Below, I look at the party programmes of three of Great Britain’s communist-identifying political organisations. There are many others representing a range of Marxist tendencies. For comparative ease, I have chosen three groups that all refer to themselves as a Communist Party. There are of course many others worth considering: the Socialist Workers’ Party, the Socialist Party of England and Wales and the Revolutionary Communist Party, for example – but for brevity’s sake I am dealing only with the three listed below. Those I have chosen to look at are:

• The Communist Party of Britain and its programme Britain’s Road to Socialism¹,
• The Communist Party of Great Britain (Marxist-Leninist) and its Party Programme,²
• The Communist Party of Great Britain (Provisional Central Committee) and its Draft Programme³.

The main framework I have used to evaluate these documents is established by three key documents:

• The Gotha Programme, agreed by the 1875 Gotha Congress of the German SPD⁴,
• The Erfurt Programme, agreed by the SPD’s October 1891 Erfurt Congress, drafted by August Bebel, Eduard Bernstein and Karl Kautsky and reviewed in draft form by Friedrich Engels in June 1891,⁵ 
• The programme agreed at the 1880 Le Havre Congress of the French Workers’ Party, originally drafted by Karl Marx and Jules Guesde, which I will refer to as the Le Havre Programme⁶.

The programmes of Gotha, Erfurt and Le Havre demonstrate what Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels conceived of as a party programme. Principally, this meant demands for reforms from or about the state towards the establishment of communist society via the proletarian revolution. These demands, for example, were often for the state to dissolve its standing army or to regulate the legal length of the working day. The importance of these demands was that they defined what the workers’ party was about: the achievement of these things is the reason for workers to come together as voters, supporters, activists, politicians, organisers etc, in the workers’ party. 

Before continuing, it is worth noting that I am assuming for my argument that the rapprochement of most of the existing Marxist groups in Britain today is necessary for the establishment of a unified Marxist workers’ party. As evidenced throughout the history of the workers’ movement, such a party can only come about by the fusion of existing groups, not by each group acting like the Party and ignoring each other.

Furthermore, the propertylessness that in-part defines the working class entails that an individual worker cannot generally summon private armies-for-hire overnight, nor could one run a national daily newspaper on their own, nor could one send 50 Communist MPs into the House of Commons on their own. For any semblance of power, workers must combine; they do this in the workplace in trade unions. Small, scattered combinations are better than no combinations at all, but not much better – 500 workers in ten unions will generally be a lot weaker than 500 workers in one union. For broadly the same reasons workers’ parties are also weak when divided. In the struggle for communism a workers’ party must be not only unified but also revolutionary and democratic in character. Only a Marxist party programme can provide this character and create a unified Marxist workers’ party.

For two main reasons, none of the three documents I review below provide the basis for such a principled rapprochement. Firstly, they are not programmes in the sense that they define the organisation in relation to its fundamental goal and immediate tasks, but statements that outline a milieu of acceptable views, providing a textual basis for groupthink rather than action⁷. Secondly, they are to differing extents not particularly Marxist documents and as such are broadly inadequate.

Communist Party of Britain – Britain’s Road to Socialism

The best place to start is probably Britain’s Road to Socialism (BRS)⁸, the programme of the Communist Party of Britain (CPB). This document in various forms has been the dominant programme of the British far-left political movement for nearly three quarters of a century, being originally published in 1951 as The British Road to Socialism. The current edition contains six chapters, the first 4 of which outline the general theoretical outlook of the CPB on a range of topics, namely: capitalism, imperialism, the history of actually-existing socialism, the failure of social-democracy, and many more.

Nothing in these four chapters is programmatic in that it does not, like the programmes of Gotha, Erfurt or Le Havre, define the CPB by its demands from or about the state. Instead, expressed are theoretical positions, the validity of which would need to be dealt with respectively.

Chapter 5 elaborates within itself a left-wing programme (LWP) to be created and adopted by the working class and progressive movements at large, not the CPB – yet BRS contains many statements about what ought to be included in the LWP. So, the CPB’s programme, Britain’s Road to Socialism, contains within itself a sort of programme-within-a-programme, that is, the left-wing programme to which the CPB is only partially committed.

