I have been asked to give a talk updating the pamphlets which have been on sale for some time on the 'Origin and Development of Revisionism in the CPGB'. I am not sure that updating is the correct term because the fundamental points argued I believe are strong and have stood the test of time. Although, I must say I have had little feedback from these pamphlets which I first started research on in the l970's. The reasons for this I can only guess to be that among Marxist-Leninists the main conclusions are not controversial. This may be so. However, there are Marxist-Leninists who place the blame for revisionist decay at the feet of Dimitrov. I do not deal with this in the pamphlets because the pamphlets seek to establish that the main weakness of the CPGB was within its own line and organisation regarding relations with the Labour Party and the Party's social-democratic prejudices. I will touch on this question in this talk, however.

One would hope for controversy with the revisionists themselves but that is not the way of opportunism to confront questions directly. Revisionism always seeks to dodge or gloss over fundamental questions of theory and Marxist-Leninist principle. Opportunism by its very nature is a slippery animal, diffuse and lacking in definition. Opportunism and revisionism do not always deny the validity of the basic principles of Marxism-Leninism in general. What tends to happen is that short-term gains or schemes are placed above long-term aims. Thus reforms or holding on to a trade-union position, for example, become more important than political education of the masses. Silence becomes preferable to confronting prejudices (racism, loyalist bigotry or male supremacism to name a few).

When dealing with the errors of the CPGB, I am aware of the loyalty many old CP'ers feel for the Party which was perhaps the best the working class of Britain has produced. I remember when I presented the talks to the Society in 1993, one comrade became particularly upset at the criticisms of Harry Pollitt and even equated the attack as similar to Khruschev's attack on Stalin. I regret that this comrade never gave me the opportunity to meet and talk about this. I have no doubt I could have learned a lot from his direct experience in the CPGB, not least if only to deepen the pamphlets criticism of revisionism. I have since learned, however, that Harry Pollitt refused to take down his picture of Stalin after the 20^th Congress. He also made regular visits to Spain (Five or Six) during the Civil War. This is undoubtedly to his credit but if we are to be loyal to the legacy of Lenin and Stalin we must hold firmly to their strict fidelity to principle in all things. More on this later.

On this question of the CPGB's history at the grass roots, it ought to have been possible to do this but I don't know how and maybe it is a little late now. But there are occasions when the Party leadership were compelled by rank-and-file pressure to support particular actions. The battle of Cable Street, one of the most well known of CPGB actions (maybe because it was a victory), is a case in point. The mobilisation to stop Mosley resulted from pressure from below, as indeed did a lot of the CPGB's anti-fascist activity involving counter-demonstrations and disrupting fascist meetings. Such an analysis of the achievements of the CPGB by its rank and file may be desirable. But I am not the man to do it.

The nature of the founding organisations, principally the BSP and SLP, does explain something of the nature of the CPGB as a united organisation. The BSP was lead by Hyndman until 1916. Lenin described Hyndman as being the best of his class (the bourgeoisie) who stumbled on socialism. He treated Marxism as a dogma and showed a strong inclination to regard himself as Marx's equal. Some texts were available through the BSP in a truncated form, but largely under his leadership the BSP was not schooled in Marxism. The BSP was the largest of the founding organisations. The SLP, on the other hand published many works of Marx, Engels and Lenin. On the first Central Committee of the Party, of the 3 members of the CUG (that is SLP members) 2 that I am aware of (William Paul and Tom Bell) had a profound grasp of theory. William Paul wrote a pamphlet, rather a book, on the nature of the state which was republished by Scots Marxist-Leninists in the 1970's. Perhaps one of the greatest indicators of the SLP's revolutionary credentials was that James Connolly was one of its founding leaders.

However, until 1916 the BSP was led by the arch chauvinist Hyndman who whole-heartedly supported British imperialism in the First World War. This was not an aberration either. He was well known for his extreme nationalism in the SDF, the forerunner of the BSP, which led Engels to encourage Eleanor Marx and William Morris to split from the SDF and form the Socialist League in December, 1884. This quote from 'Under the Red Flag', by Keith Laybourn and Dylan Murphy, describes adequately Hyndman's relationship with Marx and Engels. I quote from page 5.

