Communist Party of Great Britain - PCC

[The Feral Underclass]

Am I right in thinking that the CPGB-PCC is basically a big tent Marxist party?

Can someone also tell me why they continue to use the imperialist name for Britain?

[RedKobra]

There interesting, I was first exposed to them by listening to various members talk at things like the big Marxism festival and they seemed a pretty reasonable bunch, I read some of their online literature and it impressed me even more. Their input into Left Unity has also been highly encouraging. What put me off slightly was that their official spokespeople were nowhere near as good at communicating the message as the membership & also perusing their transitional demands. I couldn't believe how tepid most of it was and then right in the middle, sticking out like a sore thumb is the demand that the age of consent be scrapped. Now I understand that there are better ways of protecting children but they didn't seem to have given much thought to what. You can't just scrap the age of consent and THEN start thinking about how to protect children from predatory adults. I really don't understand it.

Altogether a very interesting group, with some very engaging members who maybe lack some of the academic & scholarly razzmatazz of the SWP but on the other hand don't appear quite as stultifying inert.

[Tim Cornelis]

What makes the name imperialist? Wikipedia gives no indication.

[The Feral Underclass]

What makes the name imperialist? Wikipedia gives no indication.

The term Great refers to the imperialist domination of Wales, Scotland and Ireland.

[The Feral Underclass]

There interesting, I was first exposed to them by listening to various members talk at things like the big Marxism festival and they seemed a pretty reasonable bunch, I read some of their online literature and it impressed me even more. Their input into Left Unity has also been highly encouraging. What put me off slightly was that their official spokespeople were nowhere near as good at communicating the message as the membership & also perusing their transitional demands. I couldn't believe how tepid most of it was and then right in the middle, sticking out like a sore thumb is the demand that the age of consent be scrapped. Now I understand that there are better ways of protecting children but they didn't seem to have given much thought to what. You can't just scrap the age of consent and THEN start thinking about how to protect children from predatory adults. I really don't understand it.

Altogether a very interesting group, with some very engaging members who maybe lack some of the academic & scholarly razzmatazz of the SWP but on the other hand don't appear quite as stultifying inert.

Thanks. Do you have answers to my specific questions?

[RedKobra]

Thanks. Do you have answers to my specific questions?

Well if you read their online stuff they make pretty clear that the party, and they go to some effort to make clear that they don't really see themselves as a party, don't make many doctrinal demands of their members. You can be pro-Trotsky, anti-trotsky or other, pro-Lenin, anti-Lenin.etc I think they even say that whilst most in the party take an anti-Stalinist line its not a dogma that you have to subscribe to.

So in essence, I think that they would gladly take your description of 'big-tent' Marxism.

[Tim Cornelis]

The term Great refers to the imperialist domination of Wales, Scotland and Ireland.

Hmm. Ireland is not part of Great Britain. But I don't really say how it reflects domination per se. Is Russia an imperialist name for its domination over the Caucasus and Siberia? China over Tibet? Netherlands over (catholic) Southern Provinces? I don't really see it. It's just the name of the country/region.

EDIT: Ah, I think you meant Great specifically referring to the domination. Can't find anything about that on the wikipedia.

[The Feral Underclass]

Hmm. Ireland is not part of Great Britain.

Well, not unless you count Northern Ireland as Irish. But greater Ireland was a British colony up until 1922.


But I don't really say how it reflects domination per se. Is Russia an imperialist name for its domination over the Caucasus and Siberia? China over Tibet? Netherlands over (catholic) Southern Provinces? I don't really see it. It's just the name of the country/region.

The English conquest of Wales, Scotland and Ireland were imperialist campaigns of domination with a long and brutal history. The term "Great" is the word used to articulate the name of the island as a result of that.


Ah, I think you meant Great specifically referring to the domination. Can't find anything about that on the wikipedia.

Because Wikipedia doesn't have a political analysis of English imperialism.

[bricolage]

The term Great refers to the imperialist domination of Wales, Scotland and Ireland.
Ireland has never been a part of Great Britain. Hence why it was called the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland and now the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland.

[The Feral Underclass]

Ireland has never been a part of Great Britain. Hence why it was called the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland and now the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland.

Yes, of course you're right.

---

Does anyone know the answer to my questions?

[bricolage]

I think the answer to your question is that they use the CPGB(PCC) name in order to claim a lineage from the original CPGB. And yes they are a sort of big tent group, in theory because they want to a have a mass party in which different aspects of the 'left' can work together yet still have disagreements but in practice what this means is that each of their 8 members sometimes argue with each other.

[Anglo-Saxon Philistine]

Am I right in thinking that the CPGB-PCC is basically a big tent Marxist party?

They don't define themselves as such. I would say they definitely are for a "big tent party", with all that entails, but that means they focus on building Left Unity.


Can someone also tell me why they continue to use the imperialist name for Britain?

I don't think it is an "imperialist name", in fact it's the short form many people use to refer to the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. And Scotland, in particular, used to be the junior partner in the joint imperialist ventures of England and Scotland, not a conquered region. But anyway, I imagine the CPGB-PCC uses the term because they view themselves as successors of the old CPGB, although the organisational link is tenuous at best.

[Raquin]

I don't think they are a big tent Marxist party. They are a big tent Trot party. They want to take all the Trot sects, strip them of (most) of their Trotskyism, and mold them into a slightly bigger half-Trot half-CPGBMarxism sect and call it the CP of Britain.


Can someone also tell me why they continue to use the imperialist name for Britain?

You are awfully smug for someone so ignorant. Great Britain is the name of the Island where England, Wales, and Scotland are located. It's called Great Britain not because of some imperialistic past but to distinguish it from Lesser Britain, which is today known as the Breton Peninsula.

UK Island = Britannia Major
French Peninsula = Britannia Minor

[Tim Cornelis]

They're more like non-Trotskyist, non-Stalinist Leninist.


Well, not unless you count Northern Ireland as Irish. But greater Ireland was a British colony up until 1922.



The English conquest of Wales, Scotland and Ireland were imperialist campaigns of domination with a long and brutal history. The term "Great" is the word used to articulate the name of the island as a result of that.



Because Wikipedia doesn't have a political analysis of English imperialism.