Though the section is quite extensive, a few of the economic demands the CPB thinks the LWP should include would be to:

• Reduce the power of the City of London (p.48).
• Strengthen industry, manufacturing, and public services (through public and private sector investment and controls on capital export) (p.48).
• Full employment (p.48).
• A shorter working week and standard working life, with no loss of pay (p.49).
• Banning of mass redundancies (p. 49).

Many of these economic demands are good, and many, I would argue, lack ambition, like the demand to strengthen industry through private sector investment. Continuing, chapter 5 details what some of the political demands of the LWP ought to be. Though there are many more, some of these would be to demand:

• More “extensive democratic rights” (p. 54),
• That anti-trade union laws must be repealed (p. 54),
• The introduction of single transferable vote (p. 54),
• That voting rights should extend to 16 and 17-year-olds (p. 54),
• That the House of Lords is to be abolished (p. 55),
• That the Church of England is to be disestablished as the state church (p. 55),
• A Cornish Assembly (p. 55), and 
• Parliamentary reform for the Isle of Man and Channel Isles (p. 55).

Again, many of these demands are good, but many are insufficient for a Marxist programme, and some are strangely niche – not all can be dealt with here. The biggest political issue within the LWP/BRS programme-within-a-programme is, however, that the demand for the abolition of the House of Lords is separated in the LWP from the demand for the abolition of the monarchy, which only comes about later as a non-LWP demand. As such, the CPB finds in the House of Commons and His Majesty’s Left Government the political organs of popular sovereignty key to getting Britain to transform into a socialist society.

That these political organs are still to be ruled officially and constitutionally by King Charles III is not an issue for the CPB⁹. Engels, by contrast, was clear when writing his critique of the Erfurt programme that “the working class can only come to power under the form of a democratic republic”¹⁰ – why the CPB thinks the British section of the working class can do so under a semi-constitutional monarchy is not explained in BRS.

The second most pressing issue with the LWP, which cannot be skipped for brevity’s sake, is what the document does and does not say about Irish reunification. A government carrying out the LWP should “support a peaceful process of Irish reunification by consent”, BRS argues¹¹. It does not, however, mention the dissolution of the Police Service of Northern Ireland (or even specifically the democratisation of it), or the removal of the British Armed Forces from Ireland. The latter is a prerequisite to the creation of socialism in Britain, and the demand listed in the LWP, as such, is inadequate.

Chapter 6 focuses on the theoretical issues a left-wing government would face when clashing with the capitalist state that it is itself a part of. Some non-LWP demands are, however, included in this section, which are mostly political and are presumably separate because they are not about the opening stage of the socialist revolution in Britain. The key demands here are for:

• The expansion of the state’s corps of military reservists and its linking with large workplaces and local working-class communities (p. 64),
• Extensive changes in recruitment, staffing and management policies within the civil and diplomatic services, the judiciary, the police, the secret services and armed forces in order to replace key personnel (p. 64),
• The abolition of the Monarchy (p. 66), and
• Measures of reform, restructuring and democratisation to replace the capitalist state apparatus with one that represents the interests of the working class and the whole population (p. 66).

The expansion of military reservists and the “linking” with workplaces and communities serves to apply extreme democratic reforms to the standing army, rather than abolishing it. In the Le Havre programme, by comparison, the fourth demand of the political section is the “Abolition of standing armies and the general arming of the people”. The third demand of the Erfurt programme contained the “Militia in place of the standing army”. Marx himself highlighted positively in The Civil War in France that the first decree of the Paris Commune was the suppression of the standing army. This demand is contained within the classical party programmes of Marxism because they hold that the police and standing army are agents of oppression in-and-of themselves – BRS only half raises it in relation to an expected counter-revolution.

Before moving on to a couple of other programmes, it is worth noting two further issues about BRS and the CPB: the length of BRS and its organisational relationship to the CPB.

The current 2020 edition of Britain’s Road to Socialism comes in at around 30,000 words; it is far too long to give a distinct unifying identity, necessary for a mass organisation. The 1951 versionofthe CPGB’s The British Road to Socialism (which is available on the Marxist Internet Archive, along with the following versions) clocks in at just under 8,000 words¹², the 1958 version is just under 13,000 words¹³. The 1968 version is just over 11,000 words¹⁴. The 1977 version, however, comes in a bit under 26,000 words¹⁵. By comparison, the Gotha programme comes in under 700 words, the Erfurt programme comes in just over 1,300 words, and the Le Havre programme comes in just under 700 words. This is in large part because these documents are mostly programmatic rather than ideological, unlike all iterations of BRS. If Engels took issue with the length of the Erfurt programme at 1,300 words, one can assume he would think the mammoth 30,000-word BRS was also too long.  

