I've heard good things about the CPGB-ML (Communist Party of Great Britain - Marxist-Leninist)
Results 1 to 15 of 15
Communist/Socialist Parties and Organisations in the UK
I'm looking for a Communist/Socialist organisation or group to join. What are peoples thoughts on the best such organisations currently active in the UK (NE England specifically). I know of only the Socialist Party and the SPGB are there any other organisations?
I've heard good things about the CPGB-ML (Communist Party of Great Britain - Marxist-Leninist)
there's any number of SWP splinter groups floating around if for whatever reason that takes your fancy
The Socialist Party (of England and Wales) is basically Labour-lite. On my road to communism, before I realised that a socialist society would actually work, I considered joining SPEW because I suspected they weren't actually revolutionary.
The SPGB is very weird. They're more of a debating society than a communist party. I don't think they intervene in any struggles.
I don't know what your politics are, so it's kinda hard to recommend one to you. I'm a Left Com, so I'm closest aligned with the International Communist Current and the Internationalist Communist Tendency. Check either of them out. It might be best to try an anarchist organisation like SolFed or the Anarchist Federation, they're normally less dogmatic than many Marxist organisations centred around the worship of one guy's political theory. Read for yourself, engage in a dialogue with some groups and if they match your politics go for it.
The criticism of religion ends with the teaching that man is the highest essence for man – hence, with the categoric imperative to overthrow all relations in which man is a debased, enslaved, abandoned, despicable essence, relations which cannot be better described than by the cry of a Frenchman when it was planned to introduce a tax on dogs: Poor dogs! They want to treat you as human beings!
- Karl Marx, Introduction to A Contribution to the Critique of Hegel’s Philosophy of Right
Thanks for the replies folks.I haven't heard of any of these parties, I will look into them.
The main groups not yet mentioned:
- CPGB: Publishers of the Weekly Worker, emphasises on a unification of the far left based on a communist programmatic document and the basic principles of democracy, internationalism and the independent position of our class.
- CPB: Publishers of the Morning Star, the only daily left these days. Stalinite leftover of the old CPGB which dissolved in 1991.
- Alliance for Workers' Liberty: Trotskyite grouping. Known for its support for imperialist wars under the cover that it brings democracy and stuff (sic).
- Workers Power: Orthodox Trotskyist group, leading section of the League for a Fifth International.
- Socialist Resistance: British section of the (Mandelite) Fourth International. Known for their 'broad party' support.
- Socialist Appeal: Splitted from the Socialist Party (at the time still Militant) in 1991, their politics are remarkably similar to that of the SPEW, be it that they remained in Labour.
I think, thus I disagree. | Chairperson of a Socialist Party branchMarxist Internet Archive | Communistisch Platform
Working class independence - Internationalism - Democracy
Educate - Agitate - Organise
Kritik already listed the organisations I was going to say, but here's the links for them:
Communist Workers' Organisation (section in the UK of the Internationalist Communist Tendency) who have a NE Branch, and indeed a meeting in Sunderland in a week or so: http://www.leftcom.org/en
International Communist Current (British section is sometimes known as 'World Revolution' after their paper; they don't have a NE section): http://en.internationalism.org/
Anarchist Federation (this is the Northern Regional AF which covers the NE but doesn't I think have any branches in the area): http://www.af-north.org/
Solidarity Federation (link to the Newcastle group): http://www.solfed.org.uk/local/newcastle
Critique of the Gotha Programme, Pt IV: http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1875/gotha/ch04.htm
No War but the Class War
Destroy All Nations
Lucius Accius (170 BC - 86 BC): "A man whose life has been dishonorable is not entitled to escape disgrace in death."
What good things would that be? Because all I hear is that they're a bunch of crazy idiots who do nothing but march around with Stalin banners and delcaring that North Korea is socialist.
“All that a well-organized secret society can do is, first, to assist in the birth of the revolution by spreading among the masses ideas corresponding to their instincts, and to organize, not the army of the revolution—the army must always be the people [—] but a revolutionary General Staff composed of devoted, energetic, intelligent and above all sincere friends of the people, who are not ambitious or vain, and who are capable of serving as intermediaries between the revolutionary idea and the popular instincts.” - Bakunin the Leninist
Well yes, the SPGB do not 'intervene' as the SPGB does not (and could not) operate outside of or independent of the class struggle anyway. Anarchists sometimes are highly substitutionist, ascribing a special role over and above the class struggle for 'activists' who have a special duty to carry out campaigns irrespective of the wishes of the working-class. I don't know if this is the case with leftcoms.
Leftcoms such as the ICC or Blakes Baby may be able to correct me on this but as I understand it some of the differences between leftcoms and SPGB are relating to the class struggle
- Unlike the SPGB, Leftcoms say they are not (and cannot be) revolutionary
- Unlike the SPGB and relating to the above, Leftcoms do not recruit
- Regarding the class struggle, unlike the SPGB, Leftcoms do not support trade unions
- Unlike the SPGB, Leftcoms did not regard Occupy as representing class consciousness (this has been covered on a revleft topic http://www.revleft.com/vb/spgb-vs-cw...951/index.html a while ago)
- Unlike the SPGB, Leftcoms have a particular time at which capitalism became past its use by date
- I'm not sure but I think Leftcoms don't regard the working-class as composing anywhere near 99% of the members of society.
