Talk:Revolutionary Communist Group (UK)

message: Is this a mainly Jewish organization?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.28.46.244 (talk) 22:29, 16 April 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled

message: Is this the same RCG that publishes a paper, "fight racism! fight imperialism!"? If so I'd like to say that they're not bad (though supporting Castro gives them a black mark) -- well, not as bad as the RCP: before the general elections FRFI said, basically, "don't vote! get organised", which is a better message than you'd get from the Trots who don't pay much attention to direct action. Its hard to tell with all these factions, though. I am reminded of the Judean People's Front in Monty Python's Life of Brian: lots of different groups with the same goal who hate each other more than they hate the Romans! -- james
:Yes they publish Fight Racism! Fight Imperialism!.  The article could probably do with some NPOVing. Warofdreams 09:59, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Are these the publishers of ''Fight Racism, Fight Imperialism'' ?

message: The following section, while technically true, is misleading in some ways:
"During the 1980s their most notable activity was mounting a non-stop picket of the South African embassy in London calling for the release of Nelson Mandela. This was nominally carried out by the City of London Anti-Apartheid Group, which they controlled, and was effectively disowned by the national leadership of the Anti-Apartheid Movement."
It has long been the position of the "official" communist party in Britain (the old CPGB, the Morning Star CPB and various tanky factions) that the City of London Anti-Apartheid Group was just the RCG operating in the disguise of a popular movement. This does a disservice to thousands of people who participated in City AA at all levels through the 1980s and to immense sacrifice of the Kitson family.
Although the actions and views of City of London Anti-Apartheid Group may, most of the time, have been indistinguishable from those of the RCG, it would be wrong to view it as merely an RCG front akin to the SWP's second incarnation of the Anti Nazi League. Indeed there were times when the RCG was bitterly criticised for attempting to withdraw some of its resources from City AA to support campaigns such as the Viraj Mendes asylum campaign - which was almost entirely an RCG effort.
City AA, as it was known, was run by a democratically elected committee, which at various times included members of other organisations such as WRP and the Humanist Party. There were even members of SWP who participated in the picket itself, against the instructions of their organisation.
The Non-Stop Picket of the South African Embassy, which City AA began in April 1986 followed an 86-day picket of the Embassy that had been organized by City AA's founder, Norma Kitson to draw attention to the cause of her husband David Kitson who was an SACP activist serving a 26-year sentence in South Africa for his role in the leadership of the ANC's armed wing.
On David Kitson's release, he credited the 86-day picket with saving his life. Further details are to be found in Norma Kitson's book "Where Sixpence Lives." Later the Justice for Kitson Campaign highlighted some of the shabby treatment that Kitson received from the British trade union movement and the "officials" when he refused to publically denounce City AA.
In a similar vein, Nelson Mandela, after his release, stood on a balcony of the South African Embassy and told the crowd that filled Trafalgar Square that the protests of the picket in front of the London Embassy was the most vociferous of all the anti-apartheid protests anywhere in the world. The ironic thing was that he was flanked on that balcony by officials of the British Anti-Apartheid Movement who had taken every possible action to prevent those protests from taking place.
The ideological heirs of Ken Gill would like to dismiss City AA as an RCG front and airbrush it from history. I believe it would be helpful to develop a wiki article that more fully tells the story of City AA and the non-RCG figures such as myself who served in its leadership.
Chris adds: I was involved in the City AA group as well, and while it's true that only a minority of members were in the RCG, the RCG and Norma Kitson effectively controlled it. For example the decision to stop the David Kitson picket after 86 days was clearly made by the RCG outside of the decision-making structure of City AA and pretty much presented as a fait accompli and pushed through against opposition. I don't recall there being any WRP or Humanist Party members in the group, although they did show up on the picket now and again. Those of us who weren't in the RCG or independent tended to be in the Labour Party.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.85.13.113 (talk) 11:34, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  City of London Anti-Apartheid Group 

message: In Lebanon there is a political group with the same name, who has an article on Wikipedia Revolutionary Communist Group (Lebanon). I find it obvious that as long as the Revolutionary Communist Group not is a disamb page it must have a link on the top of the article. However, some anon user removes this link. Is there any valid reasoning behind this? Bertilvidet 19:04, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: In short, no, there is no valid reason for this. --Soman 07:46, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: There should be a disamb page, though. There is also the GCR from Colombia. --Soman 07:46, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Link to Lebanese group 

message: Someone keeps reverting this.  To explain: the article is clearly start class rather than stub or C class.  And it is low importance because the party receives less than 5% support in general elections.  If the mystery reverter has a different view, then I suggest they try and make their case here, rather than simply being an anonymous vandal. --IdiotSavant (talk) 05:40, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  WikiProject Political Parties Assessment 

