Your opinion on the CPGB(PCC)?

[RedWorker]

I tried using the search function and it seems that not much has been said about this party on RevLeft.
So I wonder: What is your opinion on the CPGB(PCC) and its political positions?

[The Feral Underclass]

Their SWP baiting is excellent, which is all the do, right?

[Anglo-Saxon Philistine]

The only positive thing I could say about the PCC is that they're not half as bad as some of their sympathisers (some of which you might run into here). As for the rest - they have the usual Lihite creepy obsession with Kautsky, the bizarre notion that a "part of the entire class" is even possible in the epoch of imperialism, let alone desirable, their analysis of the Soviet Union is pretty much to stop their ears and yell "I can't hear you!" (is it "bureaucratic socialist", whatever that means? a "non-mode of production" whatever that means? all of the above? neither?), they have the usual liberal obsession with bourgeois democracy, they're a part of Left Unity... need I go on? At this point, you've either placed them together with other liberal "socialist" groups, or you're thinking this is the greatest thing since sliced Jell-O and that my implicit disagreement proves I'm a "sectarian" in RevLeft parlance.

Their central organ can be pretty hilarious at times. Reportedly they printed a wrong picture of Mumia once.

[Q]

870 actually gives a reasonably good summary, be it that he sees it as negative points and, in his negative opinion, distorts the standpoints of this group somewhat.

They'll soon have a summerschool (http://www.revleft.com/vb/communist-university-2014-t187102/index.html) which would be a good event to learn to know them, if you like. So, if you're anywhere close to London I can very much recommend it to make up your own mind and, if you like, vehemently disagree with any of the speakers on it, which is kinda the point of the school :)

[Zoroaster]

The only positive thing I could say about the PCC is that they're not half as bad as some of their sympathisers (some of which you might run into here). As for the rest - they have the usual Lihite creepy obsession with Kautsky, the bizarre notion that a "part of the entire class" is even possible in the epoch of imperialism, let alone desirable, their analysis of the Soviet Union is pretty much to stop their ears and yell "I can't hear you!" (is it "bureaucratic socialist", whatever that means? a "non-mode of production" whatever that means? all of the above? neither?), they have the usual liberal obsession with bourgeois democracy, they're a part of Left Unity... need I go on? At this point, you've either placed them together with other liberal "socialist" groups, or you're thinking this is the greatest thing since sliced Jell-O and that my implicit disagreement proves I'm a "sectarian" in RevLeft parlance.

Their central organ can be pretty hilarious at times. Reportedly they printed a wrong picture of Mumia once.

Liberal obsession? Could you expand on that, please?

[Alexios]

They have a higher quality of analysis than most sects, and I can respect their willingness to challenge some of leftism's sacred cows. Politically, I think the party is a joke, and their incessant gossip about radical politics is beyond ridiculous.

[Anglo-Saxon Philistine]

Liberal obsession? Could you expand on that, please?

I think the articles I had in mind were titled "On the bourgeois republic" and "Why 33% of votes equals 55% of seats" (oh the horror). Unfortunately, the site seems to be having difficulties, so I can't find the articles, I keep getting a 500 error.

[Five Year Plan]

I think the articles I had in mind were titled "On the bourgeois republic" and "Why 33% of votes equals 55% of seats" (oh the horror). Unfortunately, the site seems to be having difficulties, so I can't find the articles, I keep getting a 500 error.

Yeah, their website is messed up. The article about the bourgeois republic you're looking for is at http://weeklyworker.co.uk/worker/319/on-the-bourgeois-republic/

[Zoroaster]

Yeah, their website is messed up. The article about the bourgeois republic you're looking for is at http://weeklyworker.co.uk/worker/319/on-the-bourgeois-republic/

Ok, thanks. Besides a few things, such as that, I like what they advocate.

Edit: my views have changed since then.

[bad ideas actualised by alcohol]

Hardly an opinion of the organisation as a whole that article. For one it mentions permanent revolution which is something Mike Macnair, for example, has spent a lot of time arguing against. It's actually the first time I've seen someone argue for a bourgeois republic. They usually argue for a democratic republic, which makes a lot of leftists shout "HERESY!" but in CPGB language (as they have explained in many articles) democratic republic means the dictatorship of the proletariat (one can argue against naming it DR but it would be unfair to act as if they mean anything else by it). Seems to me like it's just searching for things to disprove of in the weekly worker archives, I mean the article is from 2000 and they publish lotsa things of non-members. Would be better if people actually engaged with their actual politics, much more honest.

[Anglo-Saxon Philistine]

If the democratic republic is supposed to be the dictatorship of the proletariat in CPGB-speak (what's next, democratic proletocracy?), that says a lot about their conception of the DotP. But as is clear from several (http://weeklyworker.co.uk/worker/458/less-republican-than-others/) articles (http://weeklyworker.co.uk/worker/466/blair-and-the-provisional-republican-government/) they have published, this is not the case.

[Q]

... and they publish lotsa things of non-members. Would be better if people actually engaged with their actual politics, much more honest.


But as is clear from several (http://weeklyworker.co.uk/worker/458/less-republican-than-others/) articles (http://weeklyworker.co.uk/worker/466/blair-and-the-provisional-republican-government/) they have published, this is not the case.

... And both articles were writting by Dave Craig of the Revolutionary Democratic Group, an organisation the CPGB has criticized on many occasions. I know this concept of publishing what your opponents state is an alien concept to you (it would only "confuse" normal workers, right? Such disdainful view...), but please, do at least pay a little attention when you're trying to make a point.

Oh and do try to cite something more recent than a twelve year old article. That could possibly help make your case too.