When Hyndman was expelled, or rather what seems to have been a split in 1916, for the majority of the leadership were jingos, Hyndman formed the first British National Socialist Party drawing most of its membership from Lancashire. The continuing BSP was strongest in London. It is useful to quote Lenin from 'Hyndman on Marx' to get a measure of the man. Quote from 'On Britain' page 134.

It is in the course of struggle that comrades learn most and in the course of the struggle against Hyndman's jingoism the BSP undoubtedly was strengthened theoretically on the nature of social-chauvinism. But it was undoubtedly the October revolution which gave the greatest impetus for communist unity although the imperialist war itself was revolutionising society, even in Britain.

The impact of the October revolution cannot be overstated when studying the development of communist leadership and organisation throughout Europe and the World. The allies were the victors over Germany and they imposed the most ferocious treaty and reparations at Versailles. But when the German Kaiser handed in his sword in surrender on the Belgian or Dutch border, I can't remember which, he did so because Germany could no longer fight. The fear of revolution and rebellion by the troops had compelled the Germans to sue for peace. The Allies cannot be said to have one a military victory. Revolution did break out in Germany in l919. Whilst discontent was widespread and mutinies were occurring on the British and French lines, troops remained compliant and, reinforced by fresh American troops, able to hold the line. But the political awareness of millions of people in Britain had been heightened. Women who had been in domestic service before the war, refused to return to the servility of these occupations after being recruited into industrial work during the war. The middle class constantly complained and demonstrated that they 'couldn't get the staff' to wait on them like before. This was all to the good and shows that war can be good for one thing and that is that it sweeps away the old dying customs and forces of habit never to return. A pity that the War did not sweep away the readiness and habit of the British working class to live under capitalism and the ability of the British ruling class to keep the people in subjection. But the political consciousness of the people had been heightened and the striving for a single revolutionary Party was an urgent necessity.

The formation of the third International made it possible for communists throughout Europe and the World to learn directly from the leaders of the October revolution in fomenting uprising and rebellions to come to the aid of the beleaguered Soviets. The imperialist chain had been broken at its weakest link and the enthusiasm and optimism surrounding this new attempt at the proletariat seizing and holding on to state power must have had a profound affect on socialists at this time. If we can imagine how we would feel today if the workers and peasants in a country the size of Russia, whose people had been down-trodden and despised for centuries, suddenly stood up and became the ruling class able to withstand reaction from within and without. What a tremendous sense of strength we would feel again. And the time will come. Maybe, the working class in Britain will be able to break that weakest link in the chain. We don't know. But I do know this would bring a tremendous impetus to peoples struggling throughout the world. I draw this picture because I want to show some contempt for some wiseacres writing on the history of communism speaking in a derisory way of the influence of the Comintern and the Soviet Union over the international communist movement. The Comintern was a unity yes. But within the different Parties there was a responsibility to apply its general line in a Marxist-Leninist way to the concrete conditions of each country. And this was done most notably by Mao-tse-tung and the Communist Party of China.

I go into more detail in part 1 of the earlier talks I made on the early controversies than I am going to do today. I don't want to just repeat myself. In preparation for this talk, I have spent some time studying Lenin 'On Britain' and 'Left Wing Communism', in particular. Lenin was a thousand times correct in everything he said because the revolutionary leadership he had given had been born out by the practice of the Russian revolution. However, the main problem for the revolutionary movement in Britain comes from the right and not the 'left', although it is true that the two tend to co-exist. Mao's brilliant tenet describing 'leftism' as being 'left' in form but right in essence should never be forgotten and characterises most of our super rrrevolutionaries of the Trotskyite 'left'. Lenin says that the revolutionary temper expressed by the anti-parliamentarians should be nurtured and treasured for without this spirit no communist can hope to arouse the latent revolutionary temper of the masses. I think the opportunists in the CPGB who made ''Left Wing Communism... '' their bible used Lenin's name to cover their own desire to suppress revolutionary propaganda and hamstring communists with safe Parliamentary methods of working.

Lenin was adamant in everything about maintaining communist rights to independent activity when involved in any organisational co-operation with social-democratic parties. He also refers to indissoluble links with the masses as the surest guarantee of maintaining this independent initiative. I quote Lenin from a 'Letter to Sylvia Pankhurst'. On Britain pg. 425.

