Knowing communist parties, there’s probably half a dozen, and they all hate each other more than they hate capitalism.

The union that represents staff where I work, NIPSA, sends round a booklet every year with statements from all the candidates across Northern Ireland who are standing for election to the union council. All but a couple of the candidates represent one of two internal parties, “Unity” and “Broad Left”, All the Unity candidates make the same statement, and all the Broad Left candidates make the same statement, so the booklet consists of the same two statements printed about thirty times each.

A tribunal in 2016 revealed that “Unity” is the Communist Party of Ireland, “Broad Left” is the Socialist Party, Socialist Worker’s Party and People Before Profit, and both groups spend most of their time trying to kick each other out of the union. The case involved two members of the Communist Party of Ireland, both of whom were employed full-time as union officials in different unions and were already members of two different unions each, claiming discrimination on the grounds of political opinion because they tried to join NIPSA and were refused.

For those with a taste for dry judicial humour, the judgement of the tribunal is hilarious.

The two opposing factions both describe themselves as ' socialist' and ' democratic'. Both state that they oppose austerity and sectarianism. Both support equal pay and oppose proposed redundancies. Both state they support the advancement of the interests of union members. Insofar as the oral evidence and the documentation can be understood, the broad left faction, or possibly some of its constituent parts, are accused of being 'Trotskyite' and 'ultra leftist'. The unity faction are accused of being 'right-wingers' and 'Stalinist'. It is difficult to discern any commonly understood meaning for any of these terms. For example, Mr Mulholland, the President of the respondent and a leading light in the broad left faction, described himself as a communist, but not as a member of the opposing Communist Party of Ireland. Curiouser and curiouser.

…

The Tribunal was not drawn to a single difference in political opinion, properly defined. The two factions clearly detested each other with some enthusiasm. However, evidence of name-calling or of trolling on social media is not sufficient. Alleged adherence to Trotsky's 1938 Transitional Program, a document mercifully not opened to the Tribunal, is not sufficient. Membership of, or association with, one political party rather than another, without a discernible difference in political opinion, is not sufficient.

Reference is made to a branch AGM attended by twelve members, out of a total of 750. A letter sent by a Broad Left member thought this amounted to “packing” the meeting. The tribunal concluded:

Nevertheless, as Communist coups go, it was hardly the storming of the Winter Palace.

The Tribunal decided that, as no difference of political opinion could be discerned between the two factions, no discrimination on the grounds of political opinion was found. But by initially accepting their membership and then changing their minds, NIPSA had improperly expelled the two union officials. In considering remedy for this breach:

The Tribunal heard testimony from the two claimants about stress and insomnia, alleged unemployability and alleged reputational damage, with impact on their personal lives. No medical or other corroborative evidence on this alleged impact was produced. It has to be said that neither the claimants nor any representative of the respondent trade union evinced any degree of stress or upset during the hearing. To the contrary everybody involved, and their supporters, showed every sign of enjoying the process. The Tribunal concludes that there was no convincing evidence of any loss or damage or any injury, including injury to feelings, in this matter.

So no compensation was awarded. The tribunal then got serious for a moment:

This is a Tribunal which is in place to resolve serious disputes. To take three recent examples, it deals with fixed-term workers who are denied the opportunity to become permanent workers. It deals with individuals who are dismissed from their only employment. It deals with individuals who are dismissed because they have primary caring responsibilities for a disabled child.

The Tribunal does not exist to provide a public forum for the periodic ventilation of obscure and internecine disputes within NIPSA. No other union appears to require this regular attention.

I am no longer a member of this particular union (although they have reinstated me a couple of times without asking me). If ever I am involved in a workplace dispute, the last thing I want is this shower of clowns representing me.

There are two main ones, the Communist Party of Great Britain (Marxist-Leninist) (CPGB-ML) and the Communist Party of Britain (CPB). There is definitely a “People's Front of Judea” feel to it. The CPGB-ML split from the Socialist Labour Party, while the CPB emerged after splitting from an older Communist Party of Great Britain (which has since dissolved).

The CPB represent Britain in international Communist party meetings and holds socialist views not too dissimilar from Jeremy Corbyn's Labour party. In fact, in the 2017 General Election they chose to not to field in any candidates and instead urged their supporters to vote for Labour. The CPGB-ML holds more extreme left-wing views, advocating for Britain to adopt a Marxist-Leninist form of Communism. They argue against the CPB, whom they criticise as having revisionist views.

Both have relatively tiny memberships are neither holds any local or national seats.

