This has almost gone full circle from the first publication of "Another View of Harpal Brar" on the old 'formers' site back in 2005.

The CPGB (ML): “Consistent Anti-Imperialism”?

Despite the CPGB (ML)’s assertion that it is “the only consistent anti-imperialist party in Britain”, things could not be further from the truth. In reality, the CPGB (ML)’s position is everywhere driven by the sort of national chauvinist disregard for the interests and opinions of the oppressed peoples in struggle with imperialism characteristic of the labour aristocracy of oppressor countries.

Opportunistically wrapped in terms borrowed from revolutionary Marxism-Leninism, it is the objective practice of the CPGB (ML) to ignore or disparage the existing communist organisations of the oppressed nations, whilst attempting to drive a wedge between these and their local revolutionary democratic allies. Again, whilst publicly praising socialist Cuba or other surviving socialist states around the world, privately the CPGB (ML) holds such in contempt as “revisionist”. As a consequence, the CPGB (ML) is almost completely without international links.

The CPGB (ML) analysis of anti-imperialist forces would be hilarious were it not so completely reactionary and contrary to all the norms of proletarian internationalism. Confusing attacks on imperialist forces with “objective” anti-imperialism, the CPGB (ML) supports as anti-imperialist “resistance fighters” such quasi-fascist outfits as Hamas, Islamic Jihad (in Palestine), Hizbollah (in Lebanon), or the unholy alliance of Ba’athist and Sunni fundamentalist terror in Iraq. Contemptuously brushing aside the analyses and line of communist and secular revolutionary democratic organisations from the region, clearly the CPGB (ML) haughtily believes itself to be capable of making decisions on their behalf.

Syria, Israel and Palestine

Despite the support of the Lebanese Communist Party, revolutionary democratic organisations in Lebanon, other regional Communist Parties and the bulk of the PLO for the Syrian withdrawal from Lebanon, the CPGB (ML) condemned the Syrian move on the entirely spurious grounds that because the withdrawal had the backing of Washington and London it must therefore somehow be wrong. Witless in the extreme, the CPGB (ML) position thereby set its face not only against the vast majority of communists and revolutionary democrats in the region – but also against the very Syrian regime it claimed to be supporting!

Even more disturbing is the privately held opinions of leading CPGB (ML) members concerning Israel. Privately, Carlos Rule, Joti Brar and other CPGB (ML) luminaries support the demands of some of the most reactionary elements in the Palestinian and wider fundamentalist Islamic community for the complete elimination of Israel. This, of course, is surprising, given the USSR under Stalin was the first state in the world to recognise the Israeli state – and given the CPGB (ML)’s leading role in the Stalin Society (founded by the CPGB (ML) Chair, Harpal Brar). However, we are to believe – apparently – that the recognition was all Molotov’s doing, not the considered opinion of the CPSU or Stalin.

This arrant nonsense plays the role of pretext for the CPGB (ML)’s support for a line that has been explicitly rejected by the PLO, the communist organisations of the region and all sane and right-thinking progressives across the globe. Support of this line, in its turn, underpins the CPGB (ML)’s support for Palestinian and other religious reactionary groups. Despite the fact that the likes of Islamic Jihad and Hamas have been repeatedly condemned by the PLO and local communists for playing into the hands of the Israeli militarist state and imperialism; despite the fact that these groups have repeatedly refused to work with the national liberation forces inside Palestine. Despite the fact that these quasi-fascist religious organisations have repeatedly targeted communists and other progressives for murder, torture and repression – thus playing the role of Israel’s paramilitary death squads in the Occupied Territories of Palestine.

Despite the fact that the long time considered opinion of the international communist movement, the regional communist and revolutionary democrats and the PLO is that a “two-state” solution is the real road map for peace in the region, the sheer arrogance of these self-appointed guardians of “consistent anti-imperialism” from an imperial oppressor country (Britain) drives the CPGB (ML) to know best for the popular masses of Palestine, Israel and beyond. Again, due to the crude, half-baked and mechanical “theory” that does service for scientific socialism in the CPGB (ML), the fact that a very contingent and verbal support for a “two-state” solution is forthcoming from Washington means that the CPGB (ML) feels duty bound to reject this in favour of support for the obscure, deeply reactionary and near fascist minority views that emanate from fundamentalist theocrats holding sway in Gaza or Nablus. The idea that the regional communist, progressive and national liberation forces of the Near East may have forced Washington’s hand is entirely missing from the CPGB (ML) collective consciousness.

