The Leninist

What was Straight Left? An introduction by Lawrence Parker

Last week it was announced that Guardian journalist Seamus Milne was to become Labour Party leader Jeremy Corbyn’s new Director of Communications. A number of media reports remarked that Milne was once attached to the Communist Party factional journal Straight Left. However few, particularly in the mainstream media, know much about the Straight Left faction or its role in the final years of the Communist Party of Great Britain. I asked Lawrence Parker, an expert on the hardline oppositional and anti-revisionist groups that emerged from the CPGB, to write a little introduction to those unfamiliar with the history of the Straight Left faction.

Lenin-Leninist small_art_full

Origins

Straight Left’s origins lie in the left pro-Soviet oppositions that emerged in the Communist Party of Great Britain in the 1960s. In this period, a definite ‘party within a party’ emerged, with figures such as Sid French, district secretary of Surrey CPGB, becoming key leaders. The general critique that emerged from this faction was a concern over the CPGB leadership distancing itself from the Soviet Union (such as around the invasion of Czechoslovakia in 1968) and other ‘socialist’ countries; a preference for a more ‘workerist’ identity (for example, the faction would have been happy with the CPGB’s paper remaining as the Daily Worker in 1966) and a concentration on workplaces/trade unions; and a sense that the party was squandering its resources in futile election contests and alienating the left of the Labour Party, with whom it was meant to be developing a close relationship on the British road to socialism (BRS), the CPGB programme. However, a significant part of the faction felt that the BRS was ‘reformist’ and ‘revisionist’ in all its guises from 1951, counter-posing a revolutionary path to the parliamentary road to socialism envisaged in the CPGB’s existing programme. This stance was clouded in ambiguity in many sections of the CPGB’s left, with the default position usually being expressed in a preference for the 1951 version of the BRS overseen by Stalin, as opposed to later versions modified by a ‘revisionist’ CPGB leadership.[i] This opposition suffered a major split in the run-up to the CPGB’s 1977 congress, with Sid French taking away 700 or so supporters to form the New Communist Party (after French realised that the CPGB’s leadership was intent on a reorganisation of his Surrey district, which would have deprived him of his organisational bridgehead). The rump left opposition in the CPGB coalesced around Fergus Nicholson (other key figures were John Foster, Brian Filling, Nick Wright, Susan Michie, Pat Turnbull and Andrew Murray) who had been the CPGB’s student organiser until 1974. The Straight Left newspaper was launched in 1979, with a theoretical magazine, Communist, also appearing. Membership figures are impossible to guess. However, judging from the Communist, the faction did have a wide national infrastructure beyond London through the 1980s and was certainly on a par with, if not in some places more deeper rooted than, the other oppositional stream around the Morning Star (see below).

Factions and fictions

The Straight Left group provoked a lot of enmity from its factional rivals in the CPGB. Thus, Mike Hicks, who was involved in the Communist Campaign Group (CCG), set up after the rebellion of Morning Star supporters against the CPGB leadership in the mid-1980s, and later the first general secretary of the 1988 Communist Party of Britain split (both criticised and opposed by the Straight Left faction), said in the late 1990s: “Straight Left was neither straight nor left.”[ii] Similarly, a CCG document complained: “The individuals grouped around Straight Left have their own newspaper, their own organisation, and their own objectives.”[iii] I have been told anecdotally by CPGB activists of the time that Straight Left was thought to have three circles: an inner ‘Leninist’ core; a broader circle of sympathisers in the CPGB; and the ‘softer’ Labourite and trade unionists grouped around the Straight Left newspaper (non-CPGB trade unionists such as Alan Sapper and Labour MPs such as Joan Maynard were on its advisory board). Certainly, the majority of the content of the newspaper was hewn from the same, dry ‘labour movement’ template used by the Morning Star, with little indication that it was the work of communists, apart from its commentary on the Soviet Union and other international matters. (The Communist journal, obviously aimed at CPGB sympathisers, was much more orthodox and harder Marxist-Leninist in tone, with a lot of very interesting commentary on inner-party CPGB matters.) So, Straight Left was a faction and did indulge in political camouflage but in this it was merely of its time. For example, the CCG’s disavowal of Straight Left’s factionalism was merely an attempt to throw people off the scent from the CCG’s own factionalism (the CCG unconvincingly complained it wasn’t a faction at all; just a group that wanted to follow the CPGB’s rules — which fooled nobody). The CPGB was riddled with factions in the 1980s (and throughout the post-war period), not least those grouped around Marxism Today and the party machine. Similarly, on Straight Left’s broad left camouflage in its newspaper and other forums, this was the modus operandi of nearly the whole far left, from the Morning Star to various Trotskyist groups i.e. communists clothing their politics in everything from trade unionism to feminism and concealing their true aims in the pursuit of mass influence. Again, in hindsight, Straight Left doesn’t strike one as very exceptional in this regard. In retrospect, the enmity aimed at it on these counts stands revealed as the product of mere factional rivalry.

