Thinking of joining the CPB...thoughts?

[RedKobra]

I've been wanting to get involved in an active UK left organisation for a while but have really struggled to find a group that ticks all the boxes. They obviously have to have similar beliefs to myself, they have to be willing and active in cross party collaboration. They also have to be big enough to not just end up as a sort of theory obsessed, book club that could fit all its members into someones living room. After a lot of research I'd narrowed my options down to the Communist Party of Britain & Counterfire.

Both are broadly compatible with my own beliefs, obviously there are one or two areas of disagreement. Both seem fairly active and enthusiastic in the left movement. The CPB's 'Britain's Road to Socialism' resonated a lot more than Counterfire's mission statement but Counterfire are the larger organisation and seem much better connected.

At the moment the CPB is the front runner (although I don't yet know how active they are in my area). I like the fact that its not ashamed to wear its Socialism in public. Counterfire if anything feels a little like its spreading itself too thin across every movement and in doing so loses a clear focus on class politics. I'm absolutely not against strong and public struggles against all oppression, in fact a whole-hearted commitment to feminism is an essential requirement of mine but I think we're stronger when we make it clear that we are socialists who demand an end to all class relations and distinctions.

Anyway, does anyone have any thoughts, comments, recommendations, suggestions, criticisms? Input genuinely welcome.

[BITW434]

The CPB appear to uphold the current Chinese government as genuinely socialist, I was watching a talk given by someone given from their youth branch where he was praising the merits of Dengism. They also seem way too cuddly with the Labour Party for a supposed 'communist' party. So unless that's your sort of thing I'd stay well away.

[Vladimir Innit Lenin]

I literally do not understand why anybody would join the CPB, CPGB-PCC, CPGB-ML or any of the other tiny sects. They are so irrelevant, have been for a long time, and will continue to do no useful work outside of the existing, stale, rotting 'communist' left.

[RedKobra]

I literally do not understand why anybody would join the CPB, CPGB-PCC, CPGB-ML or any of the other tiny sects. They are so irrelevant, have been for a long time, and will continue to do no useful work outside of the existing, stale, rotting 'communist' left.

There are no mass parties in the UK that I'm aware of, at least on the revolutionary left. Whoever I joined would certainly be involved in one of the left networks like Left Unity or the Peoples Assembly, so size isn't as important.

But I would be interested to know who you would recommend I involve myself with.

[Vladimir Innit Lenin]

There are no mass parties in the UK that I'm aware of, at least on the revolutionary left. Whoever I joined would certainly be involved in one of the left networks like Left Unity or the Peoples Assembly, so size isn't as important.

But I would be interested to know who you would recommend I involve myself with.

It's not so much the size of the party that should be of a concern, but whether they are actually have, or are making progress towards having, any influence upon the political consciousness of the wider working class (by wider working class, I mean those workers who fall outside the group of activists already involved in left politics).

The CPB, for example, has been active since the 1980s, yet has to the point shown no inclination that it will, or is able to, break out of the current left milieu of tiny, irrelevant sects.

[RedKobra]

I hear you Vlad, I have a very similar sense myself but organisation is so important. The left needs to get organised. I'm not dead set on joining the CPB, its more that I've gone down the list of party's I could become involved with (given I've no interest in joining Labour & have quite profound reservations about the Greens) and quite frankly most just don't espouse the sort of politics I believe in.

I'm disabled and unemployable, so ergo I'm not in a union, so my options for involvement in political and class struggle are pretty thin already.

[Mass Grave Aesthetics]

Have you contacted any of them? I recommend dropping them a line to show interest and preferably meeting members face to face for a talk. I think then you'll get a better feel for whether you want to join or not. Maybe go to a few meetings if you can.

[Blake's Baby]

What are your politics, Iconoclastic Aspergic, that you think are compatible with the CPB?

[RedKobra]

Basically they seemed pretty broad politically. They're not Ultra-Trotskyist like The Socialist Party of England & Wales, but they're also not Stalinist like a lot of Marxist-Leninist parties. they're not as undemocratic & sectarian as the SWP but they're not as much of a talking shop as the CPGB-PCC.

They're anti-EU, as am I.

As far as I can tell they're involved with the unions & the Peoples Assembly which so far looks a really good thing.

I read their manifesto, 'Britain's Road to Socialism' (2011 edition.) in which I could find very little I disagreed with.

Yes, I would agree they're small, which is frustrating.

Yes, they're pro China, which is nauseating.

Someone mentioned them being cosy with Labour, well I suppose it all depends in what way. Most left parties I can think of, when it comes to it, lobby for voters to vote Labour & most left parties understand that Labour still has a near monopoly on working class political engagement. I am not in ANY sense a reformist or someone who maintains any faith in Labour as a solution to the question of a workers party but I wouldn't disagree with the notion of engaging with the Labour party and voter base. I would say its a necessity.

Lastly, I see myself as a communist; describe myself as a communist and would like to see a resurgent communist movement in Britain, Proud of being working class, proud of its history, proud of its iconography.

