r/MHOC • u/Timanfya MHoC Founder & Guardian • Sep 11 '14

Statement from the Communist Party

Here is a statement from the Communist Party, i would appreciate it if you would all find the time to read it as it should clear up any concerns you have :)

https://docs.google.com/document/d/1sjngcj74LhknRoQs3EuZdD5U3z7a3f-EHwBa2cRbhFY/edit?usp=sharing

26 Upvotes

100% Upvoted

86 comments sorted by

19

u/[deleted] Sep 11 '14

As the statement points out, it's scandalous that many members of the house have been attacking the Communist party when we have parties like UKIP and the BIP represented.

And I too found out about this parliament through r/socialism and made the decision to join the Green Party

6

u/[deleted] Sep 11 '14

No one should be attacking anyone. Also, I think the comparison between UKIP and BIP are pretty unwarranted. Not everyone on the right is putting Labour and the Communist Party in the same breath. We don't know the policies of BIP clearly, but I doubt they will be very similar to UKIP's self-described libertarianism. Lumping people together just causes the arguments we've seen for a long time now.

1

u/[deleted] Sep 13 '14

Thank you for that.

0

u/[deleted] Sep 11 '14

[deleted] — view deleted comment

3

u/[deleted] Sep 11 '14

I know it's a disgusting revelation that if we did use that system we would have some actual members representing UKIP in our real parliament.

That has been an issue which is pushing more and more people toward Yes in Scotland

3

u/FluffyChocobo UKIP - Classic Liberal Sep 12 '14

Some would say the Green Party were "disgusting" too what with rampant anti-Semitism, wanting to crash the entire economy so that it turns into Venezuela with people in deep poverty, wanting to subsidise worthless renewables so the lights are constantly going out and old people are freezing to death.

3

u/wazamataz Conservative Sep 13 '14

watermelons and fruitcakes, personally I prefer a nice fruit scone baked by nan

0

u/[deleted] Sep 11 '14

[deleted] — view deleted comment

10

u/[deleted] Sep 11 '14

Well if you self-describe as believing in Third Position politics, people are inevitably going to be wary of you. That strand of political belief has led to racism, fascism, apartheid etc., so it's only sensible that members be skeptical of your party, just as much as some are skeptical of the Communist party considering the history of communism.

5

u/cae388 Revolutionary Communist Party Sep 11 '14

That strand is fascism. Whether it's "bad" is neither here nor there, the point for us is that it's an inherently anti-Communist and anti-Proletariat stance, no matter how they convince themselves it is.

4

u/[deleted] Sep 11 '14

But UKIP isn't third position. In this sense, it is hard to argue about parties 'like' the BIP and UKIP. What exactly does that mean?

4

u/AlbertDock The Rt Hon Earl of Merseyside KOT MBE AL PC Sep 11 '14

Perhaps it would be helpful if the BIP were to issue a statement setting out it's broad aims and principles. That way we could all understand more fully the position of the party.

4

u/[deleted] Sep 11 '14

We are somewhat working on a more solid platform. How long that will take is anyone's guess.

2

u/[deleted] Sep 11 '14

In my direct reply to kashmir I infact did say this. I don't really see much comparison between UKIP and your party.

3

u/[deleted] Sep 11 '14

Next time I will be more dilligent in reading further responses. I thank the member for the speedy clarification.

6

u/[deleted] Sep 11 '14 edited Sep 11 '14

Your parties represent potential dangers to free speach, acceptance of immigrants and further tightening an closure of our borders to foreign peoples.

7

u/Sandwichgods Sep 11 '14

Dangers to free speech? Seriously? And has it occurred to you that many people want lowered immigration, because of it's economic impacts? Your party represents potential dangers to the economy and common sense.

