We need a daily paper free of establishment / capitalist bias. Oh..hang on...

[cockneyrebel]

Can we just get this right. The organisation of which your nan was a member of the Central Committee was presumably the CPGB which, as you say, had a membership of around 46,000 in the late 40's. The successor organisation to the CPGB, which was dissolved in 1991, is the CPB which has a current membership of just under 1,000. The Morning Star, through its owners the People's Press Printing Society (made up of reader shareholders) votes each year on whether the paper's editorial policy should continue to follow the CPB's programme 'Britain's Road to Socialism'. http://www.communist-party.org.uk/index.php?file=brs

A splinter group of the old CPGB uses that name now (publishing the Weekly Worker) and has a memebership of around 30.

Sorry my nan was a member of the CPGB and on its central committee (she had to go into hiding during early WWII when the USSR still had a pact with the Nazis). My grandad was also a member of the CPGB.

Both of them have died but didn't join the CPB but remained supporters of the Morning Star. In terms of the CPB having a membership of 1000, 80% of them are inactive supporters and the membership as a whole has its average age somewhere into that of the pensioner status.

I'm a member of Permanent Revolution (www.permanentrevolution.net) which split from Workers Power last year (both organisations now have a mighty membership of about 30 each).

 

[Red Leicester]

...they always have to suck up to the TU bureaucracy because that's where they get most of their funds...

Not sure that's true CR.

The Morning Starlinists' politics determine their attitude to the bureaucracy.

Funding is another matter.

Whilst the odd bottle of vodka was being delivered to your nan far weightier packages were being dropped off in King Street (the old CPGB headquarters).

Subtle "support" from "socialist countries" has always been a feature of the Daily Worker/Morning Star's existence. The fawning reports from the resident reporter in China might help to explain the Star's miraculous survival in the present period.

Did your nan/dad tell you about the CPGB's various well-hidden companies (property, import-export, travel, publishing etc) which provided the party and paper with additional income?

No doubt the the Marxism Today grouping got their hands on some of it. No doubt, either, that the Morning Starlinists got a share too.

No CR, I don't think the MS panders to the trade union bureaucracy through financial need. It does so because that is its political strategy.

 

[cockneyrebel]

Not sure that's true CR.

The Morning Starlinists' politics determine their attitude to the bureaucracy.

Funding is another matter.

You're right of course, but I suspect that now days the financial contributions from the TU bureaucracy will be some leverage in terms of what goes in the paper.

But I agree 100% that it was the stalinist politics that resulted in their take on the TU bureaucracy in the first place, and even without that leverage the stuff in the Morning Star would be the same anyway. It was a hastily written post.

The Morning Star is an increasing irrelevance in any case.

Whilst the odd bottle of vodka was being delivered to your nan far weightier packages were being dropped off in King Street (the old CPGB headquarters).

Indeed and the King Street office must have gone for a packet considering the location (I think it's a bank now). Has anyone got any idea of where all that money would have gone?

Having said that I've never seen any evidence that the leadership of the CPGB were getting financial benefits from being members of the CPGB. I met quite a few of the old leadership and none of them were well off, however mistaken their views, I think they were genuine.

Did your nan/dad tell you about the CPGB's various well-hidden companies (property, import-export, travel, publishing etc) which provided the party and paper with additional income?

Not any specifics, but it's well known they had various sources of funding, including from different regimes.

No doubt the the Marxism Today grouping got their hands on some of it.

I thought they came out of the RCP?

 

[mk12]

Few and far between and they only ever said things internally. Even when I was a member (about 6 years back) and things clearly weren't going well you still had an ever upwards message from nearly everyone.

One problem with Molyneux is that he didn't offer much of an alternative in terms of perspectives and tasks, more just stating the obvious and glossing over some of the serious flaws. He'll now be more sidelined than ever given the overwhelming defeat at conference.

It wasn't an overwhelming defeat really, he got 25% of votes. Surely the Central Committee should be made up of 25% of pro-Molyneux people then? If it's to be representative of the membership's views?

 

[mutley]

It wasn't an overwhelming defeat really, he got 25% of votes. Surely the Central Committee should be made up of 25% of pro-Molyneux people then? If it's to be representative of the membership's views?