I really don't know for sure whether the CPB are what I'm looking for, without meeting them its almost impossible to say. The reason I started this thread was really to see if anyone had any experience with them or knowledge of them that could shed some light.

[Vladimir Innit Lenin]

I was in a similar situation to you about 5-6 years ago when I first wanted to become an active communist.

I e-mailed round a few people from SPEW, CPB, and CPGB-ML. I met a guy from SPEW. I was put off of the CPGB-PCC by the stalinoids on here who sympathise with them.

SPEW, to me, seemed to have no real idea about what a post-capitalist society would look like. To me, their politics seem to be 'communism-lite', in that they talk with a lot of revolutionary rhetoric, but actually their demands seem to just be utopian policies under capitalism ('end to this...' 'end to that...'). The guy I talked to didn't seem to have any vision of what a post-capitalist society might look like, nor how we might get there, or even build a resistance to capitalism.

The CPGB-ML sent me a reply courtesy of Zane Carpenter. He pretty much turned me off with his ultra-defensive positions re: Stalin and the USSR, including arguing that the purges of the 1930s were legitimate incl. the murders, and that the Katyn massacre was perpetrated by the Germans, which as a history student at the time I found ludicrous having reviewed the evidence myself.

The CPB just seemed to be quite stale. I think I got a reply from the general secretary himself, and he was quite welcoming, but their politics just seem old, tired, and the British Road to Socialism is stuck in Stalin's 'social democratic' thinking of the 1950s. It's a really poor program in that, like SPEW, it doesn't seek to overthrow the political institutions of power (Parliament, Labour Party, bourgeois election system) that provide cover for capitalism. This is pretty staggering for a party that calls itself 'communist'. Given that the program was first published in 1951 (under the guidance of Stalin himself), and was re-issued as recently as 2011, this gives the impression that the CPB are in some senses defenders of the old Stalinist, cold-war worldview. The scope for such a party to make sense of an increasingly fragmented world and diverse working class, in an era where cold war politics are becoming increasingly irrelevant, seems negligible.

[RedWorker]

Being "anti-EU" is petty nationalism. Exiting the EU changes national sovereignty not class sovereignty.

CPB is for Stalinists and social democrats, if you sympathize with them in the way you're describing you're one of these two whether you like it or not. CPGB(PCC) is good but has some problems (such as no real understanding of Stalinism and suffering from some Leninist deviations).

So I'd say you're confused. If you think you're not a Stalinist then read more. Otherwise just openly admit you are one.

[Blake's Baby]

Yeah, the CPB is a Stalinist party. Just not a Maoist one (like the CPB-ML an the CPGB-ML). As others have said, they're the fag-end of 1950s Stalinism.

They're anti-EU, you say? So are the SPEW and Scargill's SLP. But then, I hear the Tories are pretty sceptical along with UKIP and the BNP, so you have lots of choices there.

If you're impressed by the People's Assembly then there's a whole plethora of people you can work with. Almost every leftist sect has joined the People's Assembly or Left Unity projects, sometimes both.

I think it's interesting that you call the SPEW 'ultra-Trotskyist' and regard that as a bad thing. What is it particularly about 'ultra-Trotskyism' (in the form you've identified in the SPEW) that you think is a problem?

[RedKobra]

Okay thanks for replying guys. I wouldn't deny that there are contradictions in my politics, I'm still learning. Whats important is that I don't see that as a good reason to sit on the sidelines (waiting for enlightenment). The best way to develop my politics is at the coal face so to speak. Get involved, be challenged, develop.

In reply to RedWorker: As I said, I see myself as a communist. Someone who's for the abolition of Capitalism. For the abolition of wage slavery. So, no I don't see myself as a Social Democrat at all. I have no faith in reformism what so ever. I haven't entirely ruled out the method of using being in government as a way of drawing Capital out of the shadows. For example passing socialist policies in the knowledge that Capital will have to move undemocratically to crush those reforms which will then allow us to show the apolitical working class what we've always said is true, which is that if we tried to change things using the ballot box the Capitalist class would use violent repression. Its not something I hold to dogmatically, but I do think its important.

I can't for the life of me understand why you would assume I am a Stalinist. I don't accept the USSR was ever communist. I don't believe you can have Socialism in one country. I don't believe in the bureaucratic method of government. I don't think the great strides Russia made industrially and civicly are any justification for the repression of the people. Basically I abhor Stalin. Mao.etc

As for the question of the EU. Its not a question of nationalism at all. I see the EU as a kind of corporate federalism. I don't care about it as a Brit, I care about it as a member of the working class of europe. Its not an instrument of the working class and never could be. It is exclusively a tool of the capitalist class of europe to organise against the nationally segregated working class.

In Reply to Blake's Baby: Its pretty below the belt to suggest because I'm anti EU that I would have a bed fellow in the BNP or UKIP. There's no need for that at all. The SLP are labourite as far as I can tell. They're reformist and not all that different to the unions loyal to the Labour Party. They ***** and winge about Capitalism without having any idea as to how things could be different.

