Talk:Communist Party of Britain

User:217.158.116.234 wrote: At the last general election in 2001 the CPB ran six candidates whose total vote came to 1,003. Is there a source for this? DJ Silverfish 20:19, 4 May 2005 (UTC)Reply

CPB election results

2001 elections -- CPB vote reported in the Morning Star early May 2005 elections -- Full details of CPB vote and all other left candidates can be found at: [1]

I'm in the process of collating the election results from 2010 with sources from the electoral commission. If anyone has details on the candidates who stood in 2005 that would be great. Extua (talk) 10:25, 28 March 2013 (UTC)Reply

2010 and 2005 done. Extua (talk) 21:44, 28 March 2013 (UTC)Reply

The Morning Star is exactly that. See [2]. All other socialist newspapers are either not in English (ie. Granma) or not daily (ie. the Weekly Worker). The Morning Star can claim to be definitely socialist because, unlike those who may be socialistic or left-leaning, the editorial board of the newspaper have to abide by Britain's Road to Socialism, and is, therefore, consistently socialist.

So what about Newsline, published by WRP? --Soman 19:30, 10 May 2005 (UTC)Reply

It's not availible in newsagents, consists of no more than half a dozen articles or pieces and is, effectively, a mouthpiece for the WRP's leading members rather than a newspaper per se. In addition to this, it's also a pile of poo... Drky500 13:18, 22 May 2005 (UTC)Reply

I've changed it to "One of the only English-language socialist daily newspapers". Despite what you say above, I feel that the case for the Newsline not being a newspaper is very POV.

"One of the only..." is a meaningless phrase -- it could refer to one of two or one of ten million. Manormadman 23:04, 2 October 2007 (UTC)ManormadmanReply

Does Newsline publish a daily print edition and if so, exactly what does it look like? If it lacks the following, maybe it isn't a paper, but only a newsletter or bulletin.

• Columnists (Morning Star features non-party members like Tony Benn as regular columnists.)
• Local, national, and international reporting
• Regular Sport, Entertainment and pop (non-party) Lit Review sections
• Editorial columns distinguished from news articles

The last might be tricky to define, but its a standard pretence for newspapers. If Newsline is only a few pages long it really isn't a paper. DJ Silverfish 19:57, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

http://www.wrp.org.uk/news/index.shtml is Newsline. Make your mind up...

newsline is more then a few pages.

Newsline is certainly a socialist daily. Furthermore, what about the Italian left dailies: Il Manifesto, L'Unita, and Neues Deutschland, the paper of the PDS? --Duncan 01:46, 27 April 2007 (UTC)Reply

Ahem, I believe they are not in English...Troublemaker1973 (talk) 13:14, 9 October 2008 (UTC)Reply

I have removed the reference to the SWP as a "long term rival" making claims that the CPB has an elderly membership, as those claims dont particularly come from the SWP. Anyway, the wording is not very Wiki, and should not be part of an article.

The hammer and dove, wich I had never heard of before, should be properly explained - especially as the article hammer and dove redirects here. Does anyone know anything about it? --Axel Löfving 21:13, 30 June 2006 (UTC)Reply

The hammer and dove article was - apparently - deleted. I have rescued its content and put it in the hammer and sickle article under "Other similar symbols". Also I have altered the redirect so that it now points to hammer and sickle.

Given that the result in the vote for deletion was only two in favour with none against, this demonstrates the value of setting a watch on articles that are felt to be important. Rugxulo 20:14, 9 July 2006 (UTC)Reply

I created this Userbox for any supporters to put on their user page.

This user supports the Communist Party of Britain.