As for 'very weird', the ICC have concepts of decomposition and decadence which pretty much unique to leftcoms and not concepts used by the SPGB or anyone else. You will find them if you read International Review (the ICC theoretical journal) but World Revolution is the ICC newspaper so it might be simpler.
Last edited by The Idler; 3rd February 2014 at 14:22.
Don't forget the Labour Party. Unlike the others listed they have a significant, yet declining, foothold among the workers and they don't sit around at meetings venerating the theoretical insights of long dead leaders.
In all seriousness there is a long tradition of marxists working within non-revolutionary mass parties and so that option at least deserves to be mentioned, regardless of what you think of the party these days (or in any days).
Does anyone? The bourgeoisie, the petite bourgeoisie, professionals, the labor aristocracy, special layers like the cops etc. make up more than 1% of society. The only way to get the "99%" figure is to view class in terms of income, which is not something Marxists do.
Q has already mentioned Socialist Appeal and AWL who both expect their members to fund the Labour Party.
One of the good things about debate and discussion is the potential to clear up misunderstandings...
This isn't really true; some people and groups use the term 'pro-revolutionary' to indicate that though they are 'in favour' of a revolution, one can't be a 'revolutionary' if there isn't a revolution. The main Left Comm groups however call themselves 'revolutionary organisations' not 'pro-revolutionary organisations'.
The Idler's contention I think derives from a meeting we were both at where I said 'it is revolutions that make revolutionaries, not the other way around' which is a nice phrase but not exactly accurate. My point was that political minorities arise out of specific episodes of class struggle; small struggles produce small groups of revolutionaries, larger struggles produce more and/or larger groups of revolutionaries, and massive struggles - up to and including the revolution - produce more revolutionaries. The Idler I think took away the meaning that there can be no 'real revolutionaries' outside of periods of massive and intense class struggle, which isn't my view at all.
Obviously Left Comm organisations want people to join. But a bit like the SPGB only asking for your vote if you understand the case for socialism, Left Comm organisations want you to join the organisation if you understand and agree with what the organisation stands for. They're not interested in people joining for 6 months, selling lots of papers, being a 'super-activist', and leaving having burned out. That is about as far from how they function as it's possible to be.
There are some Bordigists that support the idea of 'red unions' but generally yes, Left Comms do not 'support' unions. The ICC are very opposed, to the extent that one is not supposed to be a union member. The ICT does not say its members shouldn't join unions, just that they shouldn't take part in the union bureaucracy.
I think there's still some debate about what such movements do represent, with some of thinking that the 'social movements' show some positive dynamics and some negative dynamics. Certainly the ICC tried to engage with the Occupy movement in the UK.
Like the SPGB I think you mean, The Idler.
The SPGB was formed in 1904 on the basis that capitalism had reached a point where it had re-shaped the world economy and production to a point where socialism was possible. The task of the working class from this juncture was to organise for the overthrow of capitalism, rather than merely struggling for reforms inside capitalism. The majority of the Communist Left agrees with this analysis.
Like the SPGB, the majority of the Communist Left believes that capitalism became an obsolete social system at the beginning of the 20th century.
There are other strata but I don't think they are historically important. Yes there are peasants and artisans but we're Marxists, we think that the important clash is between the bourgeoisie an the proletariat. Other classes in so far as they exist will be forced (by circumstance) to pick between those sides. I've never attempted to ascertain what the numbers of different classes are in the world. I don't think it's important. It's the political programmes of the classes that count, not how many people sell bread that they've made through their own labour.
The ICC have concepts of decomposition and decadence that are in fairness pretty much unique to the ICC. I don't think any other organisation accepts even the thrust of the Theses on Decomposition, let alone the whole document; and the ICT's understanding of decadence is very different to the ICC's. But, both stem from the same source as the SPGB's understanding that capitalism has outgrown its usefulness to humanity and a socialist society is at least in productive terms (if not in terms of consciousness) a possibility.
Last edited by Blake's Baby; 3rd February 2014 at 15:01.
Critique of the Gotha Programme, Pt IV: http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1875/gotha/ch04.htm
No War but the Class War
Destroy All Nations
Lucius Accius (170 BC - 86 BC): "A man whose life has been dishonorable is not entitled to escape disgrace in death."
Thanks for all the helpful replies comrades. I've got to be honest, I never realised the left was such a patchwork quilt. As someone new to all this, all the apparent divisions and infighting between groups is disappointing, confusing, bewildering and a bit offputting to be honest. From a brief look at their websites there are points I agree with and points I disagree with regarding all the parties. A lot more reading is required I think.
Don't feel as though you have to join a 'party' to be active amongst the left. And by extension, don't feel that being active = doing the things that parties do. Most of the time, selling papers, attending meetings etc. is soul-destroying and is real political work only insofar as it masquerades as such. In reality, much that many (though not all) of the leftist parties in the UK do is pointless activity that fails to resonate amongst the wider working class. Looking at the class composition of certain parties that are led by academics and full-time bureaucrats, you could even say that some parties really do a lot of work that is totally un-connected to working class struggle.
