British communist party

[Redboy]

Is it over? On wikipedia it said it disbanded in 1991, but it it still has it's website with frequent news...

[Die Neue Zeit]

Boris Kagarlitsky has recently strengthened ties to the CPGB provisional central committee.

[Dr Mindbender]

theres 2 british communist parties isnt there? CPB and CPGB?

[spartan]

There are loads of British Communist parties, each of them claiming to be the successor to the original Communist party, the Communist party of Great Britain (CPGB) which, as you pointed out, disbanded in 1991.

This might help you:

CPGB (The original):
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Communist_Party_of_Great_Britain

Communist party of Britain:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Communist_Party_of_Britain

Communist party of Britain (Marxist-Leninist):
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Communist_Party_of_Britain_%28Marxist-Leninist%29 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Communist_Party_of_Britain_%28Marxist-Leninist%29)

Communist party of Great Britain (Marxist-Leninist):
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Communist_Party_of_Great_Britain_%28Marxist-Leninist%29

New Communist party of Britain:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Communist_Party_of_Britain

Revolutionary Communist party of Britain (Marxist-Leninist):
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Revolutionary_Communist_Party_of_Britain_%28Marxis t-Leninist%29

Thats 5 different parties (Not counting the original one that disbanded), all roughly following the same ideological line, in one country!

And the HU says that Stalinists arent sectarian!

[Schrödinger's Cat]

Depends on what flavor of Stalinist you're talking about: the ones critical of Western propaganda, who believe most of the Stalin persona is a myth, or the poor saps who think it's cool to worship a dictator.

[Redboy]

"The CPB claimed that it had some 830 members at its Congress in 2004, at its congress in May 2006 said this number had risen to 902 and by the end of the year (in its annual statement of accounts) it had 923.At November 2007,membership had risen to 1026. As with most left organisations, the CPB's small size is disproportionate to much of its influence particularly in the trade union movement, and organisations such as the Stop the War Coalition (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stop_the_War_Coalition) and the Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Campaign_for_Nuclear_Disarmament)."


Looks like it finally getting it's members back too.

[Colonello Buendia]

The CPB do a stall next to the GPHRC (Glasgow Palestine Human Rights Campaign) on saturdays, they sell some good books and stuff, they also sell hammer and sickle flags, a must have for the up and coming revolutionary!

[Sam_b]

A criticism that has been levelled with the CPB in the past is that they have become obsessed with bureaucracy and elections. Very euro-communist like the PCF in France. The Morning Star is hardly a revolutionary paper either, last time I bought one it smacked to me of being left-liberal at best.

The CPGB-ML, on the other hand, are hilariously nuts:http://www.cpgb-ml.org/index.php?secName=statements&subName=display&statementId=2

[Comrade Wolfie's Very Nearly Banned Adventures]

Join me, i shall found the CPGB - Wolfie

[RedAnarchist]

Why do we need so many small parties in this country? This just shows that we cannot organise ourselves with the tools of the bourgoisie. We need to organise within the working classes and forget about trying to win votes - we need to win hearts and minds instead.

[apathy maybe]

So now I'm going to make a comment about authoritarianism and splinters.

Where you have a party that advocates everyone in that party towing exactly the same line, and you have a hierarchy to enforce that. You will get people who disagree with certain issues leaving and forming new parties with almost exactly the same ideas, but with a different leadership, and slightly different positions on a few small areas.

I would suggest that this isn't actually just a problem for authoritarian parties alone, but it is most funny in these parties.

So meh.

Anyway, the solution is simple, don't take such a rigid hardline on so many issues, have a few areas where you have group consensus, and work on those issues. You don't need an organisational policy on what colour uniforms the police will wear when the party takes over...

[Wanted Man]

The CPB is, for all intents and purposes, the "real" communist party in Britain. There is still a party that calls itself "CPGB", but they have a weird line. Their paper, the Weekly Worker (also, Weekly Wanker) just attacks other sects.

The CPGB-ML are led by Harpal Brar (who also runs the Stalin Society). So obviously, they're pretty hard-line on that sort of thing. But I don't know what they actually do. Then there's the CPB-ML. They have a very fucked-up British nationalist line.

I'm not sure what the NCP or the RCP (M-L) actually do, although the singer Cornelius Cardew was a member of the latter, which is cool.

