do not know enough about them to make an informed comment.

As for the numbers debate, you and me could go on forever about this and I am sure other forum members couldn&#39;t give a fuck about this. However I joined the CPGB because of it&#39;s ideology and what it stood for, not how many members it has, as that outlook is wholly immature.

Regardless of the size of the CPB I would not want to join it because of major disagreements I had with it&#39;s policy and unless there is going to be a massive change of direction (both in policy, tactits and leadership in the CPB) I could not consider them as a viable alternative.

Before being an SWP member I was for nearly a year back in 1999 a CPB member, so when I talked of it not much having activism I can speak with some experience here. I rarley got any post form them and was never told if I wanted to get involved in anything. It may be different now, but thats how I remeber it so you cant really blame me for not having much of an opinion of the CPB.

Collective, as for Stalin you call him a communist, will I would say he was a misguided one. I don&#39;t subscribe to the &#39;state capitalist&#39; theory of Cliff/SWP, even Trotsky didn&#39;t think like that, but I do think that it would be correct to say that after 1929, the USSR became a deformed workers state which hampared the development of socialism and ultimalty laif the root for the USSR&#39;s downfall in 1991.

Yes it is also true that it would be silly just to single out Stalin. There were many people around him who should also take responsibility for what happened to the USSR.

The faults of Stalinism also originated from situations of the time ie:

*The NEP led to the creation of a small lower middle class and this social group must take some resposiblity for shifting power away from the workers and their councils to the state and bueracracy.

*The isolation of the USSR meant it was doomed form the start. Lenin himself said that if workers revolutions fail in Europe, then failure will be the fate of the USSR as well. &#39;Socialism in one country&#39; was Stalin&#39;s biggest mistake and if he dropped this for international socialist revolution then many more people would of identify with Stalin.

As for Ernesto, by all means make valid and informed criticisms of Trotsky, but don&#39;t resort to petty anti-semitism. If all Stalinism can do is anti-semitism, then no wonder why Stalin signed a deal with Hitler&#33;

[Cassius Clay]

Trots and Trotsky himself believed in the theory of &#39;Deformed Workers State&#39; when it came to the USSR. This believe never changed from 1930 to 1991 and even today, despite the fact it&#39;s been well documented what the difference between USSR before 1956 and after was. A correct view of the USSR would be that it was State-Capitalist, it had a few Socialist aspects here and there and was more progressive than the U&#036;A but still Capitalism had been restored and it was only a matter of time before it became official.

I&#39;m a NCP member my self, some call them reformists but since the NCP was orginally formed because it refused to go along with the revisionist &#39;British Road to Socialism&#39; and still believes in violent revolution that claim hardly stands up. Personally I dont like what the NCP is doing regarding Labour, but fighting for democracy within it is hardly the biggest crime in history. I and many others also hold no illussions, even the most progressive in the Labour Party and just social-democrats. Workers and people have the right to take part in elections, and to vote for which candidates we or they think will best represent them, or even for a &#39;lesser evil&#39;. At the same time it should be regonised that any pariliamentary road or peaceful way is totally unrealistic and will contribute very little.

Revolution NOT Reformism.

[Collective]

Maybe I&#39;m missing something here but I don&#39;t see the NCP engaging in armed revolution at all. They are trying the peaceful road like everybody else.

Hypocrites.

[Ben Sir Amos]

How about joining any party and then working to try and change it to the way you want.

All parties will remain crap until activists stop *****ing and join in to do some of the work so that they are taken seriously.

Then we change the party, then we change the world.

If you just hang about on boards then nothing will change - except the arguments will get longer and more detailed and you&#39;ll get fat and a sore bum from sitting down all day.

Go on. Get some exercise. Join something. Anything.

[stonerboi]

Ben Amos, joining anthing and changing it is a nice idea, but in reality things just don&#39;t owrk out like that.

I mean the SWP is the largest group on the left. We could try and change it, but i won&#39;t happen because party democracy is non-existant in the SWP.

[Ben Sir Amos]

Things do work like that.

Militant tried it with the Labor party and weren&#39;t very successful.

But the "modernisers" have tried it with the Labour Party and have had a lot of success.

If enough people had stuck around and worked to retain Clause 4, then the left may have hung onto more influence within the party. But people preferred not to get their hands dirty with the real stuff of politics, preferring to sit in their armchairs and moan.

Charlie Marx was active in party politics and I think we could say that he changed a few things. Fidel stayed with the Orthodoxos(?? I think) and insisted that the 26th of July movement was within the party - the approach of the Militant Tendency (but they weren&#39;t as smart as Fidel).

C&#39;mon. Get off your arses.

[stonerboi]

No. Fiedel left the Orthodoxo party because he saw the futility of trynig to change it.

The right-wing took over Labour with ease coz Labour never was socialist. I was/is/shall always be a capitalist party.

Best just to give up Labour there not woth the effort.

[Collective]

I think the growth of the CPB and its increasing influence is quite clear when it gets McCarthyite attacks on it by the big business press.

This appeared in last Friday&#39;s Times

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/newspaper/0,,...-763248,00.html (http://www.timesonline.co.uk/newspaper/0,,174-763248,00.html)


August 01, 2003

Chairman scorns Communist campaign to reclaim party from No 10
By Tom Baldwin



HARDLINE Communists are seeking to enlist former ministers into a campaign to “reclaim the Labour Party” from Tony Blair.
A Communist Party of Britain paper drawn up in March says it intends to work with MPs and union leaders to “break Blair but not Labour”. It was written by Andrew Murray, a leading member of the CPB, a group known as “tankies” because of their support for the Soviet invasion of Hungary in 1956. It stated: “The net needs to be cast far wider, into the heart of ‘real’ Labour. Glenda Jackson, Peter Kilfoyle, Chris Smith, Frank Dobson and, if they leave government, Clare Short and Robin Cook are the critical figures. The ‘reclaim Labour’ strategy needs to be converted into specific tactical initiatives.”

