08.05.2025

Programme ’n’ chips

Differences are inevitable. Unity can, however, be forged around a democratically agreed programme and the commitment to building a mass party. Jack Conrad reports … and considers organisational cultures, good and bad

We had our second face-to-face in Manchester on May 4. That makes seven Forging Communist Unity meetings in total. Edmund Potts and Nick Wrack represented Talking About Socialism, Cat Rylance the pro-party faction of Prometheus, and Jack Conrad and Mike Macnair the CPGB (Farzad Kamangar also attended as an observer). Comrade Potts chaired the first session.¹

Proceedings began with brief report-backs from each organisation. Comrade Wrack touched upon TAS Zoom meetings. Those attending are enthusiastic and hopeful, but ask about the sort of organisation we envisage. Prometheus are commissioning articles on the road towards a mass Communist Party. I raised the question of the non-talks faction of Prometheus - we shall send another reminder about our agreed meeting.

Kicking things off I made the admittedly somewhat anodyne point that the whole FCU process was a positive step forward at the start, but that we never thought things would suddenly leapfrog forwards. ‘Slowly, slowly’ is the right way to go. Communist University will be a particularly important moment. Something we discussed at the end, but mainly in terms of details. CU 2025 will perhaps enable us to see whether or not things will work out.

Comrade Wrack agreed: ‘slowly, slowly’ is the best way forward. Trying to rush things will end in a mess. “Shotgun weddings are usually unsuccessful.” Comrade Macnair referred to his experience in the Mandelite International Socialist Group and how it came apart, because unity was essentially based on tactics. When circumstances changed the various components each went their own way.

Comrade Rylance expressed her view that the process could go faster. She warned of the danger of things becoming “lost and meandering”. To aid the convergence between the three organisations she proposed trying to arrive at “shared formulations to overcome mere terminological differences”. If that did not do the trick, there is always voting at the fusion conference. Without that we will continue in separate organisations … which would be very negative. She referred back to the idea suggested by the Prometheus pro-party faction of a joint committee to draft a common programme.

Responding, I reckoned that there is a “good chance” of us not coming to an agreement. When it comes to the middle classes and the transition period, there appear to be differences of real substance. That is important - how important remains to be seen. But we can unite despite our differences, because what we have in common is of far, far greater importance. All three organisations agree that having a programme is essential, and that, to turn that programme into practice, building a mass Communist Party is essential.

Together we reject the absurd notion of some elitist confessional sect leading the mass of the working class - by the nose - to power using the so-called ‘transitional method’: ie, relying on spontaneity, economic struggles and eschewing high politics and democratic questions.

Any mass Communist Party will have areas of disagreement - that is bound to be the case. Indeed, the more we discuss, even at this stage, the more disagreements we will discover. That need not constitute an inseparable barrier: members are required to accept the programme, not agree.

Flame us

As for a committee to draw up a draft programme, I argued that if our CPGB representatives in FCU junked our Draft programme for the sake of coming to an agreement with Prometheus and TAS, we would, rightly, be flamed by CPGB members, cells and aggregates. Our Draft programme was designed, from the start, not merely to politically equip a small group of communists, but a mass Communist Party.

It should be added that our Draft programme is the work of years. Prepared in the 1980s, formally agreed in 1995, it has been amended and twice updated (2011 and 2023). Indeed, if we look at the programmes of classical social democracy, they too were long in the making. The programme of the French Workers’ Party (1880) included a year surveying working class opinion. Yes, Marx famously dictated the maximum section almost without stopping for breath. He was able to do that, however, because of decades of prior political experience. A draft of the Erfurt programme was worked on and amended (including by Engels) during the course of 1891.² The Iskra programme presented to the 2nd Congress of the RSDLP began with Lenin’s first thoughts in 1895, was batted to and fro between himself and Plekhanov over the course of 1901-02, culminating in the 1903 vote.

Anyway, I personally envisage the CPGB submitting the Draft programme to a fusion conference for amendment and voting - on section by section, line by line.

We would, of course, surely, dissolve the binding discipline over existing CPGB members at such a conference. So we would not necessarily vote as a solid bloc. Yes, we would perhaps meet, consult, come to agreements. But that would be a voluntary act of co-thinkers. We would expect the same approach with the other components of the fusion process - though, it has to be admitted, certainly when it comes to Prometheus, that there is no discipline to begin with. It is a loose circle.