My grievances with SPEW are probably based on the fact that, again, they're essentially Labourite. They're reformist. Their sole affectation of radicalism is to have Peter Taffe name drop Trotsky 400 times a night.
What puts me off of parties that identify as Trotskyist is that they seem to be pathologically sectarian. I think its essential that we on the left work together. There's no room for sectionalism if we're going to overthrow Capital. I'm quite happy to work with Anarchists, Stalinists, left Labour whoever. That doesn't mean I agree with them but I can't see a way forward without uniting forces and organising a mass movement.

My personal politics are, however, important to me. Again, I would describe myself as a communist. Somewhere between Trotsky & Lenin. Its a maliable position, I'm more left-communism than Lenin, but more disciplined and pragmatic and less stroppy & petty than those keeping the legacy of Trotsky.

Lastly, in response to Vladimir innit Lenin: Thanks that was a very good response. Much appreciated. You sound like you were in a very similar position to the one I'm in now. Have you found a solution or are you still regretably ronin?

[Q]

I wouldn't deny that there are contradictions in my politics, I'm still learning.
Good that you acknowledge such contradictions, that's a step further than many others are willing to make.


Whats important is that I don't see that as a good reason to sit on the sidelines (waiting for enlightenment). The best way to develop my politics is at the coal face so to speak. Get involved, be challenged, develop.A commendable attitude.


I can't for the life of me understand why you would assume I am a Stalinist. I don't accept the USSR was ever communist.Just for the record: Stalinists don't think the USSR was ever communist either.


I don't believe you can have Socialism in one country. I don't believe in the bureaucratic method of government. I don't think the great strides Russia made industrially and civicly are any justification for the repression of the people. Basically I abhor Stalin. Mao.etcGiven that the Morning Star CPB upholds these politics, what makes you want to join them then?


As for the question of the EU. Its not a question of nationalism at all. I see the EU as a kind of corporate federalism. I don't care about it as a Brit, I care about it as a member of the working class of europe. Its not an instrument of the working class and never could be. It is exclusively a tool of the capitalist class of europe to organise against the nationally segregated working class.National capitalist states likewise are "tool[s] of the capitalist class", do we need to break up national states too? I'm assuming here that you want to leave the EU.


I think its essential that we on the left work together. There's no room for sectionalism if we're going to overthrow Capital. I'm quite happy to work with Anarchists, Stalinists, left Labour whoever. That doesn't mean I agree with them but I can't see a way forward without uniting forces and organising a mass movement.Agreed completely. Sadly, the CPB doesn't agree with this stance.

Maybe the CPGB (http://www.cpgb.org.uk/) is more along your alley? They're best known from their publication, the Weekly Worker (http://weeklyworker.co.uk/) and as one of the few groups on the left strive towards a new communist party through engaging with the existing left.

[RedKobra]

re: working for a united left.


Agreed completely. Sadly, the CPB doesn't agree with this stance.

Maybe the CPGB (http://www.cpgb.org.uk/) is more along your alley? They're best known from their publication, the Weekly Worker (http://weeklyworker.co.uk/) and as one of the few groups on the left strive towards a new communist party through engaging with the existing left. I have looked into the CPGB PCC and some of the things I've read have been very good. There are concerns though.

1. They appear to do little more than talk. They aren't engaged with unions.etc Yes, they're a part of Left Unity but that is looking very stale and impotent already.

2. They don't have a codified program that I've been able to find. They have a set of transitional demands which, when I read them, struck me as very tame.

3. They, like the Sparticist League, seem to put a lot of weight behind scrapping the age of consent laws. First of all, I find that deeply concerning from a child welfare perspective, secondly who on earth thinks that that is top, middle or bottom of anyone's list of priorities? It opens up the movement to all manner of unsavory insinuations. There is no way I could support such a thing.

4. They seem fairly hostile to feminism & feminists. They took a very reactionary stance to feminist amendments within Left Unity. Opposing 50% female representation on all bodies. This, for me, is scandalous. Also, the CPGB's response to the outcry at the SWP Comrade Delta scandal was a little disconcerting. Regular speaker Paul Demarty essentially tried to rubbish feminism. Again, for me, this is unacceptable. Not addressing the issues that keep women from being half of the left movement is as counter-productive and counter-revolutionary as trying to lead a revolution with half the workers.

5. There are other concerns I have with them, but I'll bring this up because its of a specific type. There have long been rumours that the CPGB PCC had high profile members who worked for British Intelligence. Now, I fully accept that this could be pure nonsense and that especially now, given the utter irellevance, of the communist movement in the UK the British Intelligence probably have far better things to do with their time than infiltrate the CPGB PCC. But it does cause concern. If it was true who were the informants, are they still in the party, are they still engaged in counter-revolutionary activities? If not then what are they doing because they quite clearly don't have the movements best interests at heart.

As I say there's a lot about them that I agree with. Jack Conrad has given a number of very compelling talks about the former Soviet Union. I think some of their other "intellectuals" are a little on the boring side but maybe the rank and file are a little more zoetic.

[Q]

re: working for a united left.

