Talk:New Communist Party of Britain

This article was nominated for deletion on 25 September 2008 (UTC). The result of the discussion was keep.

Misc comments

I have tried to correct the inaccurracies as to the political stance of the NCPB in this edit, but there is clearly much more that needs to be here. I'll get back to it when I get a chance.

General comments about the origins of the NCP deleted as they are oversimplified and obviously written by someone with no first hand knowledge of the events. The term "tankie" was used by the Euro wing of the CPGB largely for the group around Nicholson, which was far more prominent in London that the supporters of the Surrey District. More importantly it did not come into common parlance until the arguments over the British Road to Socialism became heated in the run-up to the 1977 Congress. It has nothing whatsoever to do with the Hungarian events of 1956 and only very obliquely with the Soviet intervention in Czechoslovakia in 1968. While it's true that French, Nicholson and some others did take a common stance vis-a-vis the CPGB's leadership support for Dubcek post-1968 the defining issue as far as Sid French was concerned was the BRS ( though it's true this was not understood fully by some of his supporters).

Stalin Society'

While I've left the edit as I can't give a reliable source, I would be intrigued to see an official NCP repudiation of Stalin from the last 5-10 or so years. I know for a fact of a couple of members who are in the Stalin Society but won't name them here without their consent.

My opinion, which for obvious reasons I won't edit into the article, is that the anti-1977 British Road to Socialism origins of the NCP was rather a front for what was, even then, a predominantly anti-revisionist group. While some of their members were 'tankies' in the out and out pro-Moscow sense I'd argue many more had far more in common with Hoxhaists of the Bill Bland anti-Mao variety.

Lastly, the NCP's continuing joint work with the RCPB(M-L), who I can only assume no-one will deny are active within the Stalin Society, gives another indication. Again, supporting without a source I can give, but that was a forum where much of the idea of collaboration began.

Samchallis 14:46, 18 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

You may have missed my point. While what you say is broadly correct the question is simply the participation of the NCP with the Stalin Society. When the Society was set up the NCP did advertise its meetings but broke with them when a veteran member was insulted by the then Chair of the Stalin Society, Prof Majid. Majid was subsequently banned from all NCP meetings. Though the NCP, including many of its leaders, maintained good personal relations with Bill Bland and to a very limited extent to Harpal Brar, the NCP has not had anything to do with the Stalin Society since Prof Majid's day. Once again I would not quibble with the general analysis you've made and perhaps this can be introduced into the text under the heading of "background" or "origins".

Fair enough. And indeed an incident I was previously unaware of. Thanks. Sam

Recent Amendments on splits etc: The NCP has dealt with more factions than those mentioned. All were very small with the exception of a right-wing split in 1980 and the North-West anti-party faction mentioned that had opposed the NCP's support for Ken Livingstone's candidature for the London Mayoral post. The Elizabeth Farrell entry was deleted because she first of all was not International Secretary but was London organiser and briefly a member of the Central Committee. Likewise Jim Hillier was only "editor" for one issue of the paper (the issue that led to his departure) though he was on the Central Committee. This para needs more work and maybe I'll try to find a form of words that takes this in as well as the deleted references. Pedant

There are rumours that Farrell really worked either the south Korean secret service,Mi6 or the CIA and worked to disrupt the NCP from within.Apparently she vanished,some believe that she is in Seoul!

Main Communist parties

It is factually accurate that the NCPB is one of the two main Communist parties. Warofdreams states of his reversion: "(revert POV "two main communist parties" - CPB(M-L), CPGB(PCC), and various Trotskyist groups would disagree)". This I disagree with. Firstly, Trotskyist groups do not refer to themselves as Communist parties (at least not in public). Secondly, both the CPB(M-L) and CPGB(PCC) are far smaller, and do not have relations with other parties generally recognised as Communist, or participate in the International Communist Movement as do both the NCPB and the CPB. It is true that the CPB(M-L) is an older organisation, but that does not make it one of the main ones. The CPGB(PCC) has only about 20 members.

I do not want to get into reverting and unreverting, but the point should be made that both the original text, and edit are factually accurate, and not just POV.

