Tendance Coatesy

Left Socialist Blog

Posts Tagged ‘Morning Star

Communist Party of Britain Discourages On-Line Adulation of Stalin, Bans Conspiracy Theorising and Holocaust Denial.

with 10 comments

Eddie Dempsey's postings are totally unacceptable | Socialist Fight

Banned from CPB Social Media.

Britain’s Young Communist League has trebled in size, the Communist Party of Britain (CPB) is standing in elections, and leading CPB Cdes are leading the fight against Gender Theory Wokeness.

In these conditions a Marxist-Leninist Party has to observe the strictest discipline. Democratic centralism is the watch-word for old and new members. Young comrades and the more elderly must pay attention to the party’s public image. The CPB is always on the look-out for saboteurs, wreckers and elements of the class enemy infiltrating its ranks.

This, carried by our official Organ, UNITY, is a timely warning we gave to members posting on social media,

“We do not construct or promote ‘Conspiracy theories’ “Our class enemy is the ruling capitalist class, not some secretive sinister cabal of Freemasons, Zionists, the Illuminati or the Bill Gates Foundation..”

The CPB also lays down a timely call to the more enthusiastic ‘anti-Zionist’ recruits, “Posting anything on line which “normalises” anti-Semitic conspiracy theories including holocaust denial in any form – is incompatible with Party membership.”

Much-needed reminders!

It is a concern that certain Rotten Elements have got hold of our internal documents. They have just published further, hitherto confidential details, of our top- secret protocols on their deviationist web site.

The Communist Party of Britain disappears comrade Stalin.

The Morning Star’s Communist Party of Britain (CPB) issued a set of social-media protocols to its members in August 2021. These warn CPB members, in line with the ‘democratic centralism’ (in fact, bureaucratic centralism) of far-left organisations, that they cannot “undermine well-established party positions” in public. Included in such undermining and harmful endeavours is “adulation of Stalin and support for the substantial abuses of state power which occurred under his leadership”. Such endeavours are “not compatible with our party’s judgment of these matters” as set out in the CPB’s Britain’s road to socialism (BRS) programme.[1] Indeed, in that document last issued in 2020 we find the following lines: “At times, and particularly in the late 1930s following the rise of fascism, severe violations of socialist democracy and law occurred in the fight against external threats and internal subversion. Large numbers of innocent people were persecuted, imprisoned and executed. This aided the worldwide campaign of lies and distortions aimed at the Soviet Union, the international communist movement and the concept of socialism.”[2]

These putrid forces continue,

As one can imagine, this hasn’t gone down at all well among some sections of the CPB, which has always been a generally pro-Stalin organisation, even though, in recent years, this hasn’t been pursued in the more cult-like manner of rivals such as the Communist Party of Great Britain (Marxist-Leninist) (CPGB-ML) founded by Harpal Brar in 2004. Ioannis Michalopoulos, a CPB supporter from Yorkshire, opines in his organisation’s current pre-congress discussion that the “CPB’s criticism on Stalin merely resorts to bourgeois/Trotskyite/Khruschevite phraseology and clichés”. He adds: “It is ironic that defending Stalin’s legacy is not considered [by the CPB’s social-media protocol] compatible with the judgment of the BRS, the first draft of which was approved by Stalin himself.”[3]

Head Office shall be having a word with this so-called Blog site.

Written by Andrew Coates

October 18, 2021 at 8:52 am

Breaking: Morning Star Defends ‘Gender Critical’ Feminism.

with 26 comments

May be an image of 2 people

Mary Davis: Back in 2018.

The Morning Star, independent of the Communist Party of Britain and run by the co-op, today carries this article by a leading member of Communist Party of Britain, Mary Davis.

It is safe to say that this is not just an opinion up for debate but reflects the views of strong currents in the Daily’s team and the CPB.

The building of a broad-based women’s movement and a strengthened labour movement must go hand in hand, argues MARY DAVIS.


The unrelenting ideological onslaught on women’s sex-based rights has escalated to the point at which the very definition of “women” as a biological sex is now subject to sustained attack.

