Talk:Communist Party of Great Britain

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Possible copyright[edit]

Removed possible copyright infringement. Text that was previously posted here is the same as text from this webpage:

http://www.communist-party.org.uk/ourhistory/shorthistory/1920__foundation_of_the_commun.html
http://www.communist-party.org.uk/ourhistory/shorthistory/1926__the_general_strike.html
http://www.communist-party.org.uk/ourhistory/shorthistory/1930__the_miracle_of_fleet_str.html
(and others)

To the poster: If there was permission to use this material under terms of our license or if you are the copyright holder of the externally linked text, then please indicate so on this page's talk page (to access the talk page, click on Discuss this page in the sidebar). If there was no permission to use this text then please either replace this message with at least a good stub and an external link or leave this page to be deleted. (NOTE: unless a stub replaces this text, deletion will occur about one week from the time this page title was placed on the Votes for deletion page).

It also should be noted that the posting of copyrighted material that does not have the express permission from the copyright holder is possibly illegal and is a violation of our policy. Those with a history of violations may be temporarily suspended from editing pages. If this is in fact an infringement of copyright, we still welcome any original contributions by you.

The original article contents were overwritten by text from the sites mentioned above. The original article contents have been restored. -- Wapcaplet 00:39 9 Jun 2003 (UTC)

I have removed the word 'reportedly' as I can confirm that Michael McCreery died in New Zealand in 1965. Ranger2006 19th August 2006

Zinoviev letter[edit]

I don't have time right now, but I do feel there should be a reference to the Zinoviev letter, a fraud which showed in 1924 how frightened both the conservatives and their electorate were of the communist party. Johncmullen1960 17:25, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]


1977-1991: breakup of the party[edit]

The article section states that 'the Eurocommunist-dominated leadership of the CPGB ,led by Nina Temple, decided to disband the party, and reform it as Democratic Left'[sic]. Apart from being poorly typed, this fails to address the question that such a decision was not within the legitimate power of the leadership of the Party as constituted at that time, and therefore, such a policy by the leadership could be effected with certainty only by flooding/infiltrating the membership with large numbers (by the standards of the CPGB at that time) hostile to the Party's existing terms of reference, or by some informal, socially exclusive poll prior to the official one (which, in the event, was a close-run thing - for what it's now worth).-— Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.1.109.110 (talk) 08:50, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, the proposal originated with the leadership, which I think is the intention behind the phrasing, though I agree that it's not well put. There should also be a reference to the "administrative" methods used by the Central Committee against it's "opponents": disbanded branches, refusal to re-card, expelled etc, and more reference to the battle around the Morning Star, which was a defining moment (more so than the NCP split, for example). If/when I track down some sources, I may look to beef this section up a bit. Any ideas, feel free...
And speaking of sources, there are some parts of this section that need some, or a bit of expansion, IMHO:
  • Some speculated at the time that they would receive the backing of Moscow - Who?
  • important Surrey District CP - In what way was this district "important"?
  • The group around Straight Left exerted considerable influence in the trade union movement, CND, the Anti-Apartheid Movement and amongst some Labour MPs - how do we know this? Which TUs? Which MPs? How do you define "considerable"?
  • Although circulation of the magazine rose it was still a drain on the finances of the small party - Now, I think both of these statements are true, but what are the sources?
Grmdy (talk) 16:02, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
These comments suggest that the section is incomplete and poorly references, but not that is has POV. I am removing the POV flag from that section, and enciourage editors to enpand that section. --Duncan (talk) 09:49, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure on how to edit references...[edit]

I'm not sure how you edit references, but this page definately needs to be updated with historiographical material, especially regarding the CPGB's reaction to the war. See for example 'The British Communist Party and Moscow, 1920-43' by Andrew Thorpe (Manchester University Press, 2000), and 'About Turn, The Communist Party and the Outbreak of the Second World War' by Francis King and George Matthews (eds.) (Lawrence and Wishart, London, 1990). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.30.217.84 (talk) 13:18, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Successors[edit]

