03.08.1995

Communist rapprochement 75 years on

Reforging the CPGB is not an exclusive task but the job of all revolutionaries

AT THE END of our 12th Summer Offensive last Sunday we celebrated the 75th anniversary of the Communist Party of Great Britain. The formation of our Party in 1920 came about as the result of a process of communist rapprochement, led by the British Socialist Party and its paper, The Call.

1920 was not significant because of the number of people that were brought together, but because of who they were. The formation of the Communist Party in 1920 was the highest achievement of our class because it brought together many of its best leaders. The Communist Party was genuinely part of the class - the only genuine working class party Britain has known.

That is why, despite its tailing of the Soviet Union, its opportunism, the Eurocommunist leadership and its disintegration, we see the need for a reforged Communist Party, rather than a transformed Labour Party which most of the left puts its energies into.

By 1920 the Labour Party was already a thoroughly capitalist workers party, as evidenced by its role in World War I.

Today the forces for communism are undeniably very weak, but our process of rapprochement points to the future for the whole of the left.  For the unity of all revolutionaries in a democratic centralist party - free to organise and publish different views, bound together in united action around a revolutionary programme.

Representatives from Open Polemic and the Revolutionary Democratic Group (faction of the SWP) - two organisations working towards rapprochement with the Provisional Central Committee of the CPGB - spoke at a celebration meeting on Sunday.

Below we reprint a contribution to that process from Open Polemic. We hope that this signifies the beginning of a coming together very soon. In this issue too we print a contribution from the RDG to the debate on federalism. The Republican Worker Tendency is also preparing a contribution on the rapprochement theme. We hope discussion around these questions will develop the process of forging communist unity.

Lee-Anne Bates

Open Polemic responds to the invitation to enter the CPGB. Its editorial board writes: “With good will on both sides, we feel that the content of this response could enhance our mutual endeavour to bring about the formation of a single, united Communist Party”

Communist Open Polemic for Revolutionary Unity

AS IS evidenced from its editorial statements and other writings asserting the leading role of a single, united communist party, Open Polemic has been upholding the ideological and political integrity of revolutionary communism as distinct from social democracy and anarchism since its inception. Our strategy has been elaborated and our tactics determined on the conception that open polemic was the most necessary expression of the revolutionary interest and that continues to be the case. The struggle for open polemic across the revolutionary communist movement is, in essence, a struggle for communist collectivism against the manifestations of bourgeois individualism and voluntarism inherent in sectarian vanguardism. It is still, as yet, a struggle of a tiny minority of concerned communist militants against the contrived confusion, against sneering arrogance, against both the closed and the open hostility of the leader centralists in political and organisational control of the various vanguardist organisations and sects. These sectarian, status seeking, ‘post-Soviet period’ leader centralists must bear responsibility for the continuing disintegration and potential liquidation of the entire communist movement.

In their first leaflet of August 1990, the comrades that constituted the editorial board at that time declared that Open Polemic aimed at integrating the revolutionary movement and that this required, first and foremost, an open, thorough and continuing discussion of all the questions raised by the disintegration of the communist movement.

In general, the main vanguardist organisations, each of which were wedded to particular interpretations of our history, did not participate in open polemic and continued to employ the safe, leader centralist tactic of settling their own exclusive and sectarian agendas. In response to this, Open Polemic employed the tactic of polemic by proxy, firstly in its journal and latterly in its broadsheet.

Often, comrades that did participate tended to regard Open Polemic as simply another arena for sectarian struggle, an opportunity to advance their particular advocacy of one outstanding historical personality and one historical view over others. That is how they viewed the process for unity. In oppostion to the approach of Open Polemic, they dogmatically adhered to a historical, leader centralist tradition which had, arguably necessary for its time, resolved differences through the absolute political and organisational victory of one faction over another. In response to this, Open Polemic deliberately focused the debate on fundamental and universal revolutionary principles. Even so, in response to the conduct of one ‘ad hoc’ faction, Open Polemic was obliged to employ the tactic of suspending the open polemic conferences for a short time.

The short history of Open Polemic has not only involved our tactical responses to our immediate situation but, more importantly, it has involved our own theoretical development which have produced theoretical responses and elaborations to the point where we now consider that the question of ideological and political differences can be resolved only by their containment within a historically non-specific and multanimous communist collective: that is, within a future party of a new type that is founded on an open, universal outlook and which is based on open, universal and fundamental principles.

We fully realise now that Open Polemic all along has, in fact, been pointing in that direction in its struggle to foster a historically non-specific and multanimous open polemic across the revolutionary movement.