So the idea of Prometheus producing anything worthwhile when it comes to a programme is pretty far-fetched. Yes, maybe a lowest common denominator. But that would be retrogressive. It is, though, conceivable that such a programme might be agreed by a fusion conference. If that was the case, we would reserve the right to consider the possibility of constituting ourselves as a public faction of the fused organisation.

As for TAS, the comrades had promised us a draft programme some little time ago. That might help, because where comrades Wrack and Potts disagree with our Draft programme is sometimes unclear. Comrade Macnair made the same point, albeit from a different angle: is TAS committed to what we would call a minimum-maximum programme? It is hard to tell.

No problem

Speaking for himself, comrade Wrack explained that he does not have a “problem or issue”, if people agree with the CPGB. “That’s their right” - it is just that “we need to discuss it out and have a comradely debate about it”.

He agreed that the absence of a TAS alternative is a problem. However, there will be “differences within TAS on the question of the min-max programme”. As he interprets it, the CPGB Draft programme emphases the minimum side, with the “maximum side being relegated to a different stage”.

Comrade Wrack also clarified TAS’s commitment to a programme. Not an SWP-type ‘What we stand for’ column, or an SPGB maximum-only, or an essay along the lines of Militant: what we stand for (author Peter Taaffe). Frankly, that was good to hear. I readily admit to being worried on that score.

He went on to emphasise that one of the “attractions of the CPGB’s approach which makes it stand out is its emphasis on the democratic aspect of the programme. And that is what has attracted a layer of people internationally to the writings of the CPGB”. Once again, good to hear … however there is a catch.

Some of those people internationally “seem to have developed that to the conclusion that what is needed as a stage in the development of history is the democratic republic”. The socialisation of the means of production is left out of the frame. “If the democratic republic is a modern term for the dictatorship of the proletariat - no problem”, he said.

“When the working class comes to power”, the comrade continued, the task is to “socialise everything”. As a flourish he declared that this would include “every fish and chip shop, every corner pub”.

In reply, I pointed out that we are not responsible for the comrades in the Marxist Unity Group in the US - or anywhere else for that matter. We have never hankered after an ‘oil slick international’. Yes, maybe there are one or two in MUG who downplay the centrality of class politics and the struggle to abolish wage-labour. Perhaps comrade Wrack has Gil Schaeffer in mind - I do not know. I have heard of Sweden being described as the ‘democratic republic’! Obviously ridiculous ... and not just because it is a monarchy. But, as far as I know, that is not the position of MUG … let alone the CPGB.

If comrade Wrack and other TAS comrades were suffering under such a misconception, I am glad to disabuse them of that idea. Anyone, even just flicking through at our Draft programme, will see that, as well as fighting for the minimum programme under capitalism, we envisage its full realisation only with the socialist constitution and the transition towards (full) communism.

The democratic republic is, for us, the form that the rule of the working class will take. The rule of the working class ushers in what Marx called the “first phase of communism”. What we, following Lenin, not least in State and revolution, call ‘socialism’.

As for socialising everything. We agree … but s l o w l y. As Marx and Engels put it in the Manifesto: “The proletariat will use its political supremacy to wrest, by degrees, all capital from the bourgeoisie.”³ Revolution, taking power, is a moment. A qualitative change or leap. But socialisation, while it will doubtless begin by taking over the banks, the utilities, nationalising land, etc, will then, with small and medium-sized enterprises at least, proceed gradually, voluntarily, through encouraging cooperatives, etc.

Middle classes

There is a middle class today. We expect there to be a middle class both before … and immediately after the revolution. Under current conditions we want the working class to champion the middle class against monopoly capitalism, the banks and the government (as long as it does not violate trade union rights, limits on hours, etc). Why? Because, when it comes to revolution, one of our strategic tasks is to reduce the social base of counterrevolution to as near zero as objective circumstances permit. Hence it matters what we say and do in the here and now.

Talking about socialising every fish and chip shop, every corner pub is, on the one hand, unnecessary, in part because they are being put out of business already by capitalist development. One closes after another on a daily basis. On the other hand, it is politically irresponsible, because it hands our enemies a potent weapon. They will accuse us of advocating something like Stalin’s first five-year plan, or Pol Pot’s ‘year zero’. Leave aside the middle classes and the question of skill monopolies, demands for socialising every fish and chip shop, every corner pub - in other words, expropriating the petty bourgeoisie - will deliver a whole social stratum numbering millions straight into the arms of counterrevolution. That is what, yes, I call, “strategically dumb”.⁴ Sorry if that is regarded as a hurtful accusation. Nonetheless, it is true.

