And, er, the CPB. You know, the people who still publish the Morning Star. I don't like 'em much (although I trust them a lot further than the CPGB) but airbrushing them out of the list seems a bit, well, Stalinist.

Dave

April 1st is next week.

Andy Newman - April the First is every day on the Socialist Unity site.

Re: CPGB. I too grew up with close connections with them. My first faction fight was at a (very young age)Woodcraft International Camp where an anti-revisionist-marxist-anarchist bloc (us) fought the CPGBers (including such continuing left-wingers such as Sally Hibbin). The CPGBers were not exactly cuddly bunnies in those days - we, that is us ultra-lefts and trots, had later fights with them in the student movement (remember the Broad Left?). We were right on the Soviet Union, so there.

The Weekly Worker is, I would say, more in tune with the much older Marxist tradition than Stalinism. That is the kind of First and Second International Marxism - though of coruse their interpretation of Leninism comes from Leiberman not Luxemberg.

It is an excellent journal, as you say. Not just for its news coverage but for its interesting theoretical and analytical articles (such as the recent series on Roman History). The fact that it publishes letters and contributions from a very wide range of the left (I think I saw Newman's name there myself), is another plus. It is, as a former SWPer who's a close mate says, "the living breath of Marxism."

I agree with andy for once must be a wind up

Wish they would acknowledge their recent turn though!

In the Socialist Alliance days they appeared almost quite credible to me - because they were different from the 'build the party - join our sect' approach. They hinted at the forums and procedures needed for honest left debate and regroupment.

Wheras once they proposed a 'socialist alliance ' paper etc - they have not taken advantage of the Respect crisis. (Although they initially joined Respect). So 'socialist resistance' put out a Respect paper etc and try to occupy Respects left as a space for left regroupment - but the CPGB seem to have withdrawn from this arena. Yet this was exactly what they wanted to do in the SA with the AWL.

Instead they have now gone on a more ultra-left sect building binge - and appear to be embarked on the classic activity of the micro-sect. They talk of HOPOI as a path to put 'organisational muscle' on the CPGB - classic frontism. They have turned to student work in the mode of recruiting to the propagandist micro-sect in a vacuum, rather than building a broad alliance. And they stand 'communist student' candidates for NUS elections on the point of differentiation from the rest of the left.

Not shock horror stuff - but this is the opposite of their line of a few years ago - without so much as a theoretical justification.

And any group that calls itself a 'party' with less than say 30,000 members is dishonest - especially when they have less than 30. This is overblown puffing themselves up.

And they give too much space in their paper to the ramblings of some clueless old fart called Jack Conrad who is treated like a venerated guru, in the worse traditions of left -Guru-ism.

Apart from that, there brill! and my best mates in them!

Cpbml extinct - shows you don't spend enough time with the unions the cpbml run unison and unite with some very high placed members.
www.workers.org.uk is still there paper (all anonymous of course) they're anti immigration, anti working class, anti strike action and are basically a bunch of arseholes.

From the latest on the website they have taken control of london unison - I believe john gray links to them and is a sympathiser but not a member.

They also have members in health - mainly the ambulance service.

So 'socialist resistance' put out a Respect paper etc and try to occupy Respects left as a space for left regroupment - but the CPGB seem to have withdrawn from this arena. Yet this was exactly what they wanted to do in the SA with the AWL.

Perhaps Dave can correct me, but I think both the Matgamnaites and the Conradists have jumped the SWP's way in the RESPECT split - which, thanks very largely to organisational ineptitude, is rapidly turning into a split between RESPECT and the SWP. I certainly think the AWL hate Galloway more than they hate Lindsey German; the CPGB(PCC) may still hate them both equally, I'm not sure.

I'm not in the CPGB and I hate Galloway and the AWL equally as well. Put GG and Jim Denham in the same room together with baseball bats and lock the door I say.

Actually the CPGB have interesting stuff to say about fascism and Iran (HOPI takes a position which is steadfastly anti-imperialist but correctly argues for solidarity with trade unionists, women and gays in Iran, which is what socialists should be doing). IMO it's their isolation from the working class (not surprising given their largely academic membership) that may be partly responsible for their less endearing attitudes. Hence the long-winded nit-picking debates with other sectlets about the Marxist Party and 'the programme' and ultra-Left calls for workers militias and criticisms of the PCS leadership. On the other hand, they vere to the right on occasions, uncritically cheerleading the McDonnell campaign for example. They also seem to behave parasitically in the broader organisations they join, using the knowledge they gain from this by shit-stirring (and then getting upset when accused of being MI5 moles!)They don't actually do anything in the real world - you know, talking to people on picket lines, leafletting etc.

"They don't actually do anything in the real world - you know, talking to people on picket lines, leafletting etc."

That "talking to" people on picket lines thing is revealing. The idea that members of such sects might ever actually BE the people on picket lines is clearly inconceivable...

Thanks for plug. Much appreciated.

Dave says: "the material on the two original British Maoist currents, for instance, is of little immediate relevance."

The regime in groups such as the CDRFCU is exactly the same as that in many current orthodox Trot groups. It is the same pattern of split (i.e. Workers Power) when you differ with the line. The deformation of democratic centralism in 'Marxist-Leninist' groups is identical to that in Trot outfits.

Similarly, the other Maoist group, the CPBML, is an object lesson of where economism can lead to: it this case, low-level trade unionism and pandering to Little Englander nationalism.