Iraq

This paternalistic contempt for the opinions of those engaged in real battles and shedding real blood for national liberation and socialist revolution extends, inevitably, to Iraq. On this question, the connection between the CPGB (ML)’s theoretical primitiveness, opportunism and great power chauvinism is clearest.

The CPGB (ML) crude position of supporting groups on the grounds that these are “objectively” opposed to the Anglo-American occupation is, given their general mechanical view that if imperialism says “X” communists must say “Y”, surprisingly limited. The support given to the Iraqi resistance by the CPGB (ML) tellingly does not extend to the national liberation forces of Kurdistan, nor does the CPGB (ML) support the Iraqi Communist Party and its allies who are actively engaged in anti-occupation actions against the imperialist forces in Iraq. Unable, for instance, to recognise that negotiation is also a weapon in the hands of anti-imperialist forces of the calibre and experience of the Iraqi communists, revolutionary democrats and Kurdish revolutionaries, the CPGB (ML) condemns any such contacts with the imperialists and their stooges as “collaboration”. Safe in their Southall and Haringay London suburban bunkers, the “consistent anti-imperialists” of the CPGB (ML) instead give their wholehearted support for those forces in Iraq that have been openly condemned by the local communist, national liberation and progressive forces as objectively playing into the hands of the imperialist occupation forces: providing the Yankee and Brit occupiers with endless pretexts for extending their rule and control of Iraq. Lining up – at a very safe distance of thousands of miles, mind you - beside local contingents of quasi-fascist, theocratically minded counter-revolutionaries who would cut CPGB (ML) throats at the drop of a hat, the CPGB (ML) play at the sort of long distance “internationalism” that used to be so pithily dismissed by South African and other communists and progressives as the preserve of middle class liberals thousands of miles from the battle front safely tucked away in the imperial heartlands.

Thus it appears for the CPGB (ML), national liberation in Kurdistan, revolutionary democracy in Iraq and the communist movement in that country are all “objectively” on the side of imperialism. Evidently believing that the former Ba’athist regime and its recent alliances with religious fascism are the forces for peace and progress in Iraq, the CPGB (ML) – as witlessly as ever – objectively seeks to split the forces of national liberation and progress in Iraq; and, as effortlessly, plays the role of imperialism’s best friend in the anti-war movement in Britain. So much for “consistent anti-imperialism”!

DPRK and Zimbabwe

Opposition to the communist movement, attempts to split this movement from its allies in the national liberation movement and support for anti-communist and anti-revolutionary democratic forces in oppressed countries on some spurious grounds of “objective” anti-imperialist status are stocks in trade of the CPGB (ML). Opportunist support for those parties and states that might provide the CPGB (ML) with succour (material or otherwise) is another arm of their “consistent anti-imperialism”. Above (endnote i) was mentioned the enthusiastic support of the CPGB (ML) for the DPRK. This, despite the fact that on the usual mish-mash of “leftist” posturing and national chauvinist contempt for oppressed nations’ anti-imperialist forces that plays the role of “theory” in the CPGB (ML) one would have thought that the DPRK would have been high on the CPGB (ML) hit list.

Above (endnote i) it was suggested that material and other incentives swayed the CPGB (ML) on this question. Certainly, the CPGB (ML) are sensitive and desperate about extending their international contacts, which given their objective status as pro-imperialist agents provocateurs remain inevitably extremely thin. However, none of this completely explains their visceral support for the DPRK or for Mugabe’s rump ZANU/PF regime in Zimbabwe. Analysis of CPGB (ML) support for these states gets to the heart of the CPGB (ML)’s opportunism, national chauvinism and ignorance of the ABC, let alone most advanced theory, of Marxism-Leninism.