Hence why I subtly hinted at you giving me a source to backs up your claim. A bit too subtle it seems. But from what I read, great is in reference to the size of the island compared to"Lesser Britain (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brittany)".
So no imperialist connotations it seems.
http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?s



You are awfully smug for someone so ignorant. Great Britain is the name of the Island where England, Wales, and Scotland are located. It's called Great Britain not because of some imperialistic past but to distinguish it from Lesser Britain, which is today known as the Breton Peninsula.

UK Island = Britannia Major
French Peninsula = Britannia Minor

I'm guessing based on the Latin used that you have also looked it up on wikipedia, so no need to call anyone ignorant here. And of course the irony of smugness as you seemingly were as ignorant but claimed knowledge.

Wikipedia: "After the Anglo-Saxon period, Britain was used as a historical term only. Geoffrey of Monmouth in his pseudohistorical Historia Regum Britanniae (c. 1136) refers to the island of Great Britain as Britannia major ("Greater Britain"), to distinguish it from Britannia minor ("Lesser Britain")"

[The Feral Underclass]

Hence why I subtly hinted at you giving me a source to backs up your claim.

Do you know about the English conquest of Wales and why the Treaty of the Union was created?


A bit too subtle it seems. But from what I read, great is in reference to the size of the island compared to"Lesser Britain (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brittany)".
So no imperialist connotations it seems.
http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?s

Yes, it refers to the size, which includes two countries that England claimed as part of their empire. The Treaty of the Union, which united the Kingdoms of Scotland and England was deeply unpopular in Scotland to everyone except the Scottish nobility, because it maintained their privilege and power, while establishing a single state for the Hanover dynasty to rule. In effect making it easier for the state to govern.

I bring it up because I find it slightly off-putting that a communist party would link itself to that history.

[Hrafn]

In Swedish, "Storbritannien" is the only word for the United Kingdom.

[The Feral Underclass]

You are awfully smug for someone so ignorant. Great Britain is the name of the Island where England, Wales, and Scotland are located. It's called Great Britain not because of some imperialistic past but to distinguish it from Lesser Britain, which is today known as the Breton Peninsula.

UK Island = Britannia Major
French Peninsula = Britannia Minor

I didn't realise asking a question was considered smug.

It's also a bit stupid trying to explain the use of the name to me without actually referring to the concrete history and then telling me I'm ill-informed.

[Blake's Baby]

The united Scottish and English kingdoms called themselves 'Great Britain' after the Scottish royal family took over England. It's not called 'Great Scotland' (or 'Great England' for that matter).

[The Feral Underclass]

The united Scottish and English kingdoms called themselves 'Great Britain' after the Scottish royal family took over England. It's not called 'Great Scotland' (or 'Great England' for that matter).

I don't think it's really accurate to say they "took it over," since they were all part of the same family. It was more like a consolidation of power to maintain Monarchist rule in England. The fact that it's not named Great England isn't really proof of anything. The unification of the Scottish and English states into "Great" Britain benefited no one except the Scottish nobility and the English imperialist agenda. I don't see how that is something communists should be associating themselves with.

[Tim Cornelis]

A bit of an unnecessarily drawn out discussion, but whatever. So the name Great Britain is derived from the need to distinguish between it and Britanny. So the political entity, which is approximately Great Britain, at some point benefited the Scottish nobility and English imperialism. But it's self-evident that political entities, especially states, are historically constituted on the basis of the interests of its ruling classes. But this is the same as with any political entity carrying a name, Netherlands, Spain, Argentina, Russia. I don't see how it is problematic to call your party after the nation-state or multinational state or otherwise political entity when that is the organisational scope of the party. "The proletariat of each country must, of course, first of all settle matters with its own bourgeoisie", so saith it in the scripture. This is logical as the political power is concentrated at that particular level. The state recognises no authority above itself (it only submits itself voluntarily to transnational entities). Why associate oneself with it? Well, it is a communist party of Great Britain.

[The Feral Underclass]

Netherlands, Spain, Argentina, Russia

Were the words created to identify imperialist/Monarchist achievements?


Well, it is a communist party of Great Britain.

It is the communist party of a Monarchist union between an imperialist country and two of its client states.

Associating yourself with an identity that represents the oversight of an English parliament and an English Monarch over two historically independent nations, or even acknowledging that the union is legitimate, is a fairly bizarre position to take for communists -- unless of course you agree that the union should exist...

[Blake's Baby]

Wales isn't a 'client state', because is neither now nor at any point in history ' a state' of any kind. It is (at most organised/coherent) a collection of defeated kingdoms organised into a province.

Do you think England is a client state, or Scotland is a client state? When the English royal house died out, the Scottish royal house took over. The fact that they liked England better (it is richer, why wouldn't they?) is neither here nor there. There is no 'English monarch', there is a Scottish monarch who also rules England. The fact that for 200 years the scottish royal house was German is also not really important.

[Anglo-Saxon Philistine]

Wales isn't a 'client state', because is neither now nor at any point in history ' a state' of any kind. It is (at most organised/coherent) a collection of defeated kingdoms organised into a province.

Do you think England is a client state, or Scotland is a client state? When the English royal house died out, the Scottish royal house took over. The fact that they liked England better (it is richer, why wouldn't they?) is neither here nor there. There is no 'English monarch', there is a Scottish monarch who also rules England. The fact that for 200 years the scottish royal house was German is also not really important.

It's also a bit bizarre to call Scotland a "client state" when Scottish companies have participated in British colonialism since the foundation of Nova Scotia to Cairn Energy today.

[The Feral Underclass]

Wales isn't a 'client state', because is neither now nor at any point in history ' a state' of any kind. It is (at most organised/coherent) a collection of defeated kingdoms organised into a province.

If Wales doesn't have a state now, how do you define their institutions of governance?

And in any case, Wales was defined as a client state for about 300 years from the 13th to the 16th century. Also, in order for a Kingdom to function it has to have some kind of institutions of state, so I don't really understand what you're talking about.


Do you think England is a client state, or Scotland is a client state? When the English royal house died out, the Scottish royal house took over. The fact that they liked England better (it is richer, why wouldn't they?) is neither here nor there. There is no 'English monarch', there is a Scottish monarch who also rules England. The fact that for 200 years the scottish royal house was German is also not really important.

