Communist parties in the UK?

[Mac]

I currently live in the US but I plan to move to britain in a few years (when I get out of high school). What leftist parties have a good reputation so I will know which to join once I move there?

[Manic Impressive]

It depends which tendency you are, if you're into "STAAALLLLIIIIINNNNN" then I'd say CPGB-ML. If you're a trot probably the SWP are the best choice they're very active and always visible. If you're neither perhaps the SPGB.

[Mac]

Alright then, thank you

[Blake's Baby]

CPB - publishers of 'Morning Star'. Proper old Stalinists. Avoid the SLP, it's a toxic insanity ground (also Stalinist). CPGB (not exactly Stalinist, but at least Leninist) is also a possibility. SPGB being impossiblists, anti-statist, anti-Leninist, the first British party to theorise state capitalism, will interest you not one jot.

[Manic Impressive]

It's the CPGB who support the Labour party right?

[Tommy4ever]

None of the parties have a good reputation.

The ones that people outside the denzins of the far left might have heard of would be the SWP (cause they are reasonably big), the CPB (cause they are ''the communists'') and in Scotland the SSP (cause they have been in Parliament in the past decade).

No parties have a good reputation and few people are aware of them - even the more well known ones are likely unknown to the majority.

Sucks.

[Q]

Please refer to this page (http://eng.anarchopedia.org/List_of_Left-Wing_Parties_in_the_United_Kingdom) for a comprehensive list.

[Shropshire Socialist]

The Communist Party of Britain is a marxist-Leninist party and claims to be the largest communist party in the UK. It also traces its history back to the 1920s.

It promotes the only left-wing daily newspaper in Britain, The Morning Star, and has links within the major trade unions.

Do a search on wikipedia for more information.

[Shropshire Socialist]

It's the CPGB who support the Labour party right?

The CPGB actually collapsed in 1991. A new grouping, the Communist Party of Great Britain (Provisional Central Committee) was set up instead, but is a shadow of the former party.

They endorsed the Labour Party in the 2009 European Elections.

It's critics describe the CPGB(PCC) as: "MI5 agents".

[robbo203]

It depends which tendency you are, if you're into "STAAALLLLIIIIINNNNN" then I'd say CPGB-ML. If you're a trot probably the SWP are the best choice they're very active and always visible. If you're neither perhaps the SPGB.


I think it might actually be worth investigating the SPGB. http://www.worldsocialism.org/spgb/ While I am critical or one or two of their positions, they are certainly the closest thing to a real communist party you are ever likely to encounter in the UK. At least they do stand unambiguously for a moneyless stateless alternative to capitalism. At any rate a lot of the stuff they have published is of great value to the working class movement - and often under-rated by somewhat superficial and dismissve accounts of the SPGB

[bailey_187]

The CPGB actually collapsed in 1991. A new grouping, the Communist Party of Great Britain (Provisional Central Committee) was set up instead, but is a shadow of the former party.

They endorsed the Labour Party in the 2009 European Elections.

It's critics describe the CPGB(PCC) as: "MI5 agents".

it should be noted that the CPGB (PCC) has politics very different than the old CPGB though e.g. it does not uphold the USSR

the group with politics similar to the old CPGB is the Communist Party of Britain

the CPB has about 1000 members but AFAIK its mostly old people left over from the Soviet days. They do however, still print a daily newspaper - the only one on the left, all others are weekly less requent than that

CPGB-ML is group that emerged from the SLP after they were kicked out. They are massive fans of Stalin (to the extent of holding up a huge banner of him up at May Day rallies, claiming ot be "anti-revisionist". They have links with many so-called socialist and anti-imperialist countries embassies (i dno if this relationship extends much further). People from the North Korean, Chinese, Vietnamese and i think maybe the Zimbabwe embassies have attended their events. They send delegations to these states to e.g. i saw they sent one to Libya recently and the DPRK. They claim to be the only truley "anti-imperialist" party in Britain, and they take crazy lines such as adamently supporting Gaddafi. They have a few hundred members.

There are also a load of other ML groups which are pretty much e.g. the NCP, RCPB-ML, ubyinj, GJIVFGB, VUNUINJ blah blah blah, cant remember them all. Theyre all just a bunch of old people left over from the 70s though

wouldnt recommend joining any of them though

[Q]

It's critics describe the CPGB(PCC) as: "MI5 agents".

Who besides the butthurt CPB say that?

As for the Labour "support" the CPGB sports, that comes down to them seeing the Labour party as an important working class arena in which communists have to make the, well, communist case.

Here are some articles on the subject (there have been many over the last two years - pro and contra Labour work. I just pick three that I think give a representative view of the CPGB majority):

- Draft theses on the Labour Party (http://www.cpgb.org.uk/article.php?article_id=1004137)
- Debating Labour left and left Labourism (Aggregate report about Labour work last March) (http://www.cpgb.org.uk/article.php?article_id=1004336)
- Refound Labour as a real party of labour (The first statement of the "Labour Party Marxists") (http://www.cpgb.org.uk/article.php?article_id=1004446)

[scarletghoul]

None of the parties are that great, though some have positive aspects. heres my view on them..

RCG - a good and fresh organisation with a sound anti-imperialist line, though their major flaw is that they only seem to focus on defending Cuba, Palestine, etc, and not on making revolution here.
CPGB-ML - many of their positions are good such as support for korea, etc, but they are not at all in touch with the working class. every may day they parade a giant picture of stalin through london.. not the best way to win over the people..
CPB - apparently the biggest ML party but theyre very revisionist as can be seen in their 'british road to socialism'. descended from the CPGB which was the main commie party up until it died with the ussr. kinda like our version of the CPUSA
CPGB (PCC) - im not sure what these people do except for publishing the "weekly worker" (which i would be extremely surprised if any workers actually read it, it seems to be just useless gossip about random trot groups and other highly boring things)
SWP - if you enjoy trying to sell newspapers and wondering why no one cares about what you have to say, this is the ideal party for you
SPEW / CWI - trotskyists, though thankfully not third campists. they are quite big though unfortunately they dont come across as particularly radical,, tho i dont really know much about them
WPRM - small group that mostly just expresses support for the protracted peoples wars abroad.
SLP - arthur scargill fan club. dont seem to do much.

theres a few other tiny groups that dont exist in any meaningful way

Avoid the SLP, it's a toxic insanity ground (also Stalinist)
Scargill expelled the Stalinists (and the cpgb-ml was born) in 2004

[SJBarley]

As a UK resident I would say do not bother joining any party that wishes to gain election, RATB (Rock Around the Blockade) are a fantastic Cuba solidarity group and the Revolutionary Communist Group are the best option for joining in my opinion. The Brittish left is very contradictory with many "Marxist" parties actively encouraging anti-cuba views.

[The Idler]

Depends what you want out of a party.

[bricolage]

Scargill expelled the Stalinists (and the cpgb-ml was born) in 2004
To a large degree Scargill is a Stalinist himself.

[Shropshire Socialist]

Who besides the butthurt CPB say that?

As for the Labour "support" the CPGB sports, that comes down to them seeing the Labour party as an important working class arena in which communists have to make the, well, communist case.

Ken Livingstone and a number of hard left Labour MPs. MI5 also admitted that they had infiltrated the CPGB at some point.

The CPB also say that their members should vote Labour if there is no Communist candidate, as Labour are the only way for a leftwing party to gain power in the UK (putting to one side the arguments as to whether Labour support the left these days).