DPRK

Support for the DPRK is contingent not only upon a desire to be internationally recognised, or to get access to resources. It is also signal of the CPGB (ML)’s distance from the main current of communist thinking. What is attractive about the DPRK for the CPGB (ML) is the emphases placed in Korean Workers’ Party ideology upon the self-reliance of the state and the doctrine of “Army First”. These twin doctrines, understood by the CPGB (ML) in typical “leftist” fashion as doctrines of autarky and militarism, resonate nostalgically for the CPGB (ML), founded as it is by people drawn from pseudo -Maoist and “left” revisionist traditions. Given the CPGB (ML) take on Korean Workers’ Party theory, the CPGB (ML) inheritance of “left” revisionist ideology and the desperate need of the CPGB (ML) to be recognised by someone (anyone!) as a legitimate organisation, the North Koreans can be forgiven almost anything. The sheer opportunism of this position is self-evident. Given the DPRK’s former close relations with the “revisionist” USSR one would expect that “consistent anti-imperialists” such as the CPGB (ML) would hold it in the same sort of contempt as they hold valiant communists and anti-imperialists elsewhere… Of course not!

As befits a party that evidently believes it knows best about other people’s affairs, the CPGB (ML)’s take on the question of DPRK nuclear weapons is at odds not only with the international communist movement, but also – remarkably – with that of the DPRK itself. In condemning the international treaties concerning the non-proliferation of nuclear weapons outright, the CPGB (ML) steps completely out of sync with the stated position of the DPRK. The DPRK will not sign the appropriate treaty at the moment, because it is its view that at present this is not in their interests. It is not the DPRK’s position that the anti-proliferation treaties are designed to keep nuclear weapons out of the hands of oppressed countries and in the hands of oppressor countries, as is the CPGB (ML) position. This would mean condemning the former USSR as an oppressor country (since it signed the treaties), which the DPRK would never do as the USSR was its closest ally for much of the DPRK’s history. The DPRK position is that its possession of nuclear weapons acts as a guarantee of its national sovereignty. Again in contrast, the CPGB (ML) position is that the DPRK’s nuclear capacity is the guarantor of peace on the Korean peninsula. This is not the DPRK’s position either. Out of step with the DPRK, the CPGB (ML) rehearses the mistaken views of the “left” revisionist Chinese Communist Party of some 50 years past – and dresses these up as the acme in support for the DPRK’s drive for peace and security in the Far East, despite the DPRK’s own stated position.

Zimbabwe

If the CPGB (ML) in relation to the DPRK is one of consistent opportunism, the CPGB (ML) position with relation to Zimbabwe speaks volumes for the sheer ignorance of advanced theory inside the CPGB (ML). ZANU/PF, it will be recalled, were the main national liberation force of the Zimbabwean peoples during the period of post-colonial apartheid in the former British colony of (Southern) Rhodesia. After a successful anti-imperialist struggle, a democratic and progressive Zimbabwe was established under the leadership of the victorious national liberation forces led by ZANU/PF. Supported by regional and international communist and national liberation forces, led at that time by the USSR, ZANU/PF steered a revolutionary democratic course. The counter-revolution in the USSR, the collapse of the world socialist system and the loss of international support and advice had a negative effect upon ZANU/PF and Zimbabwe, as it did in many formerly revolutionary democratic states and parties around the globe.

Isolated and increasingly prey to internal dissension and corruption, together with related international interference and deprecation, Zimbabwe has suffered enormously. The constructive approach of South Africa and other African states not withstanding, the CPGB (ML) position has been one of uncritical support for the Zimbabwean state and ZANU/PF and to seek to drive a wedge between that state and its neighbours and friends.

Standing apart from the local and regional African revolutionary and progressive forces, the CPGB (ML) engages in its usual mix of invective and counter-intuitive slander against forces as various as the SACP, the ANC government of South Africa, SWAPO in Namibia and the COSATU trade union organisation of South Africa on the grounds that they do not offer the same sort of support for Zimbabwe as the CPGB (ML) has offered.