That is a really bizarre interpretation of the politics involved in the union of crowns and if I was being pedantic I'd say it was also tantamount to an apology for monarchism.

First of all James VI of Scotland was a descendent of the English Tudor king, Henry VII (great-grandfather), so when I said they were the same family, that is what they were. It wasn't "Scottish vs English monarchs" as much as it was the perpetuation of a family dynasty of English royalty. I mean, you can look at it in a different way if you want, but they're the facts.

Secondly, the union of crowns was not because of some "oh this looks richer" nonsense, it was to preserve the English crown with a descendent of an English king. Elizabeth I had no issue and James VI was her closest relative alive (they were second cousins, once removed -- the wikipedia article is incorrect, I'm fairly certain), hence his ascendency to the English throne, which allowed the English state to perpetuate English royalist power and consolidate its imperial position.

[RedKobra]

Hey TFU my response needed to be moderated but its there now.

[Tim Cornelis]

Were the words created to identify imperialist/Monarchist achievements?

We've already established that it was not named after imperialist conquest, but to distinguish it from Britanny. With that, everything else falls.


It is the communist party of a Monarchist union between an imperialist country and two of its client states.

Associating yourself with an identity that represents the oversight of an English parliament and an English Monarch over two historically independent nations, or even acknowledging that the union is legitimate, is a fairly bizarre position to take for communists -- unless of course you agree that the union should exist...

It does none of that. It is named after the political entity it is located and active in. A communist party of the Netherlands does not mean it supports the political entity of the Netherlands. It's not the communist party for the Netherlands. This is just really silly at this point. There's branches of the party, named after cities, to distinguish from other branches. And in a similar way, naming every 'official' communist party in existence 'the communist party' is horrendously confusing. "which communist party", "oh, the communist party of germany' or 'the german communist party' etc. So the name is necessary to distinguish it. CPGB is simply named after the territory or political entity it's in.

[The Feral Underclass]

We've already established that it was not named after imperialist conquest, but to distinguish it from Britanny. With that, everything else falls.

That's not what we've established. The unification of Scotland, Wales and England into the imperial Great Britain was an act of conquest; one that specifically consolidated the power of an English royal dynastic family.

While the term "Great Britain" was used before to describe geographical space, it has subsequently been co-opted by royalist powers to define their conquests and consolidation of power.


It does none of that. It is named after the political entity it is located and active in. A communist party of the Netherlands does not mean it supports the political entity of the Netherlands. It's not the communist party for the Netherlands.

The term isn't neutral, it's not just a name for a country. It has specific relations with English imperialism and monarchism as I've repeatedly outlined.

[Fakeblock]

Associating yourself with an identity that represents the oversight of an English parliament and an English Monarch over two historically independent nations, or even acknowledging that the union is legitimate, is a fairly bizarre position to take for communists -- unless of course you agree that the union should exist...

The union exists though, whether it's 'legitimate' or not. Should Communists not work on the basis of what exists in the present, rather than of what ought to exist in the future?

[The Feral Underclass]

The union exists though, whether it's 'legitimate' or not. Should Communists not work on the basis of what exists in the present, rather than of what ought to exist in the future?

Why not be called the Communist Party of the British Isles, or some other derivative if you didn't want Ireland to be associated. I mean, there are plenty of other names you could use. It's not a particularly pressing issue, I just find it unusual that a communist organisation would be so nonchalant about its associations in something as important as its name.

[RedKobra]

My second comment on page 1 didn't come through straight away because it needed to moderated. Heads up in case you missed it.

[RedWorker]

This attack against the name is ridiculous. Nations are a bourgeois concept. Russia has the land it does now because of an empire, just like all bourgeois state are based upon illegitimate actions. Parties are named after states. Like Marx said, the first task of the proletarians is to raise to the position of the national ruling class. A party named after Great Britain is the party that concerns this bourgeois state - nothing more, nothing less. Communists don't recognize the bourgeois nation, nor care about its origins or specifics, in contrast to bourgeois theorists. They do, however, make national sections of themselves for every bourgeois state they work under.

"Great Britain" is not more bourgeois than "England" or "Venezuela".

[Blake's Baby]

If Wales doesn't have a state now, how do you define their institutions of governance?

And in any case, Wales was defined as a client state for about 300 years from the 13th to the 16th century. Also, in order for a Kingdom to function it has to have some kind of institutions of state, so I don't really understand what you're talking about...

Wales was a collection of kingdoms. It was conquered by England in the 13th century. It never had any unified administration until it was given one as an English province. It's not a state. It's part of the UK state.



...
That is a really bizarre interpretation of the politics involved in the union of crowns and if I was being pedantic I'd say it was also tantamount to an apology for monarchism...

That is a really bizarre interpretation of the post, I'd say that was tantamount to a revision of history.


... First of all James VI of Scotland was a descendent of the English Tudor king, Henry VII (great-grandfather), so when I said they were the same family, that is what they were. It wasn't "Scottish vs English monarchs" as much as it was the perpetuation of a family dynasty of English royalty. I mean, you can look at it in a different way if you want, but they're the facts...

'Facts'? The 'fact' that James VI (if one accespts that James VI actually was the son of Mary Stuart - I presume you don't know the conspiracy theory that her son actually died in infancy) had one English great-grandparent (who was 1/4 Welsh and 1/4 French if I remember correctly), though his family tree is a bit complicated as his parents were cousins.

Henry Tudor was a descendant of the King of France, does that make him French? But then, if Henry Tudor is French (not Welsh), that makes James VI French, doesn't it?


...
Secondly, the union of crowns was not because of some "oh this looks richer" nonsense, it was to preserve the English crown with a descendent of an English king. Elizabeth I had no issue and James VI was her closest relative alive (they were second cousins, once removed -- the wikipedia article is incorrect, I'm fairly certain), hence his ascendency to the English throne, which allowed the English state to perpetuate English royalist power and consolidate its imperial position.

I didn't say that the union of crowns was because England looked richer, I said that the House of Stuart preferred to spend time in England. That doesn't mean that the House of Stuart were 'English'.