{{User:Willy turner/Userboxes/Communist Party of Britain}}

Willy turner 05:58, 27 April 2007 (UTC)Reply

This is a online encyclopedia, not a political party drive. Highcount. 12:56, 14 November 2007 (UTC)Reply

They should rename themselves Communist Party of GREAT Britain seeing as BRITAIN includes Ulster! It's very offensive that a so-called British party does not consider Ulster British. A seperate party for each of the main islands in the British Isles is nonsense anyway particularly how small each one of the parties is. One party to cover the whole of the British Isles is plenty. YourPTR! (talk) 16:42, 12 December 2007 (UTC)Reply

WP:SOAP. --Soman (talk) 16:57, 12 December 2007 (UTC)Reply

Well, actually Britain, or Great Britain, doesn't include "Ulster". The official name of our current state is "The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland". From a Communist perspective, Ireland, including the six counties in Northern Ireland, is covered by the Communist Party of Ireland. But as is pointed out, Wikipedia is not a soapbox... Grmdy (talk) 21:51, 24 April 2008 (UTC)Reply

THere already is a Communist Party of Great Britain, which is a different organisation, from what I understand. Ground Zero | t 17:46, 12 December 2007 (UTC)Reply

The UK (which "Britain" usually refers to) includes just 6 of Ulster's 9 counties. And even if you were right, it's completely irrelevant - unless you want "At least 1 Wikipedian feels that the party should be renamed" stuck in the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.132.36.119 (talk) 17:10, 15 January 2010 (UTC)Reply

Can this discussion be removed or archived somehow? We are here to write about the party, not rename it or offer it advice Olørin (talk) 22:13, 20 December 2011 (UTC) I agree, this discussion should be removed, it is a issue for the complainant and the party itself, Wikipedia has no writ over the naming of any political party, that I know of up to March 2023.Reply

 

Image:CPB Logo.gif is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 07:19, 2 January 2008 (UTC)Reply

User: Political Dweeb is responsible for putting this edit into the CPB's policy on their position on religion. I just wanted to understand like any other person this political party's position on religion. Please tell me if this edit on this political party's position on religion needs improved in a way that is suitable. Hope someone replies thank you. Political Dweeb (talk) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.235.228.121 (talk) 18:55, 18 May 2008 (UTC)Reply

I've updated your edit for grammar. Grmdy (talk) 15:38, 23 May 2008 (UTC)Reply

Areas of this page are a bit of a mess. Many of the references are now broken links, a simple fix. The party has also this year released a new version of its program "Britain's Road to Socialism" - this should be reflected, especially in the areas that reference party policy.

Other areas are merely out of date. The University section makes reference to events now 6 years old, surely more generic information is better for this section.

Similarly the publications section seems rather irrelevant - do we really need a list of pamphlets - this is an encyclopedia, not a shop.

I am willing to do this work, but would like to know people's opinions before I begin. Olørin (talk) 22:10, 20 December 2011 (UTC)Reply

I have now updated the publications section. Extua (talk) 15:57, 16 April 2013 (UTC)Reply

Union activism, I think, should include a link to http://employees.org.uk/union-failure.html#7 "Dragons Den on Drugs", but I know this is a ya-boo kind of subject and will leave the decision to those who look this page often. My personal interest is as a person let-down by a bad union, rather than someone for or against anything else about CPB; I just saw this page by accident. Veganline (talk) 11:21, 12 December 2013 (UTC)Reply

Links had been added to Facebook. I've changed them as follows: Removed the links to the Morning Star Facebook Group - these should be on the Morning Star page. Removed the link to the "old" Facebook group because it is old. Moved the link to the Facebook supporters group into the list of links and kept consistent styling. Olørin (talk) 11:24, 30 December 2011 (UTC)Reply

For simplicity's sake, although the Communist Party of Britain, whom operate within the Marxist-Leninist tradition, seek the creation of a socialist society (socialism), their ultimate aim is the withering away of the socialist state altogether and the consequent creation of a communist society (communism), therefore their ideology is Communism, not Socialism, as they do not wish to halt progress at the socialist stage (transitional stage), but wish for the full emancipation of the proletariat via the communist stage. Netsurfer123 (talk) 09:04, 15 February 2013 (UTC)Reply