Entirely uninterested and entirely ignorant of the international communist movement’s 60 odd years of involvement in post-colonial politics, economics and construction in the oppressed countries of Africa and elsewhere, the CPGB (ML) replaces the inherited experience of the global movement with its own half-baked, ignorant and intensely chauvinist schema. Accordingly, the communist view that revolutionary democratic organisations (whose class bases are in the main the national bourgeoisie and peasantry) are prone, without consistent communist collaboration and advice, to degenerate into thoroughly bourgeois state mechanisms whose allegiance to progress and socialist ideals are purely verbal or entirely lost is entirely missed by the CPGB (ML). The notion that this process is subject to international forces, not least the international balance of class forces (and that this has been seriously skewed by the loss of the USSR and world socialist system) apparently remains a complete mystery to the CPGB (ML). The possibility (despite all previous evidences to the contrary) that revolutionary democratic states may degenerate into counter-revolutionary dictatorships remains equally apparently unknown to the CPGB (ML).

This is not to suggest that anything as egregious has yet occurred in Zimbabwe. However, the fact that not the slightest whiff of awareness of such issues is forthcoming from the CPGB (ML) speaks volumes for the level of theory and practical anti-imperialist experience in that party. Lacking anything approaching a communist grasp of such issues, the CPGB (ML) accordingly falls back on its standard line that if something is condemned by imperialism, then the CPGB (ML) is duty bound to support whatever that is – however reactionary. Equally, then, attempts by South Africa to constructively engage with Zimbabwe are regarded by the CPGB (ML) as “pro-imperialist” interference, whereas in fact imperialism would like nothing better for Zimbabwe to devolve still further into internal dissension and international isolation taking its lead from such idiot savants of international “leftism” as the CPGB (ML).

Latin America

The CPGB (ML) have only recently begun to poke their noses into Latin American affairs – despite the fact that today many Latin American countries are riper for revolution than almost anywhere else on the world’s surface. In part this is due to the CPGB (ML)’s “leftist” contempt for all things inspired by or supported by revolutionary Cuba (not that it would ever admit as much). This contempt can be gleaned by the complete silence of the CPGB (ML) and its publications about Cuba and the sporadic and disingenuous coverage it gives to Latin American affairs in general. In line with the CPGB (ML)’s childish “leftism” and arrant opportunism, they will tend to only give support to armed struggles, or hop on the bandwagon of already successful revolutionary democratic regimes (such as Chávez’ government in Venezuela).

For a long time the “Lalkar” publication (erstwhile newsletter of the Indian Workers’ Association in Britain – who will have nothing to do with the CPGB (ML) or its founders - and so broke off links with the “Lalkar” journal[ii]) consequently supported the Sendero Luminoso ultra-leftist insurgency in Peru. “Lalkar” is edited by Harpal Brar, Chair of the CPGB (ML). This despite the best advice of Latin American communists and progressives that the PCP (Gonzaloista faction) was objectively counter-revolutionary, murderous scum who lacked support amongst the Peruvian working people and were acting in a way that set back the course of the Peruvian revolution.

More recently, an article about the revolutionary movement in Bolivia was mangled and distorted by the editors of the CPGB (ML) journal “Proletarian” to such an extent that its content no longer referred, for instance, to the revolutionary movement in neighbouring Colombia (which, of course, is pro-Cuban and therefore not liked by the CPGB (ML)) and had insertions of such ludicrous and false proportions as to assert that a pan Latin American anti-imperialist front was in existence, that Uruguay (a remarkably stayed Latin American state) was on the point of socialist revolution and that Brazil was on the point of some kind of revolutionary upsurge. Equally, mistakes about Bolivian ethnography and politics were inserted as to render the article not only meaningless; but also insulting and pointless to both the purposes of its author and the Latin American revolutionaries that he had consulted.[iii]
In general then, the CPGB (ML) attitude to Latin American affairs is to solely equate (in classically “leftist” fashion) revolutionary democracy with armed struggle, to opportunistically jump onto bandwagons when and if they occur, to distort and suppress information that does not suit the CPGB (ML) ideological agenda and to display the utmost contempt and ignorance for the revolutionaries on the ground and the most advanced revolutionary theory. Par for the course, in fact.