[Five Year Plan]

That's the fun with the CPGB folks on this forum. You can offer a damning and substantive criticism of a position printed in their organ, and they can always disavow it by saying it doesn't represent the organization as a whole, or that it was written by a person not affiliated with the organization. That's the benefit of being a diffuse broad-left grouping that is bound only by the most minimal of demands. They can deflect any attempt at criticizing their, aherm, propaganda into a silly game of whack-a-mole. That benefit for them comes at a cost though. It's why the masses that CPGB supporters are hoping to accumulate under the umbrella of their program will be an unwieldy and amorphous mass with no clear class content or direction.

[Five Year Plan]

... And both articles were writting by Dave Craig of the Revolutionary Democratic Group, an organisation the CPGB has criticized on many occasions. I know this concept of publishing what your opponents state is an alien concept to you (it would only "confuse" normal workers, right? Such disdainful view...), but please, do at least pay a little attention when you're trying to make a point.

Oh and do try to cite something more recent than a twelve year old article. That could possibly help make your case too.

This is a silly statement. Even the most centralized and bureaucratized groups print the positions of their opponents, but they usually tend to do so with a response articulating their own position and why they disagree with that voiced by their opponents.

[Anglo-Saxon Philistine]

... And both articles were writting by Dave Craig of the Revolutionary Democratic Group, an organisation the CPGB has criticized on many occasions. I know this concept of publishing what your opponents state is an alien concept to you (it would only "confuse" normal workers, right? Such disdainful view...), but please, do at least pay a little attention when you're trying to make a point.

Oh and do try to cite something more recent than a twelve year old article. That could possibly help make your case too.

The debate in the Socialist Alliance on the monarchy, which saw the CPGB and the RDG accuse the SWP of "monarchism", was twelve years ago (twelve to eleven would be a more accurate description as far as I know), so the most damning articles come from that period. And yes, if you publish articles outside the letters or polemic sections - and Craig's articles were not published in these sections - this means that you are in broad (if not necessarily complete) agreement with them. This has nothing to do with "confusing normal workers", it has to do with basic editorial integrity.

In any case - Craig specifically states that the RDG and the CPGB have an extremely similar view of the bourgeois republic:

'Sean then explains what he thinks is the theory behind the CPGB (and RDG) view. He says: "I suspect that your strange vision of Britain here can only be understood in terms of the old Stalinist dogmas about a two-stage revolution, even in advanced countries - see below - and some background, or subconscious, notion that because the monarchy and other pseudo-feudal relics have survived - through three and a half centuries of bourgeois rule! - the 'bourgeois democratic revolution' has yet to be completed in Britain. This strange notion is less of an eccentric rarity than it should be. It was in circulation outside Stalinist ranks, amongst the New Left Review people, in the mid-60s. EP Thompson debated it with them, and they later shamefacedly admitted that Thompson had been right."� This quote goes straight to the heart of the matter. The irreconcilable attitude of the RDG (and CPGB) seems to originate with a peculiar theory of revolution - namely the theory of bourgeois democratic revolution. I notice that Sean says that he "suspects"� this. His suspicion, even if understandable, is completely wrong. The RDG does not have a theory of bourgeois democratic revolution. On the contrary our view is based on a complete rejection of this theory. If the CPGB were the only advocates of revolutionary republicanism, then the hypothesis that this was left over from Stalinism might seem to hold water. But the RDG comes from the state capitalist tradition and our agitation for a federal republic goes back to 1980. We got our republicanism from state capitalism, not from the CPGB. This should warn us against any idea that Stalinism explains revolutionary republicanism. On the contrary I would argue that revolutionary republicanism is an important measure of the current CPGB's successful break from the Stalinist tradition.'

And the CPGB not only carried this article in the WW, they did not correct Craig on the matter. So it seems they were in agreement - which was demonstrated in practice by their shared attitude to the SA, the SWP and so on.

All of this was twelve to eleven years ago, but as far as I know the CPGB has never rejected their line at the time. Nor have they denounced their participation in the Campaign for Labour Party Democracy. Or their blatant calls (http://weeklyworker.co.uk/worker/576/why-353-of-the-votes-equals-551-of-the-seats/) to tweak the bourgeois state's procedures to make them "more democratic". Or the call (http://weeklyworker.co.uk/worker/783/battle-of-the-ballot-box/) for socialist candidates to step down in favour of Labour ones. And so on, and so on.

[Q]

Ok, so let's move a step back:


If the democratic republic is supposed to be the dictatorship of the proletariat in CPGB-speak (what's next, democratic proletocracy?), that says a lot about their conception of the DotP. But as is clear from several (http://weeklyworker.co.uk/worker/458/less-republican-than-others/) articles (http://weeklyworker.co.uk/worker/466/blair-and-the-provisional-republican-government/) they have published, this is not the case.
"If the democratic republic is supposed to be the dictatorship of the proletariat in CPGB-speak (what's next, democratic proletocracy?)..."

I'm not entirely sure what the fuss is all about. As Engels put it in his critique on a draft of the Erfurt Programme:


If one thing is certain it is that our party and the working class can only come to power under the form of a democratic republic. This is even the specific form for the dictatorship of the proletariat(Sadly, this is no longer online (http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/410.htm). If you like, I can share you a local copy which I downloaded last April, before this was removed).

The "democratic republic" then is not your typical bourgeois construct. Putting it this way is a misunderstanding of viewpoints.

"... that says a lot about their conception of the DotP."

Which is what?

"But as is clear from several (http://weeklyworker.co.uk/worker/458/less-republican-than-others/) articles (http://weeklyworker.co.uk/worker/466/blair-and-the-provisional-republican-government/) they have published, this is not the case."