[Shropshire Socialist]

To a large degree Scargill is a Stalinist himself.

True. The SLP claim to be the largest left wing party in the UK (outside of Labour), but as with anything this is disputed.

They have been riven with disputes, mostly over Scargill's leadership.

[Shropshire Socialist]

the group with politics similar to the old CPGB is the Communist Party of Britain

the CPB has about 1000 members but AFAIK its mostly old people left over from the Soviet days. They do however, still print a daily newspaper - the only one on the left, all others are weekly less requent than that.

I would dispute that. There are an increasing number of new young members joining the CPB, and the Communist Youth is fairly active. The CPB is also restarting a number of regional branches after years of neglect.

I think the important thing to say is that in the UK there are a number of left wing parties, who in general agree, but on many issues disagree.

If they could unite then they would be much more influential, but sadly it is a case of the Judean People's Front versus the People's Front of Judea! :confused:

[Tommy4ever]

True. The SLP claim to be the largest left wing party in the UK (outside of Labour), but as with anything this is disputed.

They have been riven with disputes, mostly over Scargill's leadership.

The strange thing about the SLP is that despite doing basically no campaigning or anything nowadays they actually do alright in elections. Usually getting votes comfortably in the 10s or thousands (considering the inactivity this is impressive). In the Scottish Election they got more votes than the SSP and Solidarity combined.


I would dispute that. There are an increasing number of new young members joining the CPB, and the Communist Youth is fairly active. The CPB is also restarting a number of regional branches after years of neglect.

I think the important thing to say is that in the UK there are a number of left wing parties, who in general agree, but on many issues disagree.

If they could unite then they would be much more influential, but sadly it is a case of the Judean People's Front versus the People's Front of Judea! :confused:

I agree wholeheartedly. The funny thing is, the majority of members of these various tiny Left sects would probably much prefer if the sects (or atleast a large portion of them) put their differences aside and came together. But the leadership of the various sects would never allow this.

There is also the problem of the fact that all the groups are so small its not obvious who to join. Traditionally (especially outside of Britain) sects on the Left didn't matter as much as the far left was usually dominated by one big party (usually the official Communist Party), nowadays all the parties and groups are so small that none can really claim the advantage of size, so its really not obvious who a new recruit should join.

[Vladimir Innit Lenin]

The UK left is generally in a frightfully poor, marginalised, irrelevant state in terms of the parties. That is not to say that there is no presence.

IMO, the SWP are by far and away the most visible Socialist group in the UK. Though their paper-selling method is often (rightly) questioned, they still do quite a lot of organising and particularly infiltrate the student movement.

SPEW (CWI) are a 'trot' group, but I suspect that this is a cover for their quite obvious left-of-labourism. Nice guys, actually, but they do not seem radical in the slightest.

CPGB (PCC) aside from what i've read, I don't know too much about their activities. IMO, their paper is a real pile of shit - the left's equivalent of the worst of British tabloids.

CPB - Publish the Morning Star but, again, don't seem to be at all visible otherwise. Tis a decent paper imo.

CPGB-ML - if you're more interested in defending the legacy of Stalin and attacking Trotskyism than fermenting revolution and agitating amongst the working class, then this is the party for you. Very small, probably between 100-200 members, and a lot of their activities seem to focus on Harpal Brar's almost extremist focus on defending J Stalin, which is a shame, because Brar is a knowledgeable chap, but the organisation is useless in practical terms. I once tried to reason with Zane Carpenter, the General Secretary, but it turned into a sectarian shitfest; it was quite literally as thought I was arguing with Pranabjyoti.

[Vladimir Innit Lenin]

Actually, I have a question. Does anybody have any info on The Commune? They have a website that appeals much to me, but i've never heard of them doing anything. Does anybody have any info on their membership size, activities, affiliations etc.?

[Manic Impressive]

I think it might actually be worth investigating the SPGB. http://www.worldsocialism.org/spgb/ While I am critical or one or two of their positions, they are certainly the closest thing to a real communist party you are ever likely to encounter in the UK. At least they do stand unambiguously for a moneyless stateless alternative to capitalism. At any rate a lot of the stuff they have published is of great value to the working class movement - and often under-rated by somewhat superficial and dismissve accounts of the SPGB
Yeah I completely agree, I'll probably attempt to join the SPGB soon, if I can pass the entrance exam. Although my politics are probably slightly too far removed from theirs. I was just asking what the OP's politics were and gave him 3 radically different choices.

[Madvillainy]

Yeah I completely agree, I'll probably attempt to join the SPGB soon, if I can pass the entrance exam.

haha what?

[Manic Impressive]

yeah I heard you gotta pass some mythical test. I don't know what it is yet. Makes sense to be selective about your membership if you're a non-hierarchical organization with no leaders. But yeah I don't know what the criteria that you have to meet is, hopefully it involves sacrificing a Stalinist :p

[red flag over teeside]

Hi Mac have you thought of looking at the communist left rather than leftist groups? Depends on what your basic political beleifs are will depend on the organisation you feel most comfortable with. For me I went from being a Trotskyist to being a left communist mainly over the issues of Stalinism being counter revolutionary and Russia and the Eastern Block, China etc being capitalist. Also i beleive that in todays world there can be no progressive national liberation struggles. There are other issues but theses are the main ones which made me more uncomfortable in being in a Trotskyist party. This led me into supporting the positions of the CWO.

[bricolage]

Actually, I have a question. Does anybody have any info on The Commune? They have a website that appeals much to me, but i've never heard of them doing anything. Does anybody have any info on their membership size, activities, affiliations etc.?
They are small, I think in London they are probably less than ten official 'members' but a large degree of sympathisers often in (sort of) rank and file union movements. They produce a paper regularly which in my opinion is probably the best 'radical' one on offer in the UK even if I don't agree with everything they write (it can all be found on their website too). Last thing I know they did was call the first meeting that lead to the June 30th open assembly planning meetings which were good and bad at the same time. On the whole they probably 'do' about as much that is useful as any other group in the UK but at the very least they aren't as self-indulgent as the rest.

[Sam_b]

If you are in Scotland, there is a new organisation, the ISG Scotland, which has just been founded. You can find information on us in my signature below.

I am surprised nobody has mentioned Counterfire (http://www.counterfire.org/)

[Admiral Swagmeister G-Funk]

yeah I heard you gotta pass some mythical test. I don't know what it is yet. Makes sense to be selective about your membership if you're a non-hierarchical organization with no leaders. But yeah I don't know what the criteria that you have to meet is, hopefully it involves sacrificing a Stalinist :p

I think its a good idea. I joined SPEW before I even knew who Marx was, and have friends who have joined the same party but don't actually know an ounce of theory from their own heads. It seems some parties will recruit anyone in the hopes that they can educate them their way. Someone I know stood in an election, he couldn't tell me why he was doing this in his own words though. So yeah, I think the entrance exam is actually a good idea - I've been recruited based on a conversation in the pub when I didn't know anything about political theory and my time in the party didn't last long.

[Madvillainy]

I think its a good idea. I joined SPEW before I even knew who Marx was, and have friends who have joined the same party but don't actually know an ounce of theory from their own heads. It seems some parties will recruit anyone in the hopes that they can educate them their way. Someone I know stood in an election, he couldn't tell me why he was doing this in his own words though. So yeah, I think the entrance exam is actually a good idea - I've been recruited based on a conversation in the pub when I didn't know anything about political theory and my time in the party didn't last long.

meh, i think its a good idea to have a good grasp on socialist politics and be able to defend your groups positions but havin to sit an exam is weird as fuck.

suppose its still slightly better than groups like swp, spew or the wsm who let any sucker join if they're willing to be their paper boy.