What a bizarre question, in light of recent events. Rather like watching The Beatles or The Stones on Ed Sullivan in 1964 and wondering why there aren’t any hot new rock bands coming from England! :0|

What Andrew has to say is right on in most respects. I would only add that the Labour Party’s institutional bonds to the left go back much further than the war years, when Britain effectively reconstituted itself as a two-party (two-governing party, anyway. There have been multiple effective parties in Parliament as far back as the 1850s, mostly owing to the success of Irish nationalists.) parliamentary system, with Labour outpacing the Liberals alongside the Tories.

It isn’t just that, as Andrew suggests, Labour is the most natural strategic option for British leftists. The Party is (or was, or is for now, depending on who you ask) structured in such a way as to ensure that a broad coalition can always hold, regardless of its electoral fortunes or the ideological faction that dominates at any given time. Unlike many democratic political parties in the world (excepting maybe the Democrats and the GOP, and the ANC in South Africa), Labour has always had a very clear constitutional role for affiliated groups, distinct from that of individual members.

Initially, this was intended to help the social-democratic Labour Party subsume the various other socialist parties that had sprung up at the turn of the century. These parties could continue to organize, select their own candidates, make public statements independently and still affiliate to Labour, so long as they agreed to stand common candidates at a general election. For the most part, it worked. The last major split in the parliamentary party. even with all the tumult recently, the “gang of four” that founded the SDP, and the more-or-less open revolts of the Blair years, was in 1934, when the Independent Labour Party (affiliated from 1906) broke away to protest what it felt was the overly-hawkish stance of the larger party, which was broadly in favour of another war with Germany if it should be necessary. The ILP saw that prospect as surrendering a socialist program to fight a capitalist war, and even though they were reformists in outlook, their MPs stood separately from Labour in the next election. They re-affiliated shortly thereafter when Labour elected a pacifist, George Lansbury, as leader , and soon realized that war against fascism was not only inevitable, but desirable for class consciousness. In many ways, it was a reprise of the split earlier in the decade, when the majority of the Parliamentary party withdrew support for its own government, and the centrist ministers who remained formed a “National Labour” government, nominally under Ramsay MacDonald, but mostly comprised of Conservatives. In that scenario, the left (representing a clear majority of the members, individual and affiliate) remained in control of the party machinery, and expelled MacDonald and his supporters en masse. National Labour wasn’t a viable party on its own, and so folded into the main party again.

The massive institutional advantage that Labour has over the far-left parties comes the primary source of affiliated membership: unions themselves. Until 2015, when Ed Miliband forced through a constitutional amendment at conference, any member of any union affiliated with the TUC was automatically entitled to be a member of the Labour Party! This has a paradoxical effect on the party’s political culture, as working-class conservatives (some of whom may surreptitiously hold Conservative, Lib Dem, or UKIP memberships) can influence the party’s collective decision making, and the leadership of larger private sector unions - traditionally opposed to radicalism - has tended to exert outsized influence. In the final analysis, though, it’s a huge boost for leftist organizing. Here you have large swathes of the voting public exposed to active politics in their workplace (unionization may be trending down in Britain, but, IIRC, is still much more prevalent and entrenched than anywhere in the Americas, Australia, and several places on the continent) through an established left-wing lens that, depending on the membership of the local or the relative position of the union. can inform and activate people on a variety of political concerns beyond work. Even if the most active or influential members of a bargaining unit decide to throw their support behind TUSC or the Greens or some other left candidate, the rank and file will likely continue to identify as Labour supporters, just because.

At their most antagonistic towards union militancy in the party, Neil Kinnock, Blair or Brown would not have dared to change that relationship; union affiliation simply afforded too big a windfall financially and organizationally. It remains to be seen whether individual union members will continue to identify with Labour voluntarily in any great numbers, especially without an activist leadership, but again, it’s all relative. Compare to the Canadian experience, where the social=democratic NDP was ostensibly formed as a “merger” of the democratic socialist CCF party and the Canadian Labour Congress. In actual fact, only the political action committee of the CLC was formally integrated into the party, and since the Congress is an amorphous, decentralized entity to begin with (partially due to the influence of the American experience with the AFL-CIO), the expected rally of the working class to the NDP has never fully materialized. There is a long-established tradition of rank-and-file trade union mobilization in the NDP, predating, and certainly enhanced by the change, but not a “merged” organization in any real sense. Public sector unions and broad-based private ones who represent marginalized industries generally endorse the New Democrats, but the leadership of other large unions habitually endorse the Liberal Party as a strategic option to block the Conservatives. Such endorsements rarely meet with resistance from above or much sustained backlash from below, despite the institutional link between party and labour. There has never, to my knowledge, been even a suggestion of merging the TUC and Labour Party, but the culture of adherence is such that, except in very exceptional circumstances, no national labour leader would dream of publicly endorsing the Lib Dems, however much they might privately wish to.

