13.02.2025
Two meetings and many possibilities
No-one thinks we stand on the threshold of mass politics. But there is clearly an audience, especially amongst those wanting to go beyond the confessional sects. Carla Roberts reports
It would be foolish to overstate the numbers involved in the current fusion process, ‘Forging Communist Unity’: the three groups involved are small, even smaller and miniscule. Nevertheless, it would be equally foolish to underestimate the potential impact this could make on the stuck-in-the-mud British left - and already has, as two events in the last week have shown.
Around 135 people attended the February 6 launch meeting of the new Zoom series, ‘Building a Communist Party: past attempts and future prospects’, organised by Why Marx?, which, while not officially part of the negotiations, is “accompanying the fusion process in a spirit of solidarity”.1 Jack Conrad of the CPGB, Nick Wrack of Talking about Socialism (TAS) and Cat Rylance of the Prometheus journal (who spoke in a personal capacity) set out their hopes for the future of the fusion process. The livestreamed video has already been watched thousands of times on Facebook, TikTok and YouTube.
A couple of days later, on February 8, 40 people came to the day school on ‘Marxist Unity’ in Salford, organised by Prometheus and TAS and also attended by a number of CPGB members and supporters. Both events attracted a fair number of members from other left groups, including the Morning Star’s Communist Party of Britain, the Socialist Party of Great Britain and Revolutionary Socialism in the 21st Century (interestingly, there were members present from both sides of the current ‘partyism’ debate in RS21). The majority of participants, however, were individual socialists and communists who are currently not involved in any organisation.
Potential
At both meetings, comrades spoke openly and frankly about the possibilities, as well as the potential problems, of the current process, as well as the wider question of ‘What kind of party?’. Almost everybody on the left now seems to agree that there is a need for ‘regroupment’ and ‘unity’. But even amongst those who believe this unity should be based around a programme for communism and Marxism (and not motherhood and apple pie), there is, not surprisingly, a certain amount of scepticism about the current fusion process. For some, this is a hesitation about the Weekly Worker and its “style”, as an RS21 comrade put it in Salford, while others fear that their particular ‘red lines’ would not be adhered to.
At the heart of these worries is the fact that the British left has been utterly and pathetically divided, for many decades. The futile attempt to pursue ‘purifying splits’ has ended up creating dozens of almost identical sects. Much of the ‘revolutionary left’ has been preaching to the many tens of thousands of people that have gone through their particular sect mill that their little group is ‘it’ and just has to grow a bit more. And in order to achieve that, it would have to set up or engage in ‘broad-left fronts’ in which members of the said revolutionary group will have to support sub-reformist policies that often bear no relation to the aim of revolution.
In other words, we really do have our work cut out to convince socialists to fight for something entirely different. Everybody involved in the fusion process is painfully aware that any organisation coming out of it will not be a ‘mass’ party any time soon, in the sense of “leading the most advanced sections of the working class”, as Jack Conrad explained. At the Salford school, Mike Macnair put it like this: “We need a party of hundreds of thousands to make revolution. But, even if just the existing left united and brought with them their former members and those they still influence, we could have a party of about 30,000 people very quickly. Such a party could make a huge difference.”
All speakers agreed that our pre-party formation (as well, of course, as the emerging Communist Party) would have to be based on important political principles and a programme that “spells out clearly that we are fighting for the overthrow of capitalism and that we are not interested in managing the current system”, as Nick Wrack put it at the Why Marx? launch. He hoped that “communism can and should become the common sense” among the working class - but that “because of the failures of the socialist movement” we have some way to go. “We must say from the outset that we are not talking about the ‘communism’ of the Soviet Union or China, but the communism developed by Marx and Engels, which we need to bring up to date and apply in the modern world.” Comrade Wrack outlined that such a party “cannot be built by a personality or a clique” and that many of today’s groups “are actually scared of the prospect of a mass party - because it would mean disagreements and dissent.”
Comrade Rylance noted that there is “a lot of potential for a principled political party today and things look politically much more advanced than even 10 years ago”. She outlined some of the “practical problems” we face, explaining her encounters with activists from Assembly: “There is this idea that we would just get activists into a room and from that they would develop naturally into some kind of party with a coherent programme. That is our task at hand - to show that this does not work.” She bravely explained the much-criticised idea that at the beginning this process would indeed have to be “top-down”: “It is absolutely crucial that we clarify the politics first and that only once we have worked out our programme, we build an organisation, a structure around it”, she said. “We therefore need substantial discussions and must resist the pressure to just ‘get out there’ and get things done - we need to be clear what we actually want to achieve.”
