The CPGB are *not* Trotskyists, they're the remains of the revisionist pro-USSR party in the UK. Since the fall of the Soviet Union they've adopted a more populist, psuedo-moderate position on leftist politics, for example they support the Socialist Alliance.

Here's a simple guide to the different sects among various revolutionary Marxist-Leninist groups:


Trotskyist-Shachtmanite
Believe socialism must be truly international, and that the USSR did not amount to socialism because although Lenin and Trotsky were headed in the right direction, they never progressed beyond state capitalism. During the time of the USSR, these people argued that another revolution was necessary to achieve real socialism.
Example: Socialist Workers' Party (www.swp.org.uk)

Standard Trotskyist
They agree that true socialism cannot exist within one country, but they viewed the USSR as a corrupted workers' state that needed to be set back on track by a leader of the calibre of Lenin.
Example: Workers' Power (www.workerspower.com)

Revisionist/Krushchevite
Basically these people followed the party line from Moscow right through the existence of the USSR.
Example: Communist Party Of Great Britain (www.cpgb.org.uk)

Stalinist
Complete nutters who believe Stalin's glorious regime was betrayed by the revisionists.
Example: Revolutionary Communist Party (www.rcpbml.org.uk)

Yes, yes, you're probably right. The entryist tactics of the old style communist parties are well known. But where is this going to get us?

Stop squabbling with each other and work together for the moment. There are bigger fish to fry. Don't let the anti-globalisation movement become spilt up by petty arguments, probably started in large part by cleverly placed government agents.

Get real.

Sid writes:
sid wrote:

"Yes, yes, you're probably right. The entryist tactics of the old style communist
parties are well known. But where is this going to get us?"

If we ignore them and their attacks against other activists then they will *not*
just go away -- their attacks will have a harmful effect on the movement
and even shunt it into the deadend of leninism. As such discussion is
essential, as is honesty, so that our movement can progress.

"Stop squabbling with each other and work together for the moment. There are
bigger fish to fry."

Done that -- in 1917, the anarchists and bolsheviks worked together against
the "bigger fish" of the provisional government. Once the Bolsheviks were
in power, they repressed the anarchists. Between 1918 and 1920, the
anarchist Makhnovist movement allied with the Bolsheviks 3 times against the
"bigger fish" of the white counter-revolutionaries. Each time the whites were
defeated, the Bolsheviks turned on the Makhnovists and finally crushed
them -- and the workers' freedom the Makhnovists were fighting for.

In 1936, the anarchists worked with the Republicans and Stalinists against
the "bigger fish" of Franco. The Stalinists and Republicans attacked the
anarchists and ensured the victory of Franco.

now, do we really want to repeat history yet again? Solidarity is essential,
but we cannot hide our differences or ignore history.

"Don't let the anti-globalisation movement become spilt up by petty
arguments, probably started in large part by cleverly placed government agents."

petty arguments? "Get real" -- we need to dicuss politics and history. If we do
not, then we will never get very far. As for "government agents" provoking
splits, well, that is a danger -- but that does not mean we ignore politics or
history.

also, of course, how the movement should go forward is hardly a "petty
argument."

we should understand the past in order to ensure we do not repeat the same
mistakes. And we should not automatically assume that just because we are
against the same things, that we are *for* the same thing.

Anarcho
www.anarchistfaq.org
www.anarchismfaq.org
www.anarchyfaq.org

It's essential that we don't allow groups like the CPGB, Workers' Power, SWP etc into our movement - why the fuck would we want to overthrow one ruling class just to replace them with another one?

Like I said, there are many flavours of Marxist-Leninism (I actually left out Maoism because there's no major Maoist group in the UK), but they all operate on the false assumption that the working class needs a vanguard of leaders, and their ideas invariably result in systems just as repressive and capitalistic as the ones they claim to oppose.

"No state, however democratic, not even the reddest republic -- can ever give the people what they really want, i.e., the free self-organization and administration of their own affairs from the bottom upward, without any interference or violence from above, because every state, even the pseudo-People's State concocted by Mr. Marx, is in essence only a machine ruling the masses from above, from a privileged minority of conceited intellectuals, who imagine that they know what the people need and want better than do the people themselves"
- Michael Bakunin

Read some texts at the site below to understand more about the differences between Marxist-Leninism and anarchism in the context of the Russian revolution.

why are people continually bangin on about the swp really its very boring. they bring huge numbers of people to the movement that wouldnt be there otherwise.

wat do you want a mass diverse movement or a small enclosed undemocratic movement????

i think the answer is obvious.

bye

The question is whether you want a decentralised movement or a hierarchical and undemocratic one under the rigid leadership of the authoritarian left, which is what we'll have if we allow groups like the SWP to gain ground and don't distance ourselves from them. I'm all for diversity, but where do you draw the line? If Trotskyists are welcome in our movement, are Stalinists allowed in? Maoists? right-wing populists? Neo-Nazis? All these groups see our movement as a potential recruiting ground.

"why are people continually bangin on about the swp really its very boring."

we are "banging" on about it because the SWP's politics are deeply
authoritarian and they aim to take over and recruit from the
anti-globalisation movement (as they admit themselves).

They claim to be against the same things we are, but they are definitely not
*for* the same things. Would you want fascists to get involved in "the
movement" -- they are against global capitalism too.

"they bring
huge numbers of people to the movement that wouldnt be there otherwise."

If we are dependent on the SWP getting people to the movement, then
obviously the movement is a bit weak -- but, of course, the only reason
the SWP are involved is because the movement managed to mobilise
tens of thousands of people without them.

and, of course, their presence will put off a lot of people as well, don't
forget that. we don't want a movement of party hacks and their followers,
we want it a mass movement.

"wat do you want a mass diverse movement or a small enclosed undemocratic
movement????"

yes, we want a mass diverse movement -- but that does not mean we should
happily let anyone just join in. I'm sure that people would object to
Nazi's coming along, for example.

The swp are welcome to come along, but we are free to critique their
politics and make them know that we don't like them looking at our
movement as a source of recruits and a mass to lead.

moreover, the swp itself is hardly a democratic organisation (as many
within the party will admit too). We do not want to Bolshevise our
movement and turn it into a small, enclosed, undemocratic vanguard
party.

"i think the answer is obvious."

Yes, the answer is obvious -- the movement, never mind the revolution,
must not be Bolshevised. The only people who will gain from not
discussing the SWP's politics and the history of Leninism will be the
SWP -- those who do not learn from history are doomed to repeat it.

for more information on why the SWP and Leninism should be
viewed with distrust visit:

www.infoshop.org/texts/iso.html

any suggestion that any revolutionary socialist organisation would want nazi groups in our movement is just so stupid.