Never mind the dubious attachments to anti-working class regimes that still proliferate among the left. Just swap 'Albania' for 'Iran'. Sad to say but there are too many contemporary echoes in the pamphlet.

Dave says: "More information about what these grouplets actually did in the labour movement would have been useful, too." Erm, well as the pamphlet says, the CPGB, despite geographical/union uneveness was a part of the labour movement in a way that other left-of-Labour groups were not. The BRS was (as Dave alludes) actually the programme of the Labour left. In its latter years the crisis of the CPGB was the reciprocal crisis of the British labour movement and not directly that of Stalinism in terms of the Soviet Union. If you were in the CPGB you were in the labour movement. True, the CPGB had problems with its trade unionists burying themselves in trade unionism but precisely this was an issue of Party practice and ideology in the unions.

I agree with Dave: calling the WW 'gossip sheet' is the flatulent response of those people who have been criticised in its pages. Unfortunately, calling the CPGB/WW group 'ultraleft' is similarly flatulent. The CPGB are not Bordigists. In my time as a member I was asked to join the Labour Party and handed over a big cheque to stand in the European elections. Funny kind of 'ultraleftism'. So we need to be more precise. Maybe a solution is to judge that the majority of leftists these days are 'ultraright'. Certainly seems that way to me.

But the real laugh here is Phil. Do you really trust a CPB that tells you that China is still moving towards socialism under its wise, capitali..., sorry, communist leadership more than the CPGB? Do you really trust a CPB that generally defends an unreconstructed Stalinism more than the CPGB, which is critical of Stalinism? The CPGB's no glowing utopia of communist organisation but... lord save us!

Lawrence

what's the Weekly Workers line on Tibet?

Don't know if this will be of interest to comrades. This was my own reckoning with the cpgb, from my blog.

Though I haven't been associated with the Communist Party of Great Britain (Provisional Central Committee/Weekly Worker) for over three years, I still occasionally get comrades, including a few leading Socialist Party cadre, who are only too keen to ask me about my time as a member and supporter. Sadly, left watchers and gossipmongers will be disappointed to learn I know nothing about the alleged Sketchleys connection, property portfolios, the INLA relationship, and input from Turkish dissidents. I wasn't a particularly active comrade, you see. My sum contribution to the cpgb consisted of turning out as voting fodder at a few Socialist Alliance meets, selling the WW at my local Stop the War group, arguing for the cpgb's general political approach on the UK Left Network, and writing the regular Around the Web column for almost two years.

For such a small group, the cpgb is a presence on the British far left most activists have to come to grips with at some point. Because the WW massively bends the stick in the direction of reporting almost every argument and significant development on the left, it quickly became a must-read paper, like it or hate it. A lot of the time, mountains are often made out of mole hills, mad predictions made about the doom of other left wing organisations, and articles are written in such a way almost guaranteed to get the backs up of other lefts. Generally, it's not noted for its high degree of accuracy. One particular set of examples were the gloomy predictions the cpgb forecast concerning the SP in the late 90s and early 00s. Readers were told the party was in crisis, and the political graveyard beckoned. There is a bit of truth to this - in that period the small short-lived Socialist Democracy Group upped sticks, as did a chunk of former cadre in Liverpool (who became the Merseyside Socialists), the majority of the Scottish organisation left the CWI, and there were splits in Pakistan and the USA. But, the WW claimed, a more serious split was brewing between Dave Nellist and the leadership over the SA, and oblivion loomed. However, evidence for such a split amounted to nothing more than brother Nellist and the Coventry comrades appearing (from the outside) to be more enthusiastic and hands-on with the SA than the rest of the organisation. This foray into Mystic Meg territory came to naught, and far from going into terminal crisis the SP has largely recovered from the experience and remains very much alive.

The big problem I have with the cpgb comes down to a question of orientation. If they want to concentrate their energies on recruiting other leftists, then fine. But this comes at the price of having an indirect relationship to the class, effectively insulating the cpgb as an organisation. In practice, the only grounding their politics have are as responses to what they perceive as deficiencies of the wider left rather than what might attract working class people to socialist ideas. This at times can assume quite comic forms. For example, long-time WW readers might recall the long-running dispute between it and the Alliance for Workers' Liberty. On paper, there was much to commend a fusion. They have similar internal regimes and attitudes to open political debate. Their views on the Soviet Union were not dissimilar, and they weren't a million miles away from each other's critique of the left's standard issue anti-imperialism. And yet could either groups discuss their differences rationally? Definitely not. The narcissism of small differences came very much into play and not for a million years would you believe these are organisations were talking about uniting! We've all seen classic front page headlines like 'Bush's 'Troop Surge' Deepens US Ruling Class Divisions. But AWL Still Won't Demand Withdrawal'. However, the intensity of their exchanges peaked some five years ago, over a thinly-attended public meeting in Leeds. The cpgb had recruited a lefty vicar, the Rev. Ray Gaston. He organised a public meeting and invited along Mike Marqusee, then of the SA and Stop the War, and the AWL's guru, Sean Matgamna to debate the issue of Marxism and religion. When comrade Marqusee found out who he was sharing the platform with, he objected on the grounds he didn't fancy being abused as an anti-semite for daring to criticise Zionism and Israel. The good reverend then left a message on Matgamna's answer phone, contacted the local AWL group, and arranged for the cpgb's Jack Conrad to step up to the plate. Unfortunately, something got lost in translation. Matgamna turned up and sat sullen and silent in the audience. Now, how should this have been dealt with? Should Matgamna have politely but firmly registered his displeasure? Should, on behalf of the cpgb, Jack Conrad have apologised for the mix up? Yes. So what happened? Months and months and months of tedious polemic in the WW's pages and on the AWL website. Matgamna alleged there was some cpgb conspiracy preventing him from addressing the massed ranks of Ray Gaston's congregation. Conrad in turn dug his heels in and refused, as a point of principle, to apologise for the mistake. In all, it was a ridiculous farce. Both sides acted like spoiled brats and, in my eyes, seriously damaged eithers' claims to be serious working class organisations. It helped put me on an exit trajectory out of the cpgb.