More on the question of Parliament , Lenin refers to Liebknecht and Luzemburg being correct in 1919 when arguing for participation in Parliament. But being even more correct to not split with the communist party over this question. Is this not an oblique reference criticising Sylvia Pankhurst for refusing to unite with the CPGB because of its support for participation in elections. Of course it is. But is he not also saying that the BSP should not see opposition to Parliamentarism as an impediment to unity. Because of a genuine aversion to the treachery of official social-democracy, steeped in Parliamentarism, is it not a greater indication of revolutionary temper to reject participation in Parliament than to speak eloquently about the need to use the Parliamentary platform. I believe Lenin does lean in this direction and speaks warmly of Sylvia Pankhurst who did have support from the masses of London's East End.

As an aside, I am of the opinion that there is little to be gained from participation by our small numbers in bourgeois elections², especially given that we do not have roots among the masses, firm roots, and especially today when the masses of the proletariat fail to vote at elections and see in Parliament only deceit and corruption. This may change. But the whole point about the question of participation or non-participation is that it should be judged concretely and from the point of view does it advance the interests of communist organisation and the struggle of the masses. I place communist organisation first because without a Party, the proletariat has nothing anyway.

My documents speak of sterile unintelligent support for the policy of class against class and, at the level of the top leadership, it was. But in relation to the trade unions there are signs that the Party membership was beginning to learn how to apply it in relation to strikes and the trade unions. A letter had been sent out to trade union branches and trades councils (I think it was called the black circular) barring communists and members of the Minority Movement from holding office. There can be no doubt this was to allow the class-collaborationists (the supporters of Mondism) full control and isolate the communists. This compelled communists to combine struggling within the trade unions with the building of a rank-and-file movement in opposition to Mondism. In the book 'Under the Red Flag', the authors speak approvingly and a description is given of an emerging rank-and file movement in which communists played an important role. I quote from the 2^nd paragraph page 72.

The short period of l929/32 is insufficient time for any Party membership to learn how to apply such a policy. In fact the first document from the Comintern calling for united front action against fascism dates from when Hitler came to power in l932. Yet the Party was still applying the class against class line and the membership was growing. Clearly, the CPGB leadership, true to form, did not understand the significance of the 1932 change of position vis-à-vis the social-democratic parties. But once they did the experience of the class against class period was rejected as mainly negative and the baby thrown out with the bath water.

When we consider the determination with which Lenin always put principle first and fought tenaciously against the Mensheviks, with very little in his works about the need for unity, why is it that there is so much concern for unity with Labour in these early years of the CPGB? I think it is because the conditions in which British communists were working was so different. In Russia there was already revolutionary feelings and demands drawing in not just the small proletariat and the peasantry but the bourgeoisie too against Tsarist autocracy. Opportunism threatened constantly to divert the masses and corrupt the vanguard but among the masses themselves (even though illiteracy and abject poverty had kept them in a considerable state of backwardness) opportunism was weak It is the influence of social-democracy and opportunism which keeps the working class of Britain relatively backward in terms of political understanding. There are of course, today, far more elements of bourgeois propaganda and decadence which keep the working class tame and docile.

The CPGB has always sought to build what it calls a mass Party. It had Party branches and districts but so has the Labour Party. So how did the CPGB distinguish building its own organisation and how would this differ from the Labour Party which, with its millions of members, did consider itself a mass Party? All the evidence suggests that the CPGB did not consider the question seriously. It was possible to join the CPGB at a public meeting suggesting that the Party was trying to build a membership of loose affiliation to the Party in much the same way one could be a member of the Labour Party. There was a movement to set up factory branches particularly during the war when they were seen as organs of increasing wartime production but this was the exception and was one of the first casualties of the British Road to Socialism.

Of course it is the apple of the eye of every genuine communist party to increase its organisation and influence among the masses. But adherence to principle and the party being of a Marxist type is essential or what are we trying to build. The masses are the Party's sea in which communists must be able to swim like a fish in the water. Also like a fish a communist party will die if it is not deep rooted among the masses like a fish in water. But the Party is distinct from the masses. Not an elite but distinct. The CPGB had never broken with the social-democratic concept of organisation and saw its strength in terms of a constantly growing membership bringing results at election times.