The royal house - currently of Windsor, though I suppose it should be Schleswig-Holstein-Sonderburg-Gluckstein really - is descended from the House of Hannover, which inherits its claim to the thrones of Scotland and England from the House of Stuart. The House of Stuart inherits the throne of Scotland from the House of Bruce, and its claim to the throne of England from the House of Tudor. The House of Tudor never had a claim to the throne of Scotland. It is the House of Stewart that inherited England, not the House of Tudor that inherited Scotland. The royal house of Scotland took over the throne of England, not the other way around.

The fact that the English establishment was happy enough - for slightly less than 40 years before the civil wars - with the House of Stuart doesn't mean that they're English, so I really can't see where you've got the bizarre notion that the 'English' royal house took over Scotland comes from.

[Red Son]

So...should it be the Communist Party of The Island Formerly Known as Great Britain - PCC?
Seems like a lot of discussion about use of the word 'Great'... I don't think there was any more complex motive than it was the name of the preceeding mass communist party of these isles that closed shop in the late 80s and it's part of the official name of the country.
Maybe the CPB had a better idea, but they got there first.

[Blake's Baby]

I think the CPGB(PCC) deliberately held on to the name to suggest continuity. The 'old' CPGB had of course been around since Lenin's time and at one time the CPGB(PCC) used to proclaim they were 'neither Stalinists nor Trotskyists but Leninists'.

That was before they discovered Kautsky of course.

[Q]

Am I right in thinking that the CPGB-PCC is basically a big tent Marxist party?
It's certainly not a "big tent" party if by that you mean that, like the Socialist Alliance in the early 2000's, it would be a collection of distinct groups. It is rather big on the importance of programmatic unity and values democracy, internationalism and the independent political position of the working class as core principles.

If by "big tent" you mean however a democratic culture where different currents may and should collide with each other in order to explain and develop political positions and educate the membership and wider workers movement, then yes, by all means. The Weekly Worker is a prime example of this stance.

[The Feral Underclass]

If by "big tent" you mean however a democratic culture where different currents may and should collide with each other in order to explain and develop political positions and educate the membership and wider workers movement, then yes, by all means. The Weekly Worker is a prime example of this stance.


This is what I thought. Thanks.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[The Feral Underclass]

Wales was a collection of kingdoms. It was conquered by England in the 13th century. It never had any unified administration until it was given one as an English province. It's not a state. It's part of the UK state.

Kingdoms which had institutions of state that governed them and was classified as a client state for about 300 years. I also don't accept that the current institutions of governance in Wales does not constitute a state.


'Facts'? The 'fact' that James VI (if one accespts that James VI actually was the son of Mary Stuart - I presume you don't know the conspiracy theory that her son actually died in infancy) had one English great-grandparent (who was 1/4 Welsh and 1/4 French if I remember correctly), though his family tree is a bit complicated as his parents were cousins.

Henry Tudor was a descendant of the King of France, does that make him French? But then, if Henry Tudor is French (not Welsh), that makes James VI French, doesn't it?

Was King James VI a descendent of an English king and was he selected as King of England because of that fact? The purpose of bringing his heritage into question is because of that fact. It doesn't matter if his family history is Mongolian, what is important is the fact he was part of an English royal dynastic family and that the was selected for that purpose. It is important because I am making the argument that far from it being some kind of unification between two equal nations (or as you suggest a "take over by Scottish royals"), it was actually just a continuation and consolidation of the royal power of an English dynastic family.

You obviously don't agree and that's up to you.


I didn't say that the union of crowns was because England looked richer, I said that the House of Stuart preferred to spend time in England. That doesn't mean that the House of Stuart were 'English'.

Well, it seemed that way, but whatever. I'm not sure it's better saying the union of crowns was because the Stuarts preferred their "time in England." That doesn't seem like a particularly sophisticated analysis, but suit yourself.

The House of Stuart was English insofar as it was a continuation of an English royal dynasty and for the purposes of my argument that's significant because it shows that this wasn't some nonchalant unity of nations or a takeover of some foreign royal family, but actually the consolidation of English royalist power.


The royal house - currently of Windsor, though I suppose it should be Schleswig-Holstein-Sonderburg-Gluckstein really - is descended from the House of Hannover, which inherits its claim to the thrones of Scotland and England from the House of Stuart. The House of Stuart inherits the throne of Scotland from the House of Bruce, and its claim to the throne of England from the House of Tudor. The House of Tudor never had a claim to the throne of Scotland. It is the House of Stewart that inherited England, not the House of Tudor that inherited Scotland. The royal house of Scotland took over the throne of England, not the other way around.

I accept that a Scottish king became the king of England. That's never been in dispute.


The fact that the English establishment was happy enough - for slightly less than 40 years before the civil wars - with the House of Stuart doesn't mean that they're English, so I really can't see where you've got the bizarre notion that the 'English' royal house took over Scotland comes from.

You've reduced my argument down to one about whether James was Scottish or English and that's not what I'm arguing. It doesn't matter whether he was English or Scottish, the fact is what the politics of his ascendency meant and the monarchist and imperialist nature of why it happened.

[Blake's Baby]

...


Was King James VI a descendent of an English king and was he selected as King of England because of that fact? The purpose of bringing his heritage into question is because of that fact. It doesn't matter if his family history is Mongolian, what is important is the fact he was part of an English royal dynastic family and that the was selected for that purpose. It is important because I am making the argument that far from it being some kind of unification between two equal nations (or as you suggest a "take over by Scottish royals"), it was actually just a continuation and consolidation of the royal power of an English dynastic family...

If by 'part of an English dynastic family', you mean, 'did a member of a Franco-Welsh family marry into a Scottish one?', then yes, I absolutely agree.





...

Well, it seemed that way, but whatever. I'm not sure it's better saying the union of crowns was because the Stuarts preferred their "time in England." That doesn't seem like a particularly sophisticated analysis, but suit yourself...

I didn't say that the union of crowns was because the Stuarts preferred to spend their time in England. They came to live in England because they preferred to spend their time in England.


... The House of Stuart was English insofar as it was a continuation of an English royal dynasty and for the purposes of my argument that's significant because it shows that this wasn't some nonchalant unity of nations or a takeover of some foreign royal family, but actually the consolidation of English royalist power...