I have looked into the CPGB PCC and some of the things I've read have been very good. There are concerns though.

1. They appear to do little more than talk. They aren't engaged with unions.etc Yes, they're a part of Left Unity but that is looking very stale and impotent already.
Those are the limitations of being a small organisation. There is no way to prettify that, but on the other hand other organisations on the left don't fare much better. We're all very tiny, irrelevant and limited in our resources. Politically however, there is no disdain for the trade unions.


2. They don't have a codified program that I've been able to find. They have a set of transitional demands which, when I read them, struck me as very tame.
Au contraire, the CPGB stresses a lot of effort in the type of programme they have. You can read their draft programme here (http://www.cpgb.org.uk/home/about-the-cpgb/draft-programme), you can read a study guide about it here (http://www.cpgb.org.uk/home/study-guides/party-and-programme) and here are some videos (http://www.cpgb.org.uk/home/videos/landing/categories?recent_tags=party+%26+programme) on the subject. They call it a 'draft' programme as they don't see themselves as a genuine communist party due to aformentioned size. The logic is that this programme would be proposed on a future unity congress.

Also, the logic behind this programme is to be 'minimum-maximum' rather than 'transitional'. There is a methodological difference.


3. They, like the Sparticist League, seem to put a lot of weight behind scrapping the age of consent laws. First of all, I find that deeply concerning from a child welfare perspective, secondly who on earth thinks that that is top, middle or bottom of anyone's list of priorities? It opens up the movement to all manner of unsavory insinuations. There is no way I could support such a thing.
The topic was highlighted some time ago, but I don't think a "lot of weight" is put behind it. Also, there is a lot of disagreement on this issue. Unlike the Sparts, there is no 'party line' on it.


4. They seem fairly hostile to feminism & feminists. They took a very reactionary stance to feminist amendments within Left Unity. Opposing 50% female representation on all bodies. This, for me, is scandalous. Also, the CPGB's response to the outcry at the SWP Comrade Delta scandal was a little disconcerting. Regular speaker Paul Demarty essentially tried to rubbish feminism. Again, for me, this is unacceptable. Not addressing the issues that keep women from being half of the left movement is as counter-productive and counter-revolutionary as trying to lead a revolution with half the workers.
This is a big topic. First of all they aren't hostile to feminism as such. They are hostile toward the current left expression of it for several reasons, mainly because most of it is not about actual causes. The 50% representation proposal is one such example: Women emancipation will not be achieved by it, on the contrary. As woman on such a leadership position, they would always have to ask themselves (and be asked by others) whether they got there because of their skills or because they had to fill a quotum...


5. There are other concerns I have with them, but I'll bring this up because its of a specific type. There have long been rumours that the CPGB PCC had high profile members who worked for British Intelligence. Now, I fully accept that this could be pure nonsense and that especially now, given the utter irellevance, of the communist movement in the UK the British Intelligence probably have far better things to do with their time than infiltrate the CPGB PCC. But it does cause concern. If it was true who were the informants, are they still in the party, are they still engaged in counter-revolutionary activities? If not then what are they doing because they quite clearly don't have the movements best interests at heart.
In my experience this is indeed utter nonsense. But such rumours are hard to disprove...


As I say there's a lot about them that I agree with. Jack Conrad has given a number of very compelling talks about the former Soviet Union. I think some of their other "intellectuals" are a little on the boring side but maybe the rank and file are a little more zoetic.
What also needs repeating is that they are not a monolithic group. Groups like the Sparts, the CPB or SPEW require you to agree with a whole swath of subjects, at least publicly. The CPGB on the contrary not only allows you to disagree but will encourage you to develop your disagreement and be publicly debated. The weekly Worker and their Communist University event are testimony to this attitude.

So, by joining you're not required to agree with the majority on this or that subject. You're merely required to accept majority decisions on specific activities. Such a common basis of action, yet freedom to disagree with it, is I think the very essence of democracy.

[rednortherner]

Hi i'm actually a member of the CPB and YCL and it sounds like you're the sort of person who normally joins. You don't want to get bogged down in lefty name calling and you want to get on and work with people to build a mass movement. You've read BRS so you know thats what we're about, which is why we were one of the groups who founded the People's Assembly as opposed to getting involved later. We're for working with other people to try and achieve more, and change minds than simply being 'pure' about politics.

There's actually a lot of debate in the CPB at the moment around all sorts of things, from Labour, to China (most people don't really hold a positive view and mostly ignore it which isn't great). The USSR divides opinion but not in a harmful way, git depends on who you talk to, but Stalin isn't idolised, the USSR was seen as having faults but also important successes, saying that though i know several comrades who are pretty negative on the whole thing. Many more just want to get on with things now and learn the lessons of the past.

There's people clinging to old ideas but really, no one would that i've met thinks of themselves as Stalinist, Maoist (insert next ism here), just Communists. It contains plenty of ex-Maoists, ex-Stalinists, ex-Trotskists, and ex-Social Democrats, which actually means there's quite a variety of opinions, but still the general agreement of engaging in Communist politics. The YCL in particular are becoming properly active once more and are debating and deciding what Communism in the 21st Century can look like, without the overhangs that plagues most of the left i know of. Instead wanting to do what they can to engage people and bring about real change.

