Which British Communist party do you suggest?

[Comrade Jacob]

New Communist Party, CPGB-ML, CPB etc.
I have always had a real urge to join a political party but I am torn on which to join, (there are more than the main 3 I named). I think that the CPB has become much more of a social-democratic party as with the NCP, but the CPGB-ML has a lot of strange ideas like: China is still socialist etc. I have read all of their party programs but I am still not sure, if you are in one of the parties mentioned could you give me a run-down on it, it's membership etc...
Thanks.

[Arlekino]

Why 3 different communist parties, why just one communist or socialist party, we would be bigger majority. I am talking childish or I wish to see more united leftist org.

[Tim Cornelis]

Personally I'd prefer the CPGB and would thus advice it to you. But without knowing the specifics of your politics, I really don't know. The CPGB-ML would be last on my list for its crazy Stalin worship.

[Comrade Jacob]

CPGB ended in 1988

[Vladimir Innit Lenin]

Honestly, none of them. The CPGB-ML are batshit insane - they uphold China, DPRK et al. not only as anti-imperialists but as genuinely Socialist systems. Harpral Brar is one crazy individual.

The CPGB, CPB, CPB-ML etc. - they're all just totally irrelevant. Joining them would be the worst thing you could do, they would grind you down and give you a totally false - and probably dangerous - account of the state of the British left, of Socialism historically and what it is today.

If you want to do something, I suggest not joining one group or party but perhaps going along to a few events, meetings, protests, doing a bit of networking and finding like-minded individuals who you can form a reading group with, who you can analyse politics with, who you can take real political actions with.

It's a damn sight better to do something that is self-fulfilling than to subsume yourself to some sect that is doing nothing to affect the working class and to effect Socialism, but instead is just playing petty politics and grinding good comrades down to dust.

[Lenina Rosenweg]

I'd go for the Socialist Party/CWI,but that's just me.

I'm on the other side of the puddle and I can't say I'm super knowledgable about these groups.I can say though putting the word "communist"in a name doesn't make it so. The CPUSA is a case in point.The CPGB-ML go around with huge portraits of Uncle Joe. No one takes them seriously. The CPB had veiled death threats against socialist activists in the DSM in South Africa (discussed on trainspotters). I don't know anything about the NCP.

If you are looking for a commie group I think you can do better.

[Sam_b]

CPGB ended in 1988

...and which still exists in the form of the CPGB (Provisional Central Committee). They publish the Weekly Worker, and may be tiny, but still exist.

[Comrade Jacob]

Yes, I meant as an actual party.

[Mass Grave Aesthetics]

The CPGB (Provisional Central Committee) is an actual party.
They are far better than any of those 3 parties in the poll. Here is their website (http://www.cpgb.org.uk/)

[Sam_b]

Yes, I meant as an actual party

Define what you mean as an 'actual party'.

[darkblues]

i'd choose NCP, but only because Britain/GB isn't in its title....zero other reason, um, so, not very helpful here...is RevLeft a political party btw, a global one perhaps?? :)

[Sam_b]

The full name of the NCP is the New Communist Party of Britain.

The name doesn't infer anything aside from where the organisation is based, anyway.

[Comrade Jacob]

Ok, sure it's a party.

[The Idler]

...and which still exists in the form of the CPGB (Provisional Central Committee). They publish the Weekly Worker, and may be tiny, but still exist.
I take you don't actually consider them the continuation of the CPGB? CPB who are associated with the Morning Star have the best claim to actually continue the old CPGB.
I'm not sure why the parties originally proposed have been chosen. The only thing I can see is they have communist in their name, maybe you think they are more authentically marxist than parties with socialist in the name, if so then you'd be wrong. Most parties with communist in their name are just dwindling Stalin fans losing what little grip they had on reality as Stalin becomes less and less of interest to anyone.

[Sam_b]

I don't really, the PCC folks took over the name (IIRC in 1991?) and that's why I say in form. If I'm being honest I don't really care about who rightfully owns that legacy in a practical sense, a historical one yes, but there we go.

I agree, it's a rather bizarre choice of organisations.

[The Idler]

Unorthodox Trots don't even Stalin bash much anymore as Stalin loses contemporary relevance, except for the AWL who accuse everyone of Stalinism.

[Karlorax]

I can't think of any groups in Britain that I support.