Agreed Olørin (talk) 08:56, 20 March 2013 (UTC)Reply

Seems to contain a lot of information about the breakup of the CPGB rather than directly relevant information on the CPB. I'm thinking especially the stuff about the cpgb-ml and the NCP, this has nothing to do with the CPB. Olørin (talk) 08:54, 20 March 2013 (UTC)Reply

True, edit it out. Extua (talk) 10:50, 20 March 2013 (UTC)Reply

Done Olørin (talk) 19:09, 20 March 2013 (UTC)Reply

The electoral information is relevant, but could be expanded. Will need to do research to get full figures for more elections. While size is important, I don't think "claimed membership in 2004" is very useful at all. Plus I've looked at other political parties and very few reveal financial information on Wikipedia - I don't see why we should Olørin (talk) 08:54, 20 March 2013 (UTC)Reply

I've streamlined the membership information down to a table for now, and included a comment about branches. I will ask the office for more accurate information to fill in the missing years. Also, how many branches are there in total? Remove the financial information if you want as it's not so relevant. Extua (talk) 10:45, 20 March 2013 (UTC)Reply

CPB candidates stood in elections recently so we could do with updating the election information. Unlike some parties on the left the CPB has a strong electoral history and that should be reflected in the article. Extua (talk) 10:49, 20 March 2013 (UTC)Reply

I've updated the membership info with official figures - although these aren't published online and I'm still not sure about revealing them. Financial information tidied up to what is published in the electoral commission website. Don't have any electoral figures to hand and don't have the energy to compile them! Olørin (talk) 19:37, 20 March 2013 (UTC)Reply

I don't think there's anything particularly dangerous about the official membership figures, they should be public anyway, if it's a breach of information somehow then we can get rid of it. I've added the 2010 and 2005 general election results and plan to carry on with by-elections and local election results. Extua (talk) 21:52, 28 March 2013 (UTC)Reply

On 10th May, User:CharlieChaz added the party's seats in government to the infobox. As we can see, the party has got no seats in the House of Commons, or the House of Lords, or in local government, so the information is a little redundant. I'm in favour of removing it from the infobox, what do others think? Extua (talk) 08:33, 4 June 2015 (UTC)Reply

The infobox information about the number of seats is given for the SWP and Respect too in the respective articles, as for the larger parties. Not everyone reading this article is going to be aware that the CP has no seats at all, so its important that this is clear. Philip Cross (talk) 09:24, 4 June 2015 (UTC)Reply

The infobox changes were introduced to the SWP by User:CharlieChaz too. Perhaps it should just be clarified in the 'size and electoral information' section, rather than highlighted in the infobox. I don't consider it important to flag up the CPB's lack of seats, particularly as its work goes far beyond attempting to gain representation in bourgeois parliaments. Extua (talk) 10:03, 4 June 2015 (UTC)Reply

User:Garageland66 insists that a court case against the Electoral Commission has allowed the Communist Party of Britain to simplify its name to the Communist Party. Despite the obvious interest such a battle would gain in the mainstream press or in the left blogs, I cannot find any online sources confirming this development. The mentions in the media during the election were to the CPB, not the Communist Party, and the Electoral Commission still maintains that the party's name is the Communist Party of Britain. Philip Cross (talk) 10:17, 4 June 2015 (UTC)Reply

I think it makes sense to alter the name on Wikipedia, left activists commonly refer to it as just the Communist Party. Other parties on Wikipedia also follow a similar naming format, eg. Labour Party (UK) or Socialist Party (England and Wales). Wit the Electoral Commission, as I understand it, the Communist Party is the only party allowed to use the description 'Communist Party' and the Hammer and Sickle symbol. Extua (talk) 18:57, 4 June 2015 (UTC)Reply

It is usual on Wikipedia to make claims based on published third-party sources, not the say-so of an individual editor. Their is no available confirmation for what User:Garageland66 has said, apart from the change to the Communist Party of Britain's website, which may simply be unilateral. I checked for all registered parties termed Communist Party on the Electoral Commission's website, and of the three results, the Communist Party of Britain was the only one this article could possibly refer to. The website may have a backlog of updates, but the actual registration has not been changed. Philip Cross (talk) 19:50, 4 June 2015 (UTC)Reply

The point is that the registration allows only for the CP to use the words Communist or Communist Party in elections. Likewise only the SPGB can use the words Socialist Party in elections, the Socialist Party of England and Wales cannot. So over the last two years the CP has elected to use only the name Communist Party and the Morning Star refers to it only as the Communist Party. User:Garageland66 (User talk:Garageland66 — Preceding undated comment added 08:00, 5 June 2015 (UTC)Reply

Why has this article been renamed to Communist Party (UK) rather than Communist Party (Britain)? For good or ill, the terms UK and Britain refer to different geographical areas, and this Party is still focussed on the one defined by "Britain", not that defined by "the UK". The name change to drop an explicit Britain from the title was not some sudden annexing of the Marxists of Northern Ireland! Andy Dingley (talk) 23:48, 5 June 2015 (UTC)Reply

The reason is that Wikipedia doesn't recognise Britain. It only recognises the United Kingdom. Hence Labour Party (UK), Conservative Party (UK) etc. (However, the Communist Party itself doesn't recognise the UK, does not recognise Northern Ireland and does not organise there.) Garageland66 (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 07:57, 6 June 2015 (UTC)Reply

Surely though WP doesn't "recognise" anything - it always works by reference to independent reliable sources. WP just does not get to define that "Britain doesn't exist, use UK instead". Andy Dingley (talk) 08:56, 7 June 2015 (UTC)Reply

• There needs to be consistency. The Socialist Party of England and Wales does not use the "England and Wales" when describing itself and this is recognised by Wikipedia using Socialist Party (England and Wales). "CPB" was only used to differentiate from the "CPGB". Now the CPGB no longer exists the "of Britain" has gradually dropped out of use and should be reflected in the Wiki article. Even the Morning Star now states "Communist Party" rather than "Communist Party of Britain". It previously used CPB because of objections by the CPGB-PCC. (Garageland66 (talk) 10:17, 30 August 2015 (UTC))Reply

• By contrast the Green Party of England and Wales DOES use this full name in its own material and on it's own website. It therefore makes sense for Wikipedia to reflect this. (Garageland66 (talk) 11:12, 30 August 2015 (UTC))Reply

This has gone back and forth at least four times now, with different editors claiming "far-left" and one editor reverting to "left-wing".

It does not matter what the European Communist, or Eurocommunist, parties are judged as. This is about the Communist Party of Britain. They just don't need to have the same politics - no reason, and no sourced reason, why they should.

Far-left, IMHO, is defined consistently with the WP definition. It distinguishes itself from left-wing politics with the stronger call, "The far left seeks equality of outcome and the dismantlement of all forms of social stratification." Using such terms, the article here should use far-left, not just left-wing.

The definition we should be following is that of the terms used, not just drawing parallels (and IMHO tenuous parallels) with other European communist parties. Andy Dingley (talk) 13:53, 28 June 2015 (UTC)Reply

There are a number of problems with this. Firstly we are constantly reminded that reference to Wikipedia are not sufficient. So why use the Wiki definition of Far Left? Indeed the Wiki definition of Left-wing includes Marxism. So why not refer to that? And why cherry pick which Communist Parties to make Wiki comparisons to, when Wiki defines west European Communist Parties (the French, the Spanish, the Italian, the Dutch and the Portugese) as Left-wing rather than Far Left. So what's the evidence that the British Party is the only one in Western Europe that's further to the left than the other Communist Parties? None has been provided.

So the description has been reversed again to state Far Left as the result of the contention that the situations in France, Spain and elsewhere have no bearing on the British situation. Yet the reversal now has a reference added (supposedly to verify the assertion that the British Party is Far Left) yet the reference is to a book on the Chinese political system!?!!!