All this said, my association with the cpgb spanned about six years (I continued Around the Web 18 months after I left, in April 2003), and it was bound to leave some impression upon my understanding of Marxism and revolutionary politics. And it has. For starters, I went into the cpgb as a fairly orthodox Trot regarding my politics, particularly on the Soviet Union. But through reading their material, including the "unconsciously" Trotskyist From October to August (which is one of the best Marxist analyses I've read on the road from Gorbachev to Yeltsin), I came to the conclusion the USSR and other "socialist" countries could not be workers' states. This is not to say they didn't have some progressive features worth defending, but the conflation of "proletarian property forms" (in reality, legal fictions) with "proletarian property relations" is a mistake and one Marxists shouldn't really make. The cpgb position, which was more a point of departure for further analysis than a neatly rounded out category, was these social formations were neither capitalist or socialist, and belonged to those species of societies - such as European absolutism, the Andean mode of production, etc. who proved not to be viable in the long term.

Then there is the analysis of New Labour's project to remould and "modernise" the British state. Drawing heavily on Steve Freeman's ideas around the 'social monarchy', the cpgb argued that as Thatcher attacked the Keynesian compromise underpinning British capitalism in the 1945-79, the limited stake the British working class had in the state was severely undermined, and hence its loyalty to the UK was put into question. Blair's constitutional project was aimed to strengthen the union by granting Scotland a limited parliament and Wales an Assembly to head off nationalist discontent. Other projects like House of Lords reform, introduction of proportional representation to non-Westminster elections, (aborted) regional devolution, presidential mayors, and the London Assembly can be seen in the same light. The monarchy has had a bit of a makeover too. Fewer royals leech off the civil list, they pay taxes, the rules of succession changed (the next in line to the thrown is now the eldest child, irrespective of gender), and so on. The cpgb argued the left as a whole needs to take constitutional issues more seriously and develop an alternative programme that maximises political democracy under capitalism in a bid to weaken the state and help empower our class. This seems reasonable to me.

Another positive in my view is the open approach they take to differences between revolutionaries. Some comrades believe this gives the cpgb carte blanche to muckrake, but nonetheless the WW has helped facilitate debate of issues, even ones that are controversial by left standards. In my opinion the left should generally be open and honest about its internal differences and allow more open debate in the pages of its press. After all, inviting readers to submit their thoughts means they're engaging with the contents of our papers, and could draw them closer to our orbit. But unfortunately the sad truth is most bourgeois papers operate more open editorial policies. Local rags, the "quality" press, and even tabloids allow debates on their letters pages. As socialism is more democratic than anything capitalism can muster, isn't it high time our press reflected that?

Finally, there is another critique of a central plank of Trotskyist orthodoxy. The first line of Trotsky's Transitional Programme reads "The world political situation as a whole is chiefly characterised by a historical crisis of the leadership of the proletariat." I couldn't tell you how many times I've heard this repeated over the years. Problem is, it was a questionable conclusion when Trotsky wrote it in 1938, and is doubly absurd for 21st century Britain. The implication behind the phrase is the working class is out there champing at the bit and ready to strike capital its deathblow. All that stands in its way are the parties of social democracy, the leadership of the trade union movement, and of course, revolutionaries who happen to be in other socialist groups. If these are brushed aside the masses can be won to the revolutionary programme and hey presto! Job done. I don't want to sound facetious: this isn't to say the issue of leadership isn't a problem - for example, if several trade union leaders declared their support for a new party and moved to set one up, it would act as a rallying point for class conscious workers fed up with New Labour. But it would only constitute a starting point, there will be no stampede of hundreds of thousands to join and unions queuing up to affiliate. Why? Because the working class itself is in crisis. The defeats of the Thatcher years, the structural shift to a neoliberal labour market, the individuating effects of consumerism and the media, and the absence of a coherent, independent working class political voice has given us a working class much more atomised, fluctuating, fragmented, and insecure than that of 25 years ago. To be fair, the left on the whole has not allowed a bad theory to get in the way of recognising this basic fact of revolutionary political life. For instance, you could say the SP's hallmark is its ability to relate socialist politics to workers of varying levels of political understanding, but there is a gap between the correct practice and the faulty theoretical perspective. Ironically, the cpgb gets it the other way round. It has elaborated this perspective on a theoretical level but it still puts forward ultra-left slogans and positions out of sync with the thinking of the overwhelming majority of working class people. They have a formally correct understanding but, because of their self-imposed isolation from the class, are unable to follow through and have to fall back on posture politics.