message: This is, sadly, a very weak article.  It relies almost entirely on self-published sources.  Recent changes by Haldraper at least make it more readable, in addition to removing a few completely unsourced statements, and note that some opinions are those of the group, and remove a little trivia (e.g. the twenty-fifth anniversary of the newspaper).  Unfortunately, an anon user has applied blanket reversions.  I hope that the anon editor is not connected with the party; if they are, they should read Wikipedia:Conflict of interest.  Either way, any serious objections to the improvements need to be made on this talk page, with no further reversions. Warofdreams talk 21:53, 20 February 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Can I ask why warofdreams sees fit to continually strip the article of important points so that it adheres to his own view of the RCG - I believe constant edits which damage an article are considered vandalism! This isn't just vandalism, but distorts the positions and arguments of the group the article is about - in an online encyclopedia, this is exactly the opposite of what should be being achieved.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.40.148.161 (talk) 13:17, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for discussing this.  Please refrain from personal attacks.  You will notice that the recent improvements are not my work, and I don't have any particular view of the group; I just want to see a neutral, more readable and better-referenced article.  Which specific points are being distorted?  Do you have references for these?  If so, that's great, and can be part of improving the article. Warofdreams talk 13:41, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I do not agree with user Warofdreams that you 'do not have an particular view of the group'. You do not live in a vacuum in society. Obviously far from that, according to your blog which you link to from your wikipedia user page you refer to the British SWP as a 'far left group'. Also on this blog you have written about 'capitalism' and 'the BNP'. This shows you obviously have personal interests and 'views'. Wikipedia is presented as neutral by some but we all know that history is in fact an interpretation of events by the historian. Yours and others' consistent editing of this article shows obvious discontent with the group and some attempt to vandalise the page despite your 'prestigious' position as a wikipedia administrator, whatever the hell that is supposed to mean. We have been working hard to improve this article and would thoroughly appreciate it if you and others ceased from attempts to distort, remove and edit factual information being in-putted about this organisation and presented to the general public. --Albertobolognetti (talk) 16:03, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for pitching in.  I'm not sure who this "we" are, who have apparently been working on the article, but you'll note that Wikipedia is a collaborative effort, and not limited to a small group of contributors.  Given your edits, I wonder if you may be connected with this group - if so, see Wikipedia:Conflict of interest.  It would also be useful to look at the information on vandalism, to see the difference between that, and the kind of contributions which other editors have made to this article.  Either way, please desist from personal attacks, and engage in some discussion about any specific problems you have with the improved version of the article. Warofdreams talk 16:48, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
replies: text:  "we" refers to people who are against the barrage of politically motivated changes and censorship that have been made by a number of uses which "you" (plural) seem to be defending. I'm sure you can understand this is clearly not about personal attacks. I do not take onto the internet or public forums to 'attack' people. I know what a 'troll' is and this is not my role. I have looked at the documents you have offered me to read. Firstly, you can call these 'rules' but I do not for one minute believe that wikipedia has been constructed according to these 'rules'. However, secondly, I am not violating any of these 'rules' either. Thirdly, if you think there is such thing as a 'neutral' user who does not have some form of 'conflict of interest' with what is termed as being in the greater interest of the 'general public' you are seriously mislead. You obviously are using these 'rules' to try and strangulate attempts to put build a good quality public domain article page of this political group. I believe you are including too much personal and political interest in your censorship and that which you are defending. This will not be acceptable. I will attempt to create a new sub heading here to satisfy your thirst to moderate this page where we can clearly and openly discuss the facts which are believed to have been censored from this page. I hope we can resolve this issue in the interests of the general public, and the movement as a whole. Albertobolognetti (talk) 11:48, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

text:  re: Vandalism, and I quote from the link you offered- "Vandalism is any addition, removal, or change of content in a deliberate attempt to compromise the integrity of Wikipedia." Clearly, in the understanding which I have explained, your unexplainable attempts to make constant reversions and changes to other users' input surely compromises the integrity of this article. You are doing so without proper explanation but clearly abusing your authority and known 'reputation'. Albertobolognetti (talk) 12:03, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Improvements to article

message: (moved to this section --Albertobolognetti (talk) 12:05, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Discussion of recent changes and revisions to article 

message: Thank you. Your removal of my comments is helpful for my research. I see that your last "discussion" was from six years ago. As you may have gathered, I am black, a woman and working class - there are quite a few of us who are well educated. Censorship is a powerful tool against the "enemy".  
If you are not representing or representative of people like me then what is your motivation?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 138.250.176.194 (talk) 01:42, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  discussion of removal of specific section in Talk page (awaiting clarification) 

message: I don't know if it is accurate to describe this organisation as Marxist-Leninist, it is an organisation with dodgy Trotskyist origins. True, other Brit Trot groups yelp and howl "Stalinism" because the RCG does not usually attack every single actually existing socialist government as fervently as they do, but that doesn't mean this group itself espouses Marxist-Leninism. Claíomh Solais (talk) 23:08, 13 May 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: While it does have Trotskyist origins it seems odd to suggest they haven't broken with that. Their views and analysis are in general closer to Marxist-Leninist groups (especially those that reject the United Front/Popular Front theories), and they very strongly defend Cuba for instance, without the usual Trotskyist crap about it being a "deformed workers' state". They were also one of the few groups on the left to oppose the destruction of Eastern European socialism and probably the only one to oppose Solidarnosc, which not even the CPGB could bring itself to do. Their view of imperialism is also more in line with Lenin than Trotsky, or Trotsky's followers. 77.96.105.241 (talk) 01:36, 19 October 2017 (UTC)

text: The group no where identifies as 'marxist leninist' either online or in it's paper FRFI. It describes itself as marxist and leninist, which is far more accurate.Albertobolognetti (talk) 21:56, 20 June 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Marxist-Leninist? 

message: The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:
* 
Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 00:17, 23 January 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion