16.01.2025

Second-round progress

Old gripes, past differences and silly diversions should not be allowed to get in our way. Communists are determined to unite - not when it comes to a perfect future, but in the here and now. Jack Conrad reports

Our January 11 meeting between the CPGB, Talking About Socialism and the Prometheus editorial board saw further progress. As agreed, we began with report-backs.

On behalf of the Provisional Central Committee I referred to my recent Weekly Worker article.¹ The CPGB’s leadership, members and circle of supporters are behind our fusion talks. As a much respected friend of CPGB emailed me, “Welcome good news. Much needed. My full support!” There are, I assured comrades, many other such figures in our movement urging us on.

Ed Potts and Nick Wrack spoke for TAS. Again as can be seen from the last edition of the Weekly Worker, its steering committee is marching in close step with us.² The comrades were just about to discuss their unity statement with their supporters (that has now happened with positive results). TAS is also changing one of its defining aims: from “building support for socialist/communist ideas and for the construction of a mass socialist/communist party.” Now it will unambiguously aim for a Communist Party. Excellent.

We also had two comrades from the Prometheus editorial board attending: Cat Rylance and Alex Higgins. Basically its EB is yet to arrive at a united position. Comrade Rylance made her own position quite clear though: fully committed. However, there are hesitators. I suggested that comrade Wrack and myself meet with the comrades … hopefully that would overcome doubts and help take things forward.

Comrade Higgins told us about developments in RS21 (Revolutionary Socialism in the 21st Century). Not only has the organisation been broken from affiliation to the social-imperialist Ukraine Solidarity Campaign and won round to a much more healthy position on Nato’s proxy war: RS21 is now committed to upholding an “explicit communist horizon” and a definite pro-party faction appears to be in formation. The comrade also outlined the differences in RS21, when it comes to unity. There are those looking at our fusion process with keen interest. However, some hanker after yet another broad-left formation, perhaps along with Anticapitalist Resistance - a right-moving Mandelite organisation and a USC affiliate.

Note, there was an official representative of RS21 at our first meeting. Not this time, though. Nonetheless, the future looks full of potential on that front.

We also had a report-back from the Labour Left Alliance/Why Marx? LLA/Why Marx? is not a membership organisation: it is a political mishmash and cannot, therefore, really participate. Quite right.

Nonetheless, the comrades tabled for the second time an altogether misconceived series of Zoom talks as our ‘public face’. First time round, this included following the induction syllabus of the Marxist Unity Group in the US (I am sure that is tip-top, but utterly unsuited for our purposes). The latest Zoom series now being floated begins with three talks on the formation of the CPGB in 1920 given by Lawrence Parker, a strangely embittered former CPGB member. Other proposed speakers include Alan Gibson of the Bolshevik Tendency, one of the Spartacist micro-fragments and a dyed-in-the-wool Oehlerite.

Worse, there is an attempt to set us up against comrade Wrack - and not only over the Socialist Alliance, Respect and Left Unity. Frankly, we are not interested in raking over past differences. What matters is fusion. Bruised egos, trivial grievances, long-gone disputes are now utterly irrelevant. Trying to bring them to the fore at this particularly promising moment is, to put it mildly, irresponsible. We shall do our best to bring about a radical rethink.

To proceed we need serious negotiations - much of it, necessarily, has to be in private, some bilateral. The various stages, doubtless, can and should be openly reported however, and that needs to be done in a responsible manner. Other comrades agreed … LLA/Why Marx? withdrew their proposals (which should never have been tabled in the first place). Why Marx? should certainly not present itself as our ‘public face’.

On behalf of the CPGB I argued that at some point in our process we must, without rushing things, reach what might be called a qualitative stage. In order to continue further we shall require a definite pledge from all participants. They will accept the results of a fusion conference as binding.

That was the case with the 2nd Congress of the RSDLP, the real foundation congress of revolutionary social democracy in Russia. It was the case too with the CPGB’s 1st congress in 1920.

At a rather silly level that would have meant all CPGB members committing themselves to the cause of teetotalism, as advocated by Bob Stewart (leader of the Socialist Prohibition Fellowship and a future CPGB acting general secretary). Rightly, the motion never made it to the congress floor. Nonetheless, there is a serious point being made here. Delegates had two strategically vital issues before them: contesting parliamentary elections and affiliating to the Labour Party. Both had been hotly debated in the pages of The Call, The Socialist, Workers’ Dreadnought, etc. Lenin himself intervened, most famously in ‘Left-wing’ communism (printed in English and French in July 1920).

When it came to the vote on parliament, there was a clear 186:19 card majority. However, despite Lenin, the vote on affiliation was surprisingly narrow, 100:85 cards. What matters, though, for our present purposes, is that the sizable minority had already committed itself to abiding by majority votes. That they did … and with some considerable success, when it came to building a real communist influence in the ranks of the Labour Party.

Incidentally, that also helped sort the wheat from the chaff: Sylvia Pankhurst, in many ways a heroic figure, was expelled by her own group, the misnamed Communist Party (British Section of the Third International), which went on to fuse with the already fused British Socialist Party and the Communist Unity Group in the CPGB. A short while later, going at a slightly slower pace, the Left Wing Group of the Independent Labour Party came on board.

It is not, it should be stressed, that we imagine that together we are on the cusp of something like the 1st congress of the CPGB … or for that matter the 2nd congress of the RSDLP. We are much, much smaller, have no serous roots in the working class and international conditions are far from auspicious. Indeed, we operate in an extended period of reaction. Conditions are Arctic.

Nonetheless, with solid political foundations, we might be about to take a significant, albeit modest, step forward ... from here things could considerably accelerate (but, given objective conditions, that should not be immediately expected).

Encouragingly, the TAS comrades agreed with the binding principle being applied when, together, we think it appropriate. So did comrade Rylance. That bodes well.

Naturally, we are open to other groups joining our fusion process. At the moment, though, there is nothing remotely serious on our radar. The key, therefore, is bringing about CPGB, TAS and Prometheus unity. Opening our discussions - and negotiations - to the unaffiliated, the lost, the many sincere individuals looking for a home, would, at this juncture, be a total disaster. Let us first get our house to the design stage.

It was comrade Wrack who proposed giving us a new name: Forging Communist Unity. No problem. We readily took up the TAS six points, which, taken together, can help us towards agreeing a blueprint:

1. What should a partyist organisation’s fundamental principles and programmatic commitments be?
2. What is the best structure for a partyist organisation, especially at our current stage of dozens of members? Should this change when we group together hundreds, or thousands?
3. What kind of democracy should the organisation adopt? How can we ensure that its democratic functioning outweighs trends towards bureaucratisation, etc?
4. Who is included and excluded from membership? What principles and processes govern this?
5. How should a partyist organisation at our current stage approach the question of those who claim agreement with our goal of a united communist party, but who hold positions which may undermine that commitment in practice? (We might take as an example comrades who consider themselves revolutionary communists, but advocate support for the Ukrainian war effort on the grounds of the right of nations to self-determination.)
6. How should any new organisation engage in the wider movement - for example, how would it relate to broader formations? What obligations should there be on its members in such situations?

Comrade Wrack suggested we arrange two face-to-face meetings between leading committees/groups/boards. Yes, we need to get to know and trust each other on a personal level.

1. J Conrad, ‘It’s good to do more than talk’ Weekly Worker January 9: weeklyworker.co.uk/worker/1520/its-good-to-do-more-than-talk.↩︎

2. TAS Steering Committee, ‘Forging communist unity’ Weekly Worker January 9: weeklyworker.co.uk/worker/1520/forging-communist-unity.↩︎