Since then a “Reclaim the Party” meeting has been organised by the left-wing Campaign Group of MPs.

Ian McCartney, the Labour chairman, warned his party’s members to have nothing to do with people who were not even Labour members seeking to oust Mr Blair. Mr McCartney told The Times: “I’m absolutely certain that if Labour Party members knew this group was trying to manipulate them, they would resist it. There is a lot of rhetoric flying around from people who want to damage the leadership who say ‘reclaim the party’. We should be asking, ‘From what and by whom?’ We have already reclaimed the party from factions who were not interested in having a Labour Government and we will not hand it back.”

Mr Kilfoyle, the former Defence Minister, objected to the hard Left trying to enlist him. “The idea that I would have anything to do with people of that ilk is risible,” he said.


Labour MPs sponsored by the T&G union who are too close to the Prime Minister have been admonished by Tony Woodley, its incoming leader. He told The Spectator. “Our MPs must support our aims, values and priorities. We will review our links with those who don’t.” The MPs include Mr Blair.

[stonerboi]

Collective, what use is Claire Short? She was the one who could have persuaded more MPs to vote against Blair on the Iraq war, but she didn&#39;t resign then and only 139 Labour MPs went against the war. It was useless of her to leave after the war as the damage was done. She COULD have made an impact before the war took place. Had Blair lost the vote he would of resigned.

At least Robin Cook (usually more &#39;new labour&#39; than Short) resigned&#33;

I don&#39;t mind using other Labour figures ie: Cook, Dobson or Kilfoyle, but Short should be shunned out and ignored.

I know MOST people here will agree that Claire Short was a two-faced sellout *****.

Collective, LP rules states that LP members cannot be with other parties (CPB) how does the CPB aim to get round this?

[Ben Sir Amos]

Originally posted by [email protected] 7 2003, 04:24 PM
No. Fiedel left the Orthodoxo party because he saw the futility of trynig to change it.

The right-wing took over Labour with ease coz Labour never was socialist. I was/is/shall always be a capitalist party.

Best just to give up Labour there not woth the effort.
I appreciate that it’s hard to grasp from the comfort of the Che-Lives armchair, but the example of the Labour Party I gave is an example. It is an example of how parties can be changed. I don’t give a toss whether the Labour Party was, is or could ever be socialist. The important thing is that there are socialists in the Labour Party.

My point is that most people who want to have an impact on society tend to do it through parties, rather than on their own. Fidel did leave the Orthodoxos in the end, but not to go and sit on his own. He took his mates with him – and he tried to take the rest of his old party with him. He’s a party animal and when he broke with the Ortodoxos he announced the formation of the 26th of July Movement as separate from the Ortodoxos. He organised from within and then chose his moment to launch the 26th of July. Of course, if he was really smart, he would have seen the futility of trying to overthrow a government with only a dozen men up in the mountains.

If you sit around waiting for Mr Right or Ms Left you’ll be left looking like a boring old fart. Look at the old farts on this board. If it’s not the perfect revolution, they’re not joining in. (Sometime I feel I&#39;ve wandered into a Monty Python script development meeting when I log onto Che-Lives.)

Oh, and you forgot to mention that Karl Marx wasn’t a marxist. Best to give up on the Communist Manifesto then as not worth the effort.

[socialist_chick]

My friend is a Marxist in the Labour party, go to his debate here (http://www.tmfife.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/cgi-bin/yabb/YaBB.pl?board=politics;action=display;num=10570561 21;start=0#0)

[Collective]

Collective, what use is Claire Short? She was the one who could have persuaded more MPs to vote against Blair on the Iraq war, but she didn&#39;t resign then and only 139 Labour MPs went against the war. It was useless of her to leave after the war as the damage was done. She COULD have made an impact before the war took place. Had Blair lost the vote he would of resigned.

At least Robin Cook (usually more &#39;new labour&#39; than Short) resigned&#33;

I don&#39;t mind using other Labour figures ie: Cook, Dobson or Kilfoyle, but Short should be shunned out and ignored.

I know MOST people here will agree that Claire Short was a two-faced sellout *****.

Collective, LP rules states that LP members cannot be with other parties (CPB) how does the CPB aim to get round this?

You see, you are not understanding this. They aren&#39;t supporting Clare Short or Robin Cook or the rest of those people. They aren&#39;t agreeing with what they&#39;ve done or their principles. They are using them to help bring about the defeat of New Labour. Its a strategy, not real support for them.

[socialist_chick]

Lenin often said that communists should give critical support to the LP and work inside it during elections etc. Thats why its in our interests to reclaim it. The CPGB would work with the LP should it swing to the left. Also Socialist Appeal, the Brittish section of the International Marxist Tendency (www.marxist.com) work inside the LP

[Saint-Just]

Originally posted by [email protected] 10 2003, 05:46 PM
Lenin often said that communists should give critical support to the LP and work inside it during elections etc. Thats why its in our interests to reclaim it. The CPGB would work with the LP should it swing to the left. Also Socialist Appeal, the Brittish section of the International Marxist Tendency (www.marxist.com) work inside the LP
That may be true to a certain extent, I am not going to judge it. However, the Labour party has changed quite considerably.

A party such as the SLP could of worked well as an &#39;alternative to the Labour Party&#39; (as it was branded).