And, yet again, Open Polemic is engaged in a response to developments in its objective situation. Recently the Provisional Central Committee of the CPGB announced its intention to allow factions with unlimited factional rights and it accompanied this with an invitation for Open Polemic and others to join the CPGB as factions.

This development, despite its apparent antipathy to communist collectivism, seemed to present the possibility of a break with the impasse of sectarian vanguardism. Our response prompted our editorial statement, ‘Democracy and centralism in the future party of a new type’. Following this, a meeting was held between representatives of the Provisional Central Committee of the CPGB and representatives of the editorial board of Open Polemic. We have published articles on the question in our broadsheet, comrades from OP have attended relevant CPGB seminars and we recently convened a conference on ‘The future party of a new type and its political organisation’.

The polemic involved in this development has been invaluable. It has enabled Open Polemic to take account of other views and certain criticisms of its own position.

However, we must deal with two criticisms which we refute. Firstly, that Open Polemic is wrong to concentrate on the question of political organisation and, secondly, that it is impatient, that it is trying to establish organisational solutions before the necessary ideological and political problems have been worked through.

On the first criticism, it has been said that without revolutionary theory there can be no revolutionary practice. Open Polemic not only takes the view that the development of  revolutionary theory is itself the first form of revolutionary practice, but it also takes the view that all forms of communist revolutionary practice develop best within collective, democratic centralist organisation.

On the second criticism, we consider that the present political situation demands a degree of conscious impatience with the conduct of the leader centralists in the vanguardist organisations who are frittering away the present preparation period in a sectarian, economistic and fruitless endeavour to win the allegiance of the class and triumph over others.

The great danger, if communists survive the tendency for their general liquidation, is that when a revolutionary situation does develop, communists will still be in a state of confusion and unable to devote all their attention on the revolutionary tasks to hand. All communists, wherever they come from, therefore need now to make more collectively organised use of whatever time is available.

On its part and taking account of other views and criticism, Open Polemic has now formulated four areas of principle which, although and because they relate directly to the structure of the future party of a new type, also relate to the political and organisational framework for communist open polemic:

Criteria for membership

Open Polemic considers that entry into the party should be open to all those who:

1. Accept that the foundational outlook of the party is that of dialectical and historical materialism which, as it involves complex questions of a philosophical, scientific and ideological nature, may therefore be subject to polemical analysis.
2. Support the fundamentals of the political and organisational principle of democratic centralism, the leading role of the party prior to and within the dictatorship of the proletariat and the principle of proletarian internationalism; and accept that these fundamental principles of the party are universal in character, but subject to elaboration, extension and addition.

The historically non-specific party

The postulation of specific historical interpretations is a permanent feature of the polemical culture of a communist party and majority views on different historical questions will naturally emerge at different times.

The historically non-specific party recognises that particular historical interpretations will approximate more closely to the truth than others and will inform the party in its understanding and ability to apply the lessons of history to its present and future tasks. It is, however, opposed to the historically specific party which seeks to make specific historical interpretations a condition of party membership.

The multanimous party

For a revolutionary communist party to be capable of sustaining many collective and individual views, and therefore to be multanimous, requires a party that is historically non-specific and with criteria for membership that is based solely on the objectivity and universality of its foundational outlook and fundamental principles.

Collectivism

Collectivism in the political organisation of a communist party is the principle of working together which is diametrically opposed to the competitive individualism and the voluntarist seeking of power that pertains in the bourgeois party.

Collectivism, in both democracy and centralism, is the expression of communist morality which is essential to the party’s working unity.

Historically, the condemnation of factionalism and the banning of factions in communist parties was accompanied by a failure to accommodate any independent collective expression of ideas other than that of the faction in leadership. This is the political and organisational source of the practice of leader centralism, the ideological seeds of which are to be found in individualism, the individual against the collective, and the philosophical seeds of which are to be found in voluntarism and an absolutist approach to subjective knowledge.

Open polemic is the most necessary expression of the revolutionary interest precisely because it upholds the collectivism of democratic centralism against its voluntarist practice in leader centralism. The Open Polemic perspective of a future party of a new type that manifests its collectivism in its centre, its congress, which dispenses with the redundant tradition that allows an elected leadership to conduct itself as a faction and a party which is structured to allow for the independent collective elaboration and articulation of ideas is the surest political and organisational way to overcome leader centralism.

Open Polemic and the CPGB

Open Polemic has already responded in a serious way to the invitation for it to join the CPGB as a faction. We recognise that the CPGB is the only vanguardist organisation that has, tentatively, opened its doors to others.