[Zanthorus]

yeah I heard you gotta pass some mythical test. I don't know what it is yet. Makes sense to be selective about your membership if you're a non-hierarchical organization with no leaders. But yeah I don't know what the criteria that you have to meet is, hopefully it involves sacrificing a Stalinist :p

The test is that you have to answer these twelve questions in a way which is compliant with the SPGB's party-line:

1. What are the basic features of capitalism?
2. Explain what you understand by the terms capitalist class and working
class.
3. Do you consider that the working class is exploited? If so, briefly
explain how this takes place.
4. What do you understand by the word 'socialism'?
5. Why do socialists say there will be no trade or money in a socialist
society? On what basis will wealth be distributed?
6. Has socialism been established in any part of the world?
7. Why do socialists say socialism cannot exist in any one country alone?
8. Why do socialists maintain that democratic methods such as, in this
country, parliamentary elections, must be used to capture political power
for the achievement of socialism?
9. Why do socialists not take sides or willingly take part in wars?
10. What is your attitude to other political parties? Do any of them stand
for socialism?
11. Why does the Socialist Party not campaign for reforms?
12. Are religious beliefs compatible with socialist understanding?Though personally I wouldn't consider joining the SPGB even if they got rid of the ridiculous entry criteria (I'd probably fail the test anyway).

[bailey_187]

question from the SP: What is your attitude to other political parties? Do any of them stand for socialism?

i think this is quite a troubling opinion for them. while i can understand why they would disagree with Leninists, maoists and trots being "for socialism", they hold the opinion that ONLY their party is the party of socialism, and all others, no matter how similar in views, are not socialist and therefore are to be opposed. this causes them to be quite hostile. for example they have/had a speaker at speakers corner, hyde park. he did a good job imo and used to always go back and forth well with right wing americans on holiday, and i even saw him turn an english guy with anti-immigration views to think about the error of his views and he ended up buying a bunch of magazines and pamphlets. but the speaker was so hostile to anyone else who thought of themsleves as socialist with slightlty differing views.

[Vladimir Innit Lenin]

The SPGB would be a terrific little party (in theoretical terms) if it wasn't for that disgusting entrance exam. Talk about hyper-elitist. It means that every time they talk about the mass of the working class empowering themselves, they are really just making massively hypocritical comments. I really cannot grasp how a party which advocated a line quite far to the left of Leninism can actually be so elitist.

[bailey_187]

The SPGB would be a terrific little party (in theoretical terms) if it wasn't for that disgusting entrance exam. Talk about hyper-elitist. It means that every time they talk about the mass of the working class empowering themselves, they are really just making massively hypocritical comments. I really cannot grasp how a party which advocated a line quite far to the left of Leninism can actually be so elitist.

i dont think its that bad. its not a hard exam after a few conversations with a member. i dont think they do it to try and get only smart people or something, but to ensure members comply with their politics

maybe they could just a membership conversation before though, rather than a written exam, ot check members are on the right page as them

[A.J.]

Here's something to consider:

The membership figures of the indigenous Brit Left sects discussed in this thread are greatly out-numbered by amount of members of foreign CPs resident in Gt. Britain(that and the fact no group belonging to the former category can be considered truly revolutionary)

Anglo-Saxons and Celts just seem totally incapable of becoming revolutionary.

Anyway, for no relevant reason whatsoever, get a load of this.....

WcE4oRAo2iA

[Zanthorus]

i think this is quite a troubling opinion for them. while i can understand why they would disagree with Leninists, maoists and trots being "for socialism", they hold the opinion that ONLY their party is the party of socialism, and all others, no matter how similar in views, are not socialist and therefore are to be opposed.

You don't know the half of it. The SPGB actually thinks that the ICC/ICT are 'Leninist' organisations because they don't believe in voting socialism in through a parliamentary majority.


The SPGB would be a terrific little party

Personally I can't why anyone would be attracted to the SPGB. There are groups out there that don't do much activity if at all (Internationalist Perspective, Aufheben, Endnotes) which have some pretty interesting theoretical work. There are groups out there that for whatever their theoretical failings involve themselves in workers' struggles and work to push them forward (ICC/ICT). Then there is the SPGB which completely disinteresting in terms of any kind of theoretical analysis, and which as far as I am aware has never as an organisation participated in any kinds of struggle whatsoever and whose activity basically consists in rolling off copies of the SocStan and telling people to vote for them.

[HEAD ICE]

For what it is worth, here is a debate between the SPGB and the CWO (communist workers' organisation, british section of the ICT) back in the 80s with the resolution "Can a Majority of Workers Develop Socialist Conciousness Under Capitalism?" It gives a pretty good overview of what the SPGB's politics are when compared to revolutionary socialism. A lot of the faults of the SPGB can be found in their basic premises. I maybe biased but I believe the CWO swept the floor with them, plus some of the things they brought up really hammered in some things that I was having trouble with myself:

http://www.theoryandpractice.org.uk/wsmtemp/audio/can-majority-workers-develop-socialist-conciousness-under-capitalism

[Blake's Baby]

Actually, I have a question. Does anybody have any info on The Commune? They have a website that appeals much to me, but i've never heard of them doing anything. Does anybody have any info on their membership size, activities, affiliations etc.?

I've had more discussions both face to face and online with the members of the Commune than I have with the the CPGB, CPB, SLP and CPGB-ML (I didn't even know there was one of those until today, I thought Harpal Brar and the Stalin Society were still in the SLP) combined. None of those organisations I think of as having any real presence (the CPB has the Morning Star for sure, but while the People's Press Printing Society has a couple of thousand subscribers, I'd very much doubt even paper membership of the party was even close to that).

I picked up a copy of the Commune's paper last week. It's fairly decent.

I thought you had to take an exam to join any socialist party, what's the point of joining an organisation if you don't have to agree with it. The SPGB isn't so unusual I think (at least, that's not what makes them unusual).

However, all joking aside, the OP is a Marxist-Leninist. They're not going to care about the 7 shades of Trot, the Impossibilists or the Left-Comms, are they? I was giving them the skinny on the Stalinist parties I knew about. Though it appears that the Stalinists were thrown out of the SLP in 2004, which I totally failed to notice. I'm a crap Stalinist spotter.

[Blake's Baby]

... Then there is the SPGB which completely disinteresting in terms of any kind of theoretical analysis, and which as far as I am aware has never as an organisation participated in any kinds of struggle whatsoever and whose activity basically consists in rolling off copies of the SocStan and telling people to vote for them.

Except they only put up a couple of candidates at elections. As far as I can tell they only had one candidate in the 2010 General Election, out of around 650 seats. So while it's their little theoretical justification for their existence, what they actually do is roll of copies of the Socialist Standard, and complain about how the 'Leninists' are ruining everything.

Some of their pamphlets are good though. I agree with a lot of their positions. Just not on the Parliamentary Road to Socialism, obviously.


For what it is worth, here is a debate between the SPGB and the CWO (communist workers' organisation, british section of the ICT) back in the 80s... I maybe biased but I believe the CWO swept the floor with them...