As for “relegating the maximum programme”, that is demonstrably false. On the contrary, that is what we ultimately aim for, because, in the words of our Draft programme, this is where “[r]eal human history begins and society leaves behind the realm of necessity. In the realm of freedom people will become rounded, fully social individuals, who can for the first time truly develop their natural humanity.”⁵ It is this, the culmination of the maximum programme, that makes the minimum programme worth fighting for. The road to human freedom goes via the democratic republic and the rule of the working class. There is no other way of arriving at our ultimate goal.

Comrade Rylance said she thought that it is “really important to state what the purpose of the different elements of the programme are”. The example of the programme of the French Workers’ Party was cited. Apparently “parts of it are completely unclear”. That is why she is looking forward to proposing amendments to a draft programme in order to spell things out. She sees the programme as offering an “advisory perspective” for the future.

Comrade Macnair insisted on stressing democracy and taking a “cautious” attitude towards the middle classes. In that context he dealt with the question of structure. We all live under the “shadow of Stalinism” and the programme has to take account of that historic fact. That is why attempts to stick with the brevity of the programmes of classical late 19th century social democracy cannot but fail. We could certainly begin the programme in a similar manner: ie, start with the maximum, the goal of communism and full human freedom, as does the programme of the French Workers’ Party. But, on balance, it is better, in the 21st century, to begin with the minimum or immediate programme, centred on “winning the battle for democracy”.

Warning against getting fixated on secondary questions, comrade Wrack said the programme could be called ‘min-max’, but what counts is that it is a programme of working class rule. Turning to history, he said, “The problem with the min-max is that it was drafted in a period in Russia not for the immediate implementation of socialism, but in the first instance for democratic rights, etc.”

Nonetheless, he promised to draft a programme along the lines of the programme of the French Workers’ Party … only in modern language, and longer. He said the CPGB’s Draft programme contained too many unnecessary details. Anyway, there needs to be a new programme. It will not come out “this week and it will be rough and ready”. Whether this “rough and ready” programme will be the work of just comrade Wrack alone, the joint work of comrades Wrack and Potts or of TAS as a collective we shall see.

I was allowed to close the first session. The programme of the French Workers’ Party was very much of its time. The maximum part was certainly about more than a still unrealised future. It drew lines of demarcation against Proudhonists, Blanquists, left-Jacobins, anarchists and syndicalists. Therefore it caused much controversy on the French left. Opponents furiously attacked it as the work of that Prussian ‘red doctor’ living in London. So, for sure, it had nothing to do with a lowest-common-denominator compromise.

As for length. Our Draft programme is far from excessive. It comes in with about the same word count as the 1919 programme of the Russian Communist Party. Detailing our firm commitment to democracy is no indulgence. No, it is absolutely vital. Not only because of the Soviet Union: there is today’s alphabet soup of confessional sects: the CPB, NCP, SWP, SPEW, ACR, SA, RCP, etc, etc.

My last point: the programme of the RSDLP was divided into a minimum and maximum section. But it is hardly our model. Indeed it was exceptional in terms of European social democracy, because Russia was exceptional. The minimum section centred on the overthrow of tsarism and the tasks that would follow thereon after, as capitalist industry and agriculture develops.

But in the summer of 1905 Lenin wrote his Two tactics, which mapped out the perspective of the workers and peasants overthrowing tsarism in the ‘bourgeois revolution’, but without putting the bourgeoisie into power. Instead there would be the ‘revolutionary democratic (majority) dictatorship (decisive rule) of the proletariat and peasantry’, which triggers the European socialist revolution and therefore allows backward Russia to go uninterruptedly to the tasks of socialism without a specifically socialist revolution. Needless to say, there was no thought of expropriating the peasantry. Cooperatives would be encouraged.

A brilliant application of Marxism to the conditions in early 20th century Russia … and Europe. But, as already stated, hardly our model.

Second session

Programme was mixed with what we might call organisational culture in the second session. True, they are closely related, programme being the main determinant.

Anyway, I began by saying that we in the CPGB favour democracy - not only in society, but within our own organisation too. Cell secretaries are elected, the PCC is elected. We are also committed to open debate and discussion - the open airing of differences is considered as much a duty as a right. There is too the right for co-thinkers to form factions. However, the slogan, ‘strength in diversity’, is certainly not mine. We surely want political unity around a correct, a principled programme. That is where real political strength comes from.

