Talk:Communist Party of Great Britain (Provisional Central Committee)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

If "The Red Platform won their aim" how come "the CPGB(PCC) majority continued to work within Respect."? Doesn't that mean they didn't win their aim? Did they win it at a conference only to have everyone ignore it or something like that?--JK the unwise 16:00, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)

CPGB (PCC) participated in both organizations, until the SA dissolved. Maybe the Red Platform wanted the CPGB to actually leave Respect, not only maintain a presence in the SA. There is a reference in the Weekly Worker to being the only left org in both alliances. Its in a March issue, I think. I'll dig it up soon. DJ Silverfish 20:51, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)
I think they won their aim to participate in the SADP, not their aim to withdraw from RESPECT. No doubt some old Weekly Workers would clarify the situation. Warofdreams 09:42, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)

They participate in both - although somewhat halfheartedly in the SADP. Their support for RESPECT is also increasingly patchy especially following their decision to only support 'working class' candidates at the general election, ie, not the majority of RESPECT. (Annon User: 212.85.15.66)

Warofdreams writes: "Some sources state that his real name is John Chamberlain". If you're going to use such a phrasing, how about providing references to the sources themselves? (Mds 13:31, 12 December 2005 (UTC))

  • For instance, [1], [2], [3] or [4]. All hostile to the CPGB, so clearly not conclusive evidence that it is his real name. But worth mentioning. Warofdreams talk 13:50, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
Quite. Why not add these to the main article page then? Note, though, that the phrasing has since been re-edited. (Mds 14:53, 13 December 2005 (UTC))
  • Remember, anyone can edit Wikipedia. If you feel the article would benefit from more references, feel free to add any helpful links to the article. Warofdreams talk 19:05, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
Yes, thank you for your 'reminder'. It just struck me as odd that when asked to source a claim you stop short at the discussion page and wait for others to edit the original article accordingly. (Mds 13:24, 15 December 2005 (UTC))

Is it just me that finds this article a little too gossipy? I am certainly no supporter of this group (I am a social democrat) but why not some analysis of their shifts on the class nature of Russia? That seems more appropriate than speculation on pseudonyms.

I'm not sure I'd label it gossipy, but I do agree that the article is more discursive than analytical. If you have the requisite background in the party's shifting perspective on Russia, I'm sure we'd all welcome the additional information in the article. Mds

Contents

[edit] John Gregory Chamberlain

I dont know why there seems to be any doubt that "Jack Conrad" and "John bridge" are definately John Chamberlain. He worked for the post office as John Chamberlain, he was in the old YCL as John Chamberlain, and he was employed by the New Communist Party as John Chamberlain (so he must have had a NI number that correspoded to that name). I met him once many years ago, and he told me that his name was John Chamberlain then. If his name was not really John Chamberlain in his earlier incarnations, then something very sinister was going on - which I am not suggesting. I think the only reason for his mutiple names is the man's great vanity.

Three names per member makes the organisation look bigger, as someone has pointed out on Weekly Worker. --Duncan 13:44, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Pedophile organization

Category:Pedophile organizations states that an organization is a pedophile organization if it advocates removing inhibitions against adult-child sex. Removal of age-of-consent laws constitutes the removal of such inhibitions. So, because the CPGB advocates the removal of all age-of-consent laws, per the source cited in a comment embedded with the added category, it is a Pedophile organization according to the criteria that Wikipedia lists. If you have a problem with this, try to change the criteria to be listed in the category -- do not remove sourced material, as that is vandalism. Regards, Corax 11:08, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

Removal of "sourced" material is not vandalism, per se. There are legitimate concerns about the applicability of the category. The poster's special pleading that the link not be erased indicates that he/she is aware of the incendiary nature of the categorization. So let's be very careful about this. Since the source is the website of the organization itself, we need to decide what the cited language means. Does it make any difference if the organization in question does not campaign on this issue, for example? Does it make an difference if the organization in question is endorsing contrarian POV rather than a genuine issue in the topic? Would it make any difference if the organization will speak on the issue publicly, and if so, does the context in which the issue is discussed make any difference to the categorization (i.e. if the issue is raised as part of a discussion of State control versus a discussion of pedophilia per se)? I will post the language in question from the website of the CPGB (PCC) below and the editors of this page and whoever else can comment. DJ Silverfish 16:20, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] CPGB (PCC) Draft Programme

The index to the draft programme of the CPGB (PCC) can be found here:

The entire document can be printed as a 35 page 181 KB PDF document here:

The topics covered include "Gestation" "Preamble" "Our Epoch" "Capitalism in Britain" "Immediate Demands" "Character of the Revolution" "The Transition to Communism" "The Communist Party" "The Communist Party: Principles of Organization" "The Communist Party: Communists and Trade Unions" "The Communist Party: Communists and Religion". The language in question comes within the general section "Immediate Demands" which was the link provided by the user Corax. The language in question is actually in subsection 3.11 Youth. The entire section is below, with the controversial language in bold.