Those in the know, know that for years IN BRITISH POLITICS the term far left is reserved for describing the ultra-left Trotskyist parties such as the SWP, the SPEW and the WRP.

So can you please either reverse the description to Left wing, in line with the descripion for all other west European Communist Parties or provide a valid reference? garageland66 (talk — Preceding undated comment added 15:47, 28 June 2015 (UTC)Reply

• Left wing is not an alternative to far left, it is a superset of it. There is no contradiction if both of them include Marxism or the Trots.

WP is not seen as RS, but sometimes it does manage to be usefully accurate. The definition given here seems a useful one for the distinction we're trying to make. It's obviously sourced in that article, so no point it duplicating that here.

I'm not cherry picking which parties to compare to, I'm avoiding all comparisons to other parties. We should find a standard definition and compare to that instead. When we do so, using the definition cited, we find that the British party is indeed further left (from their own statements and my observations, I haven't done RS legwork here but doubt it would be hard). Since WWII, communist parties have been electable (even if not having much chance of government) in mainland Western Europe in a way that has been basically implausible for the UK. Put it down to first past the post making a communist vote unpalatable, a once strong single GB Labour party attracting union support that might instead have supported commmunists in France or Italy, or whatever, but it's a fairly straightforward observation.

I know of no reason why UK politics has or would reserve the "far left" label for the SWP but _not_ a mainstream Marxist party. The pre-Blair Labour party was left wing, British Communists were (I think you will agree, even in Foot's day) to the left of that. We need a distinction for that. I see no such distinction needed between SWP, RCP, CPGB.

As to political dogma, then I think it comes down to that "...the dismantlement of..." clause. Even Milliband supported equality of outcome, he just wouldn't work to implement it. The Labour party has broadly been in favour of equality, so long as it didn't involve scaring the horses to do so. It took Blair to get rid of Clause IV, but it had been a long while since Labour had acted to make it happen. Maintaining social ownership where it already exists is left wing, but to place the means of production into the hands of the state, in a Marxist sense, that is where it becomes far left. Andy Dingley (talk) 01:24, 29 June 2015 (UTC)Reply

There's an article in this weekend's edition of the Bournemouth Echo, featuring this paragraph:

“I went to art college and I think my politics were much more left-wing than they are now,” he says. Like most people of a left-wing persuasion he is ferociously interested in politics as a transforming agent to bring about a better society. But despite his passion he is happy to admit that this kind of devotion to left-wing causes is very rare these days.

See, it's described as left-wing, not far-left-wing. Extua (talk) 16:39, 30 June 2015 (UTC)Reply

• So what? No-one is denying that it's left-wing, merely claiming that it's a far-left subset within that. Andy Dingley (talk) 16:56, 30 June 2015 (UTC)Reply

The point is that if it was far-left then it would have been described as such, but as it happens Pete's communist politics are just described as left-wing and nothing more specific. Extua (talk) 17:42, 30 June 2015 (UTC)Reply

• Why? He was asked, "Describe your politics in general terms, to a local district full of UKIPers". In that context it's not unreasonable to say "left wing". If he'd been asked (as is our problem here), "What's the difference between your politics and the Labour Party?" he'd have given a different answer. Andy Dingley (talk) 18:05, 30 June 2015 (UTC)Reply

This has gone backwards and forwards for some time now. I've re-inserted the Left wing position with references to two credible academic reference books. If there is still no consensus, can I suggest that political position is in future omitted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Garageland66 (talk • contribs) 10:15, 17 July 2015 (UTC)Reply

But if anyone adds a source stating "far left", you then remove it.

No one disputes that "left wing" is a term often applied. As are "party" and "not Tory". However the CP is also more than this, it it a far-left party in addition, as numerous sources will attest. I also see no RS stating "CP is not a far-left party". Andy Dingley (talk) 18:03, 17 July 2015 (UTC)Reply

Garageland66 has asserted that the CPB is reformist and Marxist-Leninist. Clearly it cannot be both. He has also changed references to the Communist Party in other articles (in place of the Communist Party of Britain) going back to 1988, when no reputable source would have used the simpler form because the CPGB still existed. Philip Cross (talk) 18:37, 17 July 2015 (UTC)Reply

It would appear that there are three recurring problems with describing this organisation.