The takeaway here is that there will always be tension in a broad left formation like Labour in the UK, and for that matter, most established social democratic parties. Different tendencies rise and fall in turn, but since each has its own stable constituencies in the electorate as well as the party, we have to consider them broadly socialist, and certainly “left-wing”, even as they adopted parts of the neoliberal consensus in the 90s and 2000s. Corbyn’s command of the leadership, in the teeth of enormous opposition from the institutional party, shows that the rank-and-file are as left as they’ve ever been, and given the precarious character of the British economy, the “left of the left”, or “hard left” as the media would have it, will probably predominate for the foreseeable future. If and when the “broad centre-left” pulls back, it’s unlikely to mean that Labour as a whole will be any less the “big left-wing party in England”!

Oy, gevalt! What began as a sassy rejoinder became a treatise! Oh well, I hope that answers your question :)

This is the London Stock Exchange:

Any country with a stock exchange, let alone one as big and important as London’s, could never be considered to be communist. Stock trading is pretty much the antithesis of communism!

Regarding politics, even when the Labour Party was at its most left-wing, back in the 70s with Militant, it was still significantly to the right of what passed for communist back then, as practiced in the USSR, Cuba, China, etc.

Some claim Jeremy Corbyn is a communist. I’m sure he’s read Das Kapital (so have I and I’m not a communist), but basically he is a fairly middle-of-the-road European social democrat who’d be seen as completely unremarkable in the Nordic countries.

Yes, the Communist Party of Britain:

There’s also the Communist Party of Britain (Marxist-Leninist):

And how about the Communist Party of Great Britain (Marxist-Leninist):

And let’s not forget the Revolutionary Communist Party of Great Britain (Marxist-Leninist), who are so old-school that their website looks like it was originally on Geocities:

And give it up, please, for the New Communist Party of Britain:

And then there’s the Communist Party of Great Britain (Provisional Central Committee):

Let’s all take a moment to admire these inspiring examples of unity on the far left.

Please refrain from making jokes about the Judean People’s Front. It may be true, but it’s hardly kind.

The old Communist Party of Great Britain broke up in 1991. Its last MP had been Willie Gallacher, MP for West Fife in Scotland between 1935 and 1950.

No

As has often been pointed out, it is ironic that communism, in many ways developed in the light of social relationships in 19th century England, had so little impact on the country of its origin.

In 1867, fed up of waiting for Marx to finish ‘the book’ he had agreed to subsidise in 1849 by working in his family’s Manchester mill which he hated doing, Engels drew together Marx’s notes and published Das Kapital.

In 1880, a full 13 years later, the wealthy businessman HM Hyndman read the book in French translation on an Atlantic crossing, became enthused by its ideas and decided to form Britain’s first exclusively socialist political movement; the Social Democratic Federation. Hyndman was an authoritarian, idiosyncratic figure, determined to run a movement dedicated to social justice as if it was the deferential Tory party.

He alienated Marx and Engels with an anti-Semitic presumption that part of the reason Marx’s ideas hadn’t caught on in England was that he was a German Jew, so he republished Marx’s ideas under his own name entitling it England for All! They never forgave him.

However, Hyndman was able to attract to his SDF some prominent activists of the day, who perceived the lack of an organised socialist movement; including William Morris, Edward Aveling, George Lansbury and Eleanor Marx. The SDF also attracted the Suffrage League, a remnant from Chartism who noted that Disreali’s extension of the franchise in the 1870s still excluded a large number of the population from voting.

The SDF’s early progress became problematic because it was bankrolled by a nationalist, authoritarian, anti-Semitic businessman, and therefore schismatic as is so often the bane of the political Left.

Towards the end of the century, the SDF became caught up in the eternal question of Leftist socialism; should it join with and seek to influence other strands of the labour movement in a Popular Front, or remain aloof and form the vanguard of an inevitable revolution? With the first approach in mind, the SDF was present at the special conference in 1900 called by trade unionists that brought all left wing organisations together to form the British Labour Party.

For those who supported vanguardism, their position was of course greatly strengthened by the development and ultimate success of Marxist-Leninism in Russia. Over the early part of the twentieth century, a small number of revolutionary socialists promoted Marxist-Leninism within the British labour movement. Lenin himself set great store by the Scottish leader of the British Socialist Party John MacLean, but the BSP, which had originally been a cadre of SDF members that couldn’t stomach the ‘big tent’ approach of the Labour Party, rejoined. MacLean wouldn’t, and finished up leading a small splinter group based almost exclusively in Glasgow.