Only, the Tudors weren't 'English', they were Franco-Welsh. And the Stuarts were Scottish.



...
I accept that a Scottish king became the king of England. That's never been in dispute.

You've reduced my argument down to one about whether James was Scottish or English and that's not what I'm arguing. It doesn't matter whether he was English or Scottish, the fact is what the politics of his ascendency meant and the monarchist and imperialist nature of why it happened.

And yet 40 years after his accession 'the English' proclaimed a republic. The damned monarchists.

If your argument is that the nascent English capitalist establishment was stronger than the nascent Scottish capitalist establishment, I think I would agree. Scottish capitalism, though an enthusiastic partner to the union, was nevertheless a junior partner.

But if your argument is that the union was a dynastic takeover of Scotland by England then, no, that's about as wrong as any statement about history is capable of being.

[The Feral Underclass]

If by 'part of an English dynastic family', you mean, 'did a member of a Franco-Welsh family marry into a Scottish one?', then yes, I absolutely agree.

You are having difficulty detaching their ethnic/national origin, from their political and dynastic power.


I didn't say that the union of crowns was because the Stuarts preferred to spend their time in England. They came to live in England because they preferred to spend their time in England.

Well you did, actually. Whether you meant to is a different matter. But okay, so people who like to spend time somewhere went to live in the place they like spending time in...Captivating.


Only, the Tudors weren't 'English', they were Franco-Welsh. And the Stuarts were Scottish.

But insofar as them being a continuation of an English royal dynasty they were English...While maybe not nationally English, in terms of English monarchism James was a direct descendent from the English crown and therefore presented a continuation of English royal power.


And yet 40 years after his accession 'the English' proclaimed a republic. The damned monarchists.

If your argument is that the nascent English capitalist establishment was stronger than the nascent Scottish capitalist establishment, I think I would agree. Scottish capitalism, though an enthusiastic partner to the union, was nevertheless a junior partner.

But if your argument is that the union was a dynastic takeover of Scotland by England then, no, that's about as wrong as any statement about history is capable of being.

That isn't my argument lol. My argument is that James' ascent to the English throne was a continuation of an English royal dynasty (different to a continuation of English people -- because I'm talking about politics, not nationality) that bolstered English monarchist power and English imperialism.

[Blake's Baby]

He wasn't a 'direct descendant of the English crown', in that he was only descended from the aunt of his predecessor.

Your argument that James's great-grandmother was English (Margaret Tudor), so the Stuarts were English, makes no more sense than claiming that because Henry Tudor's great-grandfather was French (Charles VI of France)the Tudors were French.

One of these things happened:

A Scottish monarch inherited the throne of England and made it part of the territories of the Scottish royal house;

An English monarch inherited the throne of Scotland and made it part of the territories of the English royal house.

Which was it?

[The Idler]

The 'of Great Britain' in the Socialist Party of Great Britain is used to indicate the geographical region where the party is organised not endorse any particular states. I assume this is the same of the CPGB.
Most other companion parties of the World Socialist Movement are called 'World Socialist Party of [their particular region]' to indicate where they organise This is preferable if you this is important to you.

[The Feral Underclass]

Your argument that James's great-grandmother was English (Margaret Tudor), so the Stuarts were English, makes no more sense than claiming that because Henry Tudor's great-grandfather was French (Charles VI of France)the Tudors were French.

But dude, that's not my argument. I'm not sure how much clearer I can be about hat.


One of these things happened:

A Scottish monarch inherited the throne of England and made it part of the territories of the Scottish royal house;

An English monarch inherited the throne of Scotland and made it part of the territories of the English royal house.

Which was it?

I don't accept that these are the only choices, as I've outlined numerous times. The situation isn't as black and white as you are painting it.

[teflsecretagent]

So adding my two cents, I think when the original CPGB was formed, not too much thought was placed on the significance of "Great" in the name, merely as a useful, commonly accepted adjective to describe the geographical area it focuses on and possibly nowadays to distinguish between other similarly named entities.

Personally, I like the party and have had good communication with them in the past. They openly accept clashes of ideas and try to propogate a socialist 'melting pot' of thinking and information exchange. I think it has a lot of potential to attract 'wavering' centrists and pull them further into the socialist fold and let's be honest, in the islands known as Great Britain, that can only be a good thing.

Plus they have a pretty smart looking website.

[Vladimir Innit Lenin]

I imagine that the 'GB' part of the CPGB-PCCs name is derived more from wanting to be seen as being the physical continuation of the original CPGB, rather than any critical or un-critical interrogation of imperialism.

I think the above is probably corroborated by the fact that other names, such as 'Communist Party of Britain' (and, given the rapid sectionalisation of the left, most other 'communist party'-variant names!), that the CPGB-PCC may otherwise have chosen were already taken. The Communist Party of Britain was formed before the formal dissolution of the CPGB, for example, whereas as I understand it the CPGB-PCC only attempted to claim the CPGB name after the CPGBs formal dissolution in 1991.

I'm not going to comment on the Weekly Worker because I imagine you are already familiar with it, and to be honest I think it, along with the CPGB-PCC itself (and other similar sects) are entirely irrelevant to modern struggles that workers, women, the LGBTQ community and black/ethnic minorities are today engaged in.

[Tim Redd]

The term Great refers to the imperialist domination of Wales, Scotland and Ireland.

Yes. Despicable.

[Blake's Baby]

It doesn't. It refers to the merger of Scotland and England, on what can be regarded as fairly advantageous terms for Scotland. It might refer to English domination of Wales - though for about 300 years, the term 'England' was sufficient for that. It makes no reference to Ireland.

[The Feral Underclass]

So adding my two cents, I think when the original CPGB was formed, not too much thought was placed on the significance of "Great" in the name, merely as a useful, commonly accepted adjective to describe the geographical area it focuses on and possibly nowadays to distinguish between other similarly named entities.

Yeah, I don't think they did it for some nefarious reason, I just think it's quite dated and the implications of it are pretty sinister. I think it's always better to err on the side of caution (unless you're purposefully trying to provide) when it comes to political names and those with imperialist overtones aren't really a great image for a communist organisation.

[Comrade Strong]

Doesn't it distinguish between Lesser Britain (Brittany) and Great Britain?