Looking at the RSDLP we know that the Russian Party's history is not one of steady growth from a small Party to a large one which once it was big could be taken seriously. The RSDLP was illegal and went through a period after the 1905/7 revolution, during the time of Stolypin reaction, of disintegration and decline during which time Lenin fought a tenacious struggle against the liquidationism of the Mensheviks. Lenin's watchwords were that the only correct policy is a principled one. The proletariat has an instinct for unity and the Bolsheviks through their close ties with the masses were able to show by their actions that the Mensheviks were the betrayers of unity by their opportunism and treachery.

In Britain legalism, parliamentarism and opportunism have a strong social base making it harder for communists to swim like fish in the sea among the masses. The CPGB, whilst having better contact with the mass of workers than we fledgling Marxist-Leninists have today, was still largely organised outside the factories and workshops. This is what made the question of relations with the Labour Party and the trade-unions so important. It was seen as the means of making contact with the working class. But this is not necessarily the case. The Labour Party does not represent the masses and its membership consists of that upper-strata of the working class which is most legalist and corrupted by imperialism. It consists of the labour aristocracy. And this aristocratic strata of labour were having none of the communist party's applications for affiliation. Social-democracy through the labour aristocracy is a social prop of imperialism and its leaders and many of the craft unions and strata feel they have more to gain from the continuation of capitalism than socialism can offer.

It is my contention that the slogan class against class would upset this upper-strata of labour. But why should it upset the mass of the working class if applied intelligently and not just asserted as a slogan.

The united front policy has almost universally been blamed for the theoretical and political decline of the CPGB. I say almost universally because arguments and discussion documents defending Dimitrov's line are few. It is not so long ago that the Stalin Society was given a talk attacking Dimitrov, the Comintern and the VII World Congress which among other things concluded that Stalin did not favour the policy and that he was a virtual prisoner by its adherents unable to make his voice heard. I am pleased to recall that many comrades spoke well and in a very detailed way against this line which in essence concedes the political ground to the Trotskyists whilst denying Stalin's leading role in the international communist movement. In this talk I am not primarily going to deal with the line which condemns the Comintern VII world congress which was not applied in the same way throughout the international communist movement. However, I make the following quote from Dimitrov's speech on page 633 of volume 1 of Dimitrov's selected works under the heading Political Unity of the Working Class. Quote. Pg. 633

Now comrades in answer to those who rebuke Dimitrov and the Comintern VII world congress for seeking to deny that Lenin's split with the second international was irrevocable and based firmly on principle, should study these words. Lenin repeatedly called for the intelligent application of tactics using methods of unity and struggle to expose social-democracy and loosen its hold over the working class. Given the rise of fascism and even bourgeois strata coming into contradiction with it, Dimitrov is trying to educate the Comintern with the use of revolutionary tactics which must change constantly as the conditions require it but at the same time maintain communist initiative and organisation in the united front. That the CPGB failed to do this is no more Dimitrov's responsibility than the CPGB's failure to apply intelligent and revolutionary tactics against the Labour Party is Lenin's responsibility.

I would say that the CPGB descended into many right-opportunist positions during the period following Dimitrov's speech. But as my previous pamphlets have tried to point out the tendency to right opportunism was always strong in the British Party and this arose primarily from the social conditions existing here.

I have often quoted Mao on the need to grasp the main contradiction in a thing. This is never easy. At the time when the Comintern adopted the line of a united front against fascism the working class throughout the world was under sustained attack. An Axis of fascist powers had been established that had the declared aim of destroying the Soviet Union. In every country there existed a 5^th column of this movement and the major imperialist powers of Britain, France and America were encouraging Germany to attack in the east. At this stage I would say the main contradiction in the world was between capitalism and imperialism, and socialism. The Soviet Union and the communists throughout the world were taking the brunt of the attacks. It is in this light we must understand the correctness of the line of the Comintern and seek to unite with individual organisations and strata who feared fascism also and would support a broad struggle against it. But I think my quote from Dimitrov shows just how much he held firmly to Lenin's view that such compromises must never be allowed to prevent the communists from putting forward their own independent line.