The whole things about learning though and I'd say that if you want to learn, rather than be lectured, the CPB is good. You'll have space to develop your ideas, and importantly space to disagree with people and the party line.

Also Counterfire isn't that big, even if its profile is. They're good people though and work with the CPB well. If you're looking for a union, and a political one, since you're unemployed check out Unite Community, its a union for those not in work/underemployed and does a lot of work around cuts to disabled people.

Anyway, best of luck in working out what you wanna do

[Blake's Baby]

...

In Reply to Blake's Baby: Its pretty below the belt to suggest because I'm anti EU that I would have a bed fellow in the BNP or UKIP. There's no need for that at all...

But they're in the bed, and you want to get in it too. It's your decision if you want to get in, but you don't get to decide who else is in there.

It's not our job to argue this or that way for the organisation of capital. There are certain practical problems I can potentially see from splitting units up (but rarely from combining them), but either way the 'best' organisation of capital is not what concerns us. How best to take the unity of the working class forward, yes - I'd say that's rarely through dividing it further.


...
The SLP are labourite as far as I can tell. They're reformist and not all that different to the unions loyal to the Labour Party. They ***** and winge about Capitalism without having any idea as to how things could be different...

I thought their politics were almost identical to the CPB's, to the point where a few years ago they discussed a merger. Maybe I'm wrong about that.

If you don't like 'Labourite', I'm interested in why you find the BRS appealing, given that it is essentially 'wait for a Labour Government - force it to Turn Left'.


... My grievances with SPEW are probably based on the fact that, again, they're essentially Labourite. They're reformist. Their sole affectation of radicalism is to have Peter Taffe name drop Trotsky 400 times a night.
What puts me off of parties that identify as Trotskyist is that they seem to be pathologically sectarian. I think its essential that we on the left work together. There's no room for sectionalism if we're going to overthrow Capital. I'm quite happy to work with Anarchists, Stalinists, left Labour whoever. That doesn't mean I agree with them but I can't see a way forward without uniting forces and organising a mass movement...

"I won't work with Trotskyists, they're too sectarian." Got it.


... My personal politics are, however, important to me. Again, I would describe myself as a communist. Somewhere between Trotsky & Lenin. Its a maliable position, I'm more left-communism than Lenin, but more disciplined and pragmatic and less stroppy & petty than those keeping the legacy of Trotsky...

On the face of it, you're light-years from Left Communism.

Look, I'm being very negative here, but honestly it's hard to get a handle on your politics not because you're a unique snowflake but because they're all over the place.

I really get that you don't like Trotskyist organisations. Me neither. But why you should be impressed by the CPB baffles me greatly.

'mass organisation'? Really? The last time there was one of them, Britain went to war with the Kaiser. And the 'mass organisation' went with it.

rednortherner seems nice though.

[The Idler]

Here's the notes I made on your comments in this topic
Active uk left org
Willing and active in cross party collaboration
Big enough not to end up theory obsessed, book club that could fit members into living room
Active and enthusiastic
In the left movement
Not ashamed to wear its socialism in public
I think we’re stronger when we make it clear that we are socialists who demand an end to all class relations and distinctions
Mass party in left network
Organisation is important
No interest in Labour, do not lobby for them and profound reservations about the Greens
Democratic
Not a talking shop
Anti-EU
Possibility of using parliamentary elections
Between Trotsky and Lenin
Codified program
Not sexist

The Socialist Party of Great Britain is well worth looking at but there are differences with your comments. It is an active organisation and one of the few standing in the 2015 UK general election as a party itself not as a front such as TUSC. As such it is practical and has hundreds of members, many more than Counterfire and possibly a few more than CPB. It is not left or in the left movement, but does oppose Labour, the Greens. The SPGB is the only socialist group to have debated against the UKIP proposing world socialism as far as I know. It is not between Trotsky and Lenin. The SPGB believe we are stronger when we make it clear that we are socialists who demand an end to all class relations and distinctions. The SPGB are proud of our history. The SPGB are pro-organisation and determined to use elections but not necessarily parliament so are not a talking shop. We want a mass party but not a left network. Serious socialists will support the SPGB at the next election. Sectarians, if you ask them, will refuse.

[RedKobra]

To Rednorthern:

Thanks for your very helpful comments. I read a lot more on the CPB and although there are, understandably, some areas of disagreement, from a broad perspective they fit my criteria pretty well. There is no perfect marxist mass party of the people, building one is the task at hand. I emailed both the national email & the email of the party in my region a few days ago. I'm still waiting for them to get back. (not a good sign lol).

I'm also extremely interested in Unite Community, as is my wife, actually. We'll both be joining at the earliest opportunity. As an Aspergian I've never had the pleasure of holding down a proper job and so have been deprived of what I see as the right and obligation of every proletarian, which is joining a union.


