18.09.2025

Working within Your Party

The strategy of ‘seizing the initiative’ by proposing hypothetical actions in the hope that others will agree is a common mistake on the far left. It leads to multiple competing initiatives. Farzad Kamangar reports

Our September 14 aggregate started by discussing a motion proposed by comrade Carla Roberts regarding CPGB candidate members. She said that, in the absence of a default time for candidate membership, some new comrades felt they were in limbo or that the wait to become a member was too long. She proposed a trial period of three months.

Speaking on behalf of the PCC, Jack Conrad suggested that three months was too short and that both the candidate member and the organisation needed a longer trial period, adding that six months would be better.

As some comrades were raising their hands for further contributions, comrade Conrad asked the meeting to vote on a procedural motion to end this debate and go immediately to a vote on the issue. That was agreed and the motion was then put to a vote and the six-month trial period, as opposed to three months in the original version, was adopted.

The second, main part of the meeting saw the continuation of the discussion that started at the August 24 aggregate around the CPGB’s intervention in the proposed new Jeremy Corbyn Party. The group of comrades who had proposed amendments had since withdrawn a major plank, with a view to further discussion, including “efforts to strengthen links with others in Your Party with a view to explore a Communist Caucus”.

The motion had stated that we need to ensure the Weekly Worker plays a leading role in cohering communist forces in YP by providing a strong and consistent pole of principled Marxist politics, which seeks to counter the inevitable pull to the right. It should feature and engage actively (though always critically) with this trend - by for example, by inviting non-members in as editors. The Weekly Worker could be the main pole of Marxist politics and debate and an education programme should be launched on key debates (opposition vs government, pacifism vs internationalism, Labourism vs Marxist partyism, etc).

Following some email exchanges, the main mover withdrew the motion, adding: “Reluctantly, I have come to the conclusion that my clearly inadequate and flawed efforts to help build and grow the CPGB are having the opposite effect. Rather than discussing what to do, we are focusing on what not to do (ie, anything I suggest)”.

The PCC decided to ask Mike Macnair to rewrite the motion, taking out comments and statements with which we disagreed. Some obvious comments were that the CPGB cannot ensure a leading role for the Weekly Worker; that currently we do not see any realistic prospects for communist unity within YP; on the other hand, the possibility of tactical unity regarding democratic elections, representation, opposition to Bonapartism, etc, exists and we should explore it further.

Our aims

Starting the debate to propose the motion, comrade Macnair gave this background and pointed out that comrade Roberts’ initial proposal was to specifically add two named individuals to the editorial team. The amended version weakened this into a vague promise to consider adding unspecified people from other groups in the future. While backing down from the original idea was correct, this new version is meaningless, because it does not identify who these collaborators would be.

This entire issue was tangled up with pre-existing concerns about a “bad culture” within the discussion. The strategy of ‘seizing the initiative’ by proposing hypothetical actions you hope others will agree to is a common mistake on the far left. It leads to multiple competing initiatives and is ineffective, said comrade Macnair. Our alternative approach is to clearly state our own positions. This defines our common ground and differences with others, which then allows for productive engagement (eg, debates, interventions in meetings), based on concrete principles, not vague hypotheticals.

He argued that comrade Roberts’ proposed concrete proposals risked becoming standard far-left practice. He agreed that slogans of the day can be useful, but we need to respond to the very concrete circumstances. (Having only such agitational slogans was part of Nicolai Bukharin’s argument at Comintern’s 4th Congress against having a minimum programme ... and Tony Cliff’s argument against having any programme. But the choice of agitational slogans does have to depend on very concrete circumstances.) The PCC motion is designed to produce an orienting framework, within which specific agitational slogans could be shaped.

Jack Conrad said that the PCC proposal was “fairly straightforward and unremarkable”: it proposed to cooperate with those we can work with on a principled basis. This can include, for example, joint slates or stand-down agreements. The major amendments proposed and withdrawn at the August aggregate and now withdrawn by comrade Roberts presented us with the automatic default practice of the far left: first form your front, then simplify your politics in the hope of drawing others in. There is a “swirl” of small groups making such proposals in YP/JCP. But we do not even know the structures of the new party, which will shape tactics. He agreed with comrade Macnair that it was likely to be like Momentum, very top-down-controlled.