A reasonably easy search in Google (https://www.google.nl/search?client=ubuntu&channel=fs&q=site%3Aweeklyworkers.co.uk+%22democratic+republi c%22&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&gfe_rd=cr&ei=7qfeU46DMof4-gaI4oDwBA#channel=fs&q=site:weeklyworker.co.uk+%22democratic+republic%2 2+%22dictatorship+of+the+proletariat%22) gives another image. We note 163 results of articles or letters which both have the mention of "dictatorship of the proletariat" and "democratic republic". Some of the immediate results are coming from this (http://weeklyworker.co.uk/worker/448/formulation-nine-and-the-possibility-of-peaceful-r/) seven (http://weeklyworker.co.uk/worker/449/formulation-nine-and-the-dictatorship-of-the-prole/) part (http://weeklyworker.co.uk/worker/450/dictatorship-of-the-proletariat-and-the-second-int/) series (http://weeklyworker.co.uk/worker/451/russian-means-and-the-dictatorship-of-the-minority/) of (http://weeklyworker.co.uk/worker/452/proletarian-dictatorship-as-theory-and-practice/) Jack (http://weeklyworker.co.uk/worker/453/dictatorship-of-the-proletariat-bolshevism-versus-/) Conrad (http://weeklyworker.co.uk/worker/454/preparing-for-power/) at the same time you're sourcing your articles from, four of which mention and explain one or both terms. Later there have been other articles, like this one from 2010 (http://weeklyworker.co.uk/worker/823/socialism-is-a-form-of-class-struggle/).

This all seems to directly contradict to your statement that "the democratic republic is supposed to be the dictatorship of the proletariat [...] but this is not the case". Therefore, your positioning of the 'democratic republic' as having "the usual liberal obsession with bourgeois democracy" is not only fundamentally mistaken (dare I say, deliberately slanderous?), but it actually anti-Marxist in the sense that Marx and Engels used the very same terminology. If you were aware of these original meanings, which I think you do, it also dishonest in portraying things this way.

[Five Year Plan]

Ok, so let's move a step back:


"If the democratic republic is supposed to be the dictatorship of the proletariat in CPGB-speak (what's next, democratic proletocracy?)..."

I'm not entirely sure what the fuss is all about. As Engels put it in his critique on a draft of the Erfurt Programme:

(Sadly, this is no longer online (http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/410.htm). If you like, I can share you a local copy which I downloaded last April, before this was removed).

The "democratic republic" then is not your typical bourgeois construct. Putting it this way is a misunderstanding of viewpoints.

"... that says a lot about their conception of the DotP."

Which is what?

"But as is clear from several (http://weeklyworker.co.uk/worker/458/less-republican-than-others/) articles (http://weeklyworker.co.uk/worker/466/blair-and-the-provisional-republican-government/) they have published, this is not the case."

A reasonably easy search in Google (https://www.google.nl/search?client=ubuntu&channel=fs&q=site%3Aweeklyworkers.co.uk+%22democratic+republi c%22&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&gfe_rd=cr&ei=7qfeU46DMof4-gaI4oDwBA#channel=fs&q=site:weeklyworker.co.uk+%22democratic+republic%2 2+%22dictatorship+of+the+proletariat%22) gives another image. We note 163 results of articles or letters which both have the mention of "dictatorship of the proletariat" and "democratic republic". Some of the immediate results are coming from this (http://weeklyworker.co.uk/worker/448/formulation-nine-and-the-possibility-of-peaceful-r/) seven (http://weeklyworker.co.uk/worker/449/formulation-nine-and-the-dictatorship-of-the-prole/) part (http://weeklyworker.co.uk/worker/450/dictatorship-of-the-proletariat-and-the-second-int/) series (http://weeklyworker.co.uk/worker/451/russian-means-and-the-dictatorship-of-the-minority/) of (http://weeklyworker.co.uk/worker/452/proletarian-dictatorship-as-theory-and-practice/) Jack (http://weeklyworker.co.uk/worker/453/dictatorship-of-the-proletariat-bolshevism-versus-/) Conrad (http://weeklyworker.co.uk/worker/454/preparing-for-power/) at the same time you're sourcing your articles from, four of which mention and explain one or both terms. Later there have been other articles, like this one from 2010 (http://weeklyworker.co.uk/worker/823/socialism-is-a-form-of-class-struggle/).

This all seems to directly contradict to your statement that "the democratic republic is supposed to be the dictatorship of the proletariat [...] but this is not the case". Therefore, your positioning of the 'democratic republic' as having "the usual liberal obsession with bourgeois democracy" is not only fundamentally mistaken (dare I say, deliberately slanderous?), but it actually anti-Marxist in the sense that Marx and Engels used the very same terminology. If you were aware of these original meanings, which I think you do, it also dishonest in portraying things this way.

Engels in the quote from his comments on the Erfurt Program was referring to the governmental form under which the proletariat can take power. The content of a government with a democratic form can be either bourgeois or proletarian. His point was to criticize those people, some of whom have found their way onto the forum, who think that democracy is antithetical or unrelated to socialism, and therefore should not be addressed. His point was to reinforce the exact opposite of the conclusion that the CPGB takes away: that the the struggle for democratic demands should be incorporated and must be incorporated into a struggle for the revolutionary overthrow of capitalism, not act as a programmatic substitute for the overthrow of capitalism in some revival of Stalin's two-stage social-democratic theory. It's no wonder the Third-World Caesareans are attracted to the CPGB-PCC like moths to a flame. They also have the two-stage fetish for putting off proletarian revolution, only their first stage isn't so palatable.

[Q]

Engels in the quote from his comments on the Erfurt Program was referring to the governmental form under which the proletariat can take power. The content of a government with a democratic form can be either bourgeois or proletarian. His point was to criticize those people, some of whom have found their way onto the forum, who think that democracy is antithetical or unrelated to socialism, and therefore should not be addressed. His point was to reinforce the exact opposite of the conclusion that the CPGB takes away: that the the struggle for democratic demands should be incorporated and must be incorporated into a struggle for the revolutionary overthrow of capitalism, not act as a programmatic substitute for the overthrow of capitalism in some revival of Stalin's two-stage social-democratic theory.
Ok, I'm just going to use your own argument: That's just what you think and you are wrong.