A differentiation has to be done regarding the 'successors' of the party. The party dissolved into DL, that was the official succession. The fact that some dissident minorities formed other groups might be mentioned in the article body text, but should not confused in the infobox. They are by no means more notable than CPB or NCP as 'successors' of the party. --Soman (talk) 19:44, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's inaccurate to state that the party "dissolved into DL". Point one, the remaining Scottish section formed the Communist Party of Scotland. Point 2, it's POV to refer to "dissident minorities", the fact is that the CPB is generally seen, within Britain and internationally, as the successor to the CPGB. FYI, I'm not a member of the CPB, but you won't find many labour movement people in the UK who don't see the CPB as the successors of the CPGB.
And you will find no-one who sees the "CPGB (PCC)" as anything other than a.. "who"?
Grmdy (talk) 00:12, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
PS: I think we share a similar frustration with some anonymous POV edits to this page, I'll be happy to discuss...? Grmdy (talk) 00:22, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I checked the CPS article before editing, there it said "Many Communists in Scotland disagreed with this decision and instead set up the CPS". It doesn't imply that the CPGB branch as a branch converted itself into CPS. Regarding the "generally seen" part, that is difficult to source. Certainly CPB has replaced CPGB as the referent in the international communist movement, but that isn't the question. The erstwhile CPGB took a decision to dissolve itself, and DL was formed as its substitute. That is, the way i see it, the only 'succession' to be presented in the infobox. Other by-products of the CPGB can be discussed in the article body though. CPGB(PCC) is by no means notable enough to be mentioned in the lead. --Soman (talk) 09:53, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think the CPS article gives a true reflection, the fact is that the vast majority of the remaining Scottish CPGB reformed as the CPS. The Scottish section of the CPGB wasn't a branch, it was a "national committee", with a fair few branches. They are a clear successor organisation to the CPGB, I don't understand why that would be controversial.
The issue with the CPB is more complex. Unlike the NCP, for example, the founders didn't leave the CPGB willingly, they were expelled. Their first congress was branded as a "re-foundation conference", and that's how they present themselves and how they are perceived. I think therefore that it is reasonable to see the CPB as a "successor organisation", but I guess it depends on the definition - the CPB fills the space that the CPGB previously held, it's initial membership consisted of expelled CPGB members, it has a focus around the Morning Star, it sees itself as a successor organisation, ideologically it is a continuation of the CPGB "line". However, there is/was no formal organisational link.
I agree entirely that the CPGB(PCC) are an irrelevance, I was being very conservative (sic) in the edit to the leading paragraph. I wanted to remove the reference altogether, but I thought that might be a bit harsh...
Grmdy (talk) 22:01, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
OK, I've been less conservative this time, and I've removed references to the CPGB(PCC) at the top of the article. They really are an irrelevance, I'm utterly bemused as to why someone ever put them in. I've also left the CPB out of "successors", pending some consensus here... I've made my argument above. I'm also wondering whether we need to protect this page from anonymous edits...? Grmdy (talk) 22:15, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Did the Scottish National Committee form CPS, as a committee? --Soman (talk) 16:22, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I think they did, I think I have a source in Scottish Labour History Review, but at the moment I can't put my hands on it (and, of course, I may be mis-remembering). You may be being a bit over-formalistic with the definition of "successor", but in the circumstances it may be passable. I suggest that it's left as is at the moment, if I can't source it I'll remove it.Grmdy (talk) 18:40, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I will readily admit that i'm very formalistic on these issue, only recognizing 'official' successions, not successions in terms of adhering to the political line or ideological tradition. The rationale behind my approach is that there are several other left movements around the world and on wiki that have a far more complex history than CPGB (with multiple claimants to being the 'real' inheritor of the original party), and i think its good to have a strictly formal standard for clarity. --Soman (talk) 20:24, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough, I think the recent edit history on this page shows that a formalistic attitude may be best. Anyway, I've checked my source and it doesn't say what I thought it did, and the CPGB Scottish Committee did in fact formally go along with the dissolution into DL. I'll remove CPS from the "successors" list. I've stated before that I think the period of the breakup needs more work, that's probably the place to mention the CPB & CPS, putting it in context. Grmdy (talk) 18:22, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note that [1] is not WP:RS. --Soman (talk) 14:51, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes it is, Alexa.com is used for the site summaries on Google.[2] --84.68.64.17 (talk) 16:01, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Which still does not confirm that it would be RS. Google is not an academic authority. --Soman (talk) 16:08, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Neither are you. Google is a reliable source. --84.68.64.17 (talk) 16:10, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
well, i don't use my own opinion as references. btw, who wrote the alexa passage? --Soman (talk) 16:20, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It is a peer reviewed statement, so it doesn't matter who wrote it. --84.68.64.17 (talk) 16:23, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This is childish. Its not a 'peer reviewed statement', its an anonymous posting. It has just as much RS cred as an anonymous forum post. --Soman (talk) 16:25, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It is not a "posting", it is peer reviewed information used by Google. --84.68.64.17 (talk) 16:28, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Written by whom? anonymous commentaries are not reliable. --Soman (talk) 16:31, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It isn't a "commentary", it is a description on a major internet reference site. --84.68.64.17 (talk) 16:33, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This is not leading anywhere at the moment. I'm inviting a third opinion. --Soman (talk) 16:48, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You're just being ridiculous. You type "cpgb" into alexa.com, and this is the site that comes up. That proves nothing. The possession of a domain name does not prove that organisation B is a successor (or, indeed the same organisation) as organisation A. Not least because the CPGB lived and died in the pre-internet period, and therefore didn't have much of an opportunity to register the domain. Grmdy (talk) 19:07, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough. --84.68.64.17 (talk) 16:51, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A message was posted at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard. As per the claim that DL represents the direct successor of CPGB some additional sources are