3.11 Youth

Youth are at the sharp end of Britain's capitalist decline. Young workers are in general not protected by trade union membership. Homelessness and unemployment are greatly disproportionate amongst the young. Training on official schemes is notoriously mediocre, designed more to massage government statistics than equip youth with the skills of the future. In the drive to cut costs basic education is under constant attack: with the standard of university education woefully diluted.

Youth are contradictorily fawned upon by advertisers, exploited as cheap labour and blamed for social decay. The system is in fact only interested in youth in terms of the cash register. Every ideal, every artistic talent is judged purely in terms of its ability to generate artificial needs in others. There are many who reject the twisted values of the system. But in despair they often turn to nihilism - itself turned into a commodity by capitalism.

The following demands are of crucial importance for youth:

  • The provision of housing/hostels for youth to enter of their own choice for longer or shorter periods when they lose their parents or choose to leave them.
  • Compulsory education up until the age of 16 and from then on within a fully democratic system. Education should be free and of a polytechnical nature: that is, rounded to include technical skills as well as academic.
  • No religious schools, no private schools.
  • Students over the age of 16 should receive grants set at the level of the minimum wage.
  • The right of every young person on leaving education to either a job, proper training or full benefits.
  • Remove all obstacles to the participation of youth in social life. Votes and the right to be elected from the age of 16.
  • The provision of a broad range of sports and cultural centres under the control of elected representatives of youth.
  • The abolition of age-of-consent laws. We recognise the right of individuals to enter into the sexual relations they choose provided this does not conflict with the rights of others. Alternative legislation to protect children from sexual abuse.
  • The extensive provision of education and counselling facilities on all sexual matters, free from moralistic judgement, is an essential prerequisite to enable youth to develop themselves in all areas of sexuality and reproduction.

This is the context. What do people think? Is this a peophile organization? DJ Silverfish 16:40, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

I think the application of that category to this organisation is ridiculous. The policy which DJ Silverfish has posted above makes it absolutely clear that they are *not* advocating pedophilia, and call for "legislation to protect children from sexual abuse." They could perhaps be a category for organisations opposing age of consent laws, but even that would rather overrepresent the importance of this policy to the CPGB(PCC), which I have never known to campaign on the issue. Warofdreams talk 17:12, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
The question is not, "Would I like for the article to be categorized under Pedophile organizations?" Rather, it is, "Should the article be categorized under Pedophile organizations in light of the criteria established on that category's page?" While the answer to the first question is probably no, the answer to the second question is definitely yes. If you don't like this, feel free to advocate changing the criteria listed on the category's talk page. Reverting the categorization simply because you don't like it is unacceptable, just as removing from the George W. BUsh article text containing criticisms, on the basis that you don't like them, is unacceptable.
As for your comments specifically, Warofdreams, CPGB does not need to advocate for pedophilia. It needs only to advocate the removal of restrictions in sex involving children, which it does through the advocacy of removing age-of-consent laws. I tend to agree with you about creating a category for organizations opposed to age-of-consent laws, but for as long as this article meets at least one of the two criteria listed on the category page, it belongs in that category. Corax 18:13, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
Interesting sophistry. The category will be defined as it goes as organizations like the CPGB (PCC) are excluded. Revise the policies of inclusion based on that exclusion. DJ Silverfish 18:39, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
Interesting how people who can't respond to arguments almost always try to characterize the arguments instead. You're the person who has a problem with the criteria so I don't see why I should be the one to tinker with them. In any event, if I don't see a compelling reason why the group doesn't fit the criteria set by the category, I'm placing it back into the category. Corax 21:11, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
This dispute appears to be related to a dispute over whether the North American Man/Boy Love Association belongs in category:Pedophile organizations. -Will Beback 22:19, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Description

I've removed "Trotskyist" from the description. The group does not call itself Trotskyist, has criticisms of Trotsky and Trotskyism, and is not seen by Trotskyist groups as being Trotskyist. Leninist is the appropriate description. Warofdreams talk 01:36, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

Nope, "Left Shachmanism" is wrong in even more ways. Nobody (except you) describes the group as adhering to "Left Shachtmanism" (see [5] and [6]). The article you claim as a source for this is a signed article, in which a prominent member of the party writes "There is in my opinion much to recommend in Shachtman". This is not a sufficient reference for your claim. If you are interested in writing about the political orientation of the group, a well referenced section on its political influences and description might be of interest. However, even if you were to succeed in demonstrating that the party's ideology were identical to left Shachtmanism, Wikipedia is not a publisher of original research. Adding random terms to the infobox is decidedly unhelpful. Warofdreams talk 02:40, 28 September 2006 (UTC)