It's no wonder the Third-World Caesareans are attracted to the CPGB-PCC like moths to a flame. They also have the two-stage fetish for putting off proletarian revolution, only their first stage isn't so palatable.
As far as I know there is only one "Third-World Caesarean" in existance...

[Devrim]

I was in the pub with two ex-members of the CPGB a couple of weeks ago. We were talkng about their origins in Yeni Yol, and I said they were Stalinsts. One of their ex-members said yes, but "left Stalinists". The whole table sort of cracked up.

Today though I don't think they are Stalinists. While I disagree with their politics, I do think that they seem to know what they are doing, and that producing a weekly paper with that few people is really impressive.

Unfortunately for them, even on their own terms I think that there are deep problems with their strategy. Basically they believe that they can unite the left, and act as its new leadership. What though separates them from the myriad of other groups that want to unite the left behind them?

If we believe that there will be an increase in the levels of class struggle, and if we don't we may as well give up now, then we will also see an increase in the size of the left. This sort of period enables small left groups to grow, and tiny groups can go from a handful of people to being the main political force on the left*. I don't think that the CPGB's strategy is something that will be able to take advantage of this situation. Basically they use all of their energy commenting on the machinations of other left groups. If you produce a weekly paper with so few people you don't have much time for much else. They don't have any actually intervention in class struggle themselves, and from what I can see don't think it is necessary.

I think a new wave of struggle will sweep away many of the organisations, like the SWP, that the CPGB focuses its attention on. They will be left as a tiny marginalised group (as they are now) commenting on groups that are becoming more and more marginal.

Also they are great adherents to the ideas of Lenin on the revolutionary newspaper as expressed in stuff like WITBD. In a period where the newspaper is being technologically superseded this seems to be a bit of a loser.

Devrim

*An example would be the Tony Cliff group, which went from being eight people to one of the two biggest left groups in the UK.

[Anglo-Saxon Philistine]

Ok, so let's move a step back:

"If the democratic republic is supposed to be the dictatorship of the proletariat in CPGB-speak (what's next, democratic proletocracy?)..."

I'm not entirely sure what the fuss is all about. As Engels put it in his critique on a draft of the Erfurt Programme:

(Sadly, this is no longer online (http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/410.htm). If you like, I can share you a local copy which I downloaded last April, before this was removed).

The "democratic republic" then is not your typical bourgeois construct. Putting it this way is a misunderstanding of viewpoints.

"... that says a lot about their conception of the DotP."

Which is what?

"But as is clear from several (http://weeklyworker.co.uk/worker/458/less-republican-than-others/) articles (http://weeklyworker.co.uk/worker/466/blair-and-the-provisional-republican-government/) they have published, this is not the case."

A reasonably easy search in Google (https://www.google.nl/search?client=ubuntu&channel=fs&q=site%3Aweeklyworkers.co.uk+%22democratic+republi c%22&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&gfe_rd=cr&ei=7qfeU46DMof4-gaI4oDwBA#channel=fs&q=site:weeklyworker.co.uk+%22democratic+republic%2 2+%22dictatorship+of+the+proletariat%22) gives another image. We note 163 results of articles or letters which both have the mention of "dictatorship of the proletariat" and "democratic republic". Some of the immediate results are coming from this (http://weeklyworker.co.uk/worker/448/formulation-nine-and-the-possibility-of-peaceful-r/) seven (http://weeklyworker.co.uk/worker/449/formulation-nine-and-the-dictatorship-of-the-prole/) part (http://weeklyworker.co.uk/worker/450/dictatorship-of-the-proletariat-and-the-second-int/) series (http://weeklyworker.co.uk/worker/451/russian-means-and-the-dictatorship-of-the-minority/) of (http://weeklyworker.co.uk/worker/452/proletarian-dictatorship-as-theory-and-practice/) Jack (http://weeklyworker.co.uk/worker/453/dictatorship-of-the-proletariat-bolshevism-versus-/) Conrad (http://weeklyworker.co.uk/worker/454/preparing-for-power/) at the same time you're sourcing your articles from, four of which mention and explain one or both terms. Later there have been other articles, like this one from 2010 (http://weeklyworker.co.uk/worker/823/socialism-is-a-form-of-class-struggle/).

This all seems to directly contradict to your statement that "the democratic republic is supposed to be the dictatorship of the proletariat [...] but this is not the case". Therefore, your positioning of the 'democratic republic' as having "the usual liberal obsession with bourgeois democracy" is not only fundamentally mistaken (dare I say, deliberately slanderous?), but it actually anti-Marxist in the sense that Marx and Engels used the very same terminology. If you were aware of these original meanings, which I think you do, it also dishonest in portraying things this way.

Q dearest, I don't think you are in any position to accuse other people of dishonestly ignoring how certain terms are used in Marxist analysis. By the way, how goes your crusade to convince people that terms like "centrist", "sectarian", "orthodox Marxist" etc. mean what you want them to mean?

As for the democratic republic and the dictatorship of the proletariat, you might want to read Engels's sentence again. Here it is in its immediate context:

"If one thing is certain it is that our party and the working class can only come to power under the form of a democratic republic. This is even the specific form for the dictatorship of the proletariat, as the Great French Revolution has already shown. It would be inconceivable for our best people to become ministers under an emperor, as Miquel. It would seem that from a legal point of view it is inadvisable to include the demand for a republic directly in the programme, although this was possible even under Louis Phillippe in France, and is now in Italy. But the fact that in Germany it is not permitted to advance even a republican party programme openly, proves how totally mistaken is the belief that a republic, and not only a republic, but also communist society, can be established in a cosy, peaceful way."