1. Founded year: the CPGB (which dates back to 1920) abandoned Marxism-Leninism and adopted Eurocommunism which created the crisis. The CPB (which emerged in 1988) was a continuation of the Marxist-Leninist tradition, it continued to produce the Morning Star, continued to use the name Communist Party (while the CPGB adopted the name Democratic Left), continued to support the USSR and is therefore, very much more a continuation, of the party of Phil Piratin and Harry Pollitt than the CPGB. Today it still claims the legacy of those historic CPGB figures.

2. Ideology: it's been asserted that this organisation cannot be both reformist and Marxist-Leninist. However the reality is that it does try to straddle both. It has a long-term revolutionary vision of a communist society, but its official programme Britain's Road to Socialism is clearly reformist. Indeed it includes within it the Left Wing Programme which is an agenda of reform with capitalism.

3. Political position: if the descripion Far left is used, this would then put this organisation into the same camp as the SWP, the SPEW, the WRP, the RCP etc. It is clearly not as left wing as those organisations. It sits someone between the centre left of the Labour Party and the far left of the SWP. It is actually quite the norm to describe an established communist party as left wing. The Wikipedia articles for the Italian, French, Spanish and Portugese parties all have them described as Left wing.

Perhaps a Left-wing/far-left description would be an agreed compromise? garageland66 (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 07:42, 18 July 2015 (UTC)Reply

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Communist Party of Britain. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130524191216/http://www.politicsresources.net/area/uk/ge05/partycand.htm to http://www.politicsresources.net/area/uk/ge05/partycand.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100511122549/http://www.hackney.gov.uk/2010-results-mayor.htm to http://www.hackney.gov.uk/2010-results-mayor.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 12:49, 11 August 2017 (UTC)Reply

The Co-ordinating Committee of Communist Parties in Britain, a bureaux within the Communist Party of Britain, does not seem to be independently notable, and I propose the two are merged. — kashmīrī ^TALK 12:16, 3 February 2019 (UTC)Reply

Support: I'd go along with this, and would be happy to make the move if needs be. Just seems unnecessary to have a separate article for a committee within the party. - OliverEastwood (talk) 1:24, 2 April 2019 (WIB)

Support: Having a separate article is one thing but an unsourced related article runs afoul of several policies and guidelines. Otr500 (talk) 14:59, 22 April 2019 (UTC)Reply

Cautious support: Merging orphan articles back into the original can make the original unwieldy or excessively long, however nothing has happened to the CCPiB article in many years, it hasn't grown, so nothing is lost by merging it into the CPB article. Extua (talk) 10:24, 4 June 2019 (UTC)Reply

Given there was general support, I have done the merge. Extua (talk) 18:24, 9 June 2019 (UTC)Reply

The contents of the Co-ordinating Committee of Communist Parties in Britain page were merged into Communist Party of Britain on 9 June 2019. For the contribution history and old versions of the redirected page, please see its history; for the discussion at that location, see its talk page.

Please join a discussion at Portal talk:Communism#Template color discussion on template coloring. Otr500 (talk) 15:49, 22 April 2019 (UTC)Reply

There has been some disagreement over the foundation year of the Communist Party, with RodgerSP wanting to remove all information which suggests the CPB can trace its history back to the legacy of the CPGB and its foundation in 1920.

I won't go into all the historical reasons, but for the purposes of this question, the CPB absolutely considers itself as the political successor of the CPGB. That is why the CPB is celebrating its centenary this year. It is 100 years since the Communist Party was formed in 1920.