The tributaries of the British Communist Party when it was formed following the diktat of the Bolshevik-dominated Second International in 1920 were readily recognisable. A strong Jewish/emigre contingent from London’s East End that had been exposed to wider political debate than the somewhat insular British labour movement. Sylvia Pankhurst’s wing of the suffragette movement the WSPU. Some level of industrial working class support existed, but as the question asks specifically about England, it should be noted that these were predominantly based around Red Clydeside in Scotland and the radical area around Merthyr Tydfil in South Wales.

Once again the tiny number of communists debated whether the way forward was entryism into the existing structures of the Labour Party. Lenin wielding undue influence through the Comintern, supported affiliation, but the Labour Party did not accept the Communist Party’s application, and the separate CPGB, funded by ‘Moscow gold’ became a tiny side stream, the main flow of socialist ideals continuing to be through the Labour Party. If you can call them socialist.

There were some electoral successes. The British Socialist Party had an MP in the shape of defecting Liberal Cecil L’estrange Malone. Curiously, while on an anti-communist fact-finding tour of post-revolutionary Russia, he had been recruited to communism by Trotsky. Elected in 1918, he became England’s first Communist MP in 1920 when the BSP joined the newly formed party. He wasn’t re-elected.

Setting aside Scottish parliamentary seats and municipalities, there was only one other English Communist MP who was from the East End, Shapurji Shaklatvala. He comes from a time in 1924 when the Labour/Communist relationship was not yet fully formed, was elected unopposed by Labour and took the Labour whip. The ‘Zinoviev Letter’ a forgery linking the Labour Party to the Comintern forced the Party to distance itself from Communism.

The CPGB organised a rent strike in Poplar in the East End in 1921, following which their councillors were imprisoned and disbarred.

There are little hurrahs. The Party’s support for miners during the General Strike while the Labour Party equivocated (the shape of things to come) resulted in tiny enclaves known as ‘little Moscows’ such as Chopwell in the North East, where the CPGB held influence in mining communities, but the side stream had become a trickle that all but dried up following the Soviet repression of Hungary in the 1950s.

When the USSR collapsed and with it the funding in 1991, the CPGB disbanded. It got nowhere near a mass membership or power in Britain especially England which as stated, is ironic because that is where it all began.

It depends what you mean by “Communists”.

• Maoists? e.g. RCPB
• World Socialists? e.g. SPGB
• Pro-Situationists*?
• Marxist-Leninists? e.g.CPGB
• Trotskyites? e.g. SWP
• Councilists and other left-communists? e.g. CWO
• Marxist-Humanists? e.g. MHI
• Anarcho-Communists? e.g. AFed
• The NHS is a state institution which provides services on the basis of need, - classic communism.

All of these exist in the UK

*while the Internationale Situationniste formally disbanded in 1972, their methods have continued to influence many groups, artists and musical acts, e.g. Genesis P. Orridge, Jamie Reid, the Sex Pistols (arguably), Class War, Banksy, The KLF

No. First because The French Revolution, important as it is, predated communism and so cannot accurately be described as communist. (And Britain saw what was happening over the Channel and didn’t much like the look of it thank you very much).

Secondly Britain had a revolution well before even France did, in the shape of the English Civil War (or maybe more accurately series of wars), this eventually helped balance the power of the people’s representatives, ie Parliament, with that of the monarch. So there was less absolute rule by one man.

Thirdly this lead to rulers who did not absolutely restrict and impede change, like the reactionary ruling classes of Russia for example, they did allow change to happen albeit slowly, hence there was less need to resort to violent revolution when there was always a chance of eventually getting one’s way via the ballot box. This acted a bit like a pressure valve, doing away with the risk of a dangerous explosion.

The UK Labour party is a collection of little groups who range from socialists with core socialist beliefs (who Americans might consider extreme left) and they believe in workers rights, a social system of benefits to stop people from starving and poverty. It’s worth noting that people below the poverty level in the UK number about 14 million (20% of the population). In the US it depends on who you believe as figures go from around 15% (41 million people) to 33.33% (100 million).

The Labour party introduced the NHS and Social Security systems. Key industries were also nationalised: coal mines, steel, railways and roads; however, they were run on a commercial basis, even if subsidies were paid to support key industries.

That was the extent of UK socialism. It never ventured towards communism or the confiscation of wealth.

We can see the effect of Tory right wing governments when we look at the increase in poverty since 1990 ( +3 million people) and the widening gap between rich and poor. The middle classes have become poorer, the rich very rich.