You're not alone. I know at least one member of the SPGB who believes the CWO swept the floor with them.

[scarletghoul]

Hopefully by the new year there will be a mass line based organisation active in london

[Tommy4ever]

Hopefully by the new year there will be a mass line based organisation active in london

Have you got any particular organisation in mind or are you just blindly hoping?

[bricolage]

Hopefully by the new year there will be a mass line based organisation active in london
sure, the one thing london needs is more leftist groups.

[scarletghoul]

sure, the one thing london needs is more leftist groups.
if there are any current groups which are directly acting on the concerns of the people and not just obsessing over stalin or unions or palestine or whatever then please let me know

[The Idler]

The SPGB might legitimately respond to some of the criticism by pointing to Engels preface to the Class Struggles in France (1895)

The period for sudden onslaughts, of revolutions carried out by small conscious minorities at the head of unconscious masses, is past. Where the question involves the complete transformation of the social organisation, there the masses must be consulted, must themselves have already grasped what the struggle is about, and what they stand for.” “This is what the history of the last fifty years has taught us. But in order that the masses may understand what is to be done, long and persistent work is needed …That the SPGB haven't yet convinced a majority for socialism is less of an indictment of the SPGB, as it is, of organisations calling themselves socialist - who seek only a minority to carry out a revolution.

[bricolage]

if there are any current groups which are directly acting on the concerns of the people and not just obsessing over stalin or unions or palestine or whatever then please let me know
what makes you think your group will be any different?
who are 'the people'?

[robbo203]

The SPGB would be a terrific little party (in theoretical terms) if it wasn't for that disgusting entrance exam. Talk about hyper-elitist. It means that every time they talk about the mass of the working class empowering themselves, they are really just making massively hypocritical comments. I really cannot grasp how a party which advocated a line quite far to the left of Leninism can actually be so elitist.


Gawds knows the SPGB is not perfect but, when all is said and done, an awful lot of crap is talked about the SPGB by critics who think they know , or certainly give the impression of knowing, what the SPGB is about but who dont really have much of a clue. The suggestion for example that has been made here that what the SPGB has published over the years is of little theoretical interest is a case in point. Only someone who has not taken the time and trouble to look into the matter seriously could make such an outrageous claim. I strongly recommend Dave Perrin's book on the SPGB, - Britains oldest socialist party - as a timely corrective to such dismissive one-sided comentary http://www.amazon.co.uk/Socialist-Party-Great-Britain-Economics/dp/1872424805

I have my disagreements with the SPGB. I do not support for example its absurd position on refusing membership to people with religious convictions, a position it apparently shares with the Anarchist Ferderation. I also think its preoccupation with abstract propaganda , necessary though this is, and on the democratic capture of state power to abolish capitalism, necessary though that also is, comes across as a little too naive and simplistic. But one thing many critics of the SPGB do not seem to be fully aware of, if at all, is that the SPGB is far from being a monolith. There are different currents of thought within it and in fact there has always been a culture of lively and even heated debate within the party itself. And you can't really fault the SPGB on its democratic nature. It is probably the most democratic political organisation in the UK. Everything is open to public scrutiny and the various administrative organs of the party are subject to rigorous control by the memebrship as a whole in a way that would be inconceivable in a capitalist party.

Which brings me to the question of the membership questiionnaire. No El_Granma, I nont agree with you. The membership test is not elitist. Its not some kind of exam that you have to swot up for. It is not meant as some kind of deterrent to joining. Its simply a way of determining that you are in basic agreement with general standpoint of the organisation on such issues as what is capitalism, what is socialisn, and can socialismn be achieved democratically and so on. No big deal really but necessary all the same.

Far from a membership questionnaire being elitist, I think the oppposite is the case. If anyone can join your organisation regardless of their political outlook this almost guarantees the emergence of a some sort of leadership to pull the organisation together and impose decisions on the membership that would otherwise not be made., In the case of the SPGB this cant happen. Every member is an equal and because being a member entails a set of clear expectations about what the organisation is about this means no one can pull the wool over someone else's eyes.

I have to confess a certain fondness for the SPGB, warts and all. I think it has been the subject of some pretty unfair and misinformed criticism by sections of the Left. As a communist party in the real sense of the term, I still think it stands head and shoulders over any other. But dont take my word for it. Check it out for yourself at http://www.worldsocialism.org/spgb/

[bricolage]

The SPGB might legitimately respond to some of the criticism by pointing to Engels preface to the Class Struggles in France (1895)
I see your Engels and raise you a Marx (emphasis added);

"Both for the production on a mass scale of the communist consciousness, and for the success of the cause itself, the alteration of men on a mass scale is necessary, an alteration which can only take place in a practical movement, a revolution; this revolution is necessary, therefore, not only because the ruling class cannot be overthrown in any other way, but also because the class overthrowing it can only in a revolution succeed in ridding itself of all the muck of ages and become fitted to found society anew."

[SHORAS]

Yes, but as a comrade says in that debate with the CWO (which is excellent) they are not Marxists, they pick and choose when they use him. The SPGB comrade openly admits this. Obviously that's not to say all communists agree with every word of Marx but the SPGB comrade appears to not understand or not agree with Marx on consciousness. It's a bigger problem generally because the party seems to also reject Marx on this re: everyone needs to be a socialist before we can have socialism. They don't seem to recognise consciousness as a process entwined with action on the proletariats part.

To answer the OP, the groups in the UK don't have good reputations in fact they don't have reputations full stop. They are virtually irrelevant to the class at the moment. There is only reputation to speak of amongst leftists, communists and anarchists. And basically it comes across as they all hate each other.

More generally, I think the CPGB (PCC) are by far the best of the leftists. Although small and not upto much they are at least thought provoking, offer criticism of existing organisations and existing conditions with a level of respect and sincerity. I think it's a misunderstanding to think they are purely gossipping about people etc if you actually read their paper, listen to their podcasts or watch their videos (which I think are their best output) you get a sense they might actually want to debate within the left. Something which most other groups certianly do not want to do.
There's plenty more to say about them but I can't be arsed, maybe others can contribute. Suffice to say although I find them of some value I disagree with plenty and actually subscibe to Left Communist press.:D

On the Stalinists I actually find it quite worrying that apparently the Stalinist Society has a wopping 500 members. And the CPGB-ML is steadily growing in small numbers. Although the former sounds like complete and utter bollocks. I'm actually quite surprised and disappointed communists and anarchists give them the time of day on here but that's for another thread and I'm trying not to flame.

EDIT: I forgot to ask about the MI5 thing, is this accusation rooted in any evidence. For one I wouldn't trust ex-London Mayor Ken Livingstone (on anything)! Although not unthinkable (the state keeps an eye on even very small groups etc) it would be much more likely MI5 or whoever infiltrated the original CPGB of the 1920s onwards. Does anyone know the exact accusations, or 'proof'? I have a hunch it's all nonsense or merely political wrangling.

[Manic Impressive]

If those are the questions from the membership test I would think that anyone who had read the Manifesto or spent two weeks on Revleft could answer those questions accurately.

I see your Engels and raise you a Marx (emphasis added);
"Both for the production on a mass scale of the communist consciousness, and for the success of the cause itself, the alteration of men on a mass scale is necessary, an alteration which can only take place in a practical movement, a revolution; this revolution is necessary, therefore, not only because the ruling class cannot be overthrown in any other way, but also because the class overthrowing it can only in a revolution succeed in ridding itself of all the muck of ages and become fitted to found society anew."