Creating fronts was forced on us in the Labour Party by the regime of bans and proscriptions, while in the Socialist Labour Party the CPGB was banned on day one. In Left Unity we were originally part of the Socialist Platform along with Nick Wrack, but split when it was made clear that his platform was unamendable. In YP/JCP for the moment we should act openly as the CPGB. The Weekly Worker will be our main weapon for intervention.

Culture

Comrade Conrad said that in the major amendment offered in August and in comrade Roberts’ proposals he detected an attack on our ‘culture’ - the criticism of comrade Macnair for using the phrase, “useful idiots”, in his article on the Supreme Court on the trans question, for example. In this context, the amendment appeared liquidationist and the proposal to coopt unnamed people onto the Weekly Worker editorial team seemed linked to that.

Responding to these comments, comrade Roberts said that the PCC motion was not merely unremarkable: it was pointless. Her original proposals were in response to a brief period of political fluidity, in which pro-communist forces in YP/JCP might have come together to take the initiative as a caucus. There had been a huge political vacuum, and the PCC had failed even to get a leaflet out, and even now could not explain what the key political issues in YP/JCP are. The CPGB was doing nothing, and the opportunity was now gone.

She dismissed claims that by proposing additional non-CPGB contributors to the Weekly Worker editorial board there was any attempt at undermining the current members or the PCC; later in the chat she added that what she meant was adding comrades who would edit the ‘YP section’ of the Weekly Worker. However, as we currently have no intention of including such a section, it was not clear how that would work. She dismissed allegations that she was agreeing with those who accuse the CPGB of a “bad culture” - in her emails and comments she was just expressing her opinion on the subject. The CPGB was, in her view, becoming irrelevant by failing to act.

Anne McShane, an Irish CPGB supporter, said that comrade Conrad’s proposal at the beginning of the meeting to go to the vote on three months or six months for candidate membership was an example of the “bad culture” people complained of - leaders should not be impatient. She did not agree with the proposal to coopt people onto the editorial team, but the opposition comes across as “a legacy issue” - holding back from real engagement for fear of being contaminated by opportunism. The PCC motion was okay, but lacked specifics, she added. And characterising comrades as “liquidationist” was wrong.

Paul Cooper said that he largely agreed with the PCC proposal on promoting ourselves through the paper, rather than imagining a common caucus with centrists such as RS21. The proposals about the paper seemed to be a hold-over from the Forging Communist Unity discussions. However, there was a problem in the CPGB’s work with a need to more aggressively recruit and reach out - for example, on social media. Developing a Weekly Worker supporters’ network would be desirable.

Ian Spencer said that we needed a sense of urgency in the wake of 150,000 people waving Union flags and George crosses in central London the previous day. This will embolden the far right, and YP/JCP meetings are now at risk of far-right attacks. In this context, the PCC’s response to comrade Roberts’ proposals is just “waiting” - a “bunker mentality”, he said.

Martin Greenfield, an Australian guest, said that from reading the Weekly Worker there was a very clear call to get involved in YP/JCP. CPGB comrades are not the only ‘outsiders’ in the process: John Rees’s remarks on his Facebook page illustrate that he is too. The PCC motion has the strength of leaving open tactical alliances, rather than prioritising particular groups or individuals.

Peter Manson said that he agreed with a lot of what comrade Greenfield had said. The PCC motion indicated overall aims. Since the YP/JCP is not yet formed, precise tactics cannot be worked out. The original proposals to add members to the editorial team were nonsense, he said: it would only be an appropriate course of action if we were about to unify in a common Marxist party.

Jim Cook supported the motion, and agreed with comrades Greenfield and Manson. He said that the global situation is one of sharp development towards the right. Back in the 1960s-70s the organised left grew rapidly, but it did so in a context of a strongly organised and militant industrial working class.