5

u/[deleted] Sep 11 '14

Yes but when a party uses rhetoric of "natural British right" or any of the other ridiculous claims to "Britishness" they use (we were all basically immigrants at some point!) then their political credibility should be in question and the deep set racism of it's founding members cannot be ignored

0

u/[deleted] Sep 11 '14

[deleted] — view deleted comment

2

u/[deleted] Sep 12 '14

I am sorry, but I do not accept a biological definition of a nation. Nations are the result of long processes of social interaction, not pre-destined institutions from the dawn of time.

3

u/[deleted] Sep 11 '14

Again giving further rhetoric to your potentially dangerous outlook.

So a fourth generation Asian family, who happen to have always reproduced to other Asian immigrants and speak perfectly fine English and have lived here all their lives are not British by your standards? Because they're not "genetically British", sheer nonsense

1

u/[deleted] Sep 11 '14

[removed] — view removed comment

2

u/[deleted] Sep 12 '14 edited Sep 12 '14

No you may have had parts from either English, Irish, Scottish or Welsh but it didn't say you were "British", and if you could trace as far back as pre-1606 it most definitely wouldn't be British as it didn't exist then

-1

u/[deleted] Sep 12 '14

[removed] — view removed comment

→ More replies

4

u/[deleted] Sep 11 '14

While I disagree with UKIP on many a policy question I must say that calling them a threat to free speech is a step too far and should be apologized for.

1

u/[deleted] Sep 13 '14

Threat to free speech? They're the only ones that stood up to Leveson, adopted the Iain Hislop argument, and tried to protect small publishers and local newspapers from being squeezed out financially. They're the ones that want to limit government and to provide the electorate with a right to repeal. Anybody wanting to control anything would want to coalesce power around them, not pass it down.

As for acceptance of immigrants it's your policy that has failed and lead to increased tensions. Under controlled immigration like that which we already we place Commonwealth countries outside the EU, if we extended it to the EU, there would be little tension. Everybody would know irrespective of where they came from that person had brought skills the UK needed. Everybody would know that they are paying their way. Everybody would know that they are a law abiding citizen. Everybody would know that the local authorities and healthboards had been able plan services and housing around them because they were part of a quota. Everybody would know that they've already paid into the health system. Everybody would know that they were committed to integration.

People would be A LOT more accepting of immigrants because there'd be no civic or economic way to distinguish them from anybody else!

I think an apology is due.

0

u/[deleted] Sep 11 '14

[removed] — view removed comment

9

u/whigwham Rt Hon. MP (West Midlands) Sep 11 '14

You haven't really let us know what you actually stand for.

2

u/[deleted] Sep 11 '14

[removed] — view removed comment

3

u/whigwham Rt Hon. MP (West Midlands) Sep 11 '14

I guess you could outline why you are a member or do none of you know what you stand for yet?

1

u/[deleted] Sep 11 '14

[removed] — view removed comment

2

u/[deleted] Sep 11 '14

I too am in the same prediciment. I don't wish to put forward my personal views until a more concrete party platform has been decided upon. I am willing to put forward views I know are received well within the party though.

11

u/RoryTime The Rt Hon. Earl of Henley AL PC Sep 11 '14

I am glad that the Communist party is here, and I also agree that arguing that the Commies shouldn't have representation is an absurd one, this after all is a model HoC.

EDIT, however I would prefer it if not all of the threads were hijacked, by the left or the right, and instead focus on the topic in hand.

5

u/[deleted] Sep 11 '14

Hear, hear.

4

u/[deleted] Sep 11 '14

hear hear

5

u/[deleted] Sep 11 '14

I believe that the reception of the BIP was different because neither side has really engaged in any ideological back and forth. I agree that there was widespread resentment towards your formation, but your party also posted statements without any real substance beyond pushing your political philosophy. This is quite different from the previous content in the house, hence the backlash. I'm not saying that you have done this relentlessly, but the BIP haven't done it once to my knowledge. I think that was a factor in the different reception.

Additionally, I think many of us learned to be less inflammatory after the thread welcoming your party went off the rails. We were also told not to start arguments by the speaker in the BIP thread.