CPB website: http://www.communist-party.org.uk/

[Keyser]

The CPB is, for all intents and purposes, the "real" communist party in Britain.


In what way are the CPB "real communists"? If you mean in terms of the CPB party line and their version of ideology, then I would say that they are as 'communist' as todays Chinese Communist Party. Social Democratic is more fitting in retrospect to the CPB's ideology.

However despite their lack of socialist politics and their inability to ever take a class based and materialist analysis on issues and events, the CPB are one of three remaining links to the former, pre-1991 CPGB.

The current CPGB/Weekly Worker was also formed out of the former CPGB, having been organised as an internal faction around their former newspaper, the Leninist.

The NCP split away from the former CPGB in 1977, though I am not aware of what issue caused them to form their own party but I did hear that it was over a disagreement with the former CPGB's 1977 party constitution.

[Mara_Suomessa]

A criticism that has been levelled with the CPB in the past is that they have become obsessed with bureaucracy and elections. Very euro-communist like the PCF in France. The Morning Star is hardly a revolutionary paper either, last time I bought one it smacked to me of being left-liberal at best.

The CPGB-ML, on the other hand, are hilariously nuts

Why is that statement "hilariously nuts"?

[Philosophical Materialist]

The CPB is Marxist-Leninist and takes a minimum and maximum approach. I don't totally agree with every official policy, but it is in no way "left-liberal". Every CPB comrade I've met identifies as a Marxist or Marxist-Leninist.

And yes, it does actually have a presence in the British labour movement.

[Keyser]

The CPB is Marxist-Leninist and takes a minimum and maximum approach. I don't totally agree with every official policy, but it is in no way "left-liberal".


On what basis do make that assertion?

Just because the CPB states in it's party constitution that it is Marxist-Leninist does not make it so in reality.

Many parties, the best example being the Chinese Communist Party, call themselves communist and Marxist-Leninist, despite their being either social democratic or in the Chinese case, now openly a bourgeois party that stands for and upholds the system of capitalist economic and social relations.

What examples of the actual CPB programme and their political work (day to day activism etc) are there to suggest that the CPB is a communist party and not a reformist one?



Every CPB comrade I've met identifies as a Marxist or Marxist-Leninist.


I am not calling into doubt the sincerity of individual CPB members. I do not doubt you, when you say that those CPB members you have meet are communists and Marxists.

I am critical of the CPB party line and programme, their reformist tendencies to work with bourgeois capitalist political parties such as the Labour Party and their lack of vision on the final objective that every communist has, the revolutionary overthrow of the bourgeois class, the abolition of capitalist economic and social relations and the establishment of a working class led communist society.

I am critical of the CPB in a way which I hope is constructive and will encourage debate with CPB comrades about the future of the CPB. I am not going to write them off as anti-working class, class enemies or other sectarian rants as that leads nowhere but perpetual division of communists and the continuing weakness of the working class movement and our struggle against the capitalist system.

I don't think those communists and Marxists within the CPB, who want to work towards revolution and working class liberation and break with reformism, should leave the CPB.

I would welcome any effort by them to organise within the CPB and reassert communist politics and to break the party away from reformism.



And yes, it does actually have a presence in the British labour movement.


I never said it did not.

I do know that the CPB does have a very big working class component to it's party membership and I will give the CPB credit for that. The same cannot be said for all groups that make up the far-left, some have a membership base totally disconnected from the working class.

I gather that being one of the remianing links to the former CPGB, the CPB have managed to retain some base in the working class and the labour movement (trade unions, I do not count the Labour Party as part of the wider labour movement).

[Philosophical Materialist]

On what basis do make that assertion?

Just because the CPB states in it's party constitution that it is Marxist-Leninist does not make it so in reality.

Many parties, the best example being the Chinese Communist Party, call themselves communist and Marxist-Leninist, despite their being either social democratic or in the Chinese case, now openly a bourgeois party that stands for and upholds the system of capitalist economic and social relations.

What examples of the actual CPB programme and their political work (day to day activism etc) are there to suggest that the CPB is a communist party and not a reformist one?



I am not calling into doubt the sincerity of individual CPB members. I do not doubt you, when you say that those CPB members you have meet are communists and Marxists.

I am critical of the CPB party line and programme, their reformist tendencies to work with bourgeois capitalist political parties such as the Labour Party and their lack of vision on the final objective that every communist has, the revolutionary overthrow of the bourgeois class, the abolition of capitalist economic and social relations and the establishment of a working class led communist society.