Today the Labour party is split into two main groups: the New Labour centrist/liberal people and the grassroots, traditional socialists of Corbyn’s ilk.

The core beliefs and aims remain the same for nearly all UK politicians: create an economy that is growing, provide reasonable public services and safety, and give people as much freedom as possible while protecting the establishment at all times. The only parties that don’t conform to the ideal are the Extreme Right and anarchist groups, but they are almost non-existent; at least, that was true until far right extremists infiltrated the Tory party and started to take up positions of power. These are the people who recently tried to usurp the power of Parliament.

Because there is an enormous centre-left party that has always operated as a broad coalition of the left in British politics since its formation. The Labour party is the natural political home for left wing politics in the UK.

As there has effectively been a two party system in the UK for the last century, any party to the left of Labour can only gain votes at the expense of the Labour party. The SNP illustrated this point in 2010 when it positioned itself to the left of Ed Miliband’s Labour and won a lot of seats in Scotland. While this was a victory for the SNP, it was disastrous for the wider British left as it assisted the right wing Conservative Party to get back into government.

People on the left in the UK have a choice between a centre-left Labour party or a right wing Conservative party. Removing support from Labour to a party further to the left, which will be unable to gain power, serves no purpose whatsoever.

The next largest party of the left is the Green party, which obviously has other agendas, but which has no realistic chance of even forming part of a coalition government.

The British public is largely (small c) conservative and the British media is largely far-right in outlook, so the prospect of a majority far left party taking power is more or less impossible. The fact that a (from an objective position) centre-left moderate like Corbyn is described as “Hard Left” shows this clearly.

Corbyn’s energy policy, for example, is inspired by the energy market in Germany, one supported by Angela Merkel. Nobody in their right mind would consider Merkel to be “Hard left” but apparently when brought to the UK, her energy policy is seen as some kind of Marxist conspiracy.

Indeed, in the United Kingdom during the period before the Second World War there was a very active and strengthened Communist Party. This party remained strong until at least 1943, and subsequently experienced a period of decline in its membership and political activity.

The Communist Party of Great Britain (CPGB) was the largest communist organisation in Britain and was founded in 1920 through a merger of several smaller Marxist groups.Many miners joined the CPGB in the 1926 general strike. In 1930, the CPGB founded the Daily Worker (renamed the Morning Star in 1966). In 1936, members of the party were present at the Battle of Cable Street, helping organise resistance against the British Union of Fascists. In the Spanish Civil War, the CPGB worked with the USSR to create the British Battalion of the International Brigades,which party activist Bill Alexander commanded.

In World War II, the CPGB followed the Comintern position, opposing or supporting the war in line with the involvement of the USSR. By the end of World War II, CPGB membership had nearly tripled and the party reached the height of its popularity.

The Communist Party of Great Britain was founded in 1920 after the Third International decided that greater attempts should be made to establish communist parties across the world. The CPGB was formed by the merger of several smaller Marxist parties, including the British Socialist Party, the Communist Unity Group of the Socialist Labour Party and the South Wales Socialist Society.The party also gained the support of the Guild Communists faction of the National Guilds League, assorted shop stewards' and workers' committees, socialist clubs and individuals and many former members of the Hands Off Russia campaign. Several branches and many individual members of the Independent Labour Party also affiliated. As a member of the British Socialist Party, the Member of Parliament Cecil L'Estrange Malone joined the CPGB. A few days after the founding conference the new party published the first issue of its weekly newspaper, which was called the Communist and edited by Raymond Postgate.

In January 1921, the CPGB was refounded after the majorities of Sylvia Pankhurst's group the Communist Party (British Section of the Third International), and the Scottish Communist Labour Party agreed to unity. The party benefited from a period of increased political radicalism in Britain just after the First World War and the Russian Revolution of October 1917, and was also represented in Britain by the Red Clydeside movement.

During the negotiations leading to the initiation of the party, a number of issues were hotly contested. Among the most contentious were the questions of "parliamentarism" and the attitude of the Communist Party to the Labour Party. "Parliamentarism" referred to a strategy of contesting elections and working through existing parliaments. It was a strategy associated with the parties of the Second International and it was partly for this reason that it was opposed by those who wanted to break with Social Democracy. Critics contended that parliamentarism had caused the old parties to become devoted to reformism because it had encouraged them to place more importance on winning votes than on working for socialism, that it encouraged opportunists and place-seekers into the ranks of the movement and that it constituted an acceptance of the legitimacy of the existing governing institutions of capitalism. Similarly, affiliation to the Labour Party was opposed on the grounds that communists should not work with 'reformist' Social Democratic parties. These Left Communist positions enjoyed considerable support, being supported by Sylvia Pankhurst and Willie Gallacher among others. However, the Russian Communist Party took the opposing view. In 1920, Vladimir Lenin argued in his essay "Left Wing" Communism: An Infantile Disorder that the CPs should work with reformist trade unions and social democratic parties because these were the existing organisations of the working class. Lenin argued that if such organisations gained power, they would demonstrate that they were not really on the side of the working class, thus workers would become disillusioned and come over to supporting the Communist Party. Lenin's opinion prevailed eventually.