Once again: this is even the specific form for the dictatorship of the proletariat. So the dictatorship of the proletariat will be a democratic republic (in abstract, of course: monarchy is of no use to us but circumstances might dictate a greater or lesser dose of democracy in the transitional period). But it does not follow - this is elementary logic - that the democratic republic is the dictatorship of the proletariat. In fact Marx and Engels never said something so thoroughly stupid.

Here is how Marx put it:

'Between capitalist and communist society there lies the period of the revolutionary transformation of the one into the other. Corresponding to this is also a political transition period in which the state can be nothing but the revolutionary dictatorship of the proletariat.
Now the program does not deal with this nor with the future state of communist society.

Its political demands contain nothing beyond the old democratic litany familiar to all: universal suffrage, direct legislation, popular rights, a people's militia, etc. They are a mere echo of the bourgeois People's Party, of the League of Peace and Freedom. They are all demands which, insofar as they are not exaggerated in fantastic presentation, have already been realized. Only the state to which they belong does not lie within the borders of the German Empire, but in Switzerland, the United States, etc. This sort of "state of the future" is a present-day state, although existing outside the "framework" of the German Empire.

But one thing has been forgotten. Since the German Workers' party expressly declares that it acts within "the present-day national state", hence within its own state, the Prusso-German Empire — its demands would indeed be otherwise largely meaningless, since one only demands what one has not got — it should not have forgotten the chief thing, namely, that all those pretty little gewgaws rest on the recognition of the so-called sovereignty of the people and hence are appropriate only in a democratic republic.

Since one has not the courage — and wisely so, for the circumstances demand caution — to demand the democratic republic, as the French workers' programs under Louis Philippe and under Louis Napoleon did, one should not have resorted, either, to the subterfuge, neither "honest" nor decent, of demanding things which have meaning only in a democratic republic from a state which is nothing but a police-guarded military despotism, embellished with parliamentary forms, alloyed with a feudal admixture, already influenced by the bourgeoisie, and bureaucratically carpentered, and then to assure this state into the bargain that one imagines one will be able to force such things upon it "by legal means".

Even vulgar democracy, which sees the millennium in the democratic republic, and has no suspicion that it is precisely in this last form of state of bourgeois society that the class struggle has to be fought out to a conclusion — even it towers mountains above this kind of democratism, which keeps within the limits of what is permitted by the police and not permitted by logic.'


There it is, as clear as it can be: the Gotha Programme, by demanding the democratic republic, which is "the last form of state of bourgeois society", "did not deal with this [the revolutionary dictatorship of the proletariat or the future state of the communist society]".


And furthermore, the German socialists, by limiting themselves to bourgeois-democratic demands, and not advancing clearly the slogan of the dictatorship of the proletariat, are merely echoing the People's Party. Which is to say, they are echoing the liberals by obsessing over the bourgeois democratic republic.


Given that you work in IT, I would have thought you would know better than to use the number of search results as an argument. Just for fun, and because I have to revise and I really don't want to, I searched for "dictatorship of the proletariat" and "fascism" - this gave ~195 results, more than your search. So are we to assume the CPGB think that the dictatorship of the proletariat is fascism? No, I don't think so.

The series by Conrad is the only real piece of evidence you have. However, it is contradicted by later pieces, such as the one (http://weeklyworker.co.uk/worker/937/socialist-party-economist-republicanism/) by the WW editor, Manson:

"I argued from the floor that what really ought to cause outrage was not so much the wasted millions - in reality petty cash compared to the state budget as a whole - but the monarchical notion that we workers are held to be mere ‘subjects’ within the ‘one nation’ British order. We should prioritise amongst our immediate demands not only the abolition of the monarchy, but the dismantling of the whole constitutional monarchy system: get rid of the second chamber, no monarchical president (or presidential prime minister), accountable and recallable MPs on a worker’s wage, the replacement of the standing army by a people’s militia - in short, a democratic republic."

So at most you have demonstrated that one segment of the CPGB, in blatant contradiction to both the historical experience of the socialist movement and any hitherto existing Marxist analysis, holds that the democratic republic is the dictatorship of the proletariat. Obviously these people have no class-based analysis of the problem - they ritually chant "economism" as the CPGB does in order to deflect criticism about their complete erasure of class, instead of abstract "democracy", as the determining factor of history.

[Five Year Plan]

Ok, I'm just going to use your own argument: That's just what you think and you are wrong.

My argument consists of an interpretation of the Engels quote you presented but didn't even bother trying to interpret.



As far as I know there is only one "Third-World Caesarean" in existance...If you think that, you aren't paying attention. There are at least two on this forum, DNZ and Rafiq, with a larger penumbra of people (Brutus, who incidentally has popped up to give you a thanks for your valuable non-contribution, comes to mind) with a misguided personal loyalty to one or the other of these posters that leads them either to try to shield them from criticism or even parrot their bullshit from time to time.

[The Idler]

How come Weekly Worker is so widely read?

[Five Year Plan]

How come Weekly Worker is so widely read?

I don't know. Have you done a survey? The National Enquirer is also widely read, as is the New York Times.

[Anglo-Saxon Philistine]

How come Weekly Worker is so widely read?

It isn't. A lot of people will read it from time to time, just as they read other socialist newspapers, but the CPGB crowd consistently inflate the number of their readers (counting each visit to their site as a reader for example).

[Tower of Bebel]

From my point of view, the CPGB is sectarian. Arguably as sectarian as the rest of the British left. It's not necessarily their 'fault', and it's not necessarily their attitude that should be pointed out as the cause; I regard the sectarianism of the British left, of which the CPGB is a genuine part, a product of the bureaucratism that has infected the labour movement and society as a whole. Capitalists, their state, Labour and the trade union bureaucracy have pushed the radicals into the margins of society, and as long as that situation exists, the radicals will fight among each other a bit of air and light.