Separately, it is unclear how the biannual Party Congress that the CPB holds relates to BRS. Like similar organisations, the CPB’s congress proceedings are not published in much detail externally, so it is hard to tell what impact the congresses can have on changing policy in the programme. The documents published from its 2023 Congress have no bearing on BRS¹⁶. The CPB’s Congress Report 2021 mentions the programme 10 times, across all its sections, but nowhere is it resolved to amend the programme, and it is not clear that they are able to¹⁷. In fact, BRS is of such little importance to the functioning of CPB that it is not mentioned in the CPB Aims and Constitution¹⁸. Theoretically this would entail that it could be edited by a congress resolution, but it does not positively give the membership the right to edit it directly, and as such resolutions to amend it could be, as often does happen on the left, lost in the sea of motions that are remitted or accepted-in-principle on the recommendation of the organisation’s Executive Committee.

There is, inversely, the issue of whether BRS sets the limits of policy discussion at the CPB congresses themselves. Are Congress resolutions permitted to contradict BRS statements on the same issues? The answer is that constitutionally, yes, as the BRS is not mentioned in the congress rules. This ambiguity, however, opens the door to shutting down democratic dissent – Party line on that issue has already been decided by BRS. Reports from dissident members of the CPB (under false names if they are still members) or former members of the CPB on such issues would be welcome in furthering this discussion. 

To summarise then, the main issue is that BRS is not a programme, it contains within itself the LWP, which is not, outright, a Marxist programme and to which the CPB is not seriously committed. Furthermore, because it is not a programme, but a statement of worldview, the content of BRS is largely irrelevant to the functioning of the CPB, and it is unclear how this document relates to the biannual congresses of the CPB.

Communist Party of Great Britain (Marxist-Leninist) – Party Programme

Going next to the CPB’s Marxist-Leninist competitor, the Communist Party of Great Britain (Marxist-Leninist) and its Party Programme. This document, available online, comes in at just over 2,300 words (excluding its Party rulebook section). The introduction is not programmatic; it entails no demands but describes the theoretical view the Party has of itself. This follows the structure of the Erfurt programme, the problem, however, is that it is followed by two sections, which are still mostly ideological.

The first of these two sections, which itself has eight subsections, outlines the CPGB-ML’s outlook on:

• capitalism (p. 13), 
• the alleged failure of historical socialism (p. 14), 
• communism as a historical stage (p. 14), 
• the working class as the agent of historical change (p. 14), 
• the importance of revolutionary theory (p. 15) 
• the necessity of a vanguard of the working class (p. 15), 
• the necessity of the Marxist-Leninist Party form for that vanguard (p. 16), and 
• the necessity of that vanguard in particular relation to Britain (p.16). 

Like with the first four chapters of the CPB’s BRS these are largely theoretical, and as such should be dealt with separately and individually.

The second section of the Party Programme outlines the CPGB-ML’s principles, of which there are eleven:

• commitment to Marxism-Leninism (p. 17), 
• commitment to democratic centralism (p. 17), 
• recognition of the dictatorship of the proletariat (p. 17), 
• the nature of proletarian revolution as a smashing of the bourgeois state machinery (p. 18), 
• recognition of the significance of the October revolution, the building of Soviet socialism and the defeat of fascist Germany (p. 18), 
• recognition of the bourgeois nature of social democracy (p. 19), 
• recognition of the necessity of legal and illegal work (p. 19), 
• commitment to proletarian internationalism (p. 19),
• commitment to national, racial, religious, and sex-based equality (p. 20),
• commitment against “the propagation of identity politics, including LGBT ideology” (p. 21), and
• commitment against immigration controls and asylum legislation (p. 21).

Again, the outlining of principles is ideological, though some of these principles are written so that they do have demands within them. The commitment to internationalism, for example, demands “the expulsion of imperialist occupation” and “the reunification of Ireland”¹⁹. The section on immigration controls also argues for “the abolition of all border controls”²⁰. Overall, however, the Party Programme is mostly theoretical, with very little in terms of demands from or about the state. 