In 1923, the party renamed its newspaper as the Workers Weekly. In 1923, the Workers' Weekly published a letter by J. R. Campbell urging British Army soldiers not to fire on striking workers. The Labour government of Prime Minister Ramsay MacDonald prosecuted him under the Incitement to Disaffection Act but withdrew the charges upon review. This led to the Liberal Party introducing a motion to establish an inquiry into the Labour government, which led to its resignation.

The affair of the forged Zinoviev Letter occurred during the subsequent general election late October 1924. Intended to suggest that the Communist Party in Britain was engaged in subversive activities among the British Armed Forces and elsewhere, the forgery's aim was to promote the electoral chances of the Conservative Party in the general election of 29 October; it was probably the work of SIS (MI6) or White Russian counter-revolutionaries.

After Labour lost to the Conservative Party in the election, it blamed the Zinoviev Letter for its defeat In the aftermath of the Campbell Case and the Zinoviev letter, Labour expelled Communist Party members and banned them from running as its parliamentary candidates in the future. After the 1926 British general strike, it also disbanded 26 Constituency Labour Parties which resisted the ruling or were otherwise deemed too sympathetic to the Communist Party.

Throughout the 1920s and most of the 1930s, the CPGB decided to maintain the doctrine that a communist party should consist of revolutionary cadres and not be open to all applicants. The CPGB as the British section of the Communist International was committed to implementing the decisions of the higher body to which it was subordinate.

This proved to be a mixed blessing in the General Strike of 1926 immediately prior to which much of the central leadership of the CPGB was imprisoned. Twelve were charged with "seditious conspiracy". Five were jailed for a year and the others for six months. Another major problem for the party was its policy of abnegating its own role and calling upon the General Council of the Trades Union Congress to play a revolutionary role.

Nonetheless, during the strike itself and during the long drawn-out agony of the following Miners' Strike the members of the CPGB were to the fore in defending the strike and in attempting to develop solidarity with the miners. The result was that membership of the party in mining areas increased greatly through 1926 and 1927. Much of these gains would be lost during the Third Period but the influence was developed in certain areas that would continue until the party's demise decades later.

The CPGB did succeed in creating a layer of militants very committed to the party and its policies, although this support was concentrated in particular trades, specifically in heavy engineering, textiles and mining, and in addition, tended to be concentrated regionally too in the coalfields, certain industrial cities such as Glasgow and in Jewish East London. Indeed, Maerdy in the Rhondda Valley along with Chopwell in Tyne and Wear were two of a number of communities known as Little Moscow for their Communist tendencies.

During the 1920s, the CPGB clandestinely worked to train the future leaders of India's first communist party. Some of the key activists charged with this task, Philip Spratt and Ben Bradley, were later arrested and convicted as a part of the Meerut Conspiracy Case. Their trial helped to raise British public awareness of British colonialism in India, and caused massive public outrage over their treatment. At the same time, Asian and African delegates to the Comintern such as Ho Chi Minh, M. N. Roy, and Sen Katayama criticized the GBCP for neglecting colonial issues in India and Ireland

But this support built during the party's first years was imperilled during the Third Period from 1929 to 1932, the Third Period being the so-called period of renewed revolutionary advance as it was dubbed by the (now Stalinised) leadership of the Comintern. The result of this "class against class" policy was that the Social Democratic and Labourite parties were seen as just as much a threat as the fascist parties and were therefore described as being social-fascist. Any kind of alliance with "social-fascists" was obviously to be prohibited.

The Third Period also meant that the CPGB sought to develop revolutionary trade unions in rivalry to the established Trades Union Congress affiliated unions. They met with an almost total lack of success although a tiny handful of "red" unions were formed, amongst them a miners union in Scotland and tailoring union in East London. Arthur Horner, the Communist leader of the Welsh miners, fought off attempts to found a similar union on his patch.