[Le Socialiste]

If you want to do something, I suggest not joining one group or party but perhaps going along to a few events, meetings, protests, doing a bit of networking and finding like-minded individuals who you can form a reading group with, who you can analyse politics with, who you can take real political actions with.

It's a damn sight better to do something that is self-fulfilling than to subsume yourself to some sect that is doing nothing to affect the working class and to effect Socialism, but instead is just playing petty politics and grinding good comrades down to dust.

I agree that it's necessary to be cautious in how you approach other groups or organizations, and a healthy dose of criticism can take you a long way in terms of evaluating how each one holds up - not only theoretically, but practically - but without proper organization the revolutionary left can only participate in the movements and struggles of the working-class within a limited (and ultimately temporary) capacity. The whole point of an organization, aside from the ability to generalize and understand the shape and contour of working-class activity and one's perspectives, is that we stand to make a greater impact on the former if we're, well, organized. And it will take something more than what we have at present, obviously. The sorry state of the 'organized left' may make the task of organizing seem more daunting, but it sure as hell beats continuing on as atomized centers with little to no presence in the national and international movements of working people.

Edit - This is all to say that while I share your concerns (and believe them to be valid), the task confronting us is not whether we should abandon the issue of organization altogether, but how we should overcome these deficiencies. We must aim to eventually be a party or organization of the working-class not only in name, but in practice.

[Yuppie Grinder]

Much of the ICC's members are British if I remember correctly.

[Brutus]

I would recommend the CPGB, as they seem to have the most ideologically sound line. Plus I'm an 'official sympathiser' and get their party notes, and so on. Sad as it may be for a 15 year old, i look forward to the new edition of the weekly worker.

[Vladimir Innit Lenin]

I agree that it's necessary to be cautious in how you approach other groups or organizations, and a healthy dose of criticism can take you a long way in terms of evaluating how each one holds up - not only theoretically, but practically - but without proper organization the revolutionary left can only participate in the movements and struggles of the working-class within a limited (and ultimately temporary) capacity. The whole point of an organization, aside from the ability to generalize and understand the shape and contour of working-class activity and one's perspectives, is that we stand to make a greater impact on the former if we're, well, organized. And it will take something more than what we have at present, obviously. The sorry state of the 'organized left' may make the task of organizing seem more daunting, but it sure as hell beats continuing on as atomized centers with little to no presence in the national and international movements of working people.

Edit - This is all to say that while I share your concerns (and believe them to be valid), the task confronting us is not whether we should abandon the issue of organization altogether, but how we should overcome these deficiencies. We must aim to eventually be a party or organization of the working-class not only in name, but in practice.

I wouldn't equate abandoning the party model with abandoning organisation. Parties are too slow and clunky to really have any dynamic effect on the political process today - even 100 years ago, parties generally failed to be effective vehicles for social change (think SPD, RCP {B}, Labour Party et al.) because they were incapable of encapsulating the day-to-day and inter-ideology movements that characterise social and political change.

We need organisation, that is for sure, but one must look at the state of parties today, and the role of parties hitherto in social change, and ask whether parties are the best option for genuine social change, or whether parties are merely the best option for parties themselves?

I have, for a while, been quite confused as to why we take the parties = best form of organisation equation as a given when, like capitalism, parties have been around for but a minute of our human history. We don't take capitalism to be a given forever, we aren't all Frances Fukuyama, so why do so many do the same with political parties?

[Q]

Yes, I meant as an actual party.
I suppose your politics are "Marxist-Leninist", given the poll options, which I only consider nominally communist in any case. But if you're looking for a party in the sense of a part of society being politically organised then there are no proletarian parties today. What we have in the UK are groups that number up to a few thousand (if that much) and which are mostly organised along the lines of sectarian ideas.

[The Idler]

I would recommend the CPGB, as they seem to have the most ideologically sound line. Plus I'm an 'official sympathiser' and get their party notes, and so on. Sad as it may be for a 15 year old, i look forward to the new edition of the weekly worker.
I look forward to Weekly Worker and get their Notes for Action but I'm not an 'official sympathiser' whatever that is.

[Brutus]

I look forward to Weekly Worker and get their Notes for Action but I'm not an 'official sympathiser' whatever that is.

It means that I'm too poor and geographically restricted to be a proper member, but still agree theoretically.

[The Feral Underclass]

Weekly Worker: The NOW Magazine of the Left.

[Brutus]

Weekly Worker: The NOW Magazine of the Left.

