Challenge: Create a moderately successful left of Labour Party in the UK and

Which means it isn't really effective is it? That would imply that they aren't going get wiped

But it's more effective than, the SWP standing and getting elected, the infiltration of an establish Party with MPs with the opportunity to get across a quasi Marxist viewpoint would/could have been the answer. But as I said you need people to vote for you, will still happen in some areas, but only to maintain a shrunken 'heartland.
 
You'd need more than just a left-wing walkout (one in the 1980s isn't plausible anyway, in my opinion). What of the situation of Britain that nurtures a left-wing outflanking of Labour?
This new force doesn't need to be a governing party just a moderately significant political force.
 
I actually don't see them turning out much different to the Labour party in word nor deed, but if the Unions don't have a block vote you may very well see a larger rise of the CPGB as I stated. Would be interesting for sure.
Just how open would trade unions be to affiliating to the Communists though? From what I know the British labour movement was on the whole quite moderate in the early decades of the Labour Party. I think I read that the leaders of the three largest unions were not in favour of the general strike, and when it happened, the TUC was constantly wary of it being hijacked for revolutionary purposes. It wasn't until the post war era that they started to become more militant.
 
I actually don't see them turning out much different to the Labour party in word nor deed, but if the Unions don't have a block vote you may very well see a larger rise of the CPGB as I stated. Would be interesting for sure.
There would be substantial differences between a trade unionist party with socialists in it and a socialist party with trade unionists in it. In terms of party structure, the lack of integration between the leadership of the TUC and this 'Social Democratic Party' would mean a more estranged relationship between the two (necessarily because of much of the conservatism of the union leaderships in this era) and lack of working-class representation in the main because of the dominance of middle-class Marxist intellectuals [INSERT CORBYN JOKE HERE, HAHA, LET'S MOVE ON]. Such a party wouldn't have the likes of David Shackleton, George Nicoll Barnes or William Adamson in it and the lack of such figures might make it a greater struggle for such a party to gain relevance outside of the more polarising and radical periods between the 1890s and the 1920s.

A party changed in culture, membership, origin and purpose will most definitely be different in word and action. I think you're massively underestimating the butterflies here. Also, the CPGB might not necessarily exist with a POD in the 1880s (I'll tell you now that it most certainly won't) and, even if a 'communist' grouping did grow ITTL's Britain, the only way it could have relevance is if it came out of this mainstream SDP and not as a direct challenger from beyond the Labour Party as in our own timeline.

This new force doesn't need to be a governing party just a moderately significant political force.
The question still stands, my friend.
 
There would be substantial differences between a trade unionist party with socialists in it and a socialist party with trade unionists in it. In terms of party structure, the lack of integration between the leadership of the TUC and this 'Social Democratic Party' would mean a more estranged relationship between the two

I half agree with the first point, and agree with the second point, as the second point was what I was putting forth as a requirement in the first place.

Regarding the first, well, you missed my point, due to my failure to eleborate.

Of course, there will be a difference as you say. However, the leading clique of Labour Aristocracy (union bosses) and middle class Marxist intellectuals will still have much the same ideology.

Take say World War One, the Labour party sided with Britain, this Social Democratic Party, much in line with the Second International will do much the same, for the same or similar reasons. Essentially, you'll have a Fabian party.

You have to remember, and I simplify greatly here, the Bolsheviks were a reaction to Social Democracy. Yes things will be different, things will butterfly... But you will still get a far left trend opposed to Social Democracy whether it be the Bolsheviks or not.
 
I half agree with the first point, and agree with the second point, as the second point was what I was putting forth as a requirement in the first place.

Regarding the first, well, you missed my point, due to my failure to eleborate.

Of course, there will be a difference as you say. However, the leading clique of Labour Aristocracy (union bosses) and middle class Marxist intellectuals will still have much the same ideology.
Whilst you are correct in part and I did mention that trade unionists would be in such a party, to say that the vast majority of union bosses would have been completely enamoured of a Marxist party

Take say World War One, the Labour party sided with Britain, this Social Democratic Party, much in line with the Second International will do much the same, for the same or similar reasons. Essentially, you'll have a Fabian party.
But you're guessing that a First World War even happens when we've already established that the POD is thirty years prior to the war's beginning. That's butterfly genocide - no two ways about it.