We are for robust polemics. The right to conduct polemics in an honest, hard-hitting way - we consider that a healthy culture. Attempts to police language, to draw up a list of ‘bad words’, attempts to guard people against offence, stop them getting upset, etc are utterly alien to our culture.

Hence, we fought and refused to abide by Left Unity’s safe spaces, limits on free speech, bans on heckling, etc. Indeed from our very origins with the first publication of The Leninist in November 1981, ours was an open rebellion against the ban on factions and the biannual limits imposed on open political criticism.

Of course, it is a two-way street. The criticised can criticise.

Comrade Rylance brought up our standing formulation: “going through the left”. What she meant by this is the sort of work a fused organisation would conduct in relationship with the rest of the left.

Comrade Macnair, chairing the second half, thought that it would be best not to “jump” to that question. We need more discussion on programme. Nonetheless, he made the valid point that, even if we experienced an organisational leap, what we can do is still going to be limited. We can take this or that initiative, but what we actually can do will in large measure depend on wider political developments, including on the left. Some things are just unpredictable. He gave the example of Corbynism.

In my opinion the CPGB, TAS and the Prometheus pro-party faction have explored the programme question as far as we can for the moment. We have though put our Draft programme on the table.

Comrade Wrack stressed the importance of a programme - something not common nowadays on the left. He also stressed that he agreed with much that is in our Draft programme. In point of fact he seems to have gone over it with a fine-tooth comb. Which is excellent news: it shows real seriousness. In light of that he said he recognised the existence of the middle classes and the need to “reassure” and “assuage real concerns”. Again excellent. Towards that end he called for a study of Britain’s class structure and its dynamics. A good suggestion.

Presumably to stimulate discussion comrade Wrack asked whether or not dual power was an example of the dictatorship of the proletariat? Certainly the rule of the working class would see “continuing struggle for power.” At the moment though we should not worry about “hostility among sections of the middle class”. After all we have yet to even gain a hearing from the mass of the working class.

Language please

However, he did finally turn to our organisation and our culture. Comrade Wrack said he was fine with robust polemics. He opposed attempts to regulate and police discussions and how they are conducted. But … he wants a leadership which is “skilful enough” and “knows how far to go”. Here we were approaching the rub. He called for accurate reporting as a “first commitment”. We should not fall into the “trap of exaggerating”. Language should take into account that “others are watching”. It is important that we share the “same goal”.

What is for one ‘robust polemics’ is ‘I’m not coming here again’ for another. And, though he has read our draft rules, the comrade said that he did not really know how the CPGB works. Does it, for example, supress differences?

Comrade Macnair went into the ins and outs of ‘official communism’ and how it did actually suppress criticism of others in the name of unity. The SWP does exactly the same thing in We Demand Change, Stand Up to Racism, etc, etc. As for us, the comrade cited internal criticism within our organisation over using the phrase ‘useful idiot’ in the context of trans rights, because it will be used against our side.

As far as comrade Wrack was concerned, he had “no problem” with the term. Comrade Macnair continued giving examples of harsh language: eg, calling Paul Mason a ‘scab’. That does not mean we want to prevent discussion on language, discussion and debate.

Comrade Rylance said that she “accepted” that she had “bent the stick” against the CPGB over harsh polemics against others on the left. But she raised concern over the role of leaderships, authority and hierarchy.

For my part, I said the discussion had gone a “little pear-shaped”. I welcomed comrade Wrack’s remarks on the middle classes. We also need to fight for working class hegemony over all democratic questions from Scotland to Palestine, from women’s rights to gay rights, from migration to crime and prison. And, no, dual power is not the working class in power. It is the working class half in power, near taking power. It is a temporary, highly unstable situation, that can be resolved in one of two ways: revolution or counterrevolution.

On polemics and organisational culture, one person’s demand for accuracy can be code for curbing another’s freedom to criticise in the manner they choose and think appropriate. Our opponents often seek to shield themselves by citing the ‘right’ to be guarded against intimidating language, the ‘duty’ to promote unity by only using respectful language, the ‘obligation’ not to put off potential recruits by refraining from off-putting polemical language.

