02.11.1995
Don’t drop rapprochement
Bob Smith for a permanent Party Polemic Committee
THERE are some in the CPGB organisation who believe that a ‘programmatic approach’ is now required for communist advance. They claim that a wide ranging debate around a draft communist programme will be ‘an important element of the fight for communist rapprochement’. Open Polemic believes they are mistaken. Far from advancing the rapprochement initiative, the immediate discussion of draft programmes (theirs or anyone else’s) will merely counterpose one set of programmatic views against another.
Comrade A will disagree with comrade B on this or that sub-clause and off they go - back to their splendid sectarian isolation. The current state of political fragmentation will be perpetuated and the embryonic rapprochement process retarded. And if by chance some small ‘advance’ were to be made by this method, it would be highly prone to opportunistic manoeuvring, as one factional grouping seeks to advance its particular view by a quick-fix alliance, a cheap compromise, and a dishonest departure from principle. No, comrades, this is not the way to proceed.
By all means let us debate the role of programme in the future Party. Let us debate the relationship between Party programme and the class struggle. More importantly, let us debate how communists should collectively develop a programme. And if we so wish we can even analyse the history of programmes as they have developed over the past one hundred years. All this is legitimate, necessary and timely. But to specifically discuss any one draft would be, at this juncture, premature to say the least. Those who want to rush towards programmatic particularities are displaying a half-hearted, tokenistic approach to communist rapprochement. Comrades, you cannot pick up the banner of communist rapprochement, raise expectations, only to charge off, in a fit of impatience, in a particular programmatic direction. That is to return to sectarian vanguardism.
What are the alternatives? Open Polemic has outlined its strategy - an inclusive polemic with all those who support, at least formally, the fundamental tenets of Marxism-Leninism. But we are perfectly aware that there are other strategies. There is of course the programmatic path that some leading CPGB comrades and others are now advocating. Then there is the ‘unity in action’ strategy which looks to build the Party from the bottom up. This is now widespread in the movement. And there are the historically specific truth-mongers - agree with their world view, dot and comma, and you can join their party. These different strategies are keeping Marxist-Leninists apart. If we do not recognise this fact we will continue to talk to ourselves. To choose any one strategy unilaterally is a recipe for just that - a debate with oneself. A few like-minded individuals may be drawn in, but the majority of Marxist-Leninist circles will continue on their own trajectories.
So the first step for the rapprochement process is now to collectively take a long, hard look at each of these strategies, perhaps fuse together the best elements of each, and thus advance with some degree of consensus. When Open Polemic made a representational entry into the CPGB, we did so in the belief that we did not have all the answers. Others might well consider adopting a similar attitude!
The rapprochement process above all requires an honest and non-sectarian attitude on behalf of its champions. For us to be advancing a particular programme, pretending to submit it to a wide ranging debate, and then declaring it some time in the future to be the programme of the reforged CPGB would be dishonest. We would be living a lie and all those currently outside the CPGB would see it as such. We would urge our comrades in the CPGB to take one strategic step back in order that we might collectively take two strategic steps forward.
And a brief word to comrade Fischer and his ‘No to censorship’ letter (Weekly Worker 115). A number of points you make OP would likely agree with, particularly when you tell Communist Action Group that “Until we have a Communist Party we cannot offer meaningful solidarity to the beleaguered Cuban people.” But I cannot help feeling you are getting bogged down in secondary issues. A future Party will determine how communists conduct themselves in united front work - and the tactics will change to meet the circumstances.
But, as you say, we don’t have a Party - that is our task. You seem to lose sight of this in your eagerness to take the Revolutionary Communist Group’s side. But at the end of the day it is the CAG who have a pro-Party orientation. The RCG, despite their excellent anti-imperialist paper (Fight Racism! Fight Imperialism!) have shown no party orientation - for them the movement seems everything. So at this stage it is CAG, and not the RCG, who are our natural partners in communist rapprochement. But this is not evident in your article.