Fluid conditions

Jack Conrad, in a second intervention, said that he had moved that we go straight to the vote on the candidate membership issue in order to secure adequate time for the current discussion, which involves important political differences. He added that there are inconsistencies in comrade Roberts’s proposals and comments. The question of ‘fluidity’ in particular is misconceived. Conditions were not more ‘fluid’ a month ago than they are now. The underlying ‘fluidity’ is towards the right; and this exerts a pull on our own organisation. He added that the PCC will be happy to support useful initiatives taken by comrades in YP/JCP.

Stan Keable said that comrades’ impatience is understandable, given the dire world political situation. But there are no short cuts: we can only do what we can with what we have got. While comrades intervened to discuss local YP/JCP developments in their localities, comrade McShane, in a second intervention, said that what she had been taught when she was first in the CPGB was precisely the need to seize the initiative. It is not that individuals cannot take local initiatives, but the PCC itself must do so.

Comrade Roberts came back to state that most politics is about grasping opportunities when they arise. She was not proposing breaking with our commitment to free speech, or dumbing down our programme, but about taking the initiative, and about how to reach comrades who are close to us by avoiding insulting them.

Comrade Macnair, summing up in defence of the motion, commented that there was a level of self-deception in the conflicting comments, proposals and emails from Carla Roberts. It was a fantasy to suppose that there was a big opportunity in August, which we had missed by not accepting comrade Roberts’ proposals. “Avoiding insulting people” by statements of the sort in comrades Conrad’s and Macnair’s articles, would in fact be self-censorship on political grounds: the issues were political differences about openness of political debate, and about the trans question. Comrade Roberts’ proposals had to be assessed as a package, and as a package they did amount to the usual far-left practice.

The motion passed with just one abstention.

Agreed resolution

Four steps that apply to our immediate approach in the JCP/YP

These steps are framed by the political line of the resolution, ‘Make the party now!’ adopted by the August 24 CPGB aggregate.

1. We should both at national level and locally seek to actively engage with others who fight for political democracy and communist politics in YP/JCP. This includes willingness to create caucuses and/or blocs round specific issues. The most immediate issue in this respect is around democratic functioning of the proposed party, as opposed to Bonapartist operations resting on elected representative and apparatus control and plebiscitary schemes.

2. We must aim for the Weekly Worker to play a leading role in promoting democratic functioning and communist politics in YP/JCP by providing a strong and consistent pole of principled Marxist politics, which seeks to counter the inevitable pull to the right. It should attempt to feature and engage actively with YP/JCP groups and activists who partially share our aims: for example, by inviting guest contributions, featuring debates, etc.

Irrespective of our success or otherwise in getting people to contribute, the Weekly Worker remains our main political instrument. Comrades should be ordering extra papers and attempting to distribute them at local YP/JCP meetings.

3. We urge the Why Marx? grouping to develop a study/education and discussion programme, ideally also reaching out to others who support political democracy and communist politics in YP/JCP. This could concentrate on questions posed by the new party in the process of its formation:

• Seeking government participation vs building an opposition (Millerandism; the more recent examples of Podemos/Syriza/Die Linke, etc, drawing in international allies).
• The question of clear opposition to our own imperialist state, its military alliances and its rearmament project.
• Broad fronts vs Marxist partyism.
• Economism vs a radical democratic programme.
• Plebiscitarism and ‘e-democracy’ vs real democracy.
• ‘No platforming’ versus free speech, etc.

4. Our Draft programme provides our political orientation in the policy debates which will inevitably arise both in the process of formation of the new party and once it is formed, to the extent that there is any opening for discussion of policy not controlled by the secretive central leadership group.

We can select issues for attempts to make an agitational intervention, depending on what is posed by the immediate conjuncture. At present, our primary agitational focuses are the questions of the democratic functioning of YP/JCP, and questions of opposition to imperialism: in particular round the Ukraine war, Nato and rearmament, and round going beyond opposition to the Gaza war to opposition to Zionism as an ‘exclusion colony’ project.