So, the cpgb does have some useful things to say and they do possess a team of commentators who can be quite perceptive at times. But what of the cpgb's prospects? Let me tell you a little story. Back in the late 90s and early 00s, it built quite a reasonable profile as being one of the keenest, if not the most enthusiastic participant in the SA. It was starting to attract a number of independents into its orbit and overall made a positive contribution to the cause of left unity. Even the SWP leadership were saying nice things about the WW. They looked like the small ultra-left group most likely to succeed. But they didn't. Comrades who joined tended to drift again after a couple of years (none of the comrades who signed up roughly the same time as me are still around), and then a further round of newer recruits were shed when the cpgb prevaricated over the forming of and participation in Respect. Now though, judging by interventions at left meetings, the launching of Communist Students, and their leading role in pulling Hands Off the People of Iran together, they find themselves in a position not dissimilar to that in 1999-2001. They have recovered numbers, are not just based in London anymore, and appear to have gained a new degree of self confidence. But whether they will grow or not depends on learning the lessons of the SA and Respect interventions. If they are to become sizeable it requires a big shift away from the traditional practice of just speaking in and reporting on left meetings. This means seeing HOPI as an opportunity to engage with wider layers and new audiences, and not just an opportunity to bash the SWP and Stop the War. If they don't, the newer layer of comrades will be shed and the cpgb will continue to be seen as that rather eccentric group of lefty trainspotters.

Dave

The only reason you and some others like the weekly worker is that it concentrates on gossip ;) I enjoy reading it myself, but I have yet to read any articles about the great challenges facing the left today, unless that is you feel what goes on in the CC of the SWP third hand worthy of debate..

The cpgb has nothing in common with the Communist Party of Great Britain bar the name. These cpgb 'revolutionaries' attempt to ape the work of Lenin as if it were the beginning of the 20th Century. Sadly they fail to do the one thing that Lenin excelled at, building a cadre within the working classes. The cpgb has no[at a guess] activist working with in the class in leadership positions and I doubt many of its members come from the WC.

Unlike the CP headquarters in King St there will be no messages sent from the cpgb equivalent to their members who are shop stewards, district committee members and trade union leaders. The CP of old had many faults, that it was a highly conservative Stalinist organization held it back from ever being a vehicle for revolutionary change.

Never the less it was a very serious political organization and many of the platforms it advocated became Labour government policy, having been set down the line via its TU militants. The benefits these TU militants brought to the WC can not be underestimated. There really were some fine militants within the CP, people from all classes, but for me its working class militants who I worked alongside were second to none as human beings.

It contacts within liberation movement like the ANC were first class. To be a working class member of the CP gave you the confidence of a lion due to the fact that you felt you had with the existence of the USSR an international movement behind you. I suppose it must be how members of Hamas and Hezbullah feel today. [I understand the shortcomings of the CP better than most so please no lectures about socialism in one country etc]

It may seem like I am kicking sand in the cpgbs face, but that is not my intention as I have some respect for a number of their members. I am simply stating the fact that the CPGB was a real Left party, whilst the cpgb is merely an embryo of one, and only time will tell if it will be still born.

Do you really trust a CPB that tells you that China is still moving towards socialism under its wise, capitali..., sorry, communist leadership more than the CPGB?

I didn't say I liked or agreed with them, just that I trust them more than I trust the ludicrously misnamed 'CPGB'. And since I don't trust the latter further than I could throw them, that's not hard.

"uncritically cheerleading the McDonnell campaign for example"

That wasn't my experience at all. They were at quite a few meetings but certainly weren't 'uncritically cheerleading' in their interventions.

AVPS: Without wanting to re-hash the Leeds debacle again- the train of events is not exactly as you describe it, not least Marquese's reasons for no-platforming Matgamna and Conrad/Bridge stepping in. Factually Matgamna didn't sit at the back and sulk, nor was he massively pissed off at a wasted journey, but it was something of a political outrage to prevent him speaking to save Marquese's vanity.

In discussions we had with Ray Gaston he was torn between joining awl and cpgb which he both saw as having correct positions on the war and other areas. That he choose not to join the group with a busy active local branch and an internal life always seemed to me like he wanted a quiet life. Ray left cpgb soon after the debacle above and is now much more on the vicar side of the lefty-vicar description.

The elliptical orbit of the CPGB from stalinism to ultra-left micro-sect seemed to line them up with the AWL for a brief period when the socialist alliance was at its highest point, it has long since past, CPGBs denigration of any trades union activity as 'economistic' didn't/doesn't exactly help it, and re-hashing stories from the bourgois media and tacking on a bit of anti-swp/sp/awl/cpb rhetoric hardly passes for socialist journalism (see for example todays back page report of NUT conference -clearly written by someone who wasn't there)

Phil,

you have merely repeated your earlier point. It still leaves you in the position of trusting an organisation that, for example again, lies on behalf of a gang of rapacious Chinese capitalists more than an organisation that doesn't. Political implications flow from what you say. You'd be better off saying "I don't trust either of them".

I agree with most of what Mick says. The CPGB names itself as the 'Provisional Central Committee' and does not claim to be 'the Party'. On WW 'gossip': I would not write for it if it was about 'gossip'. What article specifically is gossip? Why is it gossip? Why is WW 'gossip' and why do other sites (Socialist Unity or even this one) escape the 'gossip' moniker.