However, another area of criticism aimed at Straight Left may have more mileage in terms of a lasting judgement. The group was deemed by its CPGB factional rivals (both in the CCG and the small group around The Leninist) to have a ‘heads down’ approach to CPGB work. In the words of the CCG such an approach “counsels caution and compliance with the authority of the [CPGB’s] Executive Committee. It says that if there is disagreement and dissatisfaction with the Eurocommunists [the faction then dominating the party’s leadership], then opposition must be expressed and conducted via the normal party channels. That is to say, we must try at successive congresses to defeat and remove the Eurocommunists.”[iv] This led to notorious moves such as Straight Leftists walking out with the CPGB leader Gordon McLennan when he closed down a London District Congress in November 1984 that threatened to become a point of opposition to the party leadership. Mike Hicks, in the chair of this meeting, later contemptuously observed that Straight Left “ended up selling Marxism Today [CPGB theoretical journal much despised by the party’s left in the 1980s for its Eurocommunist proclivities] instead of the Morning Star because the executive told them to”.[v] However, what this Straight Left strategy of avoiding open conflict eventually led to, in the context of a CPGB that was being set on a liquidationist course, was it being left somewhat high and dry. Straight Left had built a considerable base in London by the end of the 1980s “by showing a willingness to take on responsibilities at a time when few candidates were to be found”.[vi] This was to be a very hollow victory indeed given that the CPGB was soon to pass into oblivion and the succession of congresses to win was coming to an end.

Labour pains

In terms of the Labour Party, Straight Left took the BRS injunction of developing an alliance with Labour to effect radical changes to its logical conclusion by arguing that the CPGB should affiliate to the Labour Party and, more controversially for both the left and right of the CPGB, that the party should end its independent electoral work. Thus a typical article in Communist argued: “… it is difficult to see there being much movement against the exclusion of communist trades unionists from the Labour Party until our electoral strategy is based on non-sectarian principles and imbued with a thoroughly consistent and positive attitude to the Labour Party.”[vii] Thus Straight Left picked up clearly on the attitude of the pro-Soviet CPGB opposition of the 1960s, which consistently drew attention to the political impact of declining electoral votes on the avowed Labour-Communist strategy of the party. However, this opened up Straight Left to jibes of ‘liquidationism’ from both left and right in the CPGB[viii] and, in retrospect, isolated the group further.

Men of steel
The Straight Left group, again showing its origins in the CPGB’s pro-Soviet left of the 1960s, took an extremely uncritical view of the Soviet Union and other ‘socialist’ nations, and viewed the actions of the CPGB as a ‘national’ sin against the ‘internationalist’ probity of the Soviet Union’s camp. Straight Left publications were filled with reprints from Soviet agencies such as Novosti and other press agencies from the Eastern Bloc. Thus, an article in Communist argued:

Democracy for the working class has at all times been infinitely greater in the Soviet Union than in Britain. Political power in the Soviet Union is exercised for the working class and not against it. Concretely the Soviet citizen has human rights we are denied. He works for himself, collectively; and he is not unemployed.

Neither did this stance seemingly allow criticism of even the most crisis-stricken and sickly military dictatorships of countries such as Poland in the early 1980s. Straight Leftist Charlie Woods, complaining bitterly of CPGB criticisms of the Polish regime in 1983, said: “After all, how would our [CPGB] leadership take it if the over two-million-strong Polish United Workers Party took time off from trying to solve the problems of socialism to remonstrate with our 16,000-member party’s failure to achieve it at all.”[ix] The implication of this little homily being, of course, that those British communists really shouldn’t venture to criticise their Polish brethren at all. Fergus Nicholson used the pseudonym ‘Harry Steel’ when writing in Straight Left (Harry after Harry Pollitt, the CPGB’s most-revered general secretary; and Steel after Joseph Stalin the so-called ‘man of steel’). The attitude that the faction took to the Soviet Union shows that this was no idle affectation.

The Straight Left journal existed until the early 1990s, but many of its followers ended up joining the Communist Party of Britain, which was set up from the CCG in 1988. Unlike The Leninist faction, which became the new CPGB in the late 1990s, the Straight Left faction faded into obscurity after the breakup of the original Communist Party of Great Britain.