The CPGB doesn't seem to have a real strategy (though its paper contains a lot of discussion on this topic). What it has in common with its Trotskyist and Maoist counterparts, is its striving to keep its own version of socialism alive in a bloody see of neoliberal onslaught. This organisation seems to be bend on keeping the history of the old CPGB alive in the form of a small nucleus - and from what I was able to read this has been the main focus of the paper for some years. I think that's why, though it claims to fight for democratic centralism, it has developed a 'draft programme' and some sort of a symbolic leadership claim (its name 'the PCC'), claims which are promoted as pretty much the ideal (method) we should aim for.

The existance of the Weekly Worker and its own method of polemic is not the solution to the problem: the way I see it, it represents the other side of the same (sectarian) medallion. The Weekly Worker does not solve the problems that have arisen with the lack of unity nor with the lack of democracy in the labour movement. Though it claims to promote openess and democracy, and it spend a fair amount of coverage on congresses and discussions in other parties, I've never read anything about an congresses or elections within the CPGB.

Some CPGB-members compare their paper to Iskra. But much of the British left has done so as well (though from a different perspective) and whatever the merits of the Weekly Worker, it is not the (underground) paper that has had a unifying and educational impact on the radicals and the organised layers of the working class. The Weekly Worker is neither Iskra nor Der Sozialdemokrat. However, that does not mean that nothing can be learned from the pages of the Weekly Worker nor from CPGB members.

Their method of polemic, though it contains a tendency towards self-isolation, has produced some interesting debates. I must admit that some contributions, whether from CPGB-members or not, have had an impact on me. And I must admit as well that I'm in favour of a frank and open debate rather than spreading socialist ideas through billboard journalism. I mean, many papers on the left don't even have genuine debates! The attempts of the latter to spur debate with their counterparts are seeds on rocky ground while their attempts to debate with wider layers of the working class - though they portray it as very, very fruitful - are most like seeds sown among the thorns.

[Tim Cornelis]

Im not too familiar with the specifics. I read a bit of their material today. Nothing particuaularly wrong in my opinion. Theyre a tat too leninist theycobflate socialism and dotp and i dont like the minimum demands and how they are poaited

[Brutus]

If you think that, you aren't paying attention. There are at least two on this forum, DNZ and Rafiq, with a larger penumbra of people (Brutus, who incidentally has popped up to give you a thanks for your valuable non-contribution, comes to mind) with a misguided personal loyalty to one or the other of these posters that leads them either to try to shield them from criticism or even parrot their bullshit from time to time.

You must have a low opinion of me if you seriously think I subscribe to DNZ's, uh... contributions... to Marxist theory. I will not, have never, and never will parrot the bullshit of the moonbat which came up with TWCS.

And now I've been dragged into this thread, I may as well contribute something to it. The CPGB produce a good paper, and unlike most leftist sects have open debate amongst their ranks. They also have semi-decent politics, if you ignore the whole Lih crap in which he tells the reader another situation in which Lenin kept true to Kautsky-the-Marxist and the glorious tradition of democracy, and some other shit that fetishises democracy and raises it to a principle.

Their programme is far too long and contains many unrealistic and unnecessary demands, as well as an approach to Stalin and the USSR that is similar to that naughty kid that the parents wash their hands off, don't really talk about and then get flustered and angry when they're mentioned.

Erm... What I actually mean is... Uh... What the left needs is a strong, charismatic leader like Rush Limbaugh with a Chavismo ideology!

Edit: apologies if that's horribly written. A caffeine deficiency, semi-permanent headache, cabin fever, isolation and what I'm worried is the onset of insomnia are to blame for that. I'm working on it.

[Five Year Plan]

You must have a low opinion of me if you seriously think I subscribe to DNZ's, uh... contributions... to Marxist theory. I will not, have never, and never will parrot the bullshit of the moonbat which came up with TWCS.

I didn't say you parrot the theory, but that I have seen you defend and parrot some of the implications of that position espoused by Rafiq (who also accepts the basic tenets of TWCS). It seems you are an unwitting victim.


And now I've been dragged into this thread, I may as well contribute something to it. The CPGB produce a good paper, and unlike most leftist sects have open debate amongst their ranks. They also have semi-decent politics, if you ignore the whole Lih crap in which he tells the reader another situation in which Lenin kept true to Kautsky-the-Marxist and the glorious tradition of democracy, and some other shit that fetishises democracy and raises it to a principle.Thanking a post is an expression of agreement with its content and effectively is a way to interject yourself into a discussion, even if by proxy, so I wouldn't characterize my referencing you as "dragging" you into a discussion. You were already paying attention and openly taking sides.

You claim that the CPGB is remarkable for "having open debate amongst their ranks." How do you know that these non-CPGB "leftist sects" don't have open debate among their own ranks? In my experience, they do. They also debate openly with people outside of their ranks. The difference is that they commit their press to publishing agitation and propaganda in line with their own political positions, once they have been democratically debated within the organization. What they generally, as a rule, don't do (though there are exceptions) is publicly debate their internal decisions on matters of political line. The CPGB, since it subscribes in practice to a party-of-the-entire-class model of organizing, and since it organizes around a loosely knit set of minimum demands, has no "line" to debate internally and democratically.

As for the quality of the paper, it's a mixed bag. Sometimes it reads like the National Inquirer of the left, replete with gossip about this or that scandal afflicting this or that "leftist sect." Other times, it contains some articles that make high-quality, finely constructed arguments. Still other times, it contains articles written as though their authors have minimal knowledge of the subjects they are explicating , or may be deliberately trying to misrepresent. The case of Lih's misrepresentation of the Trotsky quote from an earlier thread comes quickly to mind. Because the CPGB wants to attract all the multifarious elements of the working class, with all its attendant levels of political consciousness, into the same political organization, it is only to be expected that their weekly organ be uneven.