Before moving on, it is worth noting that the Party Programme was adopted at the CPGB-ML’s founding congress and certain clauses were added in directly by later congresses²¹. The organisation is not, on the basis of its rulebook (found in the same document)²², committed to organising congresses at any certain interval of time however and its congress proceedings are not publicised in much detail on its website or in its publications – as such it is difficult to get a clear impression of how much control the congress assemblies of members have over the programme. Anyone with previous involvement in the organisation would do a good service to the movement by providing a detailed account of the internal workings of this organisation. 

Communist Party of Great Britain (Provisional Central Committee) – Draft Programme

Like the CPB, the CPGB(PCC) finds its origin in the Communist Party of Great Britain, as the faction based around The Leninist. Its document, the Draft Programme comes in at just over 13,000 words, excluding its 7^th section, which is the rules of the organisation. This document, though much more rigorously programmatic in certain sections, still suffers from the same issue of outlining a general world view on a wide range of issues, within a programme.

Within its first section,Our Epoch, the document states that during the 1920s “Stalin oversaw a counterrevolution” within the Soviet Union²³. Specific historical evaluations are common among the modern left’s groupthink documents, but they are perhaps the biggest obstacle to any programme-based rapprochement of the existing Marxist left.

Many Marxist-Leninists would argue that the Soviet counterrevolution occurred in 1991²⁴. Left Communists might argue that the counterrevolution occurred in the first 10 years of the Russian republic, with the gradual elimination of the soviets as organs of self-rule or with the suppression of the Kronstadt uprising²⁵. Trotskyists might say the counter-revolution occurred in 1928 with Stalin²⁶, or with Gorbachev decades later²⁷, or even that the counterrevolution was exclusively political but not economic²⁸. 

There are a huge range of views about exactly when the rot set in on the October Revolution within the groups that a classical Marxist programme could unify; to contain these views in a party programme, however, would be detrimental. Did all good Bolsheviks agree on Robespierre, Babeuf and Marat? Should they have?

In spite of this, the CPGB(PCC)’s Draft Programme is much more programmatic throughout the document, with key lists of demands on various issues. Some of these demands are shared with the programmes which Marx and Engels took part in drafting or criticising, for example “a maximum seven-hour day”²⁹; the “dissolution of the standing army and the formation of a popular militia under democratic control”³⁰; and “freedom of speech, publication, conscience, association and assembly”³¹ – all three of which, in slightly differing forms are found within the Erfurt programme.

We are presented here with a different issue, an excess of demands. The document lists some of its demands in bullet point format and some throughout the body of the text. Counting just the bullet-pointed demands there are 124 demands, and there are many more on a wide range of issues which are not written as bullet points. The Erfurt programme, by contrast, contains 14 demands – though many of these contain what would be two or three demands if they were written out in the style of the Draft Programme. The Gotha programme also contains 14 demands, though these are generally written more succinctly. The Le Havre programme contains 17 demands; like the Erfurt demands some of these are written in a way that could be written out as two or three individual demands, but most of them are pretty simple. Going beyond the classical programmes of Marxism, the 1903 Russian Social Democratic Labour Party programme had 35 demands – again, some are formulated succinctly, some are not³².

It should be obvious to anyone involved in mass organising that the more that is said, the more there is to disagree on. As such, many of the immediate demands in the Draft Programme would be considered intensely disagreeable to other Marxists, for example, a ban on “laws against ‘hate speech’”³³ or the decriminalisation of prostitution³⁴. Controversial positions are necessary for a Marxist programme in a world dominated by capitalist ideology – the solution for a workers’ party is twofold however: firstly by not extending policy to include the ideals of each member at every congress, secondly by having dissident minority rights in a Party rulebook and a culture where dissidents are happy to remain in spite of not getting their way.

The issue therefore, presents itself: how do you write a programme that is agreeable to a significant mass of Marxist workers and yet not defined by lowest-common-denominator politics, making it not a distinctly Marxist programme? It is likely that this can only be addressed through mass action, in the form of unity congresses. Programmatic rapprochement will have to begin by first focusing on issues that we all agree are essential to Marxism, even if we don’t agree on what the Marxist view on those issues is. Controversial demands, however, are not the only issue at hand here. As will be discussed further in the next and final section, a programme’s strength, in terms of campaigning and recruitment, is its short length.