But even if the Third Period was by all conventional standards a total political failure it was the 'heroic' period of British communism and one of its campaigns did have impact beyond its ranks. This was the National Unemployed Workers' Movement led by Wal Hannington. Increasing unemployment had caused a substantial increase in the number of CP members, especially those drawn from engineering, lacking work. This cadre of which Hannington and Harry MacShane in Scotland were emblematic, found a purpose in building the NUWM which resulted in a number of marches on the unemployment issue during the 1930s. Although born in the Third Period during the Great Depression, the NUWM was a major campaigning body throughout the Popular Front period too, only being dissolved in 1941.

After the victory of Adolf Hitler in Germany, the Third Period was dropped by all Communist Parties as they switched to the policy of the Popular Front. This policy argued that as fascism was the main danger to the workers' movement, it needed to ally itself with all anti-fascist forces including right-wing democratic parties. In Britain, this policy expressed itself in the efforts of the CPGB to forge an alliance with the Labour Party and even with forces to the right of Labour.

In the 1935 general election Willie Gallacher was elected as the Communist Party's first MP in six years, and their first MP elected against Labour opposition. Gallacher sat for West Fife in Scotland, a coal mining region in which it had considerable support. During the 1930s the CPGB opposed the National Government's European policy of appeasement towards Nazi Germany and Fascist Italy. On the streets the party members played a leading role in the struggle against the British Union of Fascists, led by Sir Oswald Mosley whose Blackshirts tried to emulate the Nazis in anti-Semitic actions in London and other major British cities.The Communist Party's Oxford branch under the leadership of Abraham Lazarus managed to successfully contain and defeat the rise of fascism in the city of Oxford, forcing the Blackshirts to retreat from the town and into the relative safety of Oxford University after the Battle of Carfax.

With the beginning of the Second World War in 1939, the CPGB initially continued to support the struggle on two fronts (against Chamberlain at home and Nazi fascism abroad). Following the Molotov–Ribbentrop nonaggression pact on 23 August between the Soviet Union and Germany, the Comintern changed its position, describing the war as the product of imperialism on both sides, in which the working class had no side to take. The CPGB central committee followed the directive, changing to an anti-war stance. This change was opposed by Harry Pollitt and J. R. Campbell, the editor of the Daily Worker, and both were relieved of their duties in October 1939. Pollitt was replaced by Palme Dutt. From 1939 until 1941 the CPGB was very active in supporting strikes and in denouncing the government for its pursuit of the war.

However, when in 1941 the Soviet Union was invaded by Germany, the CPGB came out in support of the war on the grounds of defense of the Soviet Union against fascism. Pollitt was restored to his former position as Party Secretary. The party then launched a campaign for a Second Front in order to support the USSR and speed the defeat of the Axis powers. In industry, they now opposed strike action and supported the Joint Production Committees, which aimed to increase productivity, and supported the National Government that was led by Winston Churchill (Conservative) and Clement Attlee (Labour). At the same time, given the influence of Rajani Palme Dutt in the Party, the issue of Indian independence and the independence of colonies was emphasised.

In the 1945 general election, the Communist Party received 103,000 votes, and two Communists were elected as members of parliament: Willie Gallacher was returned, and Phil Piratin was newly elected as the MP for Mile End in London's East End. Harry Pollitt failed by only 972 votes to take the Rhondda East constituency. Both Communist MPs, however, lost their seats in the 1950 general election. The Party was keen to demonstrate its loyalty to Britain's industrial competitiveness as a stepping point towards socialism. At the 19th Congress, Harry Pollitt asked rhetorically, "Why do we need to increase production?" He answered: "To pay for what we are compelled to import. To retain our independence as a nation."

The party's membership peaked during 1943, reaching around 60,000.Despite boasting some leading intellectuals, especially among the Communist Party Historians Group, the party was still tiny compared to its continental European counterparts. The French Communist Party for instance had 800,000 members, and the Italian Communist Party had 1.7 million members, before Benito Mussolini outlawed it in 1926. The Party tried, unsuccessfully, to affiliate to the Labour Party in 1935, 1943 and 1946.

The monarchs from Charles 11, with the Restoration and end of the Interregnum in 1660 when Charles 11 was invited back, were obliged to accept parliament’s terms. Charles 11 was obliged to agree to conditions set by parliament, and signed away despotic rights. Subsequent monarchs knew they could only rule with parliament’s approval, and parliament made the laws not the king.

In addition, with the industrial revolution and the development of upward mobility people could improve their position in society, become rich, and even move up socially.

There was some unrest with demands for universal franchise but parliament accepted changes and the franchise was extended gradually. This flexibility and with the monarch under parliament’s control a communist revolution was rather remote.

Prompt Generator question.

To whoever runs Quora: This prompt utility does not improve Quora. The questions do NOT prompt debate. They are so basic, shallow, repetitive and factually incorrect — like this one — they promote intense irritation.

Sometimes they are intrusive and out of order, such as questions about the private financial and health information of public figures.

Sometimes they provoke conflict. This is not good strategy for encouraging conversation and debate. All it promotes is shouting. Posturing. Jingoism. Snark. And a great deal of scrolling on by without a pause by those Quorans who are actually knowledgeable, write well, and enjoy a good, civil conversation on topics with a bit of meat to them.

It’s true there are communists in our country they infiltrate the Trade unions and there is a strong element within the Labour Party that are Soviet sympathsisers. They are the main reason that Labour cannot get elected even when the Tories are unpopular.

As a lifelong Tory supporter I can honestly say there have been times when I have despaired at the weak ineffective wets that dominate the Tory party & have done since they ousted Margaret Thatcher leaving the likes of John Major, Kenneth Clerk, Geoffrey Howe, Rifkin & a host of other weak individuals more concerned with remaining popular or keeping their seats than taking the tough decisions that the country needed & only Thatcher had the courage to Persue.

But the Labour alternative has always been so awful. It was so bad back in the early 80’s that those moderate labour MP’s formed the SDP :- Roy Jenkins, David Owen, Shirley Williams & Bill Rogers & ironically they were the only Labour MP’s likely to get Labour elected but as always the hard left undermines those moderates and fortunately labour can’t win elections with the likes of Corbyn & his left wing cronies.

Only Tony Blaire with his supposedly moderate NEW Labour managed to get elected & look at the damage he & his successor did.

However be warned & never underestimate them they continue to spread their brand of poison like a malignant cancer that won’t go away biding their time & waiting for the opportunity to get in & do their damage.

Right now we are experiencing a dangerous time because the Tories are all over the place and the Trade unions are using their clout to disrupt and destroy the country like they tried with the left wing leaders like Arthur Scargill & the rail union leader back in the 60’s & 70’s and others already flexing their muscles to cause chaos at a time when the country should be pulling together not dividing even further.

Not really.

The left used to be Christian back in the days of Old Labour, but it decided to abandon Christians when the religion became unfashionable. Mr Morgan Phillips, when he was General Secretary of the Labour Party, once said that the party owed more to Methodism than Marxism. Unfortunately, it’s since been hijacked by Marxism.

More recently the Liberal Democrats had an observant christian as their party leader, but the social justice crowd constantly accused of being homophobic without any evidence and refused to vote for him. He resigned and was quoted as saying that people aren’t willing to practice the tolerance they preach.

It’s not that bad actually to be a communist openly in the Us, in fact it doesn’t stop you from getting high paying jobs, nor from getting a house, nor anything else, I would know because my brother is a signed member of the US communist party and owns his own house.

Though he might be on a watchlist for very obvious reasons (not like I’m not from my time in the army and my specific military training) so it’s not much worse than say… being a regular citizen. In fact there are famous scientists and cited writers that are also avowed communists that are welcomed openly in academia and in regular life, though if you go into economics, they’d be laughed out of the building lol, the social sciences take that stuff pretty seriously and actually uses a lot of their backing to do things.

Is there any communist country in Europe today?

There never were any Communist countries.

Communism is a theoretical economy. The nations that claimed to be Communist were actually dictatorships. They used the word “Communist” to get the support of the working class, and never planned on making it a reality.

Now, a whole generation think Communism and dictatorship are the same thing.

It is easy to tell the difference- does the nation have rich people, with wealth that goes from one generation to another, and poor people, stuck in multi-generational poverty? Then it is NOT Communism.

Communism is technically impossible now, because our economies rely on manual labor.

There are two kinds of occupations:

Jobs that people do just because they are paid to do it, like scrubbing toilets.

Carriers that people do because they really like doing it, like scientists, artists, athletes, most doctors and lawyers, etc.

We can only have true communism when all “jobs” are replaced with automation, so people are free to pursue activities that they WANT to do instead of those they NEED to do just to survive.

No , for communism/socialism to become reality , the overwhelming majority of the worlds workers would have to understand the concept and want to organise for its inception . C/s cannot exist in one country , how could you have a moneyless , stateless , classless , wageless country existing within a sea of capitalism . The only political party advocating such a society through peaceful revolution(since 1904) and the second oldest political party in the UK , the Socialist Party of Great Britain has a few thousand members and supporters in total , seeing as we need 4,000,000,000 workers at present global population to understand and want to organise for socialism , then getting socialism hasn’t been on the cards and is still some way off From Capitalism to Socialism - How We Live and How We Could Live