--Soman (talk) 14:34, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Here's an idea... Why not pull down the stupid info boxes, which assist no one and make no new converts to anything... Put up a cool early photo instead and list all successor factions in the body of the text at the bottom. Who cares about the legitimacy of the Judean People's Front v. the People's Front of Judea anyway? Tim Davenport // Early American Marxism website // Corvallis, OR USA Carrite (talk) 23:21, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Symbol[edit]

Isn't there any symbol/logo that can be used for the infobox? something that could be cropped from a pamphlet or poster? --Soman (talk) 19:46, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I wondered about this, did the CPGB ever adopt an official logo at all? Extua (talk) 09:32, 29 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Pollitt's resignation[edit]

I have always understood that he only stepped down as general secretary and remained on the CC. Can anyone reference this? Borewatch (talk) 15:44, 5 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]


I've checked it out and used the Morgan biography as the source. Another, though less helpful on this issue is John Callaghan's Rajani Palme Dutt -- a Study in British Stalinism; Lawrence and Wishart, London 1993.

1975 Congress[edit]

"At the 1975 Congress, Dave Purdy proposed that Dave Purdy put the motion"

Does this reflect some arcane standing order or is it a typo? BTLizard (talk) 14:33, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]


Really Terrible Periodization[edit]

This article is built around a really unsatisfactory periodization, clumping decades together rather than defining historical periods. In my view the rational way to divide this would be as follows:

===Organizational History===
1. Forerunners and formation (1920)
2. Early years (1921-1928)
3. The depression decade (1929-1939) -- from "Class Against Class" up to the Soviet-German pact of 1939.
4. The war years (1939-1945)
5. The cold war period (1946-1956) -- from the end of WWII to the Secret Speech at the 20th Congress of the CPSU.
6. After the thaw (1957-1976)
7. The final years (1977-1991)

I'd tear out the old structure and put in the new one with appropriate segues myself, but I figure it would be reverted in about 15 seconds unless there was some sort of discussion and agreement on the matter. So here's your chance.

I'm a 1920s guy myself, and once things get broken up correctly, it becomes pretty simple to add further divisions (Raid on Party Headquarters, Campbell Case, Zinoviev Letter, Arcos Affair) with pointers to main articles. But first there really needs to be a sledgehammer taken to the old decade-based framework, in my opinion. Comments? —Tim Davenport, Early American Marxism website, Corvallis, OR (USA) Carrite (talk) 19:25, 30 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, that would be a much more sensible way to arrange the article. Troublemaker1949 (talk) 02:54, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I also agree that would be a better periodisation (although I'm not sure about describing only 1946-56 as the cold war - perhaps the "start of the cold war" or "early cold war" would be better). Warofdreams talk 16:51, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"Early Cold War Period" is fine by me. Carrite (talk) 02:43, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"early Cold War" may be okay but as others have said the "Cold War" continued right through till the Gorbachov era. As far as the CPGB is concerned though Labour Party and TUC bans and proscriptions carried on until the mid-1970s and the bans and proscriptions carried on in the civil service until the late 1980s I believe. There needs to be a para about the persecution of communists which began in the late 1940s and another on the ETU affair and the Radcliffe Report in the civil service. (Borewatch (talk) 22:03, 4 September 2009 (UTC))[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Communist Party of Great Britain. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 22:17, 28 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

"Stalinism"[edit]

I've removed the term "Stalinism" from the ideology section for a few reasons;

  • (1) the term Stalinism is a hoax, it exists only as an epithet used by Trotskyists and imperialists. It is derogatory.
  • (2) the CPGB towed the Revisionist line of Khrushchev including his attacks on Stalin
  • (3) eventually it degenerated so much that it became Eurocommunist and then social democrat.