Nepal

Obsessed as they are with all things Kalashnikov, the CPGB (ML) position on Nepal is bound to be supportive of the “Maoist” ultra-leftist insurgency in that country. This despite the fact that the main communist forces and working people in that country do not support the insurgency of the ultra-leftists and indeed view it as playing straight into the hands of the reactionary feudal absolutist monarchy there.

Intriguingly, when pressed leading CPGB (ML) players will not condemn the neo-Maoist, ultra-leftist RIM organisation (led by the possibly CIA backed RCP-USA neo-Maoist grouping[iv]) for the counter-revolutionary agents provocateurs that they so evidently are, despite all evidence. Over and again, the RIM has encouraged splits in oppressed countries anti-imperialist and communist movements. Over and again the RIM has encourage their cronies in such countries down the path of fruitless pre-emptive and locally unsupported civil war and armed struggle, so playing straight into the hands of local reactionaries and imperialism. Over and again, as soon as these armed “people’s war” movements have failed in their objectives and degenerated into semi-criminal murder gangs, RIM has ditched them. This happened in Peru, it seems likely that it is now happening in Nepal as the ultra-leftist insurgency unravels there into the sort of frustrated litany of sporadic murder or kidnapping of teachers, doctors, pack-packers and other “enemies of the people” together with extortion and press-ganging of the peasantry once common in Peru at the fag-end of its experience with ultra-leftist armed adventurism.[v]

Unless the CPGB (ML) is so completely out of touch with reality that it is not aware of such recurrent themes in the RIM agenda, one must assume that the CPGB (ML) actually approves and supports these wreckers and splitters at work in some of the most desperately oppressed places in the world. Certainly, the CPGB (ML)’s shifty failure to comment on RIM ultra-leftist armed adventurism speaks volumes for the CPGB (ML)’s arrant opportunism, lack of theoretical and practical anti-imperialist experience and their imperialist chauvinism concerning the anti-imperialist movements in oppressed countries.

Ireland

As Marx and Engels repeatedly asserted that the litmus test of revolutionary organisations in Britain is their attitude to the Irish question and given the general support (however provisional, conditional or hypocritical) for the national liberation of that country shown by the communist movement in Britain, the CPGB (ML) are duty bound to support such. Consequently – and seemingly refreshingly progressively – the CPGB (ML) has consistently taken the side of Sinn Féin, the IRA and the Irish Republican Movement in general. Not actually that one would notice. Given the lack of copy about Ireland in “Proletarian”, “Lalkar” or any of Harpal Brar’s many monumental tomes on all things leftist, given the lack of CPGB (ML) presence at Troops Out Movement meetings or events, one might suspect that the CPGB (ML) support for all things Irish Republican was highly verbal, formal and lacking in real concrete deeds. Once again, opportunism dictates policy for the CPGB (ML) and so in practical terms the CPGB (ML) support for the Irish anti-imperialist national liberation struggle is purely a matter of few words and almost complete lack of any real deeds. It should be conceded, of course, that much the same could be said for nearly all the British Left.

This opportunism becomes crystal clear when one considers more closely their position on Ireland. It also illustrates once again the raving anti-communism and reactionary ignorance at the heart of the CPGB (ML) position concerning anti-imperialist forces in oppressed countries.

It becomes clear, for instance, that what the CPGB (ML) likes about the Irish Republican Movement is the very thing identified as its greatest ideological weakness by the international communist movement over the course of the last thirty odd years of struggle: the Republicans’ distance from the local and international communist movement. Once again, the CPGB (ML)’s contempt for the “revisionist” communist movement means that they support anything and everything “radical” that does not support the communist movement.