I am critical of the CPB in a way which I hope is constructive and will encourage debate with CPB comrades about the future of the CPB. I am not going to write them off as anti-working class, class enemies or other sectarian rants as that leads nowhere but perpetual division of communists and the continuing weakness of the working class movement and our struggle against the capitalist system.

I don't think those communists and Marxists within the CPB, who want to work towards revolution and working class liberation and break with reformism, should leave the CPB.

I would welcome any effort by them to organise within the CPB and reassert communist politics and to break the party away from reformism.



I never said it did not.

I do know that the CPB does have a very big working class component to it's party membership and I will give the CPB credit for that. The same cannot be said for all groups that make up the far-left, some have a membership base totally disconnected from the working class.

I gather that being one of the remianing links to the former CPGB, the CPB have managed to retain some base in the working class and the labour movement (trade unions, I do not count the Labour Party as part of the wider labour movement).

I appreciate your thoughtful reply.

I don't know the thinking in describing the CPB as "left liberal" since it is not a capitalist party.

The CPB does use Parliamentarianism as a tool for advancing progressive causes. Lenin made alliances with reformists to advance progressive politics and the CPB does the same. It does propose things like the Left-wing Platform, but these are short-term strategies.

The CPB envisions a communist-organised labour coalition in the short term since it is not possible for a communist society to be achieved in Britain alone by revolution. Such attempts would be stamped out by other capitalist powers. I don't agree particularly with the CPB's connections with the Labour Party since it is beyond helping, but I understand the flawed "they're better than the Tories" line as being too short-sighted. In my personal opinion I see the CPB splitting away from its connections with Labour in the next two years.

The day-to-day efforts of the CPB is to agitate and support trade unions and the rights of workers. The CPB at every opportunity displays a Marxist analysis of current material conditions and attempts to educate other workers it works with in the anti-war and labour movement. The Party with the Morning Star does try and walk a fine line, in proposing revolutionary politics to the working class without shutting itself off from reformist parties like Respect, the Greens, and the Labour Representation Committee.
The political consciousness of the British working class is at historic low levels and it is an uphill struggle.

[Sam_b]

Why is that statement "hilariously nuts"?

Are you telling me that Mugabe is a 'comrade'?

[Keyser]

The CPB does use Parliamentarianism as a tool for advancing progressive causes.


On it's own behalf or on behalf of the Labour Party?

I have only ever once seen the CPB stand on it's own accord, in 2005 when I lived in Hackney, I noticed a CPB candidate standing for the local council elections.

However, if you have seen my other posts, you will know that I am opposed to any participation in bourgeois elections.

But that is not really my main issue with the CPB. I can understand the reasons made by some on the Left (mainly Trotskyist parties) that participating in elections is a methods by which to raise awareness amongst people of communist politics. But they all insist that eventually, the only way to abolish capitalism is through revolution, not by government decree or through a bourgeois parliament.

But the British Road to Socialism document, departs from even the position I have outlined above to actually advocate a Labour Party/CPB coalition to reform, by parliamentary vote, the capitalist economic system into a socialist one.

That in my view is a fundamental departure from Marxism and revolutionary socialism and is more akin to utopian socialism. The reason being is that all revolutionary socialists, communists, Marxists and anarchists, whilst they all have their differences, all agree that the working class must act as a class to overthrow it's class enemy, the bourgeois class via revolution and upon that abolish capitalist economic and social relations.

Socialism by bourgeois parliamentary decree is social democracy and reformism, not socialism in and of itself and nor is it working class liberation, given that the very nature of our bourgeois parliament in Westminster is to keep the working class out of the process of politics, not to include them, let alone enable them to lead society.

I hope you can appreciate the distinction I laid laid out between using elections for propaganda/agitation and the method of actually using elections to form a government within the confines of bourgeois political structures.


Lenin made alliances with reformists to advance progressive politics and the CPB does the same.

I hope you can agree that Britain in 2008 is very different to Russia in pre-1917.

Lenin himself stated that no one singular method of organising and waging revolution is applicable to all countries. Allowances can and must be made for the variations and differences in circumstance and events that you will find in each country.

Also, as a communist, I reject personality cults, dogmatism and faith in favour of concrete material analysis and logical thinking.