Well that's one interpretation of democratic cenralism.. one which in my view would lead to internal paralysis as every new issue went thru a parliamentary style examination by a 'governing group' and an 'opposition' in the party.
No thanks.

I enjoyed last years debate and found it enlightening, (I was a delegate - was gonne chat to you but you buggered off home, logged on, and the rest is history..) but i don't want it to be institutionalised into the party. The fact that there is no sign of any attempt to continue the argument shows how politically unrepresentative that would have been.

 

[cockneyrebel]

It wasn't an overwhelming defeat really, he got 25% of votes. Surely the Central Committee should be made up of 25% of pro-Molyneux people then? If it's to be representative of the membership's views?

I didn't realise it was 25%. But did Molyneux declare a tendency or faction? If he did then I think that the CC should have had a ratio of members representative of the votes he got, if not then no, as it's just documents that people are voting for. Having said that I would have thought it would have been a good idea for the CC to have some people from the Molyneaux camp on the CC in terms of democracy and a good internal working of the SWP, considering he got 25% of the vote, which is fairly substantial. Indeed mutleys concerns can easily be overcome by saying that tendencys and factions have to get a certain percentage of the vote to get representation of the CC. Or are you saying that the CC should just be a monolithic view regardless of internal differnences?

I think because JM couldn't really get to grips with the political problems in the SWP he stopped short at certain points and I also think he needed a full alternative in terms of perspectives and tasks.

That's one of things I was concerned about in the faction dispute in Workers Power, when we were told that we wouldn't have automatic representation on the IS (the international leadership) and we were taken off the political committee which made week to week decisions. But anyway it's of no real interest!

The fact that there is no sign of any attempt to continue the argument shows how politically unrepresentative that would have been.

The poor internal democracy of the SWP and the fact that any organised opposition to the leadership is banned for nine months after conference might also have something to do with it.

 

[fanciful]

But the idea of a monolothic leadership, one which Workers Power for example adopted towards the end, is nothing to do with D-C but is an absurdity inherited from Stalinism. I think this is a good quote:
“The principle of democratic centralism and autonomy for local organisations implies universal and full freedom to criticise so long as this does not disturb the unity of a definite action: it rules out all criticism which disrupts or makes difficult the unity of an action decided on by the party . . . criticism within the limits of the principles of the party programme must be quite free . . . not only at a party meetings but also at public meetings”
by of all people Lenin!
As WP degenerated towards a sort Cliffism, it of course abandoned democracy too. Though in retrospect it always had the strange Cliffite/Stalinist idea that it was prohibited to air any differences or even say they existed outside the organisation.
As for why the MS panders to the bureaucracy clearly its partly through political solidarity partly through who pays the bills.

 

[militant atheist]

Subtle "support" from "socialist countries" has always been a feature of the Daily Worker/Morning Star's existence. The fawning reports from the resident reporter in China might help to explain the Star's miraculous survival in the present period.

No doubt the the Marxism Today grouping got their hands on some of it. No doubt, either, that the Morning Starlinists got a share too.

Nice piece of sectarian sniping there Red. You really should get a job at a tabloid. Love the technique of qualifying totally unsubstantiated slurs btw

I see the accounts of both the CPB (so can you http://www.electoralcommission.org....tPartyofBritain_22156-16424__E__N__S__W__.PDF) and the PPS and maybe you can point out the 'Beijing Gold', 'cos I can't see it. In fact, four members of the Political Committee who visited the Chinese party last year were required to fund their own air fares.

The Morning Star is funded, as it always has been, through the 'Fighting Fund' which seeks to raise £16,000 per month from readers. Other than the cover price, the rest of the funding comes from Trade Union advertising. Until the '80's the Soviet Union used to purchase 12,000 copies per day paid for a year in advance, which acted as a subsidy, but obviously that source of income has long since ceased.

Again, rather than alleging that 'no doubt' the CPB received some of the old CPGB funds, if you bother to research it, you'll find that the 'Democratic Left' inherited all of the CPGB's property and financial assets (around £4m).

 

[militant atheist]

Indeed and the King Street office must have gone for a packet considering the location (I think it's a bank now). Has anyone got any idea of where all that money would have gone?