It's not an imperialistic name, just used to differentiate between two separate geographic entities that use the same name, by referring to the relative size of the said entities.

[The Feral Underclass]

Doesn't it distinguish between Lesser Britain (Brittany) and Great Britain?



It's not an imperialistic name, just used to differentiate between two separate geographic entities that use the same name, by referring to the relative size of the said entities.


This has already been addressed in the thread. The term "Great Britain" may have been used to distinguish geography hundreds of years ago, but the term is not politically and culturally neutral.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Comrade Strong]

This has already been addressed in the thread.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Oh good.

Well in regards to the CPGB (PCC) I always thought that they acted as a democratically based group, where tendencies can debate and offer alternative and often completely different opinions. But they argue for democratic centralism with "Freedom of Discussion, Unity of Action". Overall they argue for the creation of a true and united Marxist Party in GB.

I think that they are a part of the Communist Platform in Left Unity also.

[contracycle]

Feral, an element you may be missing here, regardless of the historical origin of the term, is that there is a sense in which a British identity exists distinct from a national identity like English or Scottish etc. Many people from "immigrant" communities, whether Asian or African, identify much more with the concept of Britishness than they do with the concept of Englishness, say.

In this sense, labelling yourself as the anything "of GB" can actually be a highly inclusive, welcoming move. It would not be better to have, say, a CP of England, because for many people of Asian or African descent that might imply to them that they would not be welcome.

[Tim Redd]

Feral, an element you may be missing here, regardless of the historical origin of the term, is that there is a sense in which a British identity exists distinct from a national identity like English or Scottish etc. Many people from "immigrant" communities, whether Asian or African, identify much more with the concept of Britishness than they do with the concept of Englishness, say.

In this sense, labelling yourself as the anything "of GB" can actually be a highly inclusive, welcoming move. It would not be better to have, say, a CP of England, because for many people of Asian or African descent that might imply to them that they would not be welcome.

But should people other than those residing in England proper be identifying as Great Britain or United Kingdom or the Commonwealth? All 3 terms seem to be designations of domination of England over other countries it has subjugated (both in the Isles and far abroad).

[contracycle]

Well, there is an old joke that has it that if you're a Scot competing in the Olympics, when you are winning you are British and when you are losing you are Scottish.

I'm not saying the British identity isn't confused and contested. There are different perspectives; most English people have never really considered Britishness as being distinct from Englishness, but for many people in the 'Celtic fringe', the British identity is supra-national, a larger project than petty nationalism. This is even more pronounced among immigrants (or, "immigrants", because we're often talking about people of 2nd or 3rd generation)

Whether or not people "should" so identify, is neither here nor there IMO, because the reality is that they do. Of course all this originates in Imperial propaganda, and of course it's rooted in a history of conquest and domination, but it is nonetheless a real thing which many people find useful.

I think it's clear what the CPGB means by bearing this title, and I struggle to think what other title they could or should use instead.

[Asero]

This debate is stupid. I'm Filipino, and the country I'm from is called "the Philippines," literally named after the guy who colonized us. The local communist party is named the "Communist Party of the Philippines." It's just a fucking name. If anyone's going to criticize any party, it should be aimed toward's the platform.

[TC]

From wikipedia:


The classical writer, Ptolemy, referred to the larger island as great Britain (megale Britannia) and to Ireland as little Britain (mikra Brettania) in his work, Almagest (147–148 AD).[22] In his later work, Geography (c. 150 AD), he gave these islands the names[23] Alwion[sic], Iwernia, and Mona (the Isle of Man), suggesting these may have been native names of the individual islands not known to him at the time of writing Almagest.[24] The name Albion appears to have fallen out of use sometime after the Roman conquest of Great Britain, after which Britain became the more common-place name for the island called Great Britain.[17]
After the Anglo-Saxon period, Britain was used as a historical term only. Geoffrey of Monmouth in his pseudohistorical Historia Regum Britanniae (c. 1136) refers to the island of Great Britain as Britannia major ("Greater Britain"), to distinguish it from Britannia minor ("Lesser Britain"), the continental region which approximates to modern Brittany, which had been settled in the fifth and sixth centuries by Celtic immigrants from the British Isles.[25] The term Great Britain was first used officially in 1474, in the instrument drawing up the proposal for a marriage between Cecily the daughter of Edward IV of England, and James the son of James III of Scotland, which described it as "this Nobill Isle, callit Gret Britanee." As noted above it was used again in 1604, when King James VI and I styled himself "King of Great Brittaine, France and Ireland."


Sounds like "Great Britain" has been called something like that for much longer than England, Scotland and Wales have existed as countries, and it is so called "Great Britain" because its simply bigger than the other place called Britain, Britannia.

As for why the CPGB calls itself that, its probably for reasons of anti-imperialism.

The term Great Britain (as TAT as a British person really ought to know) refers to the island geographical and excludes Ireland and Northern Ireland (Ireland might be part of "The British Isles" but never part of "Great Britain"). The name of the nation-state is not Great Britain but The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. Describing a party as "of Great Britain" may imply that it is not interested in maintaining political union with Northern Ireland which is not part of Great Britain but is part of the United Kingdom.

[Blake's Baby]

But as 'Britain' in that sense is never used ('Lesser (ie Smaller) Britain' either means Ireland or Brittany) then that rather backs up TFU's point. 'Britain' no more means 'any parts of Ireland' than 'Great Britain' does. 'Great' Britain is used about the imperialist project that came about by the union of the royal houses.

TFU's utterly wrong about the dynamics of the process but not the fact that it happened.

[Tim Redd]

Whether or not people "should" so identify, is neither here nor there IMO, because the reality is that they do.

People just do, or just believe many bourgeois society reinforcing actions and ideas.


Of course all this originates in Imperial propaganda, and of course it's rooted in a history of conquest and domination, but it is nonetheless a real thing which many people find useful.

It's good that you see that the masses of subjugated nations should be able to see though British imperial propaganda that is part of imperialist mechanism of national oppression However, I don't how see how its "useful" other than for bourgeois imperialists, especially the England based ones.


I think it's clear what the CPGB means by bearing this title, and I struggle to think what other title they could or should use instead.