This has resulted in the collective rights of women threatened and undermined. The overused term “cancel culture” is wrong and inadequate to describe the current and unparalleled ideological onslaught on women as a biological sex. We are facing erasure in the face of gender identity policy capture.

Note: No direct reference to Stonewall.

This weekend’s FiLiA conference, I hope, along with other gender critical women’s organisations will play an important part in creating a regenerated women’s movement.

The building of a broad-based women’s movement and a strengthened labour movement, which rejects capitalist ideology and understands the vital importance of protecting and extending women’s sex-based rights, must go hand in hand.

However, without a robust renewal of Marxist-feminist theory, which challenges the dominant ideology of identity politics, such a project will remain a distant vision.

Note are all gender critical feminists Marxists or even socialists? Kathleen Stock defines herself in other ways, “am I, or am I not, a feminist? Yes in the broad sense that I’m broadly focused on promoting the rights and interests of women in a world in which they’re often neglected. But not in the sense that I sign up, no matter what, to any particular doctrinal element. I think everything should be up for reasonable discussion. If you think I’m not a real feminist, that’s fine by me. I’m honestly not that attached to the term. What I am attached to is trying to get the underlying actions and attitudes right” Julie Bindel concentrates on the demand to “defend women’s sex-based rights”.


The oppression of women is rooted in class exploitation. The super-exploitation of women as workers and their oppression as women is a fundamental prerequisite for the operation of capitalism — economically, politically and ideologically. Hence, the eradication of class exploitation is the essential precondition for the liberation of women.

Socialism provides the only means by which the most complete form of class exploitation (ie that represented by the capitalist system), can be ended.

Whether conscious of its mission or not, the labour movement exists for this purpose. But its socialist mission can only be fulfilled if it expunges capitalist ideology — and that includes any ideological practice which impedes the protection and extension of the rights of women.


Both these two movements — a strong and class-conscious feminist-inspired labour movement and a broad-based women’s movement — are essential together as the twin pillars of the challenge to women’s oppression and super-exploitation.

However, we still have a long way to go in ensuring that the labour movement truly represents the interests of 51 per cent of British population, let alone the majority of its members — women!

Recent events have shown that gender identity ideology has permeated the labour movement, with the result that defending women’s rights has taken a back seat.

Currently, a campaign against alleged transphobia has taken precedence over the threat to Professor Kathleen Stock’s employment at Sussex University. She has received no support from the University and College Union.

For socialists, the goal has to be the forging of working-class unity based on a recognition of its historic divisions; divisions founded principally on race and sex.

The first is the ideological battle which has to be shifted away from the “gender” issue per se and on to our terrain of the fight for women’s rights and the understanding of women’s oppression.

Second, the (at present non-existent) “respectful debate” can only be achieved when we women are a mighty assembled unignorable force so that our analysis and our policies lead the debate.

This requires a powerful women’s movement. Thirdly, even at the risk of vilification, our argument must be taken into the labour movement in order to challenge and expose an ideology which erases women and tramples our rights. We are many, they are few.

Comment: this looks like a call for some serious rows. There are points on which this Blog agrees, ‘gender fluidity’ being one. AS one of the ideas in some modern gender theory, promoted by Stonewall, it initially sounds reasonable, but then splinters off into a kaleidoscope of definitions, and even stripped down to a minimum is hard to pin down as a legal or campaigning category. There equally serious issues about women’s spaces which would take a lot more than Mary Davis’ article to draw lines on.

It is not clear that ‘materialist feminism’ is just abut biology and class, or capitalism, there are views about the structural reality of patriarchy for example that exist in many different societies. This open up further into the picture of ” “how women are produced as a category” which in some version (such as the 1970s-early 80s journal M/F), included linguistic ideas and the theories of Michel Foucault about ‘power’. Dos class ‘trump’ everything else? Religious ideologies, embodied in state apparatus like the Islamic state of Iran, have relative autonomy to the class rule of the Islamist bourgeoisie, and the laws restricting women in that country cannot just be explained by capitalist oppression.