Jack Conrad agreed that “there clearly is an urgent necessity to form a Communist Party, considering the climate catastrophe and the shift to the right in global politics. But we also need a degree of patience in order to achieve that unity. The process of forging communist unity will have to be as short as possible, but as long as necessary.” He explained that, if we are successful, “which I think we will be, this process will resonate with the rest of the left”. He agreed with comrade Wrack that we will have to show that
… we are clear that the USSR was an abomination. It was a step forward, but also a huge step back for our movement. Yes, our party needs agitational ideas, but we must also account for what went before and explain why what we’re attempting to do this time will be different. That’s where the programme comes in. We need to explain why good people did terrible things.
He explained that it requires a mass Communist Party mainly for one reason: “To resolve a future revolutionary crisis in a positive way. If we cannot overcome the left’s division, that will be impossible. Yes, all groups will probably grow a bit, but the revolutionary crisis is likely to be resolved negatively.” If it was enough to simply back strikes and other spontaneous actions, “we would have had socialism decades ago. But look at where we are at.”
All speakers stressed that this party - and the campaign for it - would have to be deeply democratic, allowing for political differences, big and small, to be aired and debated publicly and “sometimes fiercely”, as comrade Conrad put it. Otherwise the rest of the left and, crucially, the mass of the working class will not even be tempted to join our party - and why would they, if they think they will have to shut up and simply follow the leadership line once they have joined.
Dumb questions
Comrade Rylance expanded on this point in the Salford day school: “We have to create a culture where members can question everything and ask what might be seen as dumb questions. We must be allowed to make mistakes. That is part of the way that people learn.” There are no doubt some differences between comrades Conrad and Rylance over the correct ‘debating culture’- and we will no doubt continue to discuss this in a comradely and productive manner. This is a crucial question, especially as some of the questions and comments raised at both events show that there are quite a lot of misunderstandings and plenty of confusion among pro-partyist comrades.
This was particularly evident in the two ‘workshops’ that followed the main plenary session with Mike Macnair and Cat Rylance at the Salford event. I must admit I am not generally a fan of workshops - especially ones laden with six questions that we were supposed to discuss in 30 minutes. We could only touch on some of the questions posed. Having said that, many attendees clearly had a lot of unanswered questions that they did not want to raise in the plenary. From that perspective, it was quite useful and allowed us to at least start a discussion on some of the contested issues. Questions raised included:
Aren’t there already plenty of revolutionary parties, including (at least) a couple that bear the name ‘Communist Party’?
First off, we should say that the name for us is secondary. We favour the word ‘communist’ in the name, because it shows that we see ourselves in the tradition of Marx and Engels, whose most famous text was called, after all, Manifesto of the Communist Party - although, like today, such a party was not in existence then.
We do not ignore the existing left, but hope to win them over to the idea of a democratic, principled, genuine Communist Party. But that requires a cultural revolution on the left. For a start, most groups today are organised like traditional Trotskyist sects and with an ideological line given out by the leadership that members have to agree with. If our fusion process is successful, this could put real pressure on some of the groups to change their modus operandi and/or join the fusion process.
How are we going to deal with differences?
The slogan of ‘unity in diversity’ was raised a number of times. As was the idea that members of a genuine Communist Party should be asked to ‘accept’ the party programme rather than having to ‘agree’ with every dot and comma. The programme is, incidentally, not a holy text set in stone. It is always up for debate and can be amended - it has to be a living document. Members must be allowed to get together with other members to raise criticisms - up to and including the formation of open and permanent factions, which should find proportional representation on the leadership, for example. Minorities must have the right to express their views, not just internally, but also in the party’s press and in front of the working class. That is the only way we can attract the ‘mass’ of the working class to our party.
Should the party have particular ‘red lines’?
This issue came up repeatedly in Salford, reflecting that the concept of ‘red lines’ is very much part of the culture of many young people today, including in RS21 and its periphery. The issue of trans rights was mentioned a few times in the workshops and the idea that ‘I cannot be in a Communist Party that allows Terfs to join’. We will be discussing this issue in more detail at the February 16 Communist Forum, which features a discussion between Mike Macnair and Roxy Hall. Another workshop raised the issue of China, with a member of the Communist Party of Britain suggesting that a definition of China might be part of the “minimum conditions” of a new mass Communist Party.
In general, while our programme should be based on definite political principles - in this case, a clear statement that we are in favour of trans liberation and that we do not excuse or seek to mimic the crimes of Stalinism - it would be completely counterproductive to subject members to some communist version of the inquisition. We are for keeping people with overtly reactionary views outside the ranks of the party, but the emphasis will be on education, debate and challenging backward ideas such as sectionalism, narrow trade-unionism or nationalism. There is also unity in action.
All of these issues, and many more, will be further discussed openly in the pages of the Weekly Worker and at the Why Marx? education series - and, no doubt, in the meetings organised by TAS and in the Prometheus journal.