The CPB considers itself to be a continuation of the CPGB, the congress in 1988 was self-consciously styled a 're-establishing' of the Communist Party. The CPGB was already in the process of breaking up at that point and finally dissolved itself three years later. One of the founding members of the CPGB, Andrew Rothstein, was the first member of the CPB. The organisational structure was copied, and the CPB adopted the British Road to Socialism as its programme, numbered to follow on from the last version published by the CPGB. All the official party histories (published every decade) include the history of the CPGB going back to 1920.

The wording in the article reflected this in a fairly neutral way. The infobox noted that the Communist Party was formed in 1920 (as the CPGB) and 1988 (as the CPB). The first sentence of the history section notes that "the Communist Party of Britain was established, or, as its members saw it, re-established, in April 1988." The history section also includes the sentence "the party traces its roots back to 1920, and claims figures such as Willie Gallacher, Harry Pollitt, Phil Piratin and John Gollan as part of its legacy."

RodgerSP has repeatedly edited the article to remove these statements, which I think are all accurate and give a balanced perspective on the party's history. Extua (talk) 09:28, 5 June 2020 (UTC)Reply

Extua is editing the page based on party opinion rather than a matter of fact. If CPB can pretend to be the CPGB then so could all parties that have split and formed from it. The CPB isn't 100 years old regardless of what bias party members want to think. Wikipedia isn't a place for CPB members to change facts or grandstand. I will continue to edit the history to display the correct date (1988) as this isn't standard of any of the other British CP pages. CPB cannot claim they are the CPGB while others cannot, again Wikipedia is for FACT, not opinion. If CPB want to claim history that isn't there they can do it internally as a party and not on Wikipedia. It is DISHONEST. Nobody cares what the CPB considers its self to be. This website is for FACTS. I'm sorry that CPB members like Extua cannot handle the truth/want to set an agenda. — Preceding unsigned comment added by RodgerSP (talk • contribs) 08:54, 7 June 2020 (UTC)Reply

I think it should be pointed out that RodgerSP appears to have set up their account entirely to edit the foundation date of the CPB as can be seen in their contributions. Furthermore the presence of "SP" in the name may well be a nod to the Socialist Party, suggesting a political motive for the efforts. Most people with a knowledge of Communist Parties in Britain would readily acknowledge the CPB as a continuation of the CPGB. This is reflected by its membership in the International Meeting of Communist and Workers Parties, which to my knowledge only allows membership to organisations that can claim to have been a Party that participated in the Comintern, or a direct descentent of such, hence their refusal to allow affiliation of the CPGB-ML in the 2000s. Mclj10 (talk) 11:32, 8 June 2020 (UTC)Reply

Coming back to this issue, the Communist Party celebrated its centenary last weekend. It received greetings from other parties here, here, here, and here. I see it was also written up here, as well as reported on extensively in the 'Morning Star'.

The change to the date in the infobox is not supported by the referenced Morning Star article (which, actually, talks about the party celebrating its centenary -- ie. its foundation in 1920). The BBC report on the party referenced before refers to how it was founded in 1920 'as the CPGB' and in 1988 'as the CPB'. This is almost the exact same wording used previously in the infobox and it correctly refers to both the foundation/re-establishment concept. RodgerSP has not responded to any of the points raised last month, so I think we should change the infobox back to how it was, and bring back the neutral wording in the article text about how the party was "established, or, as its members saw it, re-established, in April 1988". Extua (talk) 13:43, 6 August 2020 (UTC)Reply

CPB is, for all relevant purposes, a splinter group of the CPGB. It's perfectly fine to state in the article mainspace there is a mention that CPB considers itself as the legitimate heir to the original CPGB founded in 1920 but for the infobox 1988 is the only date that matters. --Soman (talk) 14:05, 6 August 2020 (UTC)Reply

Misclicked before I finished my edit summary once again. Regarding this edit, "socialism" is, in the context of the citation given, a reference to the socialist stage of society as envisioned by Karl Marx. The CPB is not a "socialist party", it is a communist party advocating for a transition to socialism and eventually communism. CentreLeftRight ✉ 00:06, 12 May 2021 (UTC)Reply