Lenin was a human being, like Marx, Engles, Makhno, Goldman, Luxemburg, Malatesta, Berkman, Trotsky, Mao, Castro, Bordiga and many other communist and anarchist thinkers.

All humans can at times say thing they later regret and have done so. All humans can state theories which later turn out to not work and have done so.

All for the simple reason that no one human has the gift of foresight or time travel, so we cannot just look into the future and confirm if our ideas and theories are workable or not.

For that very reason, I tend to look at recent history and the conditions of class struggle in the here and now as opposed to reading quotes from revolutionaries past.

No disrespect to Lenin or any other theorist, just that what worked or was applicable then does not always turn out to be the best thing to do in todays class struggle.

Also, one last comment on Lenin's tactic of partaking in bourgeois electoral politics, It had a very pragmatic and circumstantial twist to it.

Russia pre-1917 was a monarchial autocracy at war with Germany. Opponents of the Tsar were sent to labour camps in Siberia and demonstrators were shot dead on the streets. The bourgeios press was censored and the revolutionary press was outlawed altogether and operated underground, thus it could only reach a audience of a certain size.

By getting Bolsheviks into the Duma (Tsarist Russia's parliament), Lenin also obtained breathing space for the party, to propagate it's message without fear of censor and/or arrest/exile.

Lenin knew that there would never be a way of enacting socialism in Russia through the Duma, unlike the British Road to Socialism. Just that the Duma gave the Bolshevik Party a space to operate, agitate and spread it's propaganda without state intervention and Tsarist oppression.

It was purely tactical and designed with the circumtances of Russia at the time in mind.

Britain in 2008, is not a outright autocracy and there is considerable room for free speech and means by which to agitate and spread revolutionary propaganda. With TV, the internet and other technologies, it is infact easy for revolutionaries to spread the word and raise awarness, along with the demonstrations, strikes and trade union meeting we have. There are enough opportunities and circumstances to enable revolutionaries to raise awareness amongst the working class without having to discredit ourselves and our politics by participating in bourgeois elections and bourgeois politics.



The CPB envisions a communist-organised labour coalition in the short term since it is not possible for a communist society to be achieved in Britain alone by revolution.


Without revolution, there can never be a communist society.



Such attempts would be stamped out by other capitalist powers.


If you refer to either outright imperialist invasions or CIA backed counter-revolutions/coups, then I will point out that those countries that took the parliamentary road to socialism, much like what the CPB advocates are the ones that fell to the counter-revolutionaries and imperialists.

Chile (1973), Spain (1936-1939), Guatemala (1954), Indonesia (1965) are all examples of communist parties taking part in supporting or being members of bourgeois government, usually in coalitions with social democratic, left-nationalist or secularist liberal parties. All of them ended in a bloodbath for the working class and communists and the victory of reactionaries, both internal and external.

Countries that took the revolutionary as opposed to reformist path fared better, be it Cuba or the USSR under Lenin.

The reason being is that if you try to reform capitalism through bourgeois elections and bourgeois institutions, you leave the capitalist state intact and the state only ever obeys the will of the capitalist class, never the working class.

The state is no neutral apolitical body that simply bend to the will of whichever party controls it. The modern state as we know it is an invention of capitalism, it exists only to preserve it.

So to try and reform capitalism away using the state, you will fail as the very institutions you use will turn against you (the police, army, judiciary, civil service etc...).

Much like a body that rejects a virus and the bourgeois class have programmed the state to detect any form of socialism or any form of working class liberation as just that and to be dealt with accordingly.

Also, when a socialist revolution takes place in Britain and the imperialists attack, do we sit down and await extermination or do we fight back, regardless of the odds.

I know I would opt for the fight, the alternatives just don't bear thinking about.



In my personal opinion I see the CPB splitting away from its connections with Labour in the next two years.


Just a something you feel or something that is actually being discussed (I hope the latter).

[Mara_Suomessa]

Are you telling me that Mugabe is a 'comrade'?

It's not a black and white issue (well, it is, but not in the moralistic way)... he may not be a comrade to white, first world socialists, but I would imagine he's quite the comrade to the blacks who he helped reposess land. The majority of the poverty that faces Zimbabwe is a result of foreign intervention, not (despite what first world media reports) poor economic policy or despotism on his part. Generally, the more bad press a regime gets in our part of the world, the more we should support it.