Weekly Worker

Communist Party of Great Britain (CPGB)

Two and a half months' debate: socialism or vote-catching?

Over the next two and a half months, a fundamental debate will be run among some hundreds of left activists, most of them at present politically homeless and looking for a way forward. At the founding conference on 30 November of the Left Unity group, the main debate will be between the "Left Party Platform" (LPP), proposed by Kate Hudson and others, and the "Socialist Platform" (SP), proposed by Nick Wrack, Soraya Lawrence, Will McMahon, Chris Strafford, Cat Rylance, and others. Former Socialist Worker journalist Tom Walker, now a member of the SWP-splinter ISN, explains his support for the...

"Brittle, Irrational and Childlike" - Response to Mark Fischer

On 4 April the Weekly Worker newspaper published a letter from Weekly Worker/CPGB full-time organiser Mark Fischer referring to me (but not mentioning me by name). The letter referred to a real incident in which I was leafleting outside my workplace in defence of a Weekly Worker supporter who is being victimised by our management. When leading Sheffield SWPer Maxine Bowler appeared and went into the building, I became quite upset. The letter claims this is because of Bowler's role on the SWP Disputes Committee in the Martin Smith case, and goes into a laboured attempt at satire (perhaps I...

The CPGB on Vestas: ignorant or sectarian?

The Weekly Worker , published by the so-called "Communist Party of Great Britain" group, generally focuses its coverage obsessively on the activities of the far left. That fact is well known, and proudly defended by the CPGB. When the Weekly Worker does report on events in the class struggle, it is almost always through the lens of the left's involvement, or at least heavily peppered with references to the left. The Weekly Worker 's reports on the Vestas struggle ( here and here ) therefore make interesting reading. Even if one ignores the various minor semi-errors, the reports come across as...

Open letter to the left from the SWP; and the AWL's reply

Open letter to the left from the SWP; and the AWL's reply An open letter to the left from the Socialist Workers Party It’s time to create a socialist alternative Dear comrade, Labour’s vote collapsed to a historic low in last week’s elections as the right made gains. The Tories under David Cameron are now set to win the next general election. The British National Party (BNP) secured two seats in the European parliament. Never before have fascists achieved such a success in Britain. The result has sent a shockwave across the labour and anti-fascist movements, and the left. The meltdown of the...

Third period tankie CPGB upset

Unwilling to debate the AWL in public, the so-called CPGB continues its snipping at us from the safe distance of its paper. In the latest WW (748) Lawrence Parker, apparently a “writer on the revolutionary oppositions within the post-war Communist Party” takes up our political characterisation of...

WW and the Israel/Iran debate: what I got wrong

I got something wrong in my previous comments on the current Weekly Worker campaign - which consists of wriggling out of debate with AWL on Israel and Iran and at the same time claiming that we evade debate with them . An article by Peter Manson in Weekly Worker 746 contains nothing new on the campaign, but provides a suitable occasion to correct the error. It also provides an opportunity to alert readers to a new political turn by the WW, being undertaken under cover of the smokescreen provided by the campaign. Strictly speaking, Manson's screed includes one new thing: a complaint that AWL...

New evasions from Weekly Worker

"Matgamna [Sean Matgamna of AWL] knows he would be forced to state openly that he believes an Israeli attack [on Iran] justified...", claims Mark Fischer in Weekly Worker 745 (13 November). And what would "force" Matgamna to do that? Presumably also to "state openly" that two plus two equals five, and that the Weekly Worker tells the truth? According to Mark Fischer, what would "force" it is the holding of a debate under the title "What If Israel Bombs Iran". You see, Sean Matgamna doesn't justify or support an Israeli attack on Iran (let alone a nuclear one!). He said in a face-to-face debate...

AWL-WW correspondence over a debate on Israel and Iran, Oct-Nov 2008

Song of the Weekly Worker I'm so small! But I'm poisonous too; What I say is at best but half-true: I spread gossip thin, So they'll think I'm well in; But I'm useful, torn up in the loo! __________ In August AWL approached the Weekly Worker group for a debate on Israel and Iran. The WW group has wriggled out of this debate, while simultaneously, at the top of its voice, accusing AWL of refusing to debate with WW! Bizarre? Yes. But here's the correspondence since 14 October, so that readers can see for themselves that there is no fire behind the billowing masses of WW smoke on this question...

Weekly Worker: The Case of the Gutless Libel-Merchants. Again on the Pretend "CPGB", Israel, and Iran

Following the debate on 12 October on Israel and Iran between Sean Matgamna of AWL and Moshe Machover, AWL wrote to the Weekly Worker group proposing a debate between AWL and WW under a similar title ("Israel, Iran, and socialist politics" - the 12 October was "Israel, Iran, and the left"). Click here for the debate on Israel-Iran since July 2008 , and here for the story so far on WW wriggling out of debate. That was on 14 October. WW agreed, reserving judgement on the date. Then on 22 October they sent an email "insisting" that the title of the debate be changed to "What If Israel Bombs Iran...

Weekly Worker wriggling out again?

As some readers will know, for nearly three months now the Weekly Worker has given over a large part of its coverage to high-pitched attacks on the AWL. For background, and previous polemic, click here But now, once again, the WW group seems to be wriggling out of a debate with AWL on the underlying political issues. On 3 August, Sean Matgamna of AWL issued a public challenge to the WW group to debate AWL on the underlying political question, Israel-Palestine. We followed up with an email on 19 August, and WW seemed to agree to debate. However - it's still not clear to me exactly how - at some...

This website uses cookies, you can find out more and set your preferences here.
By continuing to use this website, you agree to our Privacy Policy and Terms & Conditions.