The left's gossip rag!

[The Idler]

Producing a readable popular left rag isn't easy. Class War managed it by printing salacious stuff the intellectual rags wouldn't touch.

[dirtysquatter]

I'd personally recommend joining the CPGB-ML-ML-ML (Communist Party of Great Britain Marxist-Leninist-Maoist-Luxemburgist-More-Letters)!

[red flag over teeside]

Instead of restricting your self to the various Communist Parties I'd suggest that you look at the Communist Left such as the ICT or the ICC or even the Commune. Wouldn't worry about being in a small party even the so called larger ones such as the Trotskyist ones are still largely irrelevant to the class struggle. Unfortunately the reformists are still the ones who largely instigate actions.

The important thing is to develop political clarity which is linked to being active. Being active for it's own sake will grind you down.

Whichever one you choose good luck.

[Vladimir Innit Lenin]

Is The Commune still active at all? I had the impression they'd regressed to a non-regular tiny discussion group in London?

[Brutus]

Is The Commune still active at all? I had the impression they'd regressed to a non-regular tiny discussion group in London?

I think they still write a few articles, but are rarely physically active

[A.J.]

CPGB ended in 1988

Actually, the old party was only formally liquidated in 1991(by which time had long since become dominated by an opportunist-revisionist trend that came to be known as 'eurocommunism'). Forming the 'Democratic Left' in it's place, openly declaring that they were no longer Leninists and that the October revolution had been a mistake.

[Q]

Actually, the old party was only formally liquidated in 1991(by which time had long since become dominated by an opportunist-revisionist trend that came to be known as 'eurocommunism'). Forming the 'Democratic Left' in it's place, openly declaring that they were no longer Leninists and that the October revolution had been a mistake.
Comrade Jacob is probably going with the CPB founding story and they were founded in 1988. Ergo, the old party died in that same year. Why else would the Morning Star wing have split from it? They wouldn't unless the party died in 1988. Nice little circle reasoning... if you're into that of course.

[electro_fan]

if you want to join a trot party, the CWI is probably the sanest one out there, but i don't recommend it

[-NW2-]

I know many on here are very critical of the CPB but of all the groups on the left in Britain, I think they are the only ones with any sort of actual base in the working class. They are influential in a few unions and have The Morning star. They are also quite influential on the Labour left, with MPs like Jeremy Corbyn, John McDonnell and Michael Meacher regular contributors to the paper. Also recently noticed the leaders of the Greens and Plaid Cymru write a few articles in there recently.

I suppose it depends on whether or not you believe there is a 'British Road to Socialism' in Britain. Have a read of it, if you think its s***e, disregard them. If you like it, get in touch with the party.

Too many groups on the left appear to me to be cult like organisations who just want to get in new members and have very little grip on reality. The CPB people who I have spoken with (admitedly a small number) never came across that way

[The Idler]

Have you ever read Communist Review or one of their pamphlets? I picked up a couple a year or so back. The real theoretical work they produce is dire. I don't know whether they're cult-like but the theory seems very Cold War. The Morning Star cosies up to China too. I'm not sure how many groups you have encountered, but many are more fun than the CPB.

[hashem]

Why 3 different communist parties, why just one communist or socialist party, we would be bigger majority. I am talking childish or I wish to see more united leftist org.

it would be too naive to accept claims of all those who call themselves "communist" or "socialist". many of them are pursuing a bourgeois policy.

[Die Neue Zeit]

Personally I'd prefer the CPGB and would thus advice it to you. But without knowing the specifics of your politics, I really don't know. The CPGB-ML would be last on my list for its crazy Stalin worship.

Yes, the CPGB comrades, Left Unity, or both.

[Karlorax]

LLCO is a global organization, I have heard they have some British fans. http://llco.org


__________________

Currently reading, dare to join me? I am no Leading Light Communist, but I am studying their work for my MA thesis

Leading Light on Conspiracy Theory is Intelligent Design (http://llco.org/leading-light-on-conspiracy-theory-is-intelligent-design/)
Was Lin Biao guilty plotting a coup? Part 1 of 2 (draft) (http://llco.org/draft-was-lin-biao-guilty-plotting-a-coup-part-1-of-2/)
Revisiting Value and Exploitation (http://llco.org/revisiting-value-and-exploitation/)
What about the Gulag? Mao’s errors? Stalin’s? (http://llco.org/revolutionary-history-initial-summations/)