CPWSIE - Communist Party of Wales, Scotland, Nothern Ireland and England. Unwieldly but doesn't play in to English imperialist ideology and it doesn't reinforce English imperialist ideology amongst the masses.

[Blake's Baby]

I don't see that 'British' does either. If you want to re-inforce Engllish ideology, refer to the UK as 'England' (as most USA-ians do).

If you want to be accurate, 'British' is more accurate term for 'Welsh' (which means 'foreign' in Old English, so, no, don't say 'Welsh' or 'Wales' as they're insults to the Aboriginal inhabitants of the Island of Britain).

The 'British' project is a fusion or compromise between English and Scottish capitalists. It's really not about English domination of Scotland - though it is certainly about English domination of Wales, and Anglo-Scottish (or Caledonio-English, as you like) domination of Ireland.

England would rather have a peaceful and allied Scotland (no matter what the cost) rather than ally of France on its northern border. The price of peace was not imposing itself on Scotland. Scotland was happy to take England's subsidies rather than France's. Scotland - that is, the Scottish ruling class - on the whole got a good deal. have a look at Scottish land-holding and the fact that it's still 'semi-feudal' (no, I haven't gone Maoist on y'all) and you'll see that any notion that Scotland was held back by England is just plain daft.

[Q]

CPWSIE - Communist Party of Wales, Scotland, Nothern Ireland and England. Unwieldly but doesn't play in to English imperialist ideology and it doesn't reinforce English imperialist ideology amongst the masses.
You can't even spell it yourself correctly and you're seriously suggesting such a name? :lol:


(as most USA-ians do).
That PC term for American always makes me cringe a little. I mean sure, I get why "American" might be imprecise, incorrect or even 'imperialist', but 'USA-sian' or any variation of that is just awkward to the extreme.


England would rather have a peaceful and allied Scotland (no matter what the cost) rather than ally of France on its northern border. The price of peace was not imposing itself on Scotland. Scotland was happy to take England's subsidies rather than France's. Scotland - that is, the Scottish ruling class - on the whole got a good deal. have a look at Scottish land-holding and the fact that it's still 'semi-feudal' (no, I haven't gone Maoist on y'all) and you'll see that any notion that Scotland was held back by England is just plain daft.
+1 on this. This whole "OMG Scotland is so oppressed" nonsense just needs to stop already.

[The Feral Underclass]

+1 on this. This whole "OMG Scotland is so oppressed" nonsense just needs to stop already.

Do you say this about the Northern Irish?

[Q]

Do you say this about the Northern Irish?
I don't think I did, did I?

[The Feral Underclass]

I don't think I did, did I?

No you didn't, that's why I ask if you do...

I'm assuming you don't say the same about the Northern Irish, yet they are also a nation under occupation, so I'm confused why you would be so dismissive of the Scots but not of the Northern Irish.

[Q]

No you didn't, that's why I ask if you do...

I'm assuming you don't say the same about the Northern Irish, yet they are also a nation under occupation, so I'm confused why you would be so dismissive of the Scots but not of the Northern Irish.
Because of ... history. Northern Ireland was occupied, was partitioned off from the rest of Ireland in an imperialist and cynical divide & conquer move along religious lines, had the 'troubles' where an invasion force was stationed, etc. There is obviously a different context at work here if you compare it with what Blake's Baby was saying.

[The Feral Underclass]

Because of ... history. Northern Ireland was occupied, was partitioned off from the rest of Ireland in an imperialist and cynical divide & conquer move along religious lines, had the 'troubles' where an invasion force was stationed, etc. There is obviously a different context at work here if you compare it with what Blake's Baby was saying.

There is a different context sure, but there is not a different reality. Both countries are divisions of English imperialist conquest. The Scottish do not have independence, they don't even have home rule. The English parliament remains the supreme legislative power in Scotland and the parliament they do have is forced to swear allegiance to a Monarch of English Royal descent.

Even if we accept what Blake is saying (which I don't), it doesn't alter the fact that Scotland remains subjugated both political and economically to an imperialist power.

[Q]

Even if we accept what Blake is saying (which I don't)...
If we don't agree on the same framework of discussion, then there is little to be discussed.

[Tim Cornelis]

Isn't it so that the Scottish parliament, etc., have a say in English matters, but not vice versa?

[BITW434]

Isn't it so that the Scottish parliament, etc., have a say in English matters, but not vice versa?

Not the Scottish parliament itself, but Scottish MPs on the centralised legislature in Westminster can effect policy which is only implemented in England. Whereas English MPs have no control over some similar stuff north of the border (tuition fees, taxation etc) because power over that sort of stuff has been devolved to the Scottish government. So yes, you were sort of right.

[The Feral Underclass]

If we don't agree on the same framework of discussion, then there is little to be discussed.


Lol, if you carry on reading, the point I'm making is that it doesn't matter what "framework" you agree, the result is the same.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[RedWorker]

This attack against the name is ridiculous. Nations are a bourgeois concept. Russia has the land it does now because of an empire, just like all bourgeois states are based upon illegitimate actions. Parties are named after states. Like Marx said, the first task of the proletarians is to raise to the position of the national ruling class. A party named after Great Britain is the party that concerns this bourgeois state - nothing more, nothing less. Communists don't recognize the bourgeois nation, nor care about its origins or specifics, in contrast to bourgeois theorists. They do, however, make national sections of themselves for every bourgeois state they work under.

"Great Britain" is not more bourgeois than "England" or "Venezuela".

.

[The Feral Underclass]

.

It wasn't relevant the first time you posted it.


This attack against the name is ridiculous. Nations are a bourgeois concept. Russia has the land it does now because of an empire, just like all bourgeois states are based upon illegitimate actions. Parties are named after states. Like Marx said, the first task of the proletarians is to raise to the position of the national ruling class. A party named after Great Britain is the party that concerns this bourgeois state - nothing more, nothing less. Communists don't recognize the bourgeois nation, nor care about its origins or specifics, in contrast to bourgeois theorists. They do, however, make national sections of themselves for every bourgeois state they work under.

If you think it's coherent political practice to tell Scottish, Welsh and Northern Irish working class people that you don't care about their struggles against an imperialist country, that's your business.