Yeah, and, so, what? The SPGB advocate a revolutionary change in the means of production. Far more quickly than any bolshevik group would. But the point of the SPGB is not to act as a party which swells to massive numbers to sieze power for the enlightened few. But as a party which aims to educate the whole of the working class so as they can take power for themselves.

But as Blake's Baby said OP is a Leninist so yeah he's not going to be interested in the SPGB and tbh I don't think they'd be interested in him either.

[SHORAS]

But the point of the SPGB is not to act as a party which swells to massive numbers to sieze power for the enlightened few. But as a party which aims to educate the whole of the working class so as they can take power for themselves.

But surely the point is that socialism doesn't happen cos the majority thinks it's merely a good idea. And besides the SPGB do not tell workers what to do or how to do it, so what exactly are they educating them in?

I also agree with the comrade who dismissed the Socialist Standard, I looked forward to reading their publication a while ago but found it lacking any depth and quite patronising. The various SPGB debates are good though and worth a listen.

[Hud955]

SPGB? Lot of issues here. The entrance 'exam' (where did that word come from?) consists of a informal chat about someone's political views and background, usually at a branch meeting with anyone who wants to join. We use a very basic 12 question format for people who cannot get along to a branch meeting.

Elitist? Membership is open to anyone - so long as they can demonstrate to us that they are a socialist. Once they are a member they have equal voting rights with anyone else, so we need members who are with the party on its fundamental aim and principles. All party policy is made democratically by the entire membership.

We are not precious about our identity since we are not seeking any kind of political control. We would seek to merge with any organisation that demonstrated a commitment to mass working class socialism, that was aiming for a global, stateless, classless, moneyless society and was not engaged in reformist activity.

Reformism is a big and tricky issue for us, and our position generally misunderstood on the left. We do not object to reforms if they genuinely benefit the working class - how could we? But our sole role as we see it is to promote socialism. The history of socialist movements shows that any organisation that tries to combine both a revolutionary and a reformist agenda, inevitably loses its revolutionary character over time. We want to avoid that. So yes, our aim is to promote socialist consciousness and we are fundamentally a propagandist organisation.

Our "parliamentary road"? That is also usually misunderstood. Our view is that only the working class as a mass class can bring about socialism. To be successful they must organise at all levels - including politically. We don't believe in a "parliamentary road" to socialism in the labourist sense. We take the view that the working class needs to capture the state to prevent it from being used against them. The only socialist thing they should do with it is abolish it.

Cheers

Hud
SPGB

[Q]

More generally, I think the CPGB (PCC) are by far the best of the leftists. Although small and not upto much they are at least thought provoking, offer criticism of existing organisations and existing conditions with a level of respect and sincerity. I think it's a misunderstanding to think they are purely gossipping about people etc if you actually read their paper, listen to their podcasts or watch their videos (which I think are their best output) you get a sense they might actually want to debate within the left. Something which most other groups certianly do not want to do.

Regarding the "gossip": It is a common criticism of them that I hear on an off Revleft. I think this stems from a distinct lack of a debating culture. Most leftist groups leaderships live on their own little isle of knowledge that is not to be disturbed by "the sects" and other ultra-left influences. It is unsurprising that this is the stance also from most members of such groups around as this is their political education.

I believe this particular culture stems from, among other things, the ban on faction instated in the RCP(b) in 1921. Before that, it was considered normal, important even, to have a culture of dissent. Important because dissenting comrades can offer a mirror for critical self-reflection on any number of topics, thus being a motor of political development. Such (sometimes hefty) debates happened openly. It was also normal to have a multitude of publications - the RSDLP featuring dozens of papers even under the hardest state repression.

The reason for this was the idea that to educate the working class movement in programme, strategy, tactics and theory; agitate for workers causes in all its diversity and organise the class as a class for itself, the debates had to happen openly so workers could not only read all sides of the argument, they could also participate in the press. From mere followers of this or that political brand, they were encouraged to start thinking for themselves.

I'm sure that for most revolutionists today that may sound like a scary and "gossippy" idea, but that just tells their sectarian politics though.

[SHORAS]

Regarding the "gossip": It is a common criticism of them that I hear on an off Revleft. I think this stems from a distinct lack of a debating culture. Most leftist groups leaderships live on their own little isle of knowledge that is not to be disturbed by "the sects" and other ultra-left influences. It is unsurprising that this is the stance also from most members of such groups around as this is their political education.

I believe this particular culture stems from, among other things, the ban on faction instated in the RCP(b) in 1921. Before that, it was considered normal, important even, to have a culture of dissent. Important because dissenting comrades can offer a mirror for critical self-reflection on any number of topics, thus being a motor of political development. Such (sometimes hefty) debates happened openly. It was also normal to have a multitude of publications - the RSDLP featuring dozens of papers even under the hardest state repression.

The reason for this was the idea that to educate the working class movement in programme, strategy, tactics and theory; agitate for workers causes in all its diversity and organise the class as a class for itself, the debates had to happen openly so workers could not only read all sides of the argument, they could also participate in the press. From mere followers of this or that political brand, they were encouraged to start thinking for themselves.

I'm sure that for most revolutionists today that may sound like a scary and "gossippy" idea, but that just tells their sectarian politics though.


I agree with a lot of what you've said and think it speaks for itself. It's obviously true. Furthermore, it is clear that various sects think along the lines of making 'their' revolution and not the class. It's all very myopic. But you're not getting any fucking bitcoin. :D There was a very good letter in the Weekly Worker a few weeks ago about the importance of Marxist education. I was going to get in touch actually but I forgot. I'm not sure if there have been any replies since.

EDIT: It wasn't a letter in the Weekly Worker, it was actually an article which can be read on the CPGB website, previous issues number 869 Making Marxist education a priority.

[Q]

But you're not getting any fucking bitcoin. :D

My schemes are foiled once again :lol:

[robbo203]

Yes, but as a comrade says in that debate with the CWO (which is excellent) they are not Marxists, they pick and choose when they use him. The SPGB comrade openly admits this. Obviously that's not to say all communists agree with every word of Marx but the SPGB comrade appears to not understand or not agree with Marx on consciousness. It's a bigger problem generally because the party seems to also reject Marx on this re: everyone needs to be a socialist before we can have socialism. They don't seem to recognise consciousness as a process entwined with action on the proletariats part..

I would disagree with this analysis. The SPGB are not marxist because they "pick and chose when they use him"? Well why not? Not everything Marx wrote was right. He made quite a few blunders. We are all human after all. The SPGB has always maintained that its arguments stand on it own two feet without or without Marx's blessing. That said, I think the SPGB is a lot closer to being an authentic Marxian organisation than a lot of others (which may or may not be a good thing depending on your point of view)

On the question of consciousness, it is simply not true that the SPGB says everyone has to be be a socialist before you can have socialism. I specifcally recall them saying this in one of their publications - I think Questions of the Day. What they do assert and absolutely correctly in my view is that socialism has be brought about democratically by a majority of workers who want and understand socialism. It cannot be imposed from above. This may be at odds with leninist vanguardism but it is actually very close to the position taken by Marx and Engels:

All previous historical movements were movements of minorities, or in the interest of minorities. The proletarian movement is the self-conscious, independent movement of the immense majority, in the interest of the immense majority (Chapter 1. "Bourgeois and Proletarians" Manifesto of the Communist Party 1848)

As for for the claim that the SPGB "don't seem to recognise consciousness as a process entwined with action on the proletariats part" I think this is yet another myth about the SPGB that seems to have found currency amongst certain circles within the left. While I am critical of the kind of scenario of revolutoinary transformation wittingly or otherwise projected by the mainstream SPGB, which I think is somewhat simplistic, I would be the first to admit that the SPGB certainly does lay heavy emphasis on consciousness arising out of material struggles of workers in capitalism. Even a cursory glnace at its literature will confirm this to be the case.