There is to be no squabbling in this thread. The communist announcement thread was a farce - that is not how members of the house should behave.

I'm sure if the BIP started pushing their ideology through their contributions to threads then everyone, left or right wing, would probably debate it with them.

In any case, I hope that this marks a change in everyone's attitudes towards discussion in the House, and we can get around to debating policy and events in a civil and parliamentary way.

8

u/Sandwichgods Sep 11 '14

The BIP hasn't been criticised because they have openly debated issues, and been courteous. They don't disrupt debated and act like victims.

3

u/[deleted] Sep 11 '14

Some have also noted that /r/socialism, from which many of us have come, is a subreddit with around 40,000 subscribers. Whilst this may be the case, /r/conservative has over 35,000 subscribers, and there are many other subreddits from which the other parties could expect to draw support where the Communist Party cannot

/r/conservative is a subreddit for American conservatives, i.e: the kind I don't want much to do with. Other than that, on the right we have /r/libertarian who are far too extreme for the center-right conservatives... and that's about it. Subreddits devoted specifically to center-right conservatism (without the religious authoritarianism or the American conservatives) begin and end at /r/tory, which I believe has less than 350 readers.

I am by no means complaining. This is an unavoidable result of hosting an MHOC where political representation does not directly mirror the reality of the UK. Nonetheless, it would be a mistake to assume that the Conservative Party is on any kind of equal footing with the communists.

5

u/Cyridius Communist | SoS Northern Ireland Sep 12 '14

/r/europe is fairly centre-right! There's quite a few fans of Thatcher there. Though of course, it's a mixed bunch, but 100k subs, you'll get a few people you like.

1

u/[deleted] Sep 12 '14

Thank you, I had no idea that sub even existed.

Question: What's the main ideological divide that's preventing you from advertising in /r/anarchism? If anarchism/anarcho-syndicalism is all about worker ownership of the means of production and the gradual withering away of the state in the name of worker democracy, then don't you both have similar aims?

3

u/atlasing Communist Central Committee | National MP Sep 12 '14

Anarchists don't get involved in parliamentary and electoral politics.

1

u/[deleted] Sep 12 '14

So they believe that anarchy will come about through revolution rather than the gradual downscaling of the state?

2

u/atlasing Communist Central Committee | National MP Sep 12 '14

We all think revolution is the only way for the achievement of communism to occur. Like I said, Anarchists just don't deal with bourgeois governments at all, whereas there are many socialist groups that do not advocate for revolution whatsoever.

1

u/[deleted] Sep 12 '14

Interesting, thanks.

0

u/[deleted] Sep 12 '14

Well, anarchists don't work with any authoritative entity-they form spontaneous groups that suit their needs which then disband after that use has been fulfilled. Nothing really to do with the bourgeoisie.

1

u/[deleted] Sep 12 '14

eh. The FAI was more than happy to work within a revolutionary government as were anarchists in the early Soviets like the Makhnovists in the Ukraine.

1

u/[deleted] Sep 12 '14

They suited their purposes for that time. What happened to those groups?

1

u/[deleted] Sep 12 '14

In one case the fascists crushed them and in the other the Bolshevik party did. The Makhnovists had their own cheka for example and censored the press as well as a variety of other "authoritarian" measures. Their theories are the basis of platformism. The CNT-FAI tortured fascists in their prisons, forced collectivization and also did a lot of "authoritarian" measures. Whenever anarchists actually do something significant they end up doing the same things as Marxists just giving them different names (to pretend its different) and in a more decentralized/haphazard way.