I am regularly sent titbits from a couple of CPB members on 'gossip' among its leading members (they made it clear that they hate the WW but they have axes to grind). For example, who dislikes who, who called so and so a 'bastard' and so on. I don't use it and the editorial team have told me they're not interested. This is truly apolitical 'gossip'.

But if a WW article is assessing internal political trends of, say, the SWP, the fact
that the left says 'gossip' only reveals how awful our culture is. I'm interested in what leading political trends and figures really think on the leading issues of the day. I'm interested in politics, which is always going to be trends and individuals within classes.

Once, Jill Mountford of the AWL made this 'gossip' remark to a meeting. She was challenged to find some in the WW. The fact that we spent the rest of the meeting laughing at her
desperately scrabbling through an issue could be read as index of her success.

Lawrence: "Once, Jill Mountford of the AWL made this 'gossip' remark to a meeting. She was challenged to find some in the WW. The fact that we spent the rest of the meeting laughing at her
desperately scrabbling through an issue could be read as index of her success. "

I think your memory is failing you here, as I recall this remark was made during a debate with one of your comrades (the australian Marc/Mark who has since left cpgb) at an AWL summer school and Jill did not even respond to Marc's offer to donate £5 to awl if she could find an example from that weeks edition.

I seem to recall that there were no other cpgb supporters present in that session so "we spent the rest of the meeting laughing at her" is somewhat fanciful. It's best not to repeat stories you read in weekly worker as though they actually happened- because they rarely did.

Martin,

I had left the CPGB by then but I sat with Mark Fischer (who wrote the report here) and another younger comrade who has since left.

Sadly, I think your memory is failing not mine.

http://www.cpgb.org.uk/worker/441/awl_divisions.html

Some highlights:
Comrade Mountford launched an energetic attack on the CPGB and the Weekly Worker - a paper she wouldn’t sell “if it was the last left newspaper on earth”. This rag was full of “gossip”. “Now, I quite like gossip - I’m a woman,” she told us. But not in what purports to be a political newspaper. While the Weekly Worker featured this sort of nonsense every week, there was no chance for a jointly sponsored, unofficial SA publication, an initiative comrade Ström had identified as of central importance. Boringly familiar charges that we abstain from trade union work and from campaigning activity in general were then trotted out once again.

“That was a little harsh,” commented one leading Nottingham comrade to me after Jill had sat down. ‘Harsh’ is not quite the right word. Although I found it intensely annoying, comrade Mountford’s intervention had the merit of illustrating the divisions between us and in her own organisation very vividly. It was an admirably clear, succinctly expressed contribution of almost chemically pure sectarianism.

Summing up, comrade Ström offered Jill £100 for the coffers of the AWL if she could identify a single piece of gossip in that week’s issue of the Weekly Worker (July 4). Comrade Mountford promptly marched to the front of the hall, snatched up a copy from the front table and stalked back to her seat to oblige us, to the cheers of her AWL comrades.

Only the punch line never came. She spent the rest of the session with her head buried in its pages looking with increasing desperation for an example. She could not find one; comrade Ström’s money stayed in his pocket. “OK, this issue is better than most - but every other week …,” she lamely told me after the meeting.

As someone who has been 'quoted' in the WW, I can tell you it's not very accurate. Moreover, they have a rather irritating history of building a political case around these alleged 'quotes'. Don't trust a word they say would be my experience.

Political implications flow from what you say.

Man Reading Blog 'Trusts Stalinists' Shock! Don't be silly.

I trust the CPB, among other things, to lie to me consistently and in recognisable ways; they've got a sizeable membership and a serious historical background, which give them both resources and constraints. I don't know who the CPGB-PCC - as they mostly don't call themselves - are, how many of them there are or what any of them have ever done - or where they're going to jump next.

They run a good, open press, like the AWL; like the AWL, they often raise points of principle which the major groups are prone to overlook; and, like the AWL, they tend to come across as parasitic sectarian jokers.

I have written a review of Lawrence Parker's The Kick Inside, and it should appear in a future issue of Revolutionary History. I think that it provides a good introduction to the various oppositional 'anti-revisionist' groups within the old CPGB. Here is a paragraph from my review, which I think brings out the lessons of these opposition groups:

'A thoroughgoing critique of revisionism necessitated a far deeper investigation of the Soviet Union and the official communist movement than those embarked upon by either the pro-Chinese or pro-Soviet oppositionists within the CPGB. Such a critique would necessarily investigate the relationship between revisionist politics and the diplomatic requirements of the Soviet regime, and -- so long as the critics kept an open mind -- this would inevitably hit upon the adoption in 1924 of Stalin’s dogma of ‘socialism in one country’. And this would open the door to critical communist analyses, whether of the Trotskyist, left communist or other varieties. It would mean recognising that under Stalin the Soviet Union degenerated into a society ruled by an anti-communist élite, and that the People’s Republic of China was ruled by such an élite from the very start. Parker makes the important point that with the exception of the faction behind The Leninist, all the post-1960 oppositions were fatally limited by their confinement within the Stalinist tradition, and that to make real theoretical progress it was necessary for such oppositionists to break through these self-imposed limitations to reach an authentic form of Marxism.'

all very interesting, but are there any real CPGB members out there?

could Mark Fischer clarify the WW's position on Tibet?

do they support the Chinese ruling classes or not?

Lawrence you are right, it was £100.

Martin Ohr: "Ray left cpgb soon after the debacle above and is now much more on the vicar side of the lefty-vicar description. "

this would be the same Ray Gaston who is standing as a Respect candidate in may in Birmingham.