Theoretical Points and Programmatic Demands

With reference to the draft he received of the Erfurt programme in 1891, Engels wrote the following:

“In general it suffers from the attempt to combine two things that are uncombinable: a programme and a commentary on the programme as well… To my view the programme should be as short and precise as possible.”³⁵

It is with the first of these two observations in mind that I have looked at the three contemporary communist programmes as divided by theoretical content and programmatic demands. It is by considering the second remark, I have mentioned the rough word counts of the programmes, these are reproduced as such:

Document	Approximate word count
Gotha Programme (1875)	700
Le Havre Programme (1880)	700
Erfurt Programme (1891)	1,300
RSDLP Programme (1903)	2,500
The British Road to Socialism (1951)	8,000
The British Road to Socialism (1958)	13,000
The British Road to Socialism (1968)	11,000
The British Road to Socialism (1977)	26,000
Britain’s Road to Socialism (2020)	30,000
CPGB-ML’s Party Programme (2018)	2,300
CPGB(PCC)’s Draft Programme (2023)	13,000

Table 1: Approximate word counts of selected Marxist Party programmes from 1875 to 2023.

I believe that it is the functional difference between demands, which are simple and as such generally unifying, and theoretical views, which are complex and generally more divisive, that makes the two things for Engels “uncombinable”.

Many Marxist activists have different priorities, as is only natural among different people. Marx and Engels themselves wrote extensively on philosophy, political economy, anthropology, history, international current affairs, trade unions, natural science, and many other topics. All these subjects can be said to be part of the Marxist worldview – but they do not all make it into the Le Havre programme, and Engels did not suggest they all ought to be included in the Erfurt programme.

The fact that the contemporary programmes are generally longer, and that the CPGB’s The British Road to Socialism was lengthened over time, is not because the contemporary world is more complicated than the late Victorian world or inter-war world. At the Unity Congress, which founded the CPGB in 1920, for example, the Socialist Prohibition Fellowship delegation moved a resolution in favour of prohibiting the production of alcohol³⁶.

These documents got longer because the party programme, as a conceptual document, has been treated as an ever-expanding list of apparently Marxist views. Instead, the party programme must, like the party programmes of classical Marxism, be a set of demands from or about the state that allow the workers’ party to define itself in relation to its fundamental aim, the creation of a communist society, and its historically immediate task in that regard, the proletarian revolution.