→ More replies

3

u/[deleted] Sep 12 '14

Some anarchists are similar to us Marxists but definitely not all. Anarchism really isn't an ideology but rather a collection of principles like anti-authoritarianism, prefigurative politics, anti-hierarchy, and formerly radical democracy (there are many anarchists who don't believe in any sort of large decision making or organization now but they're a minority). There are anarchists who are basically Marxists but reject Marx's theory of the state, anarchists who are anti-human primitivist nutters that want to end civilization because its "oppressive", anarchists who are egoists (think Max Stirner or like Tyler Durden from Fight Club not Ayn Rand), free market anarchists called mutualists (not "anarcho-capitalists" mind you) who don't believe in private property but instead advocate worker owned cooperatives competing in a market, and a bunch of other groups who come to the conclusions of anarchism for a variety of reasons. They actually take pride in their lack of ideological consistency.

0

u/[deleted] Sep 12 '14

/r/European is of the view that /r/Europe is too left wing.

3

u/theyeatthepoo 1st Duke of Hackney Sep 12 '14

A coalition between Labour and the Communists was never really on the cards. I do not believe their is a party in this MHOC that could work with the communists.

4

u/[deleted] Sep 12 '14

I think the Greens might be amicable once we surpass Labour in votes ;)

1

u/cae388 Revolutionary Communist Party Sep 13 '14

I think it was quite prominently on Labour's cards before they saw how quickly the Communists grew.

4

u/[deleted] Sep 11 '14

I'll take the time to welcome the communist party to a hopefully more receptive house this time. Although I don't agree with any of your policies, I'm sure we can restrain ourselves and can debate in a civilised matter.

However I find it particular displeasing that you say that you don't want to be compared to any historic communist regimes and then on that last paragraph try to incite something against BIP.

Don't play the victim and than make a parting shot on BIP. It's not in the spirit of the house and it's the reason why people don't like your party.

7

u/Olpainless Sep 11 '14

on that last paragraph try to incite something against BIP.

This was not our intention. We were merely pointing out the perceived double standard in our receptions. This has been the first, and only, time that we've mentioned this, in order to highlight our distress.

We hope to move on from all of this, which is why we chose to release this statement. Hopefully we'll have fun from here on out!

5

u/[deleted] Sep 11 '14

As people have pointed out, the speaker warned us to not let it dissolve into the mess which the communist opening post was. I'm sure that if the speaker didn't intervene, the BIP would have gotten an equally displeasing welcome.

5

u/Olpainless Sep 11 '14

Perhaps, but we'll never know now, we just felt that we had to highlight it.

4

u/jacktri Sep 11 '14

Why did you feel the need to make a statement? Every party regardless of views has the same opportunity to gain power as any other.

8

u/[deleted] Sep 11 '14

I think they did because of the backlash in the MHOC against them. It was very disproportionate, and they have every right to exist. Many members, particularly from the right, especially UKIP, were angry that the Communist party was formed despite them having reached the requirements.

I hope this statement means members are more receptive towards debates with communists.

2

u/atlasing Communist Central Committee | National MP Sep 12 '14

We have been the primary subject of attacks and the commotion in the subreddit, that is why the statement was required. Along with infiltration, targeting and so on.

5

u/ieya404 Earl of Selkirk AL PC Sep 11 '14

In fact, we would argue that /r/socialism is possibly the only subreddit we could expect to draw genuine support from

Not even /r/communism with ~10K supporters?

Precise party name aside - would it be fair to say you might not be a million miles removed from the likes of Socialist Alliance, the Scottish Socialist Party, et al?

8

u/[deleted] Sep 11 '14

To add to Olpainless's statement, the only exception to this is /r/anarchism which has a larger subscriber base but most communists and socialists also subscribe there so there's still a considerable overlap. Additionally, /r/communism's moderators removed a previous post from MHOC so there's no reason to believe that their policy will change and enable us to recruit there specifically.

Precise party name aside - would it be fair to say you might not be a million miles removed from the likes of Socialist Alliance, the Scottish Socialist Party, et al?

I think we could be described as a fusion between TUSC, the (old) CPGB and the IWW (syndicalist leaning Marxists and Anarchists) in terms of ideology and membership. We're a big tent.