[Brutus]

You claim that the CPGB is remarkable for "having open debate amongst their ranks." How do you know that these non-CPGB "leftist sects" don't have open debate among their own ranks? In my experience, they do. They also debate openly with people outside of their ranks. The difference is that they commit their press to publishing agitation and propaganda in line with their own political positions, once they have been democratically debated within the organization. What they generally, as a rule, don't do (though there are exceptions) is publicly debate their internal decisions on matters of political line. The CPGB, since it subscribes in practice to a party-of-the-entire-class model of organizing, and since it organizes around a loosely knit set of minimum demands, has no "line" to debate internally and democratically.

What often happens in these sects is the central leadership of over-60s decide the "line" and the others simply follow and sell papers (SWP and Healyites come to mind). Maybe it's different across the pond, but it's true for all the Leninist parties here- which are, ironically, neither Leninist nor parties. There should be a line, but internal debate should be publicised and frequent rather than kept secret. The supposed party of the proletariat should at least show the proletariat what is going on inside the ranks of its class conscious strata.

[Five Year Plan]

What often happens in these sects is the central leadership of over-60s decide the "line" and the others simply follow and sell papers (SWP and Healyites come to mind).

How do you know this? For what it's worth, I don't claim to "know" what you're saying is true, but I have heard similar stories. If it's true, I would argue that their bureaucratization is due to the extent to which they are actually mirroring the CPGB's broad-net approach to party buildling, where the focus isn't on developing confident, articulate cadre, but on mass-movementist fetishisation of numbers.


Maybe it's different across the pond, but it's true for all the Leninist parties here- which are, ironically, neither Leninist nor parties. There should be a line, but internal debate should be publicised and frequent rather than kept secret. The supposed party of the proletariat should at least show the proletariat what is going on inside the ranks of its class conscious strata.I am skeptical about claims a person makes about what he knows goes on inside all Leninist parties, particularly when his initial complaint is that they are not public enough in their internal debates.

On the question of the general rule of keeping internal discussions private, do you know why Leninist parties do this? Do you have an argument about why they shouldn't do it, rather than just a declaration that they shouldn't?

[Die Neue Zeit]

Hardly an opinion of the organisation as a whole that article. For one it mentions permanent revolution which is something Mike Macnair, for example, has spent a lot of time arguing against. It's actually the first time I've seen someone argue for a bourgeois republic. They usually argue for a democratic republic, which makes a lot of leftists shout "HERESY!" but in CPGB language (as they have explained in many articles) democratic republic means the dictatorship of the proletariat (one can argue against naming it DR but it would be unfair to act as if they mean anything else by it). Seems to me like it's just searching for things to disprove of in the weekly worker archives, I mean the article is from 2000 and they publish lotsa things of non-members. Would be better if people actually engaged with their actual politics, much more honest.

Comrade, what comrade Q said: Dave Craig used to belong to another left organization which theorized "democratic permanent revolution." I'm sure he's speaking his own opinion here.

[Die Neue Zeit]

I am skeptical about claims a person makes about what he knows goes on inside all Leninist parties, particularly when his initial complaint is that they are not public enough in their internal debates.

On the question of the general rule of keeping internal discussions private, do you know why Leninist parties do this? Do you have an argument about why they shouldn't do it, rather than just a declaration that they shouldn't?

There was an ole' chap named Marx who once fought against another ole' chap named Bakunin on the subject of secret factionalism. Multi-tendency debate and cooperation is something that the left sects aren't good at or keen on reproducing, but when the chips were down Marx came down harder on Bakunin's secret factionalism than the Bolsheviks and even the "Marxist-Leninists" ever did. Factionalism thrives on the absence of transparency.


How do you know this? For what it's worth, I don't claim to "know" what you're saying is true, but I have heard similar stories. If it's true, I would argue that their bureaucratization is due to the extent to which they are actually mirroring the CPGB's broad-net approach to party buildling, where the focus isn't on developing confident, articulate cadre, but on mass-movementist fetishisation of numbers.

You've got the wrong group. The CPGB does not have a loose definition of "member" or "cadre" like the SWP. If anything else, recent arguments by comrade Macnair on levels of political support before a revolutionary period for the working class seem to indicate that they might not be emphasizing the numbers game enough (while keeping to traditional definitions of "voting members").

[Five Year Plan]

There was an ole' chap named Marx who once fought against another ole' chap named Bakunin on the subject of secret factionalism. Multi-tendency debate and cooperation is something that the left sects aren't good at or keen on reproducing, but when the chips were down Marx came down harder on Bakunin's secret factionalism than the Bolsheviks and even the "Marxist-Leninists" ever did. Factionalism thrives on the absence of transparency.

Secret factionalism within an organization has literally no bearing on the discussion you excerpted. The discussion is not about whether people within an organization can organize factions secretly from other members, but about whether as a general rule it is a good idea for political combat parties to make their internal debates known to the general public.


You've got the wrong group. The CPGB does not have a loose definition of "member" or "cadre" like the SWP. If anything else, recent arguments by comrade Macnair on levels of political support before a revolutionary period for the working class seem to indicate that they might not be emphasizing the numbers game enough (while keeping to traditional definitions of "voting members").

I am not talking about the CPGB's "definitions" or its endless disquisitions about economism. I'm talking about its practice. If you want to tell me the rules actually governing admission to the CPGB-PCC, and show me how my operating premises are wrong, I am of course open to hearing that.

[Brutus]

On the question of the general rule of keeping internal discussions private, do you know why Leninist parties do this? Do you have an argument about why they shouldn't do it, rather than just a declaration that they shouldn't?

Why shouldn't they do this? Because they claim to be Leninists, that's why.

