24.09.2026
A day of two halves
Our CPGB aggregate of members, associate members and supporters had two sessions. The first concerned the Middle East and that was followed by an assessment of CU 2026. Farzad Kamangar reports
The September 20 CPGB aggregate began with ‘Wars in the Middle East’, introduced by Yassamine Mather. Following her opening talk (published on pp10-11), the discussion ranged widely across Iraq, Yemen, Saudi Arabia, Turkey, Lebanon and the wider consequences of the confrontation with Iran. A recurring theme was instability: military escalation may produce results very different from those intended by Israel or the US, and no existing regional power seems capable of imposing a stable settlement.
Jim Nelson raised the question of Iraq. Despite the enormous importance attached to it after the 2003 invasion, little is now heard of its internal politics: how much control does the US still exercise, and how divided is the country between Shia, Sunni and Kurdish forces? He also raised Yemen, asking whether the Houthis’ actions might now threaten the Saudi monarchy’s stability.
Ken Sharpe was sceptical that an immediate American intervention against the Houthis was the most likely development, since this would create further problems for US shipping and considerable economic and military costs. If the aim really is to destroy or decisively weaken Iran, an intervention against Iran itself seems more likely than a major operation against Yemen. Reports that the Houthis have begun attacking Saudi Arabia further complicates this picture, raising questions about the kingdom’s stability. He also raised the role of Turkey.
Jim G pointed to the weakness of the Lebanese state, long divided along communal and political lines, its forces unable to defend the country’s borders. This raises the question of Hezbollah’s role, and what would happen if attempts were made to eliminate it as an independent military and political orce.
Mike Macnair placed this in the