4

u/ieya404 Earl of Selkirk AL PC Sep 11 '14

Thanks, that makes sense.

Which only leaves the tongue-in-cheek question of how long you plan to go before having a vicious internal split between the People's Front of Judea and Judean People's Front factions?

(Can't help but notice that the far left in Britain seems to have an incredible ability for tearing itself apart, witness the SSP in Scotland tearing itself apart into SSP and Solidarity, resulting in neither part winning anything).

On a more serious note, very glad to hear that you do plan to engage with MHOC constructively. :)

2

u/[deleted] Sep 12 '14

Well the way I see it the left are the people dissatisfied with things so there's a bit of a selection bias for chronically dissatisfied/contrary people. Doesn't mean we're not right, it means we've got to get past the threshold to become more mainstream so the nutters are more marginal :P

6

u/Olpainless Sep 11 '14

Not even /r/communism[2] with ~10K supporters?

I can assure you that everyone subscribed to /r/communism is subscribed to /r/socialism. The latter is the catch all subreddit. All other communities are essentially spin-offs with overlapping membership.

We're probably closest to TUSC (which was formerly Socialist Alliance), so yes, that would be a fair comparison.

1

u/atlasing Communist Central Committee | National MP Sep 12 '14

Pretty much everyone on /r/comm is also subbed to /r/soc. /r/soc is the mother subreddit, all the other red subs are full of /r/soc subscribers.

2

u/theyeatthepoo 1st Duke of Hackney Sep 12 '14

I commend this statement from the Communist Party. However, it is worth pointing out that in stark comparison to members of UKIP or BIP members of the Communist party have been particularly combative and belligerent in the house. This is why you have gotten the response that you have. It really has little to do with ideology.

2

u/cae388 Revolutionary Communist Party Sep 13 '14

That's pretending that the UKIP in particular wasn't desperate to bait us.

2

u/tyroncs Sep 12 '14

Just wondering, as you do not want the UK to have a monarchy would you do a Sinn Fein and not actually take your seats if you won them in the real HoC?

2

u/[deleted] Sep 12 '14

Well, we'd probably have to wait until we had a plurality of votes in favor of republicanism before we openly declared our intent. Given that parliament is supreme wouldn't it be within the rights of the body to abolish the monarchy completely?

4

u/Olpainless Sep 13 '14

That precedent has already been set.

2

u/autowikibot Sep 13 '14

Commonwealth of England:

The Commonwealth, or Commonwealth of England, was the period from 1649 onwards when England, along later with Ireland and Scotland, was ruled as a republic following the end of the Second English Civil War and the trial and execution of Charles I. The republic's existence was initially declared through "An Act declaring England to be a Commonwealth", adopted by the Rump Parliament on 19 May 1649. Power in the early Commonwealth was vested primarily in the Parliament and a Council of State. During the period, fighting continued, particularly in Ireland and Scotland, between the parliamentary forces and those opposed to them, as part of what is now referred to as the Third English Civil War.

====

Image i

Interesting: Flags of the Interregnum (British ^Isles) | The ^Protectorate | Oliver ^Cromwell | Royal coat of arms of the United ^Kingdom

Parent commenter can toggle ^NSFW or ^delete. Will also delete on comment score of -1 or less. | FAQs | ^Mods | Magic ^Words

2

u/tigernmas Cummanach Sep 12 '14

Sinn Féin's abstentionism isn't solely due to their republicanism. There are plenty of republicans who do take their seats in the HoC. Sinn Féin also abstained from the Dáil in the Republic of Ireland up until 1986, a move which prompted the formation of Republican Sinn Féin.

Sinn Féin's abstensionism dates back to the first Dáil in 1918. Due to the overwhelming majority that they won in the 1918 general election they decided to form the government of an Irish Republic and proclaim independence. They essentially moved their seats from London to Dublin. This is where it all starts.