This bears out my earlier point that a lot of criticism that hasd been leveled against the SPGB is actually more often than not pretty much misinformed

[bricolage]

If those are the questions from the membership test I would think that anyone who had read the Manifesto or spent two weeks on Revleft could answer those questions accurately.
Yeah but the problem is you'd probably end up giving different answers to the SPGB.


Yeah, and, so, what?The Idler was just throwing quotes about to prove his point (which is a weak line of argument so I thought I'd play ball.
The SPGB may 'advocate a revolutionary change in the means of production' but if they wait until they have 'educate[d] the whole of the working class' then this is simply a pipe dream. The point of the Marx quote was to show that he saw the vast majority of people becoming socialists not as the result of proselytizing in the here and now and accumulating individuals one by one until some kind of critical mass has been reached, but that he saw this coming as a result of material conditions forced into being by the act of revolution. If you keep on waiting you will wait for ever.


But as Blake's Baby said OP is a LeninistWell not entirely;

I recently joined, so I decided to make an introduction of myself. I am a marxist/ leninist, living in Colorado, U.S.A. I became a communist through my fascination with the soviet union. I used to be very authoritarian, but more recently (after my vacation to budapest seeing the "Terror Museum"), I have become much less authoritarian. I greatly dislike stalinists and other dictator worshipers, and while I am not quite an anarcho-communist, I believe it would be great under certain circumstances (although I don't think it would do well in the U.S.) Anyway, that is all.

[bricolage]

I would be the first to admit that the SPGB certainly does lay heavy emphasis on consciousness arising out of material struggles of workers in capitalism. Even a cursory glnace at its literature will confirm this to be the case.
Do you have any links for this?

[robbo203]

Do you have any links for this?

Read some of the stuff produced by the SPGB on the materialist conception of history and you will see for yourelf that emphaiss is placed on the material conditions of class struggle as the seedbed of social revolution. I did a random search on the their website and came up with a few examples. Here's one - an article on the ICC http://www.worldsocialism.org/spgb/aug04/icc.html Check out the section on "consciousness"

[flobdob]

Gonna wade in and be partisan (but hey, who isn't?) and suggest you check out the RCG (http://www.revolutionarycommunist.org). We're heavily involved in anti-cuts street organising, Palestine and Cuba solidarity work, and also anti-deportation/racism campaigns across the country. If you know your US left then we're politically very similar to the PSL/WWP, so that's probably a good indicator.

[SHORAS]

I would disagree with this analysis. The SPGB are not marxist because they "pick and chose when they use him"? Well why not? Not everything Marx wrote was right.

I should have made it clear, I was paraphrasing a SPGB Comrade. I think he also said "we aren't Marxists" or maybe a CWO comrade did. Or I might be just adding confusion where there isn't any.

On the question of consciousness, it is simply not true that the SPGB says everyone has to be be a socialist before you can have socialism.

What they do assert and absolutely correctly in my view is that socialism has be brought about democratically by a majority of workers who want and understand socialism.


If that's the view why don't the SPGB lobby for Scientific Socialism in the school curriculum?

I think this is where a lot of confusion arises, between these two statements. As an aside the text you link to is far better than the argument given against the CWO. But generally I am finding the SPGB positions get muddled in their delivery. I mean it's not just me who seems to find it hard to understand what their positions boil down to. One lingering thought is that I worry (in all seriousness) that if there is a revolutionary situation the SPGB will take state power and (though I don't think they actually will ever be in a position or circumstance to do this) introduce totalitarian state rule. Despite what they say, it seems to me a real possibilty. Or am I misunderstanding the positions again? I know in theory the SPGB wants to get rid of the state but it's the manner in which it is done that's important. Of course there are any number of possibilites that could and might occur.

[robbo203]

If that's the view why don't the SPGB lobby for Scientific Socialism in the school curriculum?

I think this is where a lot of confusion arises, between these two statements. As an aside the text you link to is far better than the argument given against the CWO. But generally I am finding the SPGB positions get muddled in their delivery. I mean it's not just me who seems to find it hard to understand what their positions boil down to. One lingering thought is that I worry (in all seriousness) that if there is a revolutionary situation the SPGB will take state power and (though I don't think they actually will ever be in a position or circumstance to do this) introduce totalitarian state rule. Despite what they say, it seems to me a real possibilty. Or am I misunderstanding the positions again? I know in theory the SPGB wants to get rid of the state but it's the manner in which it is done that's important. Of course there are any number of possibilites that could and might occur.

Actually, the SPGB sees itself simply as a tool for the working class to use in order to capture state power and dismantle capitalism forthwith. It sees no role for itself in socialist (communist) society and indeed will go out of existence upon the attainment of that society.


I have no idea on what grounds you think SPGB "will take state power" and might then " introduce totalitarian state rule". One thing that marks the SPGB off from many leftist organisations (particularly of a leninist persuasion) is ots absolute insistance that socialism can only be introduced by a majority of workers who want it and understand what it means. With that goes a set of clear expectations that in fact preempt the possiblity of the SPGB doing anything other than what it claims it wants to do - to achieve a classless and therefore stateless society. The SPGB is not a leadership-based organisation but rather one under the control of its members. That means there is no mechanism that could cause it to depart freom its stated objective. It is not asking for a blank cheque from the workers to govern; it only solicits support for one reason only - to get rid of capitalism

Sociologically speaking, this is a much nore soundly based approach to achieving socialism than, say, leninist vanguardism which postulates the capture of state power in advance of the working class becoming socialists. Essentially, what that means is that the vanguard is obliged to administer capitalism because even with the best of intentions it cannot impose socialism on a non socialist working class. So it is left to administer a system which can only really be administered in the interests of capital. This is the material basis upon which any vanguard will inevitably come to work against the interest of the working class.


It seems to me there a number of people on this forum whose prejudices against the SPGB have allowed them to simply dismiss what the SPGB has to say without serioius consideration. This is a great pity becuase i think what the SPGB has to say is a lot better thought out and nuanced than most others. Problem is so often it it is taken the wrong way entirely.

For instance we have the inane accusation sometime levelled against the SPGB that it refuses to get involved in the day to day class struggle . Where is the SPGB when the workers go on strike? People who ask this sort of question have simply not considered what the SPGB is saying.

Many members of the SPGB have been or are militant trade unionists. The SPGB argues strongly that workers need to organise in the indsutrial filed along militant class conscious liner but, as an organisation, it does not actually get involved in trade union matters (only individual SPGB members do) . The reasoning behind this is sound I believe. The SPGB maintains that in order for trade union action to be most effective it needs to be as broadly based and democratic as possible. That means embracing workers of many different political perspectives. Intervening in a struggle as a political organisation, however, tends to undermine this broad based approach. While leftist sects may see in the case of a industrial dispute the possiblity of recruiting more members or selling their newspapers, such opportunism can have quite a divisive and negative impact on the course of the struggle.

I dont asccept evertthing the SPGB has to say but I think it is a hugely misinderstood organisation. If I were a conspracy theorist , which Im not, I might be inclined to put this down to a deliberate attempt to create miscbief through the dissemination of misinformation and myth. But i dont think that is the reason. Whatever the reason, there does seem to be a clear gap between the perception of the SPGB promoted by some and the perception of SPGBers of themselves as an organisation

[Q]

robbo203: When I looked for the SPGB view on the CPGB, I got little to nothing and what I got was all whining about "ultra-leninist sect" this and "leftwing of capitalism" that. This amazes me somewhat because the SPGB argument with the ICC (as per the article you linked) makes a rather identical case for majoritarian politics, among other things, than the Weekly Worker people would do.

So, what's the deal here? Why the harsh comments and no substance?

[SHORAS]

a deliberate attempt to create miscbief through the dissemination of misinformation and myth. But i dont think that is the reason.:D

Nah, not from me. I appreciate your posts very much. I might comment again when I have a little more time.

[Android]

The differences between the SPGB and CPGB-PCC seems to amount to - SPGB's rejection of the minimum programme and CPGB's rejection of absentionism as an organisation from class struggles.

[Blake's Baby]

Except for the huge differences between the SPGB being internationalists and the CPGB cheerleading German imperialism (in the Kosovo War for instance); and the SPGB being free-access communists and the CPGB being pro-state capitalist, you mean?

[Android]

Except for the huge differences between the SPGB being internationalists and the CPGB cheerleading German imperialism (in the Kosovo War for instance); and the SPGB being free-access communists and the CPGB being pro-state capitalist, you mean?

Nothing you have said in the post above invalidates the simple delineation of the two groups I outlined in my previous post. Your post is just emotional invective.

SPGB's internationalist position on WW1 and WW2 is disputed by other internationalists who have regarded their opposition to both sides as being based on social-pacifism. SPGB do take an internationalist position toward national liberation struggles. For instance IIRC I think their group in Ireland was driven out existence by nationalist gangs.

CPGB's position on the national question (although for instance Mike MacNair has a sort of Luxemburgist postiion with a Kautskyan twist) is based on it being a democratic demand, which is codified in the minimum programme. Being "pro-state capitalist" as you put it originates in their voluntarist approach to politics. Which they share with SPGB.

So in summary, CPGB's statist policies are derived ultimately from their democratism that manifests it itself in the minimum programme. And SPGB's avoidence of these positions is due to their rejection of the minimum programme as stated already. They do share a voluntarist conception of politics, meaning the essential difference is their respective attitudes toward programme.

[Hud955]

The SPGB don't just talk about taking control of power from the state. That is one among a number of actions a conscious socialist working class will need to take to introduce socialism. Organisation in the workplace is another, both in the run up to and during the revolution. The important words here are "the working class", ie not the SPGB. The SPGB wouldn't give a toss if the working class chose not to use it as a political vehicle for carrying out the revolution, so long as it got on with the job. That’s because the party’s revolutionary aims are focused in the working class itself (the actual living, breathing majority of class conscious working people) not in an ideologically advanced elite who claim to be able to lead a non-socialist (or even a socialist) working class to socialism. If you doubt that the working class has the intelligence and capacity to understand the need for socialism and the power to establish it without being led by the nose by some leadership organisation which fantasises about having a monopoly of socialist wisdom then you probably won't agree with much that the SPGB says.

Leftists who are locked into the conventional model of a political leadership organisation never understand what the SPGB is about.

LOL. I don't think the SPGB has much chance of becoming a totalitarian organisation. (Sorry for laughing but you clearly don't know us.) The party’s position in this is that wherever possible, workers should elect members to state legislatures as delegates not as representatives. In other words power remains with the majority. Delegates, unlike representatives are immediately recallable if they act outside their democratic mandate.

But all this is really just procedural. Once you have a socialist majority working class which is moving beyond a trade union consciousness and aiming positively at socialism, then the possibility of totalitarianism simply doesn't enter the picture.

I'm guessing your comment about lobbying for scientific socialism in the school curriculum is facetious (though you can't always tell!)

[Blake's Baby]

Nothing you have said in the post above invalidates the simple delineation of the two groups I outlined in my previous post. Your post is just emotional invective...

No, really it isn't.

I regard the SPGB as being very wrong on certain things, and I agree that their opposition to WWI & WWII was problematic from the point of view of (lack of) actual revolutionary opposition. But there is clearly a difference between the SPGB and the CPGB over national liberation, anti-fascism etc. The SPGB are internationalists, for all their faults. The CPGB are not, they believe in the 'right of nations to self-determination', support for 'progressive bourgeois factions', 'democratic demands of oppressed peoples' and all the rest of that nonsense. There can be no more important distinction between two organisations that claim to be socialist in my opinion - have they called for workers to slaughter each other in bourgeois wars? The SPGB hasn't, the CPGB has; that's the fundamental division between them.

[Android]

But there is clearly a difference between the SPGB and the CPGB over national liberation, anti-fascism etc. The SPGB are internationalists, for all their faults. The CPGB are not, they believe in the 'right of nations to self-determination', support for 'progressive bourgeois factions', 'democratic demands of oppressed peoples' and all the rest of that nonsense. There can be no more important distinction between two organisations that claim to be socialist in my opinion - have they called for workers to slaughter each other in bourgeois wars? The SPGB hasn't, the CPGB has; that's the fundamental division between them.

Of course these differences exist. The point I have been making is they are the result of their respective attitudes to programme, in lieu of the fact that they both share a voluntarist conception of politics.

[bricolage]

Going back to the article (actually just the section he linked to) that robbo posted I'm thankful for the link but have a number of problems with it.


Of course, as Marxists, we hold that socialist consciousness develops out of the workers’ class experience of capitalism and its problems.
This doesn’t actually say much in itself, what kind of ‘experience’? Later on it refers to ‘bad housing, poor health care, pollution, wars and the threat of war, etc, etc’ but then if all that is needed is for things to be bad things have been bad for a very long time and we are still in the bad times. It is evident that the brutality of everyday life is not enough to create revolution. Constrastingly the argument that ‘socialist consciousness’ (a term which I have a number of problems with) arises from confrontation, no matter how small. between workers and capital has a, albeit low, level of evidence to back it up. Previous mass struggles and confrontations have had far less to do with pre-existing consciousness originating from proselytizing socialism around ‘bad housing, poor health care, pollution, wars and the threat of war, etc, etc’ than they have had to do with forced conflicts developing practical consciousness.


when workers are on strike they are generally concerned with getting a favourable settlement not with launching a revolution
The problem is that if workers engaged in, no matter how low a level, of struggle cannot be ‘won over’ to socialism/communism/rrrrrevolushion what chance is there with those who are not engaged in any kind of confrontation at all? The SPGB are quick to claim that ‘The socialist revolution is not likely to start from some strike over wages spreading to the whole of the working class’ yet offer no actual alternative. All there is instead is the task of getting workers to ‘want’ socialism. In doing so a dichotomy is posed between THE LONG WAIT and socialism being forced from above by minority action. Yet what this ignores is the alternative that communism will emerge from practical struggles in the present (the long present) containing its embryonic forms. As was said a very long time ago...
‘Communism is for us not a state of affairs which is to be established, an ideal to which reality [will] have to adjust itself. We call communism the real movement which abolishes the present state of things. The conditions of this movement result from the premises now in existence.’



an anarchist stance on elections and parliament
Also the stance of countless ‘Marxists’ throughout history and a far more practical one than the absurd line taken by the SPGB.


having a penchant for conspiracy theories
I can actually quite well believe this, but out of interest do you know what they are referring to here?