CR - The King Street office was sold to Lloyds Bank in 1980 for over £1m and the CP moved to much smaller offices in St John's Street,

 

[cockneyrebel]

As WP degenerated towards a sort Cliffism, it of course abandoned democracy too. Though in retrospect it always had the strange Cliffite/Stalinist idea that it was prohibited to air any differences or even say they existed outside the organisation.

Indeed the bureaucratic way that many left organisations operate stems from their politics and I don't think it's any coincidence that as WP began to resemble the SWP more and more (but with ultra left rather than opportunistic politics, two sides of the same coin), the internal life became less and less democratic. The same with the SWP, it's appalling internal democracy comes from its political history.

As it goes Workers Power/LFI used to have a position that internal factions could publish their view points openly, but I think the constitution got amended in the last few years to change that.

 

[cockneyrebel]

CR - The King Street office was sold to Lloyds Bank in 1980 for over £1m and the CP moved to much smaller offices in St John's Street,

That was a huge amount of money then, probably the equivalent to well over £5 million now. What happened to it all?!

MA I don't think you can deny that the CPGB got substantial funds from the USSR and was its mouthpiece in the UK. And it was far more than just a subsidy of 100,000 papers.

Have got no idea if the CPB gets money off China one way or the other.

Again, rather than alleging that 'no doubt' the CPB received some of the old CPGB funds, if you bother to research it, you'll find that the 'Democratic Left' inherited all of the CPGB's property and financial assets (around £4m).

Who are the Democratic Left? Why did they get the money and what have they done with it? Are they still around?

I would have thought that it was more than 4m.

PS Were you in the CPGB? How do you know so much?

 

[Red Leicester]

As I'm sure you're actually aware, most of the CPGB's financial assets weren't actually registered to the party but to "trusted individuals". Some ended up with Marxism Today supporters. Some with Morning Starlinists.

 

[cockneyrebel]

So are you saying that people benefitted personally from it?

If so why didn't my nan get some of the dosh!!!!

 

[militant atheist]

Who are the Democratic Left? Why did they get the money and what have they done with it? Are they still around?

The Democratic Left were the Eurocommunists (Nina Temple, Martin Jacques et al) who dissolved the CPGB. They're still around as some sort of think tank called New Politics Network who live off the old CPGB cash through a company called Rodell Property Ltd.

Ironic really that these people maintain their organisation by utilising the some of the funds supplied to the CPGB by the Soviet Union, an issue at which they, at the time, claimed to be a source of moral outrage. Makes you wonder why they just didn't give it back.

 

[militant atheist]

As I'm sure you're actually aware, most of the CPGB's financial assets weren't actually registered to the party but to "trusted individuals". Some ended up with Marxism Today supporters. Some with Morning Starlinists.

Source?

 

[cockneyrebel]

Were you in the CPGB then? You might have known my grandparents!

They're still around as some sort of think tank called New Politics Network who live off the old CPGB cash through a company called Rodell Property Ltd.

So they've got quite a nice life by the sounds of it. Unfortunately my nan was on the tankie side of the debate, so no cash for me

 

[militant atheist]

So are you saying that people benefitted personally from it?

S/he doesn't know - it's in the 'free gold-plated cars for asylum seekers' category. It just suits Red's viewpoint.

 

[militant atheist]

Were you in the CPGB then? You might have known my grandparents!

No, never in the CPGB - FAR too young! Just interested in the...err chequered.. history.

If you're interested, there's a very good, accessible book on the history of the party called 'Enemy Within' by Francis Beckett, which is worth getting hold of. For a less magazine-style and more academic approach, there's volumes of stuff published by Lawrence and Wishart.

 

[tbaldwin]

I didn't realise it was 25%. But did Molyneux declare a tendency or faction? If he did then I think that the CC should have had a ratio of members representative of the votes he got, if not then no, as it's just documents that people are voting for. Having said that I would have thought it would have been a good idea for the CC to have some people from the Molyneaux camp on the CC in terms of democracy and a good internal working of the SWP, considering he got 25% of the vote, which is fairly substantial. .

I think thats a good post CR...The question of democracy is central to me on where a persons politics really are at...

 

[Red Leicester]

PS Were you in the CPGB? How do you know so much?