Here I referred to Marx himself. Even as a young man, in 1842, he was to be found passionately arguing in favour of unrestricted freedom of expression: “Whenever one form of freedom is rejected, freedom in general is rejected,” he defiantly wrote.⁶ Of course, freedom comes with its hurtful side. Marx tellingly writes: “Keep in mind that you could not enjoy the advantages of a free press without tolerating its inconveniences. You could not pluck the rose without its thorns!⁷”

Our movement is dominated by opportunism. We must therefore do everything we can to encourage thought, encourage criticism, encourage rebellion. Our comrades need to be tough, not snowflakes. We are not interested in cosy deals with the forces of opportunism. We declare war. The left has, unfortunately, not just declined in numbers: it has declined in terms of culture too. Always poor, it has become altogether poorer.

Comrade Potts said he agreed with that. However, “Language that is appropriate to one section may not be appropriate to another section.” There is too much burn-out of rank-and-file comrades. Comrade Rylance basically concurred. Comrade Wrack too. He worries about the “unpleasant tone” adopted by Weekly Worker writers, when it comes to the “rest of the left” … for example, Jack Conrad had written about him showing a “visceral hostility towards organised communists” and being “strategically dumb”. This was, it should be mentioned (a) in the context of Left Unity and his Socialist Platform⁸ and (b) irresponsible talk of immediate, total socialisation of small and medium businesses.⁹

Either way, the comrade is “thick-skinned”: such criticisms are “water off a duck’s back”. However, what about those who “agree” with the CPGB, but “won’t join”? Methinks this ‘agree … but’ formulation is actually cover for political disagreement that dares not speak its name. Anyway, comrade Wrack thinks robust polemic “tips over into personal abuse or denigration” and puts them off.

Comrade Wrack calls for self-critical reflection. “You can,” he said, “be the best football team in the world. You’ve always got to be better. Even if we have the best ideas and best culture.”

Frankly, I reject the charge that we engage in personal abuse and denigration. Our focus is always political. We can get into an argument about the personal being political. And there is a truth here. However, our prime concern is always the political persona.

Nonetheless, I think I can sum up my own and comrade Macnair’s reply to comrade Wrack by saying this: yes, we do indeed think that the CPGB has the best ideas and the best organisational culture … they form an inseparable unity. Can we do better? Yes! Must be we better? Definitely!

Something that will surely be aided, enhanced and taken to a new level by forging communist unity.

This report relies not only on my own notes, recollections and thoughts. Largely I have followed the chronology and extracted from the minutes taken by Ed Potts. Comrade Yassamine Mather also made extensive notes. They were twice as long, not least because, as a participant, comrade Potts tended not to note his own contributions. Either way, I decided to base my report mainly on comrade Potts, because he and comrade Nick Wrack constitute one voice, when it comes to TAS. Therefore it is safe to assume that his account is acceptable to TAS as a whole.↩︎
See B Lewis (ed and trans) Karl Kautsky on democracy and republicanism Leiden 2020, p307-28.↩︎
K Marx and F Engels CW Vol 6, New York, NY 1976, p504.↩︎
J Conrad ‘Rediscovering our words’ Weekly Worker April 10 2025.↩︎
CPGB Draft programme London 2023, pp48.↩︎
K Marx and F Engels CW Vol 1, London 1975, p181.↩︎
K Marx and F Engels CW Vol 1, London 1975, pp164-65.↩︎
Left Unity’s Socialist Platform was established in 2013 at comrade Wrack’s initiative. However, what distinguished it first and foremost for us was a refusal to countenance any democratic changes to its ‘Who we are’ statement (see - leftunity.org/socialist-platform-statement-of-aims-and-principles). Comrade Wrack narrowly won the vote on this at the first conference, tellingly with help provided by the social-imperialist Alliance for Workers’ Liberty. By the way, we wanted to kick them out, but lost that vote. However, for what it is worth, and it is worth very little, when it came to indicative votes we won every ‘amendment’ bar one. Showing what, I think is fair to say, was a definite hostility to us, comrade Wrack voted against every single proposal coming from the CPGB. We went on to form the Communist Platform, which, before we split from Left Unity in February 2016 over its criminal refusal to positively engage with Jeremy Corbyn’s Labour Party, had a four-strong faction on its national council. Of course, all of that is ancient history now and has absolutely no relevance when it comes to Forging Communist Unity. I am just putting the record straight here, not trying to rake over old coals.↩︎
J Conrad ‘Rediscovering our words’ Weekly Worker April 10 2025: www.weeklyworker.co.uk/worker/1533/rediscovering-our-words.↩︎