Lawrence Parker is the author of the book, The Kick Inside: Revolutionary Opposition in the CPGB, 1945-1991. He has also contributed a chapter on anti-revisionism inside the CPGB in the 1950s and 1960s for our edited collection, Against the Grain: The British Far Left from 1956.

———————————————————–

[i] It was difficult for a generally Stalin-supporting left in the CPGB to discard the legacy of the 1951 version of the BRS, particularly after John Gollan had helpfully pointed out that Stalin oversaw its incarnation. See John Gollan ‘Which road?’ Marxism Today July 1964. For a clear example of this ambiguity being shown to the BRS, see the contribution of Fergus Nicholson to the CPGB’s 1977 pre-congress debate in Comment 1 October 1977.

[ii] Francis Beckett Enemy within: the rise and fall of the British Communist Party London, 1998 p234. The accession of a group of ex-Straight Leftists (including Andrew Murray and Nick Wright, who had split from Straight Left to form Communist Liaison in the early 1990s) into the ranks of the Communist Party of Britain, contributed to a bitter faction fight in the organisation, in which Hicks was eventually deposed as general secretary and a strike by Morning Star staff.

[iii] Communist Campaign Group The crisis in the Communist Party and the way forward (no date but circa 1985)

[iv] Ibid.

[v] Beckett op cit

[vi] Willie Thompson The good old cause: British communism 1920-1991 London, 1992 p205

[vii] ‘40th congress of the Communist Party’ Communist September 1987

[viii] For the right wing of the CPGB, see Dave Cook in the pre-congress discussion of 1981; and for the left, Alan Stevens in the same context. Both in Comment 17 October 1981.

[ix] Charlie Woods The crisis in our Communist Party: cause, effect and cure 1983. Woods was a miner and party veteran from County Durham who was expelled for writing this pamphlet although he was very much viewed as a ‘fall guy’, with Fergus Nicholson or Brian Topping thought of as the more likely authors.

‘Homosexuality and punk rock’: Conflicting social attitudes in the 1970s Young Communist League

4186811125_6f1bce723b

Several authors, such as Mike Waite and Geoff Andrews, have argued that the Young Communist League was an important incubator for ideas of reform within the Communist Party of Great Britain in the 1970s, with YCL members of the late 1960s and early 1970s being fundamental to the Gramscian/Eurocommunist ideas proposed ion the mid-1970s, predominantly concerning the redrafting of The British Road to Socialism in 1976-77. Even though, as I have written here, that the YCL was haemorrhaging members throughout the late 1970s and early 1980s, the YCL still was at the forefront of embracing these reforms and promoting the notion of the ‘broad democratic alliance’. For example, it was the YCL that pushed for a recognition of gay rights by the Communist Party, which caused much consternation within the Party and debated across the pages of Comment in 1976.

However while the YCL was generally at the forefront of progressive reform within the Communist Party, it was not a homogenous organisation and there were some sections of the League which rejected the direction that the Party was moving in – even some of the YCL left to form the youth wing of the New Communist Party in 1977-78 (and some of those returned to the CPGB under the guise of The Leninist faction in the early 1980s). Looking through the archives of the CPGB (as our university currently has a trial subscription to the online version), I found an example of this resistance from YCLers in a 1978 letter (CP/CENT/EC/16/04).

In late April 1978, the Haringey YCL branch wrote to the Executive Committee of the CPGB complaining about the direction of the YCL and the topics raised in the League’s paper Challenge. Steve Munby had taken over editorship of the paper in December 1978 and as Graham Stevenson has written, ‘In a conscious way, Challenge now took on the new youth cult of punk music and culture.’ This coincided with the rise of Rock Against Racism and the Anti-Nazi League, which, as I have discussed here, featured heavily under Munby’s editorship.

But the Haringey branch complained that the YCL priorities of ‘campaigning on the issues of youth unemployment and racialism’ were ‘not being reflected in the pages of Challenge.’ The branch raised particular criticism of the two last two issues since Munby had become editor, complaining:

Issue no. 51 is almost completely devoted to punk rock and homosexuality. 6 out of 8 pages, or approximately 75% of the paper is devoted to these topics.

Issue no. 52 has 3 out of 8 pages on punk rock. Issue no. 52 also uses the slang term “Commie” frequently ( a term we are more used to hearing from the NF and the Tories, than members of the YCL).

Obscene cartoons and foul language have also become a feature of these editions of Challenge.