There remains concern that words like “onslaught” are intended to provoke a ‘counter-attack’. Davis has, in the recent past, defended Blue Labour pro-family figures like Paul Embery, who has also entered this fray. Will she align with this anti-rootless cosmopolitan in a war against Woke?

Written by Andrew Coates

October 16, 2021 at 12:02 pm

Anti-Labour Morning Star, “There must be consequences for Labour’s betrayal of the working class”.

leave a comment »

Hayes Peoples History: Morning Star 50th Anniversary - Alexander Palace -  1980

Back to the Past for the Morning Star.

There must be consequences for Labour’s betrayal of the working class ‘Opinion’.

If we continue to blindly fight for a Labour victory despite its current centre-right leadership and policies, we are only damaging the left — not bring it closer to power, argues RICHARD RUDKIN

Via Jim…

If anything Corbyn was too nice. Corbyn offered the hand of unity to all the Labour movement to build a party that would address the issues that so desperately required attention, such as saving the NHS from the clutches of the capitalists, more social housing, workers’ rights and green issues — to name but a few.

Labour had one of the nicest and strongest political leaders ever. I can’t recall any other leader that has had to endure the sustained and vile attacks not only from the media but from commentators and former MPs that he once called comrades, all to bring him down.

(sniffs, little tear falls)

Yes yes, come to the point,

Yet through all this, socialists that are Labour Party members are being urged to “stay and fight.”

Running parallel to this, Starmer has failed to restore the whip to Corbyn and at the time of writing, Ken Loach, a man who has done more over the decades to highlight the problems faced by the poorest in society than the vast majority of politicians, is in danger of being expelled.

In addition, other groups such as Resist, Socialist Appeal, Labour in Exile Network and Labour Against the Witch Hunt have been banned and members who openly claim that the anti-semitism allegations are overblown could also be expelled from Labour.

Still, the message for socialists is to “stay and fight.”

This Rudkin chap, does go on doesn’t he?

if reports are true, there also appears to be a McCarthy-type witch-hunt of Labour members that express views that could be seen as promoting communism.

Ah Ha!

This attack on the left is fooling no-one. It is crystal clear that Starmer, in his bid to emulate Tony Blair in 1997, wants a Labour Party that has no room for any members that have any views to the left of centre.


If that happened and Labour came to power led by Starmer or another leader that ran on a similar agenda, where are the consequences for their actions of conspiring to prevent a socialist government?


Raving continues,

Surprisingly, some comrades who have “stayed to fight” have suggested that if Labour were to win a general election, albeit with a centre-right policies, the left would be in a better position to influence change within the party.

This begs the question why a Labour Party that had just won an election with pro-capitalist policies and silenced criticism of Israel while distancing itself from all forms of socialism would consider moving the party left? If anything, it would justify the decisions it had taken — and that’s why there have to be consequences for Labour’s actions now.

If not, Labour will be forever a centrist, right-wing party with left-wing members that have agreed to sell their voices as the price of membership.

From the People’s World.

Former soldier Richard Rudkin witnessed first-hand the carnage of sectarian killings in Northern Ireland. He writes for Morning Star, the socialist daily newspaper published in Great Britain.


Now the man has some serious experience of these issues, but that the Morning Star publishes this intemperate rant that appears to question voting Labour, or ore directly being members of it is a sign. Not a good one.

The only consequences Labour would face, if anybody listened to Rudkin, would be election loses.

The hardened cadres of the Communist Party of Britain (CPB), sorry the independent daily the Morning Star, be also unlikely to feel any great warmth to the little network around the CPGB (PCC) and friends, LAW, Walker, Greenstein and pals, , Werkmann and LEIN or the messianic sect Socialist Appeal, Mind you they do like Williamson…… But it is hard to see Resist and the all rest combining in a Unite the Left initiative without the habitual incessant rows ending in splits.

Not that I can see this helping matters:

Written by Andrew Coates

August 10, 2021 at 1:30 pm