Sounds like he is still a pretty committed left activist to me.

"I trust the CPB, among other things, to lie to me consistently and in recognisable ways..."

Phil, you are a true genius of doublethink. I salute you!

Modernity - there's an article on Tibet in this week's WW.

Andy NewMao :"this would be the same Ray Gaston who is standing as a Respect candidate in may in Birmingham. Sounds like he is still a pretty committed left activist to me."

more likely to be a god-botherer than a left-activist if he's standing for respect.

Lawrence - er, cheers. I think.

For what it's worth, it was a perfectly serious point. I don't believe that any political group will tell me the unvarnished truth all the time, so I feel more comfortable with groups whose distortions & exaggerations I can get a handle on - particularly where they've got membership & history to keep them on course. I don't know where the PCC are coming from, and they don't have the history or the members.

Lawrence

What I mean by gossip is people enjoying reading about the shortcomings of others whether they be individuals or organizations and there is little doubt the WW does go in for this type of stuff. I was not suggesting the weekly worker smears people, I do not believe it does.

It is a sad fact that politics, whether of the left, centre or right thrives on gossip, it is what makes meeting in the pub after meetings/conferences so enjoyable for many comrades. Im no saint when it comes to such trifles, so I am not trying to blacken anyone. Although our habit of taking chunks out of each other hardly helps when it comes to building a new coalition of the left/Left Party.

I am looking forward to reading the book.

Here's an example of what I'd call 'gossip' in the Weekly Worker ie. passing on rumours without substantiating their truth - http://stroppyblog.blogspot.com/2008/01/pants-on-fire.html

Ray Gaston:

Ray leaving All Hallows after 8 Years as Vicar

Ray Gaston writes:

Although it’s been known in the church and local community for a while that I would be leaving this year, others on this email list might be hearing this for the first time. I’m leaving All Hallows on 20th May to initially have a sabbatical for 3 months in order to try and complete some writing, and then to go in October to the Centre for the Study of Islam and Muslim—Christian Relations at Birmingham University to do a research MPhil supervised by Dr David Thomas. I have funding to do this.

I hope then to return to Leeds in Autumn 2008, possibly moving into Harehills to develop a grassroots Christian—Muslim dialogue initiative — some funding has been secured for this but more is needed. You can read an edited version of my project proposal at the following website: http://solidarityandtruth.wordpress.com/.

I feel I leave All Hallows at an exciting time in its development. The church is strong spiritually and numerically, and new patterns of ministry are developing. For the last year we have been exploring as a church the future of ministry at All Hallows, and I feel strongly that my leaving at this time facilitates rather than stalls that development. You can read a summary of the process of our exploration of ministry on our website at http://www.allhallowsleeds.org.uk/allhallows/fomreport0704.shtml.

I am having a leaving walk and picnic on Monday 7th May. If you are not on the All Hallows announce list and want to come, please get in touch with me ( contact@allhallowsleeds.org.uk) and I'll let you know the details.

My last Sunday service will be Sunday May 20th at 10.30am at which I will be presiding and preaching. The service will be followed by a vegetarian buffet lunch — all are welcome.

It will be strange for me to leave All Hallows, as this was the church in which I came to a new sense of faith back in 1988, leaving here to go for training for ordination in 1994 and returning 5 years later as Vicar after 3 years as an Assistant Priest at The Church of the Epiphany in Gipton.

I have been really blessed to have been involved in All Hallows at really exciting times in its history, and I have learnt so much here over the last 8 years as Parish Priest from so many people. Thank you.

Love & blessings
Ray

Sounds like the description above 'more likely to be a god-botherer than a left-activist if he's standing for respect.' wasn't too wide off the mark.

This is also interesting:

Ray Gaston, a former Anglican vicar in Leeds who is currently doing a PhD in Birmingham, spoke about his experiences developing a relationship with local Muslims in the post-9/11 atmosphere. Referring to the experience of St. Francis of Assissi, whose Christian faith deepened when he visited Muslims in Jerusalem, Ray indicated the great need for interfaith cooperation and commented on the remarkable complementarities of especially the Abrahamic faiths. He concluded that any differences and conflicts that may arise between faith communities may indeed by God-given, as an opportunity to elevate members of all faiths.
from 'Faith Link', Monday, 03 December 2007
http://tinyurl.com/38fl3d

So he's learning about Islam in order to become a better Christian - or 'know the enemy', if you like. And inter-religious conflicts are caused by God - in order, again, I presume, to strengthen the faiths of those involved (similar to faction fights, then, possibly).

I'm sure this will go down well with many possible Respect voters and expect these details to be on the leaflets. Vote for St. Francis of Assisi/Leeds!

'Here's an example of what I'd call 'gossip' in the Weekly Worker ie. passing on rumours without substantiating their truth - http://stroppyblog.blogspot.com/2008/01/pants-on-fire.html'

Fuck me, is that really the best you can do?

You are wrong. Contact (i.e. soundings) were made with Crow through the auspices of the CPB, who Galloway has better, if not rose-tinged, relations with. Crow is of course an ex-member of the CPB and still supports the Morning Star. The CPB turned Galloway down because they saw him as more of a liability than an asset. Thus Galloway no longer had any obvious route into Crow. Judging by what I hear, Crow was blowing hot and cold over the candidates' issue anyway.