To Blake's Baby:

Although we won't agree politically I do appreciate your criticisms. I am here to learn and develop and if it wasn't for the critical input of people like you then I wouldn't be here.

I still say the BNP/UKIP accusation is groundless. We all here on RevLeft, ultimately, want a stateless society, as do the Ancaps (purportedly) does that place us "in bed" with them? No. The destination may appear similar but ultimately they couldn't be more different.
I agree with the position of the CPB on this. The EU is an instrument of European capital, distinct and seperate from bodies like the ECHR. Its central committee is unelected and unreformable and even if it were reformable in what sense could it be used to serve a socialist program. It exists to fight for the interests of European capital in the theatre of global capital, as an oppositional block against the US and its economic fronts and the BRIC bloc. TTIP is seeking to unite US interests and EU interests against the BRIC bloc thus further deforming the EU into an instrument of corporate imperialism.

On the point about the SLP they are, as far as I can tell still solidly Labourite. I don't know anything about a merger between the CPB and the SLP although I would fine it a but odd given that Scargill is defiantly anti-soviet and the CPB have a far more nuanced line. The SLP agitate for the left of Labour to retake the party so that they can rejoin, at least that seems to be the subtext. They feel like they are the true legacy of Labour. They're not outside Labour by choice.

The CPB on the other have never wanted to be PART of Labour but merely act as a leveraging force from without. Clearly the CPB is far weaker these days than in its CPGB heyday. Sad but true. It is taking the pragmatic decision to try to build a kind of alliance with Labour. To get elected as Communists where it can but support Labour where it must. Its fighting to reorientate the working class movement. It looks bleak and pointless right now but thats because we're at the foot of the mountain. All progress made in the 20th century has been lost. The whole program has to essentially start from scratch. Its still the only program that has come close to working in this country before though. No amount of Left-Communist holier-than-thou preaching has made a difference to the workers struggle in Britain. Ultimately the aim is absorb Labour's working class support which I think, if any progress was made, is far more likely than ultra-left consciousness emerging in the majority.

In regards to SPEW, I didn't say I wouldn't or couldn't work with Trotskyist organisations. I explained why I wouldn't be able to join them. Since I joined RevLeft my concerns about Trotskyism have only grown and are now to the extent where I think they are a detriment to the struggle. I can and will, though, work with SPEW and their ilk whenever and where ever I can. Whether they would want to work with me is another matter. As I said they favour a very sectarian kind of Trotskyism.

My politics are undoubtedly nebulous compared to someone like yourself but that's why I'm here and I feel I'm understanding my beliefs better every day. Its all about the struggle between firm principle and pure utopianism. When I said I saw some Left-Communism in myself I mean that I can absolutely sympathise with the aims and ideals but I have drawn the conclusion that those ideas simply find no traction in the real material conditions in which we live or are likely to live any time soon.


To The Idler:

I've looked into the SPGB and I'm far from convinced. They seem utopian, sectarian and unwilling to actually agitate for change. Class war is about struggle not just keeping your party clean of controversy. If you're waiting for a nice clean democratic revolution then you're waiting for something that's never going to happen. Class struggle is a dirty, attritional, ugly, volatile thing that really tests how willing to adapt you are. The SPGB seem to me to be the sort of party that would rather not dirty their hands than actually struggle for the emancipation of the working class. No offense. You seem like a nice guy and so the the members of the SPGB but I just don't see myself being a happy camper in that party.

Thanks to everyone who has contributed to this thread. You've helped me immensely.

[Blake's Baby]

...

Although we won't agree politically I do appreciate your criticisms. I am here to learn and develop and if it wasn't for the critical input of people like you then I wouldn't be here.

I still say the BNP/UKIP accusation is groundless. We all here on RevLeft, ultimately, want a stateless society, as do the Ancaps (purportedly) does that place us "in bed" with them? No. The destination may appear similar but ultimately they couldn't be more different.

I agree with the position of the CPB on this. The EU is an instrument of European capital, distinct and seperate from bodies like the ECHR. Its central committee is unelected and unreformable and even if it were reformable in what sense could it be used to serve a socialist program. It exists to fight for the interests of European capital in the theatre of global capital, as an oppositional block against the US and its economic fronts and the BRIC bloc. TTIP is seeking to unite US interests and EU interests against the BRIC bloc thus further deforming the EU into an instrument of corporate imperialism...

But we know the 'an-caps' don't stand for a stateless society. So, no we're not in bed with them. But UKIP and the BNP really do stand for getting out of the EU.

In what way is the British state better than your criticisms of the EU?


... On the point about the SLP they are, as far as I can tell still solidly Labourite. I don't know anything about a merger between the CPB and the SLP although I would fine it a but odd given that Scargill is defiantly anti-soviet and the CPB have a far more nuanced line. The SLP agitate for the left of Labour to retake the party so that they can rejoin, at least that seems to be the subtext. They feel like they are the true legacy of Labour. They're not outside Labour by choice...

They are outside of Labour by choice - they left in 1996. But they consider themselves in continuity with 'old' Labour.