Open Polemic has no illusions that the ‘factionalism of the CPGB is anything other than an anarchistic form of leader centralism favouring voluntarism and bourgeois morality against the collectivism and communist morality of democratic centralism. Nevertheless, it is incumbent upon Open Polemic to respond in a definitive way to the invitation of the CPGB.

In order to do this we must specifically identify the areas of disagreement and the reservations that we hold with the CPGB on the matters of principle that we have formulated.

1. Criteria for membership

Certain elements of the fundamental principles proposed by Open Polemic are contained in the general principles for admission into ‘supporter’ membership of the CPGB. These general principles reflect the fact that the CPGB (PCC) has, prematurely in our opinion, elaborated a programme, is already campaigning among the masses and, most importantly, is directing its campaigning attention in ‘reforging the party’ to what it describes as ‘all partisans of the class’ rather than to the politically advanced workers. In the view of Open Polemic, any failure to cater for the needs of advanced workers results in failure to cater for the needs of the less advanced who, although they have the potential and capacity to deal with complex theoretical and political questions, are unable to participate in the theoretical work of ‘reforging of the party’ without the necessary preparation. The criteria for actual membership of a communist party should not be cluttered up with general principles designed to appeal to all partisans of the class. That is putting the cart before the horse.

There is general reference to materialism but no reference to dialectical and historical materialism. Neither is there any reference to the leading role of the Party - a crucial point of demarcation with anarcho-communism - and both reveal a revisionist approach. Open Polemic would therefore work to ensure principled clarity on the criteria for membership which is of crucial importance to the fundamental ideological and political unity of the Party.

2. The historically non-specific party

Ostensibly the CPGB stands for a historically non-specific party, yet there is every indication that it looks to specific historical interpretations being or becoming understood criteria for membership and pervaded into programme and propaganda. It typifies the historicist outlook of the vanguardist organisations and sects which, in the main, underpins the sectarianism in the communist movement today.

3. The multanimous party

Ostensibly the PCC stands for a party of many minds, a multanimous party, yet the invitation for other organisations to enter the CPGB in non-objective, sectarian and selective, dependent on the subjective whims of the PCC.

4. Collectivism

The transformation of the central committee into a factional centre elevated above the party congress is a manifestation of bourgeois political organisation which is opposed to the principle of collectivism. It is the interconnected, organisational reason for the permanent, voluntarist seeking of power through factionalism and the political and organisational catalyst for the practice of leader centralism. This is the central feature of the ‘reforged’ structure of the CPGB being advocated by its Provisional Central Committee.

Entry into the CPGB

Notwithstanding the evidence of revisionism, historicism and voluntarism in the PCC’s political and organisational approach to ‘reforging the CPGB’, Open Polemic nevertheless recognises that a party composed of ‘overt factions’ may be a historically unavoidable organisational phase in the process of rapprochement towards the formation of a historically non-specific and multanimous, future party of a new type.

Representatives of Open Polemic would therefore join the CPGB on the basis that this would constitute a particular and significant extension of OP’s general strategy for open polemic across the revolutionary movement.

On entry as members of the Party, these comrades would however, regard themselves collectively as the Party’s Provisonal Polemic Committee, responsible for the facilitation and practice of open polemic as OP’s particular contribution to the work of reforging the CPGB.

In interrelationship with this, Open Polemic would continue to conduct its general line for open polemic across the revolutionary movement, for the leading role of the revolutionary party, and in opposition to all manifestations of anarchism and social democracy. It would continue to publish its journal and its broadsheet, and would continue to convene its conferences.

The Provisional Polemic Committee (PPC) would work for the establishment of the Open Polemic criteria for admission into membership of the CPGB.

The PPC would work for the Party to become and remain a historically non-specific and multanimous party.

The PPC would facilitate open polemic across the Party and work for equality of opportunity in the publicity given to different views.

The PPC would recognise the Central Committee as the highest body between congresses but would regard it as a faction, to the extent that it elaborates programmatic views that are distinct from those agreed by the Party centre, its congress.

The PPC would stand, first and foremost, for collectivism in the life of the Party and would therefore stand in permanent opposition to any factional seeking of, and retention of, political and organisational power in the Party.

In short, representatives of the OP editorial Board would seek membership of the CPGB in an endeavour to help in the work of reforging a single, united Communist Party based on multanimous and collective principles, and not as supporters of the self-declared ‘Leninist’ faction.

They would do so despite Open Polemic’s deep reservation that the ‘Leninist’ faction, at present, lacks the necessary political maturity to cooperate with others in carrying through the process of rapprochement.

In putting forward this response to the invitation of the Provisional Central Committee of the CPGB, the editorial board of Open Polemic stresses that it will also continue with positive responses to other initiatives for rapprochement and communist unity.

Open Polemic

July 1995