War is the continuation of politics by other i.e. violent means. So how would we characterise the politics of British imperialism leading up to the 2^nd World War. They were the politics of protecting and extending the interests of British imperialism. Appeasement of Nazi fascism was for the purpose of driving it eastwards against the Soviet Union. It is perfectly possible for communists to demand that their own Government cease this policy in defence of the interests of the working class and to rouse the workers against it in the same manner that communists in Britain demanded an end to interventionism against the Soviet Union and the Dockers refused to load the 'Jolly George' carrying armaments against the young Soviet Union. Such a policy could have been carried out in a principled way without embarking on flights of fancy about the benefits of a pact between Britain and the Soviet Union ushering in a new era of peace between capitalism and socialism. But the CPGB did embark on these flights of fancy. More than this, they began to support peace in general being unsure how to react even to Chamberlain's 'Peace in our Time' document signed by the feurer himself. It is fair to say that the CPGB was all at sea during the build up to the War. But asking the question what are the politics deciding Britain's machinations could have helped the CPGB to formulate its own principled position. The British were always trying to encourage Germany eastward to give them the two-fold advantage of seeing an end to Soviet power and/or a weakening of German imperialism and an end to its expansionist ambitions. But, of course, there was always the danger that British imperialism would face an immeasurably strengthened German imperialism if they should succeed against the Soviet Union.

Stalin knew why the Soviet Union was attempting to form an alliance with Britain against Germany. It is a pity that many communists and communist leaderships did not understand the politics of the Soviet Union and understand that the signing of a non-aggression pact with Germany was a continuation of these politics and not a departure. The fact that the western press flew into a rage should have been testimony enough for the correctness of Stalin's policy. To quote Mao who said that to be attacked by the enemy who may paint you as totally black without a single virtue shows that you have not only drawn a clear distinction between yourself and the enemy but have had considerable success in your work.

When the war broke out Harry Pollitt quickly produced and published 'The Road to Victory'. Having given little consideration to the new political situation and failing to analyse the war in a Marxist way the Party regarded support for British Imperialism as the natural continuation of CPGB policy. The CPGB and the Comintern were correct in characterising the war as inter-imperialist for how else could the contradiction between Britain and Germany be characterised. A state of war existing between two nations is a fear indicator of what the main contradiction is. But this was the period of the phoney war when Hitler's blitzkrieg swept across Europe. Stalin undoubtedly hoped for a more spirited resistance by the British and French and was surprised by the fall of France. The inter-imperialist contradiction between the French bourgeoisie and German Nazism proved not to be as strong as its contradiction with Soviet Russia and by their capitulation and co-operation with the Germans allowed Hitler to switch its attention to the Soviet Union. When the Nazis attacked the Soviet Union this changed the nature of the main contradiction in the war. But it did not change the contradiction between Britain and Germany. Britain whilst supporting Soviet Russia with some aid, was still playing the duplicitous aim of wait and see, knowing full well that even if Germany was able to make it to Moscow, they faced a harsh winter and becoming deeply embroiled in their anti-Soviet campaign. Britain sought to succeed against Germany whilst they were bogged down in Russia. But all reactionaries lift a rock only to drop it on their own feet and that is precisely what happened.

The nature of the war changed after the invasion of the Soviet Union but this did not mean it was correct, as Harry Pollitt did, to follow a policy of slavishly tailing after British imperialism. The CPGB's policy during the war years was almost entirely the brainchild of Harry Pollitt. When Harry Pollit returned to the position of General Secretary after the German attack on the Soviet Union is political stranglehold over the Party had been greatly strengthened. The campaign to increase war production, set up works committees between the employers and trade unions, oppose strikes and the political campaign for the opening of the 2^nd Front were all driven by the energy of Harry Pollitt. What of the other leading members? There had always been some kind of division of labour between Palme Dutt and Harry Pollitt. Dutt was the 'theoretician' and Pollitt the down to earth boilermaker who could speak in the language people could understand.

But for communists these were difficult uncharted waters, requiring sober analysis of concrete conditions, clear thought, courage and above all a firm grasp of Marxism-Leninism. Harry Pollitt was not the man to give this kind of leadership. He never was and it is clear to me that Palme Dutt must share equally for the failure of leadership given by the Party at this time.

Every war goes through a lot of different stages. What may have been correct as a slogan in June 1941 when the Soviet Union was losing ground to the German fascists was not necessarily the main question when the Nazis were being driven back to Berlin and the anti-fascist forces were in the ascendancy. What could have possessed the leadership to call for the continuation of the coalition Government in 1945. A Call which even the Labour leaders derided as class-collaborationist. After all its energy in loyally being His Majesties Communist Party and all the energy put into supporting the war effort to the exclusion of the class-struggle, the CPGB was able to return only 2 candidates from Glasgow, Fife and Mile End in the East-End of London. And not long after the end of the war, in l946, Churchill made his famous Iron Curtain speech in Fulton, Missouri.

In Britain Marxism-Leninism is seen as all very well, but after all said and done it is a 'foreign ideology' and we in Britain must devise our own ideas. Among other things this is the legacy of Hyndman. A long time dead yes. But he dominated the SDF for over 30 years. He must have laid is imprint on a whole generation of miseducated Marxists. Anyway, he is only one man. The CPGB's grasp of theory was very weak. A phenomenon which is perhaps not typically English, that is too sweeping a generalisation. But this English trait of avoiding controversy and seeking compromise reflects more the spirit of the bourgeoisie that the proletariat. The British ruling class is steeped in the spirit of compromise not even having the courage to finish off the aristocracy. Here I am reminded of a reference made in, I think it was Harry Pollitt's 'Serving My Time', to the cut and thrust of struggle at the Comintern among the East European parties seeming extreme and alien to the British Party delegates.

A disdain for theory and a pride in being practical created a strong well organised trade union movement admired throughout Europe. At the time of the three day week and the defeat of Heath's attack on the trade unions, I remember having a conversation with some Germans visiting Britain who had the impression that the revolution was at hand in Britain. We had to calmly point out that this was far from the case given the very respectable nature of the British trade union movement. Respectable indeed for only a decade later, the 'mighty' British trade union movement would leave the miners out in the cold and knuckle down in compliance to the most draconian anti-trade union laws we could have short of a complete ban.

Speaking of the British working class disdain for theory, Lenin wrote quoting Engels in 1874:-

I would say that matters have got worse in England in recent years with the increase in American style commercialism and the control of Universities by large corporations. Further, what would seem to be a deliberate policy by the Government and ruling class to deny access by the working class to higher education. I could say that this is not entirely bad since so much of it is miseducation.

Engels continues:-

There is a tendency by some historians of the CPGB to see the Comintern as placing some kind of straight-jacket on the CPGB preventing its own independent development. Opportunism is so strong in Britain, I feel confident in saying that without the Comintern there would have been no single communist party in Britain. The failure of the Marxist- Leninist movement to re-establish a revolutionary communist party after Khruschev's revisionist betrayal and the decline of the CPGB into utter political bankruptcy is evidence enough for this.

Marxist-Leninists should strive to apply dialectics and discern the contradictions within a thing and not just seek cause and effect resulting from external factors only. Mao Tse-Tung in 'On Contradiction' puts it this way - internal factors are the basis of change whilst external influences are the condition of change. Applied to the question we are dealing with i.e. the CPGB, this means we must look to the nature of British society and the class struggle in Britain, an imperialist country. To understand why the CPGB was unable to overcome its tendency to opportunism and why the CPGB did not free itself from legalist and social-democratic prejudices, methods or work and organisation let a start be made in investigating the concrete condition of the workers and oppressed peoples in Britain.

A revolutionary party worthy of its name in an imperialist country must above all be thoroughly internationalist in all things, particularly with regard to the liberation of the oppressed nations and the nature of war in the era of imperialism. All wars must be studied concretely in order to distinguish between just and unjust wars. War is the continuation of politics by other i.e. violent means. A study of the politics in the international arena needs to be done by going beyond the political deception of ruling class politicians and discerning and exposing the real interests behind bourgeois political statements.

Wilf Dixon 22-9-2002

NOTES:

[Note 1]The full name of this document is 'NOTES FOR PRESENTATION TO THE STALIN SOCIETY ON ORIGINS OF REVISIONISM IN THE CPGB'
Back to Text [Note 2]The question of participation in bourgeois elections is treated elsewhere on this site. Specifically, Wilf Dixon refers to it in his longer work on the CPGB.
Back to Text

www.oneParty.org.uk