But of course communists care about the origin and specifics of the bourgeois state. That is just a ridiculous statement to make.

[contracycle]

CPWSIE - Communist Party of Wales, Scotland, Nothern Ireland and England. Unwieldly but doesn't play in to English imperialist ideology and it doesn't reinforce English imperialist ideology amongst the masses.


Not going to do point by point, but: look, the English flag, the Cross of St.George, was thoroughly hijacked in the 70's by the racist and Fascist National Front. So if you think that 'England' is in some way better than 'Great Britain', you are severely mistaken: the symbols of Englishness are so tarred by association that it's no exaggeration to say that displaying the English flag will cause many people to assume you are one variety of ultranationalist or another. This is, slowly, wearing off; and maybe one day Englishness will not carry these connotations. But that day is not today.

So you proposition is not just unwieldy, it also completely fails in its intention. Because a lot of people are going to look at that WSIE formula and read "white people".

[contracycle]

If you think it's coherent political practice to tell Scottish, Welsh and Northern Irish working class people that you don't care about their struggles against an imperialist country, that's your business.


A major part of British policy in NI was to import good Protestant Scottish colonists. There are are also historical reasons for this; nevertheless, if you you think that Irish Catholics think of themselves as being in conflict only with the English and their British superstructure, you're failing to appreciate how complex this all is.

[RedWorker]

If you think it's coherent political practice to tell Scottish, Welsh and Northern Irish working class people that you don't care about their struggles against an imperialist country, that's your business.

Yet the CPGB(PCC) in their programme called for the integration of Northern Ireland in the Republic of Ireland and for greater self-rule to be granted to Scotland and Wales.


But of course communists care about the origin and specifics of the bourgeois state. That is just a ridiculous statement to make.

ALL bourgeois states have been founded upon oppression and nationalism. Great Britain is as bad as say, England.

Yet, the communists when naming their own parties do not care about "oh, this bourgeois state is more progressive than this other". They do not refer to any nation or such but rather to the bourgeois state they operate under.

The communist party in the Third Reich, if the latter ever became an stable political entity, might as well name itself "Communist Party of the Third Reich" instead of "Communist Party of Germany". Why? Because communists don't only think the Third Reich is crap, they also think Germany is crap. And they're not referring to the nation they like (they like none) but rather to the bourgeois state they operate under. They do not recognize the bourgeois ideal of "Germany" as good and progressive and "Third Reich" as bad but rather understand that the bourgeois state is the bourgeois state and the "Third Reich" is just as illegitimate as "Germany" is.

[The Feral Underclass]

ALL bourgeois states have been founded upon oppression and nationalism. Great Britain is as bad as say, England.

Yet, the communists when naming their own parties do not care about "oh, this bourgeois state is more progressive than this other". They do not refer to any nation or such but rather to the bourgeois state they operate under.

Yes you've said this already. The idea that communists should not concern themselves with these issues is ridiculous and dismissive and I object to that.


The communist party in the Third Reich, if the latter ever became an stable political entity, might as well name itself "Communist Party of the Third Reich" instead of "Communist Party of Germany". Why? Because communists don't only think the Third Reich is crap, they also think Germany is crap. And they're not referring to the nation they like (they like none) but rather to the bourgeois state they operate under. They do not recognize the bourgeois ideal of "Germany" as good and progressive and "Third Reich" as bad but rather understand that the bourgeois state is the bourgeois state and the "Third Reich" is just as illegitimate as "Germany" is.

I fundamentally reject this analysis. The idea that the name "Third Reich" is just as appropriate as the name "Germany" is absurd.

[RedWorker]

The Communists hate all bourgeois states. So why would using their name imply that they sympathize in any way with it? When a communist party names itself "Communist Party of Germany" does that means it stands for the concept of Germany?

[The Feral Underclass]

The Communists hate all bourgeois states. So why would using their name imply that they sympathize in any way with it? When a communist party names itself "Communist Party of Germany" does that means it stands for the concept of Germany?

Ugh. I've not said that the CPGB sympathise with the bourgeois state. I'm not saying that the CPGB stands for the concept of British imperialism either...

http://www.revleft.com/vb/showpost.php?p=2811784&postcount=47

[Tim Redd]

You can't even spell it yourself correctly and you're seriously suggesting such a name? :lol:

If you were really interested in revolutionary minded, honest discussion and not scoring points, you would point out the spelling error, without the haughtiness. And really do spelling errors in your world disqualify an idea? That's a small, petty world.


+1 on this. This whole "OMG Scotland is so oppressed" nonsense just needs to stop already.

Neither of you should be English to make such chauvinist statements. Roughly half the Scottish electorate disagrees with both of you.

[Blake's Baby]

...


Neither of you should be English to make such chauvinist statements. Roughly half the Scottish electorate disagrees with both of you.

Q's Dutch and I'm of mixed Scottish-Irish ancestry, though born - like many others of the 'Celtic Diaspora' - in the geographical area of 'England' (a political identity I've never identified with).

Aren't you from the US?

And the question before the Scottish electorate was not 'do you think Scotland is oppressed?' but 'do you think Scotland should leave the UK?'.

Whatever the perception of people in Scotland (don't forget, 67% of Americans think there's a God, so people can be wrong) the assertion that Q and I are disputing is that Scotland is an 'oppressed nation'. Honestly; it's like white men shouting about how they're the only ones who oppressed now.

Yes the working class in Scotland is poor and shat upon. Guess what? So is the working class in England (and Wales, and Northern Ireland). It's not 'the English' who have made them poor and shat on them - it's capitalism (English, Scottish, German, American, Japanese, French...)

[Lord Testicles]

CPWSIE - Communist Party of Wales, Scotland, Nothern Ireland and England. Unwieldly but doesn't play in to English imperialist ideology and it doesn't reinforce English imperialist ideology amongst the masses.

How exclusionary. It should clearly be the "Communist Party of Wales, Scotland, Northern Ireland, England, Cornwall and the Isle of Man." CPWSNIECIM for short.

[Tim Redd]

How exclusionary. It should clearly be the "Communist Party of Wales, Scotland, Northern Ireland, England, Cornwall and the Isle of Man." CPWSNIECIM for short.

OK, sure then. Thanks for the elucidation.