I was a member of the CPGB/CPB for about 17 years until I became a Trotskyist.

 

[cockneyrebel]

I was a member of the CPGB/CPB for about 17 years until I became a Trotskyist.

Sorry wasn't asking you, as we were in the same organisation I think I should know that haha

 

[militant atheist]

I was a member of the CPGB/CPB for about 17 years until I became a Trotskyist.

Interesting (genuine). Were you a 'Stalinist' before then? What actually convinced you to become a Trotskyist, was there a defining issue?

 

[cockneyrebel]

Interesting (genuine). Were you a 'Stalinist' before then? What actually convinced you to become a Trotskyist, was there a defining issue?

Being from partly a stalinist background I would say the horrors of what happened under the USSR and other stalinist states would be a big part. And trotskyism being a good critique of what went wrong.

 

[militant atheist]

Being from partly a stalinist background I would say the horrors of what happened under the USSR and other stalinist states would be a big part. And trotskyism being a good critique of what went wrong.

Umm...yes, but if Red was a member of the CPGB/CPB presumably he didn't subscribe to the Totskyist analysis of the USSR....and then he did. It's this epiphany that I'm interested in. Together with whether he would have decribed himself as a 'Stalinist' when he was a member?

 

[cockneyrebel]

Umm...yes, but if Red was a member of the CPGB/CPB presumably he didn't subscribe to the Totskyist analysis of the USSR....

No but the collapse of the USSR showed in even clearer light how bad it was.

Even the die hards who said "it's all capitalist propaganda" couldn't peddle it anymore.

 

[militant atheist]

No but the collapse of the USSR showed in even clearer light how bad it was.

But did it? Surely Trotsky detailed his views in Revolution Betrayed in 1937. Then Kruschev's speech in 1956, Hungary, Czechoslavakia etc. So Red remained a communist despite all this and converted to Trotskyism after the fall of the Soviet Union which, if anything, showed that if there was one thing worse than the USSR it was what followed.

 

[cockneyrebel]

But did it? Surely Trotsky detailed his views in Revolution Betrayed in 1937. Then Kruschev's speech in 1956, Hungary, Czechoslavakia etc. So Red remained a communist despite all this and converted to Trotskyism after the fall of the Soviet Union which, if anything, showed that if there was one thing worse than the USSR it was what followed

I can see what you mean but from what I saw of people in the CPGB it was the fall of the USSR that really brought it home. I know my grandparents were devestated, it was sad to see as it goes, given they'd given their lives to it and bought the lies. I was only about 14 at the time and not political in any real sense but still remember it.

They nearly divorced over Hungary apparently! But still, it didn't shake the fundamentals like the collpase of the USSR did.

As for Trotsky it amazed me after I became political and looked at their book shelf (inherited their books, loads of stuff from moscow press, and some first editions, are they worth anything!), that there nothing on it by Trotsky. Some stalin (mostly purged after Kruschev I suspect), but a lot of Lenin, Marx and assorted others. If it wasn't for me I think most of it would have ended up on a skip......

Despite trotsky being such a demon figure to the stalinists, none of them seemed to have actually read any of it.

after the fall of the Soviet Union which, if anything, showed that if there was one thing worse than the USSR it was what followed

Which is probably why the more nuanced theory of a degenerated workers state (rather than the crass state capitalism off cliff) made more sense.

 

[Donna Ferentes]

Even the die hards who said "it's all capitalist propaganda" couldn't peddle it anymore.

I seem to recall one diehard here who did precisely that.

 

[cockneyrebel]

I seem to recall one diehard here who did precisely that.

They were few are far between, even among CPGBers.

 

[Nigel]

But did it? Surely Trotsky detailed his views in Revolution Betrayed in 1937. Then Kruschev's speech in 1956, Hungary, Czechoslavakia etc. So Red remained a communist despite all this and converted to Trotskyism after the fall of the Soviet Union which, if anything, showed that if there was one thing worse than the USSR it was what followed.

I got the impression that many members (most active ones) had sympathies with Euro Communism; they definitely had a position of denouncing the invasion of Czechoslavikia 1968; supporting the argument for Socialism with a Human Face.

Recent discussions with a leading light in the CPB was criticism of the New Left.

I think there're is mixed opinion on Kruscheav?