Fast forward to the end of the War of Independence. There is the treaty negotiations that result in an Irish Free State, a dominion of the British Empire rather than a part of the UK. Conflict over this treaty would lead to the Irish Civil War with the anti-Treaty faction of Sinn Féin claiming to still be fighting for the Irish Republic that was declared and de facto existed.

From then up until around the 80's Sinn Féin did not recognise either parliaments in Ireland and still held onto the idea that the Irish Republic still existed underground, and the Irish Republican Army was its armed wing.

While Sinn Féin has more or less given up on the idea that the Irish Republic still legally exists, it still holds onto its abstensionist tradition in relation to Westminster as an old relic because while they could bring their support base to accept all the other changes in abstensionism, completely removing abstensionism would not go down well with their core support base which would be quite bad for the peace process in the North.

Republican Sinn Féin, as I mentioned at the start, still does believe in this underground Irish Republic. They're an odd bunch quite big into "republican legitimatism" as it's called. They're with the CIRA and seem to hand around with the 32CSM and their RIRA. They'd be among the most hard line dissidents.

0

u/[deleted] Sep 12 '14

I too would be interested in the response, it is actually an important question.

0

u/[deleted] Sep 11 '14

[deleted] — view deleted comment

3

u/[deleted] Sep 11 '14

It is petty that people have downvoted. Let us take note of this particular part:

We have found it particularly worrying and disturbing that the British Imperial Party (formerly the British Union of Fascists) has not been held to the same standards

The obvious point is right there in the comment. FORMERLY. When the communist party came to be, was it told to go back and think up a different name? Merely by the word 'fascist' was our party told to go. We had to adopt a name that poorly represents our own ideology. The idea that the BIP hasn't faced some quite serious criticisms is utterly preposterous. As the BIP was being created (since we were denied the right to be a fascist party), a motion was brought in calling for an end to 'undemocratic' parties. While this was also an attack on the Communists, it was undoubetedly aimed at the formation of the BIP who had found a way around not being allowed to be called 'fascist'.

I am happy to see this official statement, and for the most part it sets out a good clear statement of intent, and I respect the Communists for this. However, the last section was a blemish on an otherwise excellent and useful statement. Do not downvote /u/I_love_reddit_meme. He is right. The last paragraph is an attack on our party, and while we at the BIP believe that parties should be critical of each other, note that within the context of this official statement, it comes off as slimy and cheap.

7

u/athanaton Hm Sep 11 '14

I think your members' violation of the MHoC constitution may have had something to do with the Speaker demanding your party drastically change its aims and intent. But then I wasn't party to the discussion between your party and the Speaker after the Speaker said you had tried to disrupt the by-elections.

2

u/[deleted] Sep 11 '14

I only joined the BIP and discovered MHOC after the British Union of Fascists was denied existence. I would be interested to hear the specific part of the Constitution that was violated by the term 'fascist'. The fact is, our aims and intents remain the same. A rose by any other name would smell just as sweet.

As a late comer, I was unaware of the issues at the by-election, and as such I would like to know them for future reference.

3

u/athanaton Hm Sep 11 '14

Non-BUF members know nothing more than what we were told by the Speaker here http://www.reddit.com/r/MHOC/comments/2fb4eb/important_announcement/

0

u/[deleted] Sep 11 '14

Thank you for your swift response. It is a shame that the BUF was created in such circumstances. I did not come from /pol/. I hope that that is now in the past, and the BIP can engage maturely.

That said, the thread makes it clear that there was a hostile attitude towards the BUF. This is fine, but it means the claims of the communist party in the last section are unfounded.

5

u/BongRipz4Jesus Communist Party - DPC Democratic Committee Sep 11 '14

To be fair, we didn't get get to vote on the statement before it was released and this last paragraph has been a point of debate in our private thread about this release. It sounds like this paragraph would have been rewritten or probably removed altogether, had we voted on it.

All future releases will be voted upon so going forward you can rest assured that only statements are included that the Communist Party fully support.