---

1. ritain’s Road to Socialism, 2020, available online at https://yclbritain.wordpress.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/06/britains_road_to_socialism.pdf (accessed 12/04/2025) ↩︎
2.  CPGB-ML Party Programme and Rules, 2018, available online at https://s3.eu-west-2.amazonaws.com/s3.cpgb-ml.org/PartyProgrammeAndRules2018.pdf (accessed 12/04/2025). ↩︎
3. Draft Programme, Communist Party of Great Britain, 2023, available online at https://communistparty.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2023/08/Draft-Programme-Post-print-With-Cover-August-2023.pdf (accessed 12/04/2025). ↩︎
4. Gotha Programme, 1875, available online at https://en.m.wikisource.org/wiki/Gotha_Program (accessed 12/04/2025). ↩︎
5. Erfurt Programme, 1891, available online at https://www.marxists.org/history/international/social-democracy/1891/erfurt-program.htm (accessed 12/04/2025). ↩︎
6. Programme of the French Workers Party, 1880, available online at https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1880/05/parti-ouvrier.htm (accessed 12/04/2025). ↩︎
7. As discussed by Lawrence Parker in this journal, most groups on the left today bring their members together not out of a commitment to action or a specific strategy, but more commonly by creating a sense of groupthink. Thus being in the Socialist Workers Party is about being an anti-Soviet socialist, being in the Revolutionary Communist Party is about being an anti-Stalin socialist who is likely a university student, being in the Communist Party of Great Britain (Marxist-Leninist) is about being an anti-Khrushchev pro-Stalin socialist, being in the Communist Party of Britain is about being a pro-Communist Party of China kind of socialist who is also a shop steward or a trade union staffer and so forth. ↩︎
8. The British Road to Socialism, 1951, available online at https://www.marxists.org/history/international/comintern/sections/britain/brs/1951/51.htm (accessed 12/04/2025). ↩︎
9. This view is backed up further on in the document: “The opening stage in Britain’s socialist revolution will therefore have to culminate in the election of a left-wing government at Westminster”. Britain’s Road to Socialism, 2020, p. 59. ↩︎
10. Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels, Collected Works Volume 27, p. 227, available online at https://lwbooks.co.uk/marx-engels-collected-works/read-and-search-online (accessed 12/04/2025). ↩︎
11. Britain’s Road to Socialism, 2020 (p. 57) ↩︎
12. The British Road to Socialism, 1951, available online at https://www.marxists.org/history/international/comintern/sections/britain/brs/1951/51.htm (accessed 12/04/2025) ↩︎
13. The British Road to Socialism, 1958, available online at https://www.marxists.org/history/international/comintern/sections/britain/brs/1958/58.htm (accessed 12/04/2025). ↩︎
14. The British Road to Socialism, 1968, available online at https://www.marxists.org/history/international/comintern/sections/britain/brs/1958/58.htm (accessed 12/04/2025). ↩︎
15. The British Road to Socialism, 1977, available online at https://www.marxists.org/history/international/comintern/sections/britain/brs/1977/index.htm (accessed 12/04/2025). ↩︎
16. Resolutions of the 57^th Congress of the Communist Party 4-5 November 2023, available online at https://communistparty.org.uk/publications/57th-congress/ (accessed 12/04/2025). ↩︎
17. Congress Report 2021, Communist Party of Britain, available online at https://cdn.communistparty.org.uk/uploads/sites/1/2023/03/56th-Congress-2021.pdf (accessed 12/04/2025). ↩︎
18. Aims and Constitution Congress Standing Orders, Communist Party of Britain, 2010, available online at https://cdn.communistparty.org.uk/uploads/sites/1/2021/08/Aims-and-constitution-Congress-standing-orders-1.pdf (accessed 12/04/2025). ↩︎
19. CPGB-ML Party Programme and Rules, 2018, pg. 20 ↩︎
20. Ibid, pg. 22 ↩︎
21. Ibid, pg. 21 – 22 ↩︎
22.  Ibid, pg. 23 – 33 ↩︎
23. Draft Programme, 2023, pg. 10 ↩︎
24. As argued by Robert Griffiths, Communist Party of Britain General Secretary here https://morningstaronline.co.uk/article/why-did-soviet-union-collapse-and-counter-revolution-triumph (accessed 12/04/2025). This is also argued, though from a slightly different angle, by the CPGB-ML Central Committee here https://archive.cpgb-ml.org/index.php?secName=statements&subName=display&statementId=19 (accessed 12/04/2025). ↩︎
25. As argued by the Communist Workers Organisation, Revolutionary Perspectives, issue 4, p. 24, available online at https://files.libcom.org/files/2022-07/revolutionary-perspectives-04.pdf (accessed 12/04/25). ↩︎
26. As argued by Socialist Worker editor Tomáš Tengely-Evans here https://socialistworker.co.uk/in-depth/fall-of-the-soviet-union/ (accessed 12/04/2025). ↩︎
27. As characterised by Peter Taaffe, Socialist Party Political Secretary here https://www.socialistparty.org.uk/articles/101346/06-09-2022/mikhail-gorbachev-the-gateman-for-the-capitalist-counterrevolution-in-the-former-soviet-union/ (accessed 12/04/2025). ↩︎
28. As argued by Alan Woods, for Socialist Appeal/the Revolutionary Communist Party here https://communist.red/russia-from-revolution-to-counter-revolution-book-intro/ (accessed 12/04/2025). ↩︎
29. Draft Programme, 2023, pg. 25 ↩︎
30. Ibid, pg. 32 ↩︎
31. Ibid, pg. 20 ↩︎
32. Programme, Russian Social Democratic Labour Party, 1903, available online at https://www.marxists.org/history/international/social-democracy/rsdlp/1903/program.htm (accessed 12/04/2025). ↩︎
33. Draft Programme, 2023, pg. 20 ↩︎
34. Ibid, pg. 36 ↩︎
35. Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels, Collected Works Volume 27, p. 219. ↩︎
36. As detailed by CPGB Party Historian James Klugman here https://www.marxists.org/archive/klugmann/1960/01/foundation.htm (accessed 12/04/2025). ↩︎

Thomas Donnelly