Claíomh Solais (talk) 21:04, 15 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Communist Party of Great Britain. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 12:55, 11 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Membership[edit]

Denis Healey is listed as a member. That is not mentioned in his article, and he doesn't seem an obvious candidate for having been a member in his youth. Is his membership verifiable? Lavateraguy (talk) 13:27, 13 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Healey did a TV interview on BBC Newsnight (Tuesday, 28 Aug 2007) in which his early involvement with the Communist Party is mentioned. Extua (talk) 19:02, 26 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I made a mistake while editing the "notable members" section and now the "citation needed" tag has moved and I don't know how to fix it. I also happen to be familiar with Healey and I know he worked for the Information Research Department, a secret government propaganda department built to spread anti-communist propaganda. BulgeUwU (talk) 15:44, 10 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I have moved the tag back to be against Healey. Keith D (talk) 23:06, 10 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Tankie[edit]

Evan Smith discusses the term tankie in this blog post https://hatfulofhistory.wordpress.com/2020/01/27/tankie-the-origins-of-an-epithet/ Extua (talk) 09:40, 29 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

In the six years since the AfD discussion about "tankie" as its own article, the term has gained increasing currency in American political discourse, in which context it is decisively not a specific reference to the CPGB. Seems like it might be up for re-discussion? Krinndnz (talk) 20:51, 23 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Tankie was restored as its own article about a month after this comment. Removing the AfD merge notice from the top of this page in a moment. Amedee123 (talk) 15:04, 5 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

"Red Lives: Communists and the Struggle for Socialism"[edit]

This obviously highly partisan work is cited multiple times. Might I suggest that better sources might be found? Also the Jersey Democratic Movement's politics should be clearly separated for those of its founders - it was not a Communist organisation, but an organisation that had Communist members. --Eldomtom2 (talk) 13:57, 23 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

NPOV[edit]

The article is clearly highly biased in favour of the CPGB - notice how when the lede talks about WWII it doesn't talk about how they opposed the war due to the Molotov-Ribbentropp Pact, and how it refers to the Warsaw Pact invasion of Czechoslovakia as an "intervention". --Eldomtom2 (talk) 23:36, 4 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You're tagging an entire article for two points, rather than making edits and seeing what develops from that? The WWII stuff is in the main text of the article, the discussion then comes down to what should be in the lede. Possibly a brief summary would fit, but it was a position that didn't last very long. The article on Hungary (not Czechoslovakia, not mentioned in the lede as the big exodus of members was after Hungary) also calls it an intervention. So I'd suggest starting at the talk page there and bringing any consensus for a change back here. On the whole though, I think you are confusing your point of view with a neutral one, and there is enough factual information in the article as it stands for readers to draw their own conclusions. Amedee123 (talk) 14:43, 5 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I've just changed the Czechoslovakia link in the main article text to invaded to reflect the wording of the article it links to. Will look at the lede wording next and then remove the tag. Please don't restore it unless you can list a lot of issues that need dealing with here. Either tag or edit individual issues as you find them, tagging the article in general is not helpful. Amedee123 (talk) 15:16, 5 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Recent pro-Russia propaganda[edit]

The article may need an update in relation to the recent Ukraine invasion and the group's position. —PaleoNeonate – 01:12, 13 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@PaleoNeonate: I think you're thinking of the Communist Party of Great Britain (Marxist–Leninist). Yue🌙 02:56, 13 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
You're right, I'll suggest the update there instead. Sorry for the confusion, —PaleoNeonate – 06:30, 15 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Wrong logo?[edit]

Asked some people, and they don't remember the CPGB ever using this logo. Also doubt it's correct as the font used is 'Code New Roman' which was released in 2014... Endim8 (talk) 21:02, 3 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Communist_Party_of_Great_Britain&oldid=1206763782"