Whether Galloway and Crow actually met in a winebar and exchanged sweet nothings is neither here nor there.

Peter's assumption that the talks had been proceeding reasonably well was an assumption that turned out to be wrong but was an assumption shared by many on the left, based on the fact that these soundings were taking place. The point is that if these meetings were open and available to the whole workers' movement, we wouldn't need such assumptions.

What's your alternative then? Wait until full minutes are available and then we can tell the workers? With that culture, workers would be able to make no judgement in practice (i.e. at the time), only a retrospective one, years later. If we are meant to be equipping the working class to be the rulers of society then we have to serious about uncloaking secrecy in our movement, never mind society at large. That means in making assumptions based on the best intelligence we have.

The fact that you call this 'gossip' is sad. I suppose the workers should be concentrating on 'proper' issues. In their bunker. Underground. Tamed.

Who says (on the other thread above this one) that the left can't do populism?

We must at least have a significant collective sense of humour in order to have this sort of discussion

I would like to read more about the CPBML I must say since they do seem to have a rather bizarre political presence in my union

surely some of you trainspotters can enlighten us?

Lawrence, your response to my example is simply a multi-paragraph justification as to why it is OK to pass on speculation as though it is fact. Personally, I don't think it is.

The reason that's 'the best I can do', by the way, is that I don't read the Weekly Worker. Life's too short. That particular piece was pointed out to me by someone who wanted to check whether it was true. Hey - the paper could have done that *before* publishing it.

I'm sure this will go down well with many possible Respect voters

I think he sounds like a good bloke - a solid CofE well-meaning Guardian-reader, and there's nothing wrong with that. Not sure what your point is.

I completely fail to see your point, Janine. Firstly, the phrase "talks with Bob Crow" doesn't imply "talks between Galloway and Bob Crow", so whether or not Galloway and Crow had spoken in person is irrelevant. More to the point, the line "I hear that talks are proceeding reasonably well" was a statement of fact - it quite openly says nothing more than what the writer of the piece had heard. Obviously - and regrettably - he'd heard wrong. That doesn't make it slapdash journalism.

(If the words "I hear that" had been omitted, obviously you'd have a case. But they weren't.)

A feature of the Weekly Worker which I especially admire is its habit of making up entirely fictitious people (SL Kenning, Simon Harvey, Pat Strong) who write columns pretending to be disgruntled members of rival left parties who just happen to agree with everything the CPGB says. Truly committed Communist journalism at its best. It's a pity no attempt has been made to create any such personage in relation to Respect, maybe if ever there is we can have a competition to name them here on Dave's Part.

Clive is right here, as was Jill M, about WW. The basic WW method seems to be a quote, or half quote, out of context (with a mention on a private email to spice it up) around which these nutters then build up a half-cock 'story' about another left group.

And of course they are quite happy to print people's names as being members of left groups, which they aren't and which could compromise their employment.

Never understood why the AWL went anyway near them.

Their interest in other organisations' inner workings and internal documents has never seemed to me to be either healthy or benevolent.

A healthy, happy left would rob them of half their copy. A scandal-ridden, fractious and divided left seems to suit their editorial policy.

Reading the stuff about Ray Gaston makes me puke.

I know committed Christians are very very sad, but frankly this is the worst I've read for a long time.

In Le Monde this week there was a full-page article about the persecution of Christians by the Islamicists in Iraq: murder, forced 'conversions', rape, the whole typical Islamicist cabbodle. Opps let's not forget how many of our comrades they killed in Algeria, and are killing in Iran.

If this poor old duffer thinks there's any 'dialogue' between his pile of cack and theirs, he's entitled to his delusions.

But left-wing, he ain't.

Strangely I can find no mention of "Islamicists" in Gaston's text - he talks about reconciliation with "Muslims". Obviously Andrew Coates sees the two terms as interchangeable.

Phil, that's brilliant. A socialist newspaper is entitled to print any bit of rumour that its writers hear, without bothering to check whether it's true, so long as it prints 'I hear that ...' at the start of the sentence.

That standard will really make for an informative, useful, educational journal widely respected amongst the working class. Not.

Let's not overlook the fact that whatever it was that St Francis found out or learned about Muslims (and this was in their Golden Age, mark you) made him a more committed Christian.

Janine,

the implication of your faulty blog entry was that the WW was wrong as the talks couldn't have taken place and they didn't proceed well.

It remains the case that the WW was more accurate on this issue than yourself. They got wind of the talks (which was correct) and made a duff assumption. At least they managed to establish the reality of the talks, unlike yourself.

Also, if predictions, constantly challenged and tested, are not part of Marxist science then we have to give up.

Marxism is a little more than assessing the state of the staff toilets on an underground station every morning.

Also, you have a bloody cheek considering that your organisation predicted, on the basis of what bloody evidence I don't know, that US/UK imperialism could offer some kind of stability to a nascent labour movement in Iraq. And you have the gall to call others liars! Of what educative use was this to the working class?

lawrence, I go back to the point I made earlier, the report on the back page of this weeks WW is clearly written by someone who wasn't at NUT conference and has no understanding of what did and did not get discussed or passed, nor who said what and when. If the writer had been there they would have witnessed a truly staggering and embarassing piece of idiot-anti-imperialism by the SWP and others. Instead the WW report is a slap of hack journalism with a ritual condemnation of the SWP tacked on for good measure.

The implication of my blog entry was that socialist newspapers which hear rumours should check that they are true before printing them.