The branch expressed that it was their fear that if the paper continued ‘to give an inordinate amount of space to homosexuality and punk rock’ then the YCL would be ‘held in contempt’ by the CPGB and the wider labour movement, despite the CPGB EC endorsing a platform of gay rights only a year and half earlier. The Haringey branch stated that these topics were ‘not the major concerns facing the [labour] movement’ and were being highlighted at the expense of the ‘real issues confronting young people’, which the branch felt was ‘outrageous’.

The branch further claimed that Party members who had read the paper had been ‘appalled and disgusted by its contents’ and the reaction by the public had been ‘scorn and ridicule’. The letter concluded with a call for the EC to discuss the paper at its next meeting. The letter also noted that its content had been passed unanimously by the branch.

The archives also contain the reply sent by the EC to the Haringey YCL branch. The CPGB’s Assistant Secretary Reuben Falber replied:

It is the view of the Executive Committee that you should raise this matter with the Executive Committee of the YCL, who are responsible for the production of Challenge.

Unfortunately the papers of the YCL have not been digitised, so I haven’t been able to find whether the issue was taken up with the YCL’s EC. However it is most probable that the YCL EC would have rejected this proposal from the Haringey branch. A report by the YCL’s London District Secretary Nina Temple (who was later the CPGB’s last General Secretary) to the League’s 1979 Congress and the CPGB’s Political Committee celebrated that Challenge had ‘tuned into punk and reggae, unemployment and anti-racism, far ahead of the rest of the left and popular press’ – although this is highly disputable, with RAR/ANL taking the initiative and leaving the YCL behind with regards to these issues (CP/CENT/PC/15/01). Gay rights were also seen as integral to the ‘broad democratic alliance’ and the struggle for socialism. The YCL programme Our Future presented at the 1979 YCL Congress made a statement about ‘unity’, which included:

Gay people contribute to the fight on opposition to sexual straitjacketing and a demand for freedom of expression in our personal relationships.

The schism between the ‘Euros’ and the ‘tankies’ in the CPGB in the 1980s has often been characterised as a generational schism, with those who entered the Party in the late 1960s onwards coming up against the ‘old guard’ who had survived the crises of 1956. But documents such as this letter from the Haringey YCL branch remind us that the divisions in the Party were much more complicated.

 

 

Far Left book has arrived!

I am back at work after two weeks with dreadful sickness and was happy to have received a package from MUP.

far left book

The book can be pre-ordered from Manchester University Press now. I know that 75 quid is a tad on the pricey side, but if enough institutional libraries (and the like) buy copies now, a much more affordable paperback edition should be out next year.

The British left and immigration: Weekly Worker cites Hatful of History blog

WeeklyWorker

This post is just a brief one to note that Peter Manson from the Weekly Worker (the newspaper of the new-ish CPGB – more info on their origins here) quotes from this blog at length in a discussion of the British left (primarily the Communist Party of Britain and the Socialist Party) and their position on immigration controls.  The article quotes extensively on the position of the old CPGB and argues that this forms the basis for the CPB’s (and thus the Morning Star‘s) current position, which is in favour of ‘non-racist’ controls. Manson’s main argument is that the CPB and the SP (the main group behind electoral party No2EU) are playing a ‘fool’s game’ which takes the lead of UKIP. The CPGB hold the position of no immigration controls whatsoever, but Manson doesn’t mention that this is also the position of the Socialist Workers Party, which I think would’ve been worth making clear – even though the focus was on the CPB/SP.

You can read the original post that Manson cites here.

New stuff for those interested in communist history

For those interested in communist history, I just thought I’d flag two new publications.

TCC6-cover

Firstly, there is a new issue (#6) of Twentieth Century Communism journal has just been published by Lawrence & Wishart. Now published twice a year, this journal has some of cutting-edge historical research on communism (particularly communism in the Western world). This issue is dedicated to the topic of anti-communism and there are two free articles – one on the historiography of anti-communism and one on the different types of anti-communism in the twentieth century. For an academic journal, Twentieth Century Communism is refreshingly affordable for non-academic reader, so I would urge you all to subscribe!

Leninist

Secondly, the CPGB have now published 1000 issues of the Weekly Worker (beginning in 1993) and to celebrate have posted two articles on the history of the CPGB and The Leninistone looking at the legacy of The Leninist and one on the first conference of The Leninist group. The CPGB have already published all the back issues of The Leninist in pdf format, which is a great resource for future research into the dying days of the original CPGB.

That is it for now. So get reading!