But, even if we were to accept the premise that all history will have aligned as OTL in the late Victorian and Edwardian eras, then you must understand that social democratic parties held various positions on the First World War within themselves and any current could well have won out given the right prerequisite conditions. Given that this SDP would be a party made up more of Marxists than trade unionists (a largely anti-war group versus a broadly pro-war group, respectively), the emphasis would have been more on opposing any great European war because of imperialism rather than conceding pacifism to the wave of populist patriotism (a wave, I might add, that was fractured and hardly uniform in every household across Britain). If a more pro-war grouping of socialists were to win out, then that would be quite reasonable - but, to say that a party with thirty years of alternate development behind it would go along as per OTL is actually ignoring the myriad opportunities of divergence we are afforded.

You have to remember, and I simplify greatly here, the Bolsheviks were a reaction to Social Democracy. Yes things will be different, things will butterfly... But you will still get a far left trend opposed to Social Democracy whether it be the Bolsheviks or not.
I'm not saying that there wouldn't be a split - when and where and how are all different matters, which is also why it must be clear that your characterisation of the Bolsheviks is a massive simplification (and you rightly pointed it out as such). A trend opposed to a moderating 'social democracy' (remember: social democracy was the term including all socialist currents during the late 19th century and early 20th century) has a high probability of appearing and I've certainly never said that it couldn't, but those kinds of details are best left to the eventual writer of such a timeline who would better grasp their TL's politics (you'd hope, at any rate).
 

I think what we disagree on is whether these middle class Marxists would be much better, and I concede my own bias holds me back on this. I think a Connolly inspired SLP has more chance than a grouping of middle class Marxists, you need a leadership of dedicated anti imperialists as opposed to a group of national chauvinists to rail against an ATL great war. Again, I broadly generalise, but take the likes of H.G.Wells, middle class, nominally socialist, nominally anti imperialist, he was nevertheless prone to trash ideas like eugenics.
 
I think what we disagree on is whether these middle class Marxists would be much better, and I concede my own bias holds me back on this. I think a Connolly inspired SLP has more chance than a grouping of middle class Marxists, you need a leadership of dedicated anti imperialists as opposed to a group of national chauvinists to rail against an ATL great war. Again, I broadly generalise, but take the likes of H.G.Wells, middle class, nominally socialist, nominally anti imperialist, he was nevertheless prone to trash ideas like eugenics.
Whilst I would agree in part on the point about 'middle-class Marxists', I would also hold that just because somebody holds anti-imperialist politics (which is a broad term, as we well know) doesn't make them immune to ignorant, reactionary or downright stupid ideas. I can see the faults in both political groupings, but that's neither here nor there.

What's more pertinent is the idea of 'national chauvinism', which isn't a concept that gets mentioned here a lot but plays some role in discussing pre-WWI socialist/social democratic parties. The problem with characterising all Marxists of middle-class origin as such means you wipe away a lot of the nuance that existed (it also presupposes that there would be no working-class Marxists in the grouping, which I hope you didn't see implied when I talked about middle-class Marxists leading an alternate SDP) between individual figures and where they stood on the question of the Great War. Anti-imperialist analyses of the war were certainly forthcoming from the British left, but their marginalisation was felt most acutely IOTL when placed against the non-Marxist powers in the TUC. Some British Marxists took a line of nationalism and war, as some did in Germany, but there were others (even Ramsay MacDonald) who were most definitely scathing towards the war and could have made their voice a majority given the correct preconditions. They were victims of circumstance more than fate when the anti-war left failed to galvanise public opinion against the war (the idealism of their plan to hold a general strike in 1914 to halt the oncoming war might have been made realism by an alternate development for the left).
 