We Social-Democrats resort to secrecy from the tsar and his blood hounds, while taking pains that the people should know every thing about our Party, about the shades of opinion within it, about the development of its programme and policy, that they should even know what this or that Party congress delegate said at the congress in question.

Lenin was obviously an advocate of publicising internal debate, rather than keeping it behind closed doors; the Leninist parties are not.

[Five Year Plan]

Why shouldn't they do this? Because they claim to be Leninists, that's why.


Lenin was obviously an advocate of publicising internal debate, rather than keeping it behind closed doors; the Leninist parties are not.

Setting aside the fact that the Lenin quote was from 1905, back when Lenin was still in the same "party" as the Mensheviks (so that making known shades of opinion within the party was basically the Bolsheviks making known how opportunist the Mensheviks were), I was expecting a bit more substantive of an answer to my question than, "Look at what Lenin said in 1905." Your quote-dropping just raises the issue: "Why do you think Lenin was right back then?"

[Anglo-Saxon Philistine]

Even in the cited paragraph - one that the CPGB and Proyect like to quote - Lenin talks about resorting to secrecy from "the Tsar and his bloodhounds". That was only possible by means of an illegal press, since anything legal would have to pass through the censor's office (in Croatia, where a similar arrangement was in place, one issue of the central organ of the social-democrats left the censor's office... as a sheet of ten or so completely blank pages). Most parties today do not have an illegal press.

Furthermore, that very same year Lenin would write:

"Keeping international Social-Democracy informed of our Party affairs is one of the most important duties of all Social-Democrats. living abroad. We remind the comrades of this and appeal for the most energetic agitation in defence of the stand taken by the Third Congress of the R.S.D.L.P. This agitation must be conducted indefatigably, on any pretext, on any suitable occasion, and in positively all study circles of workers abroad, as well as with individual members of foreign Social-Democratic parties. This agitation must be conducted in ways that are worthy of conscious Social-Democrats and members of a workers’ party. It must be based on the principle of lull information concerning the documentary aspect of the matter. Priority should be given to the circulation of the Third Congress resolutions published in the French language (the supplement to the newspaper Le Socialiste of June 25, 1905. Address of Le Socialiste, central organ of the French socialists: Rue de la Corderie 16, Paris) as well as in the German language (the pamphlet Bericht über den 3. Parteitag; publisher’s address: Birk et Co., Buchdruckerei und Verlagsanstalt, München, Vittelsbacherplatz 2. Preis 20 pf.). Both the French and the German translations are also available from the Party office.

In addition to this basic material, the most important documents and articles from our literature should also be translated. In doing so we must constantly expose the indecency of the Khlestakov-like new Iskra. The latter has not published, either in French or in German, the full text of its Conference resolutions (which reveals its usurping - arrogation of the title of Central Organ). Iskra has published in the European Social-Democratic press such “statistics” about organised labour that evoke nothing but laughter (suffice it to say that the new Iskra has not yet made so bold as to make these “statistics” public in Russian, for fear of disgracing itself, but we have printed these statistics in full in No. 9 of Proletary). Iskra is now circulating among all colonies abroad a letter over the Editorial Board’s signature containing the same brand of amusing Khlestakovian claims regarding the Minority’s forces, claims which have been shamefacedly withheld from Russian readers of our Social-Democratic newspapers. Publicity-mongers should be fought against to the utmost, but that struggle should be conducted in a dignified way, so as to get the public fully informed, and make matters as clear as possible, without the least boasting and literary bombast, without falling into gossip and private allusions which cannot stand the light of publicity."

(Emphases mine.)

[Tower of Bebel]

Russian social democracy was way more than the sum of Bolshevism and Menshevism. Every shade of opinion meant as well that contributions to the various local and national social-democratic papers came from the emigrés abroad and from the activists in the Russian empire, from the workers and from the intelligentsia, from local and from international social democracy, from a Lenin and from an Axselrod, from Poland and from Russia, from workers and from wistle blowers from other classes, ...

Whether Lenin or other social democrats prioritised the struggle with this or that opposing current inside our outside social democracy, does matter indeed (a paper has room for a limited amount of contributions only, especially when the political police continuously tries to disrupt the publication and distribution of social-democratic literature). But it does not alter the principle of a free press. The only check on social democratic literature were the programme and the congress.

[Anglo-Saxon Philistine]

Yet in the paragraphs I have quoted above, Lenin clearly asks every Russian social-democratic emigre to defend the line of the central committee, regardless of their agreement with that line. Furthermore, the Bolshevik press did not print anything regardless of programmatic agreement with the authors - that would be political suicide. And Lenin and the Bolsheviks attacked the August Bloc precisely for revealing too much about the internal life of the illegal organisation.

[Црвена]

Aside from their being part of Left Unity, I do agree with the pan-leftist approach they meant to have...but it just seems to have dissolved into social democracy and the same divisions that every left movement has these days.

[Tower of Bebel]

870, concerning my view of the social democratic free press, I see nothing that contradicts my views. The programme was indeed key. No programme meant no unity, no independent social democratic press. (Only a bunch of leaflets claiming to be more social democratic than the other.)

To risk the party by giving away the art of secrecy (konspiratsia) was in Russian social democracy (and in other underground, Russian organisations) considered something like heresy. Publicity mongers who either lie to the public or form a hazard for the safety of party members and structures were to be fought against. However, I see no mention of a central committee and the defence thereof. I only read that the press should defend the conclusions of the congress, which is as evident as the defence of the programme.

For further discussion on the meaning of this quote, I suggest we split the thread.

[Five Year Plan]

Since 870 raised the quote to address the subject of Leninist norms of discipline germinating in the early RSDLP(b), I'm not sure what your emphasis on program is all about, Tower of Bebel. Obviously the idea was that party members would be bound to pursue the program. That much is obvious, but I get the sense you are seeking to say something more here. Perhaps you could clarify?