10.07.2025

Get back to the talking

Being in a majority is nicer than being in a minority, but without minorities accepting being in a minority, there can be no hope of meaningful communist unity. Scott Evans reports on the June 30 TAS meeting

As things stand, the Forging Communist Unity process appears to be on its last legs. On May 29, Talking About Socialism suspended its participation in the process until July 6, to work on its own alternative programme to that of the CPGB. On June 11, Nick Wrack posted an article on the TAS website titled ‘Communist unity - a change is needed’. On June 25, TAS members voted in favour of a motion to pull out of the Forging Communist Unity process due to there being “no prospect of achieving any worthwhile or meaningful unity with the CPGB from the current FCU process”.

So, in less than a month the agenda passed from ongoing discussion and preparations for co-organising Communist University, to a pause for programme writing, to completely pulling out. It was at least clarified at the TAS members meeting on June 30 - open to all to attend - that TAS will still be attending Communist University, which is great news. Hopefully meeting in-person can help to rekindle the process.

Minority?

The original proposal from TAS to enter into a unity process was and is commendable. The process was being conducted openly, disagreements were being expressed frankly. In so doing, the organisations involved were treating outside observers with respect, leaving it up to them to judge the pace and quality of the process.

This front-loads the hard work of political unity, clarifying agreements and disagreements on fundamental principles of goal and strategy. This is not only more democratic, but, when unity is finally achieved, front-loading the hard work of achieving unity through open political debate makes the organisation that much more robust, healthy and resistant to splitting. Patiently sticking to principled Marxist political strategy is the only realistic way forward.

Despite that clearly positive aspect of what we have been through with FCU, I suspect the seeds of this were sewn early on. Not by ‘insults’ coming from the CPGB, but by the reluctance of TAS leaders to participate in a fusion process where CPGB members formed the majority.

The TAS meeting on June 30 lasted around 1 hour, 25 minutes, with a 25-minute introduction from comrade Nick Wrack, and around 15 minutes to finish, divided between himself and comrade Ed Potts. Other comrades were given just three minutes each to give their views in between. There was a bit of consternation about this, as that is barely enough to even get the outline of one or two points in. It was countered that this allowed more people to speak (around 12 did by my count, not including the chair nor comrades Potts and Wrack). Why limit the meeting to such a short time? With a meeting as important as one like this, the chair should allow contrary points to be developed and fully discussed. Of course, you do have to cut people off when they repeat themselves or wander widely off topic. TAS has taken a more flexible approach in their meetings before.

Both comrades Wrack and Potts said they were offended that they had been accused of being unwilling to be in a minority. But in his closing remarks, comrade Wrack did say: “Communist unity with the CPGB under present conditions, with the forces involved, will amount to nothing more than the CPGB”; and also: “Comrades who are watching won’t join an organisation that is simply the CPGB with an extra handful, which is what it will be now.”

Is that not just a context-specific version of refusing to be in a minority? Specifically, refusing to be in a minority in which CPGB members - free to vote how they please - form the majority. I suspect that if at some point it became clear that the pro-talks wing of Prometheus had largely aligned with the CPGB, then we would be facing a similar threat to walk just further into the future.

CPGB comrades have repeatedly said that we are patient about the pace of discussions, so the complaint about not having much time to develop their programme between their busy jobs and ‘CPGB insults’ does not hold water - it sounds like TAS members themselves were unhappy that the agenda was quickly bounced from programme to the question of pulling out.

Similarly, in the event of the CPGB’s Draft programme being the clear favourite, any major disagreement with it could have been put forward in the shape of amendments, including ripping out or adding in whole sections. All the comrades would be required to do would be to convince others of their point of view and, if they do not believe that would be possible, then they are either not very confident in their own positions or they are treating CPGB members as too dogmatic or irrational to be reasoned with (which would be pretty uncharitable, to put it lightly).

Even if the programme came through a founding conference with nothing more than some minor fiddling and a fresh coat of paint, would it have been so intolerable to form a faction with the aim of replacing the programme with a substantially different draft?

Culture

I am sorry to have to inflict another discussion of organisational culture on regular readers of this paper, but it was another theme of the meeting.¹

The main point was, I think, made by comrade Casey. No organisation on the left is perfect, and no organisation ever will be. The left has some particular cultural issues now, and in the hoped-for future mass Communist Party it will have others (guarding against a drift to the right, as the German SPD left failed to do in the early 20th century, will be one task). It is, I think, somewhat ridiculous to suggest that the CPGB has such a ‘bad culture’ that it is unworthy of even being engaged with. Indeed, it is clearly one of the only organisations on the left capable of going through a fusion process that is this open and honest about political disagreements. That alone is worth its weight in gold.