... The CPB on the other have never wanted to be PART of Labour but merely act as a leveraging force from without. Clearly the CPB is far weaker these days than in its CPGB heyday. Sad but true. It is taking the pragmatic decision to try to build a kind of alliance with Labour. To get elected as Communists where it can but support Labour where it must. Its fighting to reorientate the working class movement. It looks bleak and pointless right now but thats because we're at the foot of the mountain. All progress made in the 20th century has been lost. The whole program has to essentially start from scratch. Its still the only program that has come close to working in this country before though. No amount of Left-Communist holier-than-thou preaching has made a difference to the workers struggle in Britain. Ultimately the aim is absorb Labour's working class support which I think, if any progress was made, is far more likely than ultra-left consciousness emerging in the majority...

Well, differences between you and me in how we think consciousness develops aside... the orientation of the SLP and the CPB towards Labour is pretty much identical. In so far as the SLP has an orientation (ie, in so far as it actually exists).


... In regards to SPEW, I didn't say I wouldn't or couldn't work with Trotskyist organisations. I explained why I wouldn't be able to join them. Since I joined RevLeft my concerns about Trotskyism have only grown and are now to the extent where I think they are a detriment to the struggle. I can and will, though, work with SPEW and their ilk whenever and where ever I can. Whether they would want to work with me is another matter. As I said they favour a very sectarian kind of Trotskyism...

As they're also anti-EU I would think you'll probably be working with them a lot. There are a lot more SPEWers than CPBers around.


... My politics are undoubtedly nebulous compared to someone like yourself but that's why I'm here and I feel I'm understanding my beliefs better every day. Its all about the struggle between firm principle and pure utopianism. When I said I saw some Left-Communism in myself I mean that I can absolutely sympathise with the aims and ideals but I have drawn the conclusion that those ideas simply find no traction in the real material conditions in which we live or are likely to live any time soon...

That may well be true. But then, we won't make a revolution by wishing. If the real material conditions aren't there, the real material conditions aren't there. Agitating about membership (or the opposite, it doesn't matter) of the EU isn't going to make the conditions. Giving Labour MPs a column in your paper isn't going to create those conditions. Standing a candidate every few years in East London isn't going to make those conditions. It's the working class that will make the revolution. If they don't we - political minorities - can't make it for them. Principles are all we have in times like these - give up on them (because you don't want to be 'utopian') and I really can't see what use you are to the working class.

Herman Gorter wrote in 1920 that what was needed in Western Europe was a kernel of revolutionaries 'as hard as steel and as clear as glass' and that's a really good description of what is still necessary. Gorter was right and Lenin was wrong about conditions in Europe.

https://www.marxists.org/archive/gorter/1920/open-letter/ch05.htm

[RedWorker]

As I said, I see myself as a communist. Someone who's for the abolition of Capitalism. For the abolition of wage slavery. So, no I don't see myself as a Social Democrat at all. I have no faith in reformism what so ever.

Yet has the Stalinist program, that the CPB subscribes to, ever resulted in any of these things? Plus it is reformist.


I can't for the life of me understand why you would assume I am a Stalinist. I don't accept the USSR was ever communist. I don't believe you can have Socialism in one country. I don't believe in the bureaucratic method of government. I don't think the great strides Russia made industrially and civicly are any justification for the repression of the people. Basically I abhor Stalin. Mao.etc

But the CPB believes in all of that.


As for the question of the EU. Its not a question of nationalism at all. I see the EU as a kind of corporate federalism. I don't care about it as a Brit, I care about it as a member of the working class of europe. Its not an instrument of the working class and never could be. It is exclusively a tool of the capitalist class of europe to organise against the nationally segregated working class.

How exactly can exiting the EU produce or contribute to producing a state in which what you say does not apply? How is the British state an instrument of the working class? See the following before replying.


There is no perfect marxist mass party of the people, building one is the task at hand.

The notion that the CPB, such an irrelevant, dogmatic, stuck-in-the-past and probably bureaucratic party, can even remotely begin to be turned into a 'mass party of the people' is, to be frank, completely absurd.


I still say the BNP/UKIP accusation is groundless.

While the mean of criticism may be annoying, your position is that of the BNP/UKIP: EU must be exited, and you reach this position because of the same reason: the need to increase national sovereignty. No matter whether you yourself believe this or not, the only thing that exiting the EU can do is that: increase the power of the national bourgeois state at the expense of that of the international bourgeois state. And no, the British state can't be, nor be reformed into being, nor be 'revolutionarily' transformed into being, a workers' state.


I agree with the position of the CPB on this. The EU is an instrument of European capital, distinct and seperate from bodies like the ECHR. Its central committee is unelected and unreformable and even if it were reformable in what sense could it be used to serve a socialist program. It exists to fight for the interests of European capital in the theatre of global capital, as an oppositional block against the US and its economic fronts and the BRIC bloc. TTIP is seeking to unite US interests and EU interests against the BRIC bloc thus further deforming the EU into an instrument of corporate imperialism.

Is the British state not also all that? And, tell us, in what sense can the British state be used for a socialist program? These incorrect notions all stem from one key flaw: the notion that the current state should be taken over rather than form a new one, the latter of which is the Marxist position. A newborn workers' state wouldn't even be in the EU.


In regards to SPEW, I didn't say I wouldn't or couldn't work with Trotskyist organisations. I explained why I wouldn't be able to join them. Since I joined RevLeft my concerns about Trotskyism have only grown and are now to the extent where I think they are a detriment to the struggle. I can and will, though, work with SPEW and their ilk whenever and where ever I can. Whether they would want to work with me is another matter. As I said they favour a very sectarian kind of Trotskyism.

No wonder Trotskyism has many flaws, but Stalinism is even worse.


When I said I saw some Left-Communism in myself I mean that I can absolutely sympathise with the aims and ideals but I have drawn the conclusion that those ideas simply find no traction in the real material conditions in which we live or are likely to live any time soon.

Denunciation of ideas as utopian, when it is in fact what you're arguing for here that is utopian. There is no way that the CPB's activity, or its program or ideology, can ever result in a workers' state, in fact it is delusional to believe that it can even do something such as 'build a mass party'. It enjoyed certain success in the past, but that was because of the strength and influence of Stalinism. There's no way it can do the same in the present.

[rednortherner]

Hi RedWorker, we should have a debate about programmes, but your approach to this is unproductive and based on assumptions and reads like you've had very little to no contact with the CPB with talk of a 'dogmatic approach' and stuck in the past. To quote i can't remember what pamphlet (might be The Case For Communism or the Communist Party Handbook) 'just because things have always been done one way, does not mean this is the best way to continue'. There are problems, many being from having not redefined itself enough since the collapse of the old Communist Party. That's not to say it hasn't happened at all though and there is been a lot that frankly you are wrong about, as well as things you are right about.

If we are to get anywhere, simply saying 'Stalinist' isn't an argument and is an un-materialist way of dealing with the world. I'm not a Stalinist, I'm not a Trotskyist, I'm a Communist, and I do support Britain's Road to Socialism, and bringing about Communism. It's not perfect, but then nothing is, and the more time we spend waiting until the perfect one comes about we quickly become irrelevant. This is all too common with left groups. Maybe we'll come up with something better, and this proactive approach makes more sense that denunciations.

The CPB offers a way of interacting with the world , on a Socialist programme that makes sense and isn't obsessed about all the things lefties love to fall out about but instead looking at what is possible right now. Its more democratic than most (Leninist) groups certainly from what I've learnt about, eg SPEW and the SWP. This can be seen in the fact that we have members who do abhor the USSR and those who don't. But this is us not dealing in these 'definites' but rather trying to get a balanced view that can be learned from instead.

We are a Communist Party, and that why our members aren't in Labour, or the Greens whatever our relationship to them, and we're not here for a nicer Capitalism, but for Socialism. That doesn't mean we find reasons for not working with people, even if they don't agree with us, as that is the role of Communists, to change people's minds. Otherwise we isolate ourselves again.

I don't know anyone who is delusional enough to believe we are in any shape or form in a position to create a mass party, but we can work with others,and build the movement so that the class will establish its representation and we can work to make Marxism the basis of class understanding.

I also suggest a proper thread on the EU is set up. I'm new so i don't really know how but i can give it a go. I would say leaving is a way of exploiting the divisions within the bourgeoisie though for workers gain.

It's crucial to say though that the CPB is in change, slow and steady change, but with older members being replaced by newer ones which means that people who have grown up with a different left to the old CPGB members, and have a different approach are increasing. This means that we have a different approach to being inward looking but thinking about what Communism in the 21st Century can look like. This isn't about 'isms' but trying to do something with what we've got to what we want.

So can we not have to keep on going round the same old circles and 'denunciations'? I wouldn't have commented if your approach wasn't so destructive to us all so let us not get bogged down now. Instead we can continue debates to bring actually work on ideas and activity to bring about Socialism in the 21st century.

[LeninistIthink]

Counterfire has probably the best website, CPB do a lot of good work (I'm ex-CPB) the only real issue, Labour. They still see Labour as the party of the working class which I disagree with oh and one other Counterfire are trotskyist so take that into account.

[umustish]

I got watching Proletarian TV a while back and enjoyed the content so I got in touch with CPGB-ML and went to their nearest office. They essentially said they want to build an active party, most came from the SLP and criticised it and other parties for not being very active. General things the party does include: stalls with papers and leaflets, study groups, speeches like those on Proletarian TV YT channel, attend marches etc. You join as a candidate member initially then graduate to an actual member. Since meeting them mid september I've been on a stall twice and been to one 'speech' thing (I don't think thats the actual term lol). So I'd definitely say they're an active group if that's the thing you're looking for.

[umustish]

I joined the CPGB-ML, within two weeks of meeting them at their local office I've been on 2 stalls dishing out leaflets. They also have had a meeting. I'm still yet to attend a study group, we're waiting to hear back from some people local to me so we can set up a study group in my immediate area.