[Q]

But there is clearly a difference between the SPGB and the CPGB over national liberation, anti-fascism etc. The SPGB are internationalists, for all their faults. The CPGB are not, they believe in the 'right of nations to self-determination'
Yes, but they normally argue against it. Case in point is their stance on Scotland where they argue for a federative republic of the British Isles, (that is, including the current Republic of Ireland) and against Scottish independense which they view as a dead end.


support for 'progressive bourgeois factions'
Source?


'democratic demands of oppressed peoples' and all the rest of that nonsense.
Yes, democratic demands are obvious nonsense... or something. We better not give in to those silly democratic demands that empower working class people!


There can be no more important distinction between two organisations that claim to be socialist in my opinion - have they called for workers to slaughter each other in bourgeois wars? The SPGB hasn't, the CPGB has; that's the fundamental division between them.
Source? I'll call bullshit on this until you give one.

[Android]

[T]hey normally argue against it. Case in point is their stance on Scotland where they argue for a federative republic of the British Isles, (that is, including the current Republic of Ireland) and against Scottish independense which they view as a dead end.

Maybe I am wrong. But I thought CPGB's advocacy of a federal republic was as an concession to Scottish and Welsh nationalists. And that there hypothetical federal republic would not include the Ireland or Northern Ireland since there is position on Ireland is a united Ireland with the right to secession / self-determination of the British-Irish nation.


Quote:
support for 'progressive bourgeois factions'

Source?

My understanding is that CPGB are not opposed to entering into alliances with factions of the bourgeoisie if it corresponds with helping them in the struggle to achieve one or more of there minimum demands.

[Q]

Maybe I am wrong. But I thought CPGB's advocacy of a federal republic was as an concession to Scottish and Welsh nationalists.
I guess you could see the federal part as a concession. I'm not sure what their reasoning is here.


And that there hypothetical federal republic would not include the Ireland or Northern Ireland since there is position on Ireland is a united Ireland with the right to secession / self-determination of the British-Irish nation.
You're right actually, their programme (http://www.cpgb.org.uk/article.php?article_id=1002575#3.1.4) says this on the matter (bolded relevant parts):


3.1.4. England, Scotland and Wales
The British nation evolved from the gradual bonding of three nationalities - the English, Welsh and Scottish. Drawn together over centuries by common political and economic experience, they now in the main possess a common language, culture and psychology.

The birth of the British nation was a progressive development objectively. Nevertheless, because it was carried out under the aegis of a brutal absolutism it was accompanied by countless acts of violence and discrimination.

As post-boom British imperialism was forced to turn inwards and, in the absence of a viable proletarian alternative, resistance in Scotland and Wales often took a national form. A mythologised past was deployed by nationalists, opportunists and Labourites alike to serve their nefarious purposes.

Communists stand opposed to every form of Scottish and Welsh national narrow-mindedness. Equally we oppose every form of British-English national chauvinism. Ideas of exclusiveness or superiority, national oppression itself, obscure the fundamental antagonism between labour and capital and divert attention from the need to unite against the common enemy - the British capitalist state.

While communists defend the right of Scotland and Wales to secede, we do not want separation. Communists want the closest union circumstances allow. The peoples of Scotland and Wales cannot decide their future democratically through the monarchy and the Westminster parliament of the House of Commons and House of Lords. That is why we stand for a federal republic of England, Scotland and Wales.

It is the proletarian internationalist duty of communists in Scotland and Wales to defend the right of the Scots and Welsh to remain with and achieve an even higher degree of unity with the English. Correspondingly, communists in England must be the best defenders of the right of the Scotland and Wales to separate. That in no way contradicts the duty to advocate unity.

3.1.5. Ireland
Ireland is Britain’s oldest colony. In 1921 Ireland was dissected - a sectarian Six County statelet was created in order to permanently divide the Irish working class and perpetuate British domination over the whole island of Ireland.

We communists in Britain unconditionally support the right of the people of Ireland to reunite. Working class opposition to British imperialism in Ireland is a necessary condition for our own liberation - a nation that oppresses another can never itself be free. The struggle for socialism in Britain and national liberation in Ireland is closely linked.

Communists in Ireland likewise have internationalist duties. They must fight for the friendship between workers in Britain and Ireland and their speediest coming together. They must be resolute opponents of nationalism.
I guess I err'ed here about the "coming together" part. On the other hand, they also stand for "indivisible European unity" (a paragraph after the one on Ireland), suggesting they don't stop at the unity of England, Scotland and Wales. But I can see that the programme can be interpreted ambiguously.


My understanding is that CPGB are not opposed to entering into alliances with factions of the bourgeoisie if it corresponds with helping them in the struggle to achieve one or more of there minimum demands.
Well, there is a somewhat more complex stance here as I get it and a member of the CPGB should correct me if I got it wrong: They stand for the independent position of the working class. But they also recognise that, at some points, the interests of elements of the bourgeoisie coincide with those of the working class. In those cases they argue for a temporary alliance with these elements, while also criticising them and trying to convince workers that they should persue their own interests as opposed to following those of the bourgeoisie.

This is distinct from the stalinist "peoples front" where the workers movement is subjugated to the capitalists and where any and all criticism is censored in order to preserve the unity at all costs.

Blake's Baby's formulation was an attempt to portray the CPGB as the latter, while they are not.

[Android]

Q:


I guess you could see the federal part as a concession. I'm not sure what their reasoning is here.

That was not me commenting on there position. I am pretty sure I have read in articles in the Weekly Worker saying as much that they would rather advocate a centralised British republican state but instead advocate for a federal republic to take account of the national issues in Scotlands and Wales. I am not sure what there position regarding Cornwall is though.


They stand for the independent position of the working class. But they also recognise that, at some points, the interests of elements of the bourgeoisie coincide with those of the working class. In those cases they argue for a temporary alliance with these elements, while also criticising them and trying to convince workers that they should persue their own interests as opposed to following those of the bourgeoisie.

This is distinct from the stalinist "peoples front" where the workers movement is subjugated to the capitalists and where any and all criticism is censored in order to preserve the unity at all costs.

I do not think the difference is as big here as you imagine it to be. Since once you enter into an alliance with sections of the bourgeoisie you are comprising the independence of the working-class movement irrespective of your subjective intentions in doing it.

[Q]

I do not think the difference is as big here as you imagine it to be. Since once you enter into an alliance with sections of the bourgeoisie you are comprising the independence of the working-class movement irrespective of your subjective intentions in doing it.

I think there is a difference: If your goal is to organise the working class as its own collective entity, it may be that you need to get close to sections of the bourgeoisie that have a mass worker following, in order to try and tear these workers away from their capitalist (mis)leadership. Hence the need for open criticism.

I agree though that things get a lot more sticky if you actually think that there are progressive sections of the bourgeoisie that'll follow through on their rethoric and actually think they can (or want to) carry out progressive change.

[The Idler]

The SPGB debated the modern CPGB position on federal unions in 1940
Should Socialists Support Federal Union? (http://theoryandpractice.org.uk/wsmtemp/pamphlets/should-socialists-support-federal-union)