The Irish republican Movement’s traditional antipathy to the communist movement has many roots, not least the bourgeois liberal horror displayed by the Irish communist movement at times over the armed struggle and more tellingly the national chauvinist arrogance and betrayal of the British communist movement when it came to Ireland. Time and again, the British communist movement lined up with its “own” bourgeoisie to condemn Irish “terror”.[vi] It is for good reason that many Irish Republicans have traditionally looked upon British communists in particular and communism in general askance and with more than slight suspicion.

The emergence of revolutionary conditions in the Six Counties in the late 1960s marked also a shift in the class profile of the Irish Republican Movement away from its traditional core in the Irish peasantry and national bourgeoisie and towards the urban revolutionary proletariat of the industrial cities of the North. Inevitably this led to a shift in Republican ideology towards a position more in line with that of the international communist movement. As a result of the then balance of international class forces in favour of socialism, together with this shift in the class composition of the Republican forces, it became possible to reassess the Irish Republican Movement led by Sinn Féin and the IRA in the light of the theory of revolutionary democracy that was evolving in the international communist movement in the aftermath of the successful anti-colonial struggle and, in particular, the Cuban Revolution. Given the correct handling of the contradictions immanent in the Irish Republican Movement and between the Irish and British proletariat, it was possible for advanced British and Irish communists to assert that the Irish Republican Movement was moving towards a revolutionary democratic position – and that all effort should be made to help it along this path. The ambition of revolutionaries in Ireland and Britain was to assist in this to the point where the Irish Republican Movement would be internationally recognised by the communist movement as a genuinely revolutionary democratic movement. It was on this basis that principled communists lent the Irish Republican Movement their support.

It is revealing to compare this principled communist stance, made on the basis of the most advanced revolutionary theory, with the blatantly opportunist, primitive and chauvinist stance of the CPGB (ML). Bluntly put, the CPGB (ML) approve of the Irish Republican Movement because firstly it has a history of antipathy towards the communist movement; secondly, it has an armed wing; thirdly, because everyone else says they support the Irish right to self determination, so the CPGB (ML) better had. The sheer opportunism, childish romantic “leftism” and blatant hypocrisy of this position are as clear as the hand before the face.

Given the inconsistency of this CPGB (ML) position with the CPGB (ML) position on, for instance, Iraq (where the CPGB (ML) implicitly deny the Kurdish right to self-determination through the party’s line of support for quasi-fascist, religious and Ba’athist “resistance” and opposition to the secular, communist and national liberation movement resistance) the hypocrisy and opportunism of the CPGB (ML) position is self-evident. Given the total lack of anything other than very occasional verbal support for the Irish Republican Movement and complete non-involvement in its extensive support movement, the opportunism and chauvinism of the CPGB (ML) position is equally clear-cut. The “leftist” romantic approval for anything that involves guns needs no further comment whatsoever.

Conclusion

Fundamentally opposed to the existing communist parties of the oppressed countries; seeking to split revolutionary democratic and national liberation forces away from these communist parties; distorting the truth about the existing movements against imperialism and capitalism in the oppressed countries to suit their own ends; hostile to the surviving socialist states except where their narrow party interests dictate support; at odds with the line and analyses of even those they claim to support; supportive of the deepest reaction and objectively pro-imperialist forces at work in the oppressed countries; the CPGB (ML) has the plain gall to call its position “consistent anti-imperialism”.

Incapable of sustained, coherent and consistent analysis, the CPGB (ML) everywhere replaces the need for the most advanced theory with an eclectic mish-mash of out of date ultra-leftist mantras, mechanical schemas of opposition to imperialism and the most simplistic grasp of the struggles upon which the CPGB (ML) feels duty bound to pontificate.

Arrogantly aloof from the real struggles of real working people in Britain as in the oppressed countries, the CPGB (ML) repeatedly fails to take into account the opinion, views or position of the communists and others actually engaged in the real day to day struggle against imperialism and capitalism.

Opportunist in the extreme, the CPGB (ML) will only support movements in which the CPGB (ML) perceives some benefit will accrue to itself, or where the wider movement has shown support already. Jumping onto bandwagons as it does, the solely verbal support offered by the CPGB (ML) for some movements is made all the more clearly hypocritical in the light of their persistent silence and hostility to other movements of a similar order.

Anti-communist, diversionary and entirely disruptive of the task of re-building the communist movement in Britain, building the anti-war movement and forging the necessarily stronger and stronger links between communists in Britain and the international anti-imperialist forces.


B Jefferies
August 2005.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------

Intriguingly, the only existing socialist state that the CPGB (ML) does not so slander is the DPRK. This is apparently due to the fact that leading CPGB (ML) lights (such as Ella Rule, CPGB (ML) International Secretary) hold high office in the Korean Friendship Society - and the ever-pressing need in the CPGB (ML) for resources that they evidently believe will be forthcoming from the DPRK just in case the CPGB (ML) acts as its cheer-leaders in Britain. The recent recognition of the CPGB (ML) by the Korean Workers’ Party suggests that they might be partly right.

[ii] The Indian Workers’ Association (IWA) of Britain lost all patience with Harpal Brar after he decided to take the core membership of what was later to become the CPGB (ML) into Arthur Scargill’s Socialist Labour Party (SLP). The SLP suffered a number of entrist attacks in its early years – most from the usual Trotskyite suspects. The IWA at the time wanted nothing to do with Harpal’s latest political adventure and withdrew their support from his publication “Lalkar”. Contrary to the CPGB (ML)’s assertions, the majority of the key members of the soon to be formed CPGB (ML) all knew each other very well before they even joined the SLP. This is because they are nearly all either members of Harpal Brar’s extended family, or its close friends. Indeed, the Brar family and friends are effectively the CPGB (ML).

[iii] Such chauvinist arrogance is run of the mill for the CPGB (ML). This time, however it seems, the CPGB (ML) had met their match. After disingenuously denying they had in anyway tampered with the copy, conceding they had in fact radically altered the copy and then hurling abuse at the author, the CPGB (ML) retired into a deeply hurt huff. Informing the CPGB (ML) that he wished the offending article withdrawn from their online edition and being ignored by the CPGB (ML), the author of the original article threatened to contact interested international communist organisations and the National Union of Journalists in Britain. Lo and behold, the article soon disappeared from the CPGB (ML)’s “Proletarian online” website!

[iv] The RCP-USA has long been accused of links to the CIA. Indeed, its present Chair served in US Military Intelligence before “seeing the light” and becoming a Maoist in the early 70s; at about the same time as the US government and China began their rapprochement in fact. Certainly, much of the RCP-USA’s activities are objectively in the interests of US imperialism.

[v] To date, the RCP-USA front RIM has caused a serious split in the Nepalese Maoist faction of the already fragmented Nepalese Left. The original Maoist splinter of the Communist Party of Nepal was a founding member of the RIM. Continuous interference in their affairs by the RCP-USA led to the Nepalese Maoists withdrawal from the RIM, which in its turn engineered a split in the Nepalese Maoists ranks, which in its turn led to the RIM inspired ultra-leftist insurgency by the pro-RIM Maoists presently being enjoyed in Nepal. In Peru, support for the ultra-leftist PC Peru by the RIM has turned into accusations of collaboration with the Peruvian state and counter-accusations of interfering in the internal affairs of the Peruvian Maoist party. Even more sectarian and extreme than the RIM, the PC Peru never became signatory to the RIM charter, but accepted the RIM’s support and allowed the RIM to act as its international mouthpiece. Even in Britain the RIM is becoming increasingly active, via (in an unholy alliance with the neo-Trotskyite Revolutionary Communist Group) its front organisation, the “World People’s Resistance Movement”.

[vi] As the CPGB (ML) are fond of doing elsewhere in the world, the British communist movement was keen to impose its own line and recipes for “peace and reconciliation” on Ireland. It has also engaged in outright collaboration. From the General Strike in the ‘20s of the last century, when the CPGB instructed railway workers to exceptionally allow troops and munitions to be moved to the war in Ireland, to the “Morning Star” notoriously welcoming the arrival of British imperialist forces in Belfast and Derry in 1969, the British communist movement – along with much of the British Left - does not have much to be proud of in its conduct over Ireland.