Whilst I would agree in part on the point about 'middle-class Marxists', I would also hold that just because somebody holds anti-imperialist politics (which is a broad term, as we well know) doesn't make them immune to ignorant, reactionary or downright stupid ideas. 1 I can see the faults in both political groupings, but that's neither here nor there. 2

What's more pertinent is the idea of 'national chauvinism', which isn't a concept that gets mentioned here a lot but plays some role in discussing pre-WWI socialist/social democratic parties. 3 The problem with characterising all Marxists of middle-class origin as such means you wipe away a lot of the nuance that existed 4 (it also presupposes that there would be no working-class Marxists in the grouping, which I hope you didn't see implied when I talked about middle-class Marxists leading an alternate SDP) 5 between individual figures and where they stood on the question of the Great War. 6 Anti-imperialist analyses of the war were certainly forthcoming from the British left, but their marginalisation was felt most acutely IOTL when placed against the non-Marxist powers in the TUC. 7 Some British Marxists took a line of nationalism and war, as some did in Germany, but there were others (even Ramsay MacDonald) who were most definitely scathing towards the war and could have made their voice a majority given the correct preconditions. 8 They were victims of circumstance more than fate when the anti-war left failed to galvanise public opinion against the war (the idealism of their plan to hold a general strike in 1914 to halt the oncoming war might have been made realism by an alternate development for the left). 9

Again I was glib, on a 12 hour shift so I'm just catching this on fag breaks.

1: agreed, but in regards to the time I'm drawing comparison with those of the Easter Rising, who generally weren't backward or reactionary.

2: fair enough.

3: agreed ;)

4: agreed, again, apologies for my glibness, you're quite right, Lenin was middle class. The real defining factor for me is you get middle class Marxists, and then you get middle class Marxists with Proletarian politics.

5: i understood don't worry, but, and it's a very big but, there's a difference between having a Social Democratic Party led by middle class Marxists, and a Social Democratic Party with middle class Marxists in it. Okay, nuances, but this is where the level of things like National chauvinism are a defining factor.

6: glad we agree on nuances, again, good point.

7: a shame for sure, the likes of Worker's Dreadnought wrote some very good material, and here is the thing, a lot of the groups that formed the CPGB were around during the great war, and if not groups, certainly networks, an interesting POD would be if the drew together earlier.

8: true, but as you basically stated before, they were a minority. And yes, Ramsay was certainly scathing, he also went on to be the epitome of a national chauvinist, but, butterflies, of course that could change, maybe.

9: Maybe.
 
Weren't the LibDems effectively to the left of Labour during the Blair-Brown era?

As for the post-Brexit times, I could see a pro-European electoral alliance between the Greens, Plaid Cymru and the SNP emerging.
 
Weren't the LibDems effectively to the left of Labour during the Blair-Brown era?

As for the post-Brexit times, I could see a pro-European electoral alliance between the Greens, Plaid Cymru and the SNP emerging.
That doesn't include the Lib Dems? They've positioned themselves as the anti Brexit party.
 
Weren't the LibDems effectively to the left of Labour during the Blair-Brown era?
Under Ashdown they were pretty similarly aligned, whilst under Clegg they were arguably to the right of Brown. It was only during the Kennedy years that they were really to the left of Labour, and even that often wasn't the case in many places depending on electoral necessity. Maybe that state of affairs could be extended in the longer term by having Kennedy stay sober, extending his leadership into 2010 and beyond, or have Huhne take over from him, whilst having a longer Blair tenure with David Miliband or someone similar taking over, but I'm not sure if having the Lib Dems displace Labour as a centre left party, rather than being outright leftist, goes against the spirit of the OP.
As for the post-Brexit times, I could see a pro-European electoral alliance between the Greens, Plaid Cymru and the SNP emerging.
There isn't really a need for anyone to make electoral alliances with the SNP given there dominance north of the border right now. But there was an agreement in place for the 2015 election whereby those three parties would negotiate coalition agreements together. I think then was a bigger opportunity for the Greens, and they blew it by choosing Bennett as leader, who wasn't exactly the a populist icon. Now, Labours move to the left has choked off a lot of their growth, and also calls into question whether an SNP, Plaid, Green alliance would be significantly to the left of Labour anyway.
 
Top