Is there anything more concrete about the CPGB that makes it so intolerable to work within a similarly functioning organisation as a minority? The CPGB is democratic: the PCC is elected annually on an individual basis; any member can propose amendments to the Draft programme, the draft rules, and so on; any member can write in a letter; every member is allowed to privately contact any other member - including the leadership itself - to discuss political disagreements or whatever else. And the CPGB has clearly stated from the beginning that organisational discipline would be dissolved in the event of a fusion conference, so there would be no CPGB bloc voting. You can say that perhaps it is unfortunate that comrade Jack Conrad has held a leadership position for so long, but it is not an easy problem to solve: any fused organisation must have as one of its priorities experimenting with methods for ensuring regular rotation of all officials, including elected leaders.²

On the name ‘Communist Party of Great Britain’, which comrade Wrack seems to be very strongly opposed to, I am fond of comrade Lawrence Parker’s suggestion of ‘Communist Unity Group’,³ but one would hope that someone really committed to unity would be able to put aside any hatred for the name ‘CPGB’ for the sake of unity - the same going for whatever logo a founding conference chose.

Finally, on the complaint of dodgy reporting: disagreement over reports is partially just an inevitable feature of the style of reporting the CPGB pursues, whereby we quickly summarise points of agreement and then try our best to bring disagreements to the forefront,⁴ which are intended to be resolved or, perhaps, crystallise with a further back-and-forth following a report. This is a good approach, but it does come with barbs. Summarising hours-long meetings is very difficult, and it is basically a tradition at this point that CPGB aggregate reports often annoy some member, no matter who writes them. The accusation that these reports contained lies - ie, deliberate misrepresentation - has not been substantiated, as far as I am aware.

Charity

What about ‘bad faith’ and insults? Democratic politics can only function properly if most people most of the time operate according to the principle of ‘charity’.⁵ This means addressing people’s arguments directly, treating people as rational actors and interpreting their arguments or demands in the best possible light.

Most of the left, it seems to me, is pretty terrible at this, when it comes to inter-group disagreement, and as a result makes itself incapable of effective democratic politics. I do not think the CPGB is always great at this, but it is always much better than most of the left, some of which do not consider even the existence of other organisations worth acknowledging.

With that said, treating people charitably on an intellectual level does not entail a need to be nice to them - though obviously we should criticise in a comradely fashion or else goodwill could be progressively eroded over time. We all get angry and frustrated, especially when the stakes are so high, and insults will sometimes result. If comrades see insults alone as worthy of walking, which I am not saying the TAS leaders do (though the frequency with which this is brought up by some would seem to imply that is the case), this may honestly be a serviceable working definition of ‘unserious’.

Not quick

I would not myself be quick to call someone a ‘Pol Potist’ - especially not someone I was currently trying to win over - but this is not even a contentless insult like, say, ‘stupid prick’: it has definite political content, which should be fairly clear, even if you disagree with it. It is not unreasonable for the thought to walk away to cross your mind in a heated moment, but those who are serious and committed and have not lost sight of the stakes have a duty to help the unsure and the inexperienced not to lose sight of the bigger picture and the ultimate prize.

I will end by paraphrasing something comrade Moshé Machover said during the meeting, expressing the disappointment which is no doubt shared by at least a handful of interested outside observers: if not these organisations, then who? And, if not now, then when?

1. I have written about ‘bad culture’ in a - perhaps somewhat convoluted - Weekly Worker letter (February 27 2025): www.weeklyworker.co.uk/worker/1527/letters.↩︎

2. I have also commented on leadership rotation before (Letters, January 23 2025): www.weeklyworker.co.uk/worker/1522/letters.↩︎

3. talkingaboutsocialism.org/whats-in-a-name-our-red-banner-of-communist-unity.↩︎

4. Of course, these are by definition perceived disagreements, and, if you disagree that they really exist, you can say so.↩︎

5. Treating people charitably means resisting any urge to dismiss them as stupid or otherwise irrational, to resist treating their beliefs as stemming from an underlying psychological problem like unaccounted-for trauma, unconscious bigotry or some personality disorder like narcissism, and to resist treating someone’s arguments as coming from some subconscious or conscious malign intent or hidden agenda and throw terms like ‘bad faith’ at them. If one does feel it necessary to call someone out for something like malign intent, one just has to be careful to properly substantiate it, and do it alongside addressing what that person is actually arguing. The latter is particularly important, because, whether or not we think the messenger is sincere and has good intentions, there will be people observing who sincerely hold those same ideas. This applies to taking on forces like Reform UK too.↩︎