It's not about predicting the future - which yes, is prone to the occasional inaccuracy - but checking actual checkable facts before printing them.

The fact that you are defending the slapdash practice of printing rumours as fact without even bother to pick up a phone to check their truth is utterly staggering. It actually suggests that no reader should believe what they read in the WW without verifying the information from another source.

And I'm guessing that your little swipe about staff toilets is just another example of your organisation's contempt for trade unionism and workplace struggles. Or perhaps you just don't give a toss what conditions the bosses make workers shit in?

Agreed Janine. Much of WW's content is based on rumour and tittle-tattle.

Although the most ridiculous part of the package is the use of name CPGB for a few dozen berks who hang around other people's meetings.

And Lawrence, what the AWL 'predicted' (ie, made an assessment about) was that as a result of the war there would likely emerge a labour movement, which there had not been before.

This proved entirely right. As against, anyway, other organisations which evidently couldn't care less one way or the other. It wasn't a question of crediting imperialism with the capacity for 'stability', but of caring about whether a labour movement existed, and then about how best to help preserve it.

In any case, even if the AWL had been entirely wrong in its assessments, that's not the same order of thing as 'lying', or using half-quotes or misquotes as the basis for political argument, which is what the CPGB, in my experience, routinely does.

"Marxism is a little more than assessing the state of the staff toilets on an underground station every morning".

This is simply woeful and goes some way to explaining why the CPGB does not and never will have any relationship with working people.

I find it incredible that a serious socialist like Dave can give any sort of support (let alone a fiver a month!) to these petty bourgeoise tossers, who couldn't even bring themselves (via HOPI) to give unconditional support to Iranian trade unionists like Mansour Osanloo.

Is there anything in the terms & conditions of Labour Party membership about taking out standing orders to the Communist Party of Great Britain?

Can I be the only one gnashing my teeth over the total meaninglessness of 'petty bourgeois' as any kind of political insult? For all its pseudo-class content, it gets applied to absolutely every political 'sin' going, and effectively amounts to "I, a Marxist, reckon you, another Marxist, smell of poo poo".

And yes, Jim, Hopi "demand[s] the immediate and unconditional release of workers arrested for their trade union or political activities, including Mahmoud Salehi, Mansour Ossanlou, Ebrahim Madadi and Mohsen Hakimi." (http://www.hopoi.org/policies.html#workers) That was a whole forty two seconds of googling. I suppose this would be the immaculate AWL approach to truth?

And I disagree with Lawrence P about using the Iraq thing as the canonical AWL 'lie' - it's rather too grand, and you all probably actually believe it. I would humbly submit to you the endless insistence that we have our roots in some kind of "unashamed ultra-Stalinist" grouping, which a brief look at early numbers of the Leninist (or LP's book - both available enough) would clearly show is an absolute pile of horseshit - we were no more 'ultra-stalinist' than the Spartacist League. Even if we had been, the comrades who actually hail from 'official' CPGB membership in that era are a tiny minority, even of the older generation - and myself and the other younglings certainly haven't been poached from Harpal Brar. It's just pants, comrades.

Clive: "It wasn't a question of crediting imperialism with the capacity for 'stability', but of caring about whether a labour movement existed, and then about how best to help preserve it." (my emphasis)

But THAT IS A QUESTION OF STABILITY! If the refusal to call for troops out is linked to the imperialists holding the hordes of clerical fascists at bay, exactly what else is it that the imperialists are providing? You can't humpty dumpty your way out of this. Likewise, the AWL are never caught claiming that imperialism has a progressive role, only that it prevents the total physical liquidation of the Iraqi labour movement. But if this was true, it WOULD be progressive! What's un-progressive about that? Why bother clinging fetishistically to this final, most pathetic of 'anti-imperialist' fig-leaves? No wonder you spend your whole lives calling everybody else "petty bourgeois" and "kitsch" - your positions on this issue, apart from being utterly scabby, have no coherence at all!

While I'm at it, surely magicking a labour movement out of nowhere was a pretty "progressive" party trick itself? Just admit it.

Could I just clear up that I do not speak on 'behalf' of the CPGB and that I am not a member of it.

I write for its paper and agree with most of its ideas.

"This is simply woeful and goes some way to explaining why the CPGB does not and never will have any relationship with working people."

Why is this so woeful? I said Marxism was "more than" this type of activity. My problem is that people such as Janine present this as a circular form of activity, endlessly self-referential and without regard to what seems like 'exterior' activity for the social-imperialist AWL.

Are people saying that Marxism is nothing more than checking toilets - I presume not.

I am a working person. You could actually make a philosophical case that I cannot in fact have a relationship with myself or other workers due to the alienation inherent in capitalist relations. Obviously I am not the 'right type' of worker and being a wage slave is not enough.

What actually would I need to prove to AWL
retards that I am a worker? Pollute myself with Stella and get arrested in a tearup outside a football ground? I saw plenty of working people doing this a couple of weekends ago.

Your whole discourse on ordinary people and 'the workers' is in fact a series of self-serving myths.

You try and mimic the behaviour of one invented group of workers: militant trade unionists. A group that has largely ceased to exist in many areas. In doing so you claim you are more 'down' with the workers in general. This is arse.

James: "and then how best to help preserve it." I wasn't referring to the troops, I meant how we could develop practical solidarity with a labour movement which now existed, and didn't before.