If you can find some reliable reference, I'd be happy to describe the NCPB as the second largest Communist party in Britain; you're probably right that the Trotskyist groups could be disregarded here. But use of the term "main" is bound to be controversial - no doubt other groups would claim that they are a main communist party, because of their history, their influence, their principled positions or whatever. Your original text also implies that there is a commonality between the CPB and the NCPB which is not shared by other communist parties in Britain. If this is this case, it needs to be stated explicity, not just alluded to. Warofdreams talk 02:26, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think you are correct that the word "main" could be argued in terms of size, history, influence, position. Size is a difficult one as the NCPB do not publish membership figures, and the CPB exagerate theirs. Both are very small, but the CPB is marginally larger. The NCPB follows an anti-revisionist position, whilst the CPB would be generally regarded as being revisionist, or "crLeative" (depending on your POV). Both organisations, however, have relations with the ruling Communist Parties of Cuba, Vietnam, DPRK, etc. as well as the major Communist Parties of Greece, Cyprus, India, etc. I think that is a strong aguement for them being called the main Communist organisations in Britain, because both represent different parts of the mainstream international Communist movement.

L-R-C Affiliation

There is no evidence of current LRC affilation

Grmdy 19:56, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

LRC Affiliation The NCP was an "associate affiliate" until November 2007 and became an "affiliate" following the rule changes made at the November 2007 annual meeting in London. The NCP is listed as an affiliate in the LRC's web page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.152.122.86 (talk) 21:49, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Recent changes

I have made some additions to the page regarding NCP membership, problems related to expulsions in the party, content of the "New Worker" and its discontinued publications. Someone obviously is a bit touchy about too many current facts about the NCP being on this page. Anyone who complains about this material not being sourced is talking out of the back of their head. When do communist parties publish membership figures in the public domain - the NCP certainly never has (we used to be told it was less than 10,000), so don't use that as an excuse to chop this newly added material again. If it is, I will just keep putting it back. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 221.222.195.135 (talk) 00:13, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The CPB is the only communist party in Britain that publishes its membership. The NCP like the others does not and any estimate of membership can only be speculation which is not the role of wikipedia, nor is it the place for original research. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.129.140.147 (talk) 15:55, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Constantly repetition doesn't make things true. Without sourcing it is merely hearsay. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.151.110.81 (talk) 12:59, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Edit warring and sources

I'm coming in to point out that Wikipedia guidelines and policies require articles to be well sourced, and this one is badly sourced, one of the reasons so far as I can see for the current edit wars. I also notice that a lot of edit summaries are blank, and this really should stop. Also, a couple of editors are lucky they haven't been blocked for WP:3RR violations and can expect to be blocked if this continues. Doug Weller (talk) 11:38, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Can I also point out that a large chunk of this article reads like an individuals biography rather than an article about a political party. Can I suggest that some of the editors here take a look at other wikipedia articles about Political parties and add more about election results? Ϣere Spiel Chequers 12:46, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've fully protected the article for 72 hours as a result of the edit war. Can the involved users come here to talk about it now? lifebaka++ 14:53, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This entry is indeed badly sourced and the few references that are given need to be relaid for easy reference. The major dispute with Troublemaker73 is over the unsourced statistics for membership which he claims is "common knowledge" amongst British communists and which amounts to nothing more than gossip. The only British communist party to publish its membership figures is the CPB, apart from the RCPB-ML which for electoral register purposes claims a membership of one. The CPB claims it is the biggest communist party in Britain and this is not challenged by any of the others which claim to be communist, including the NCPB. The NCPB refers to itself as "small" in its own documents and makes no other claims. This is the only neutral conclusion that can be drawn.

The question of the "purged" activists is clearly a point of view unless it can be sourced.

On the question of past publications and the content of the New Worker I have argued that if this is relevant then the content about the New Worker should go in the New Worker wiki entry. I cannot see the point of listing past publications thoug it is clear that Troublemaker73 knows very little about the NCPB because any one who cares to plough through the NCPB websites will see that there were at least two other bulletins or magazines that the NCPB published in the past (Irish Bulletin and an Economic Bulletin) and there may be more.

Borewatch (talk) 20:29, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Past publications

Dear "Borewatch", please tell us where these references to the NCP's past publications, such as the Irish Bulletin and Economic Bulletin, can be found. Troublemaker1973 (talk) 11:47, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Cut and paste job

In fact, most of the material on the New Communist Party page is gleaned from old NCP publications and material on their websites -- a bit of an "inside job" if you ask me. The page should most certainly be nuked and replaced with something not so shoddy.Troublemaker1973 (talk) 11:53, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Pamplets and books

I think it would be legitimate to put back the section of pamphlets that explain the ideology of the NCPB. I note that the Wiki CPB entry, quite rightly, lists its pamphlets, and so should the Wiki NCPB entry. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.152.40.129 (talk) 18:26, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]