23.05.1996

On the CPGB and OPEB

Initial statement

The Trotskyist Unity Group is concerned by the recent deterioration of political and organisational relations between the Provisional Central Committee of the Communist Party of Great Britain and the Open Polemic Editorial Board members.

However we believe that a definitive split can be avoided. Firstly, the OP representational members have only suspended their membership, and this still opens up the possibility of a future renewal of CPGB membership. Secondly, the OPEB have not yet decided their definite position concerning membership status. They seek clarification as to the rights and obligations of CPGB membership in relation to the requirements of the Summer Offensive and, given their own heavy financial burdens in producing Open Polemic, the PCC should be prepared to flexibly consider the possibility of compromise on this point.

Thirdly, if these negotiations fail, they should still consider the possibility of a tactical retreat in order to avoid a definitive split. This would involve supporter status in order to maintain the political and organisational link - including the Bob Smith Weekly Worker column.

In the opinion of the TUG, this present situation has arisen for three main reasons. Firstly, ambiguity as to what exactly are the requirements of unity in action in relation to the open platform character of the CPGB. The obvious concern of the OPEB members - and shared by the TUG - is that this ambiguity expresses the demands of an organisational activism that could undermine the distinctive theoretical input of the OP members.

Secondly, the theoretical limitations contained within the concept of leader centralism has led the OP members to be subjective and impatient, and so they are increasingly reluctant to struggle as a minority group for their views within the CPGB political and organisational framework. In other words the preoccupation with the organisational limitations of the CPGB party regime means that the OPEB approach has ultimistic tendencies - a ‘take it or leave it’ attitude.

This contains the danger that they will not take up the political struggle for their own non-theoretical programme (with which the TUG has many differences) inside the CPGB, because organisational questions are being given primacy in place of theoretical and political struggle and its expression of the possibility for organisational transformation.

Thirdly, the existing leadership of the CPGB has not yet expressed a theoretical seriousness with regards to constructing a considered response to the ideas of the OP members. Collective theoretical interaction is not yet taking place, and instead the PCC CPGB still prefer to represent one ideological homogenous polar opposite of the present ‘us or them’ situation.

With regards to the TUG, the lessons we have learnt from this present dispute is the need to maintain a theoretical and political relationship with the CPGB, whilst minimising any possible organisational problems in the future. In this regard, the TUG now thinks that supporter status is more appropriate, with Phil Sharpe as the representative supporter. Theoretical clarification requires organisational flexibility, and to this end we believe that political relations between the TUG and the CPGB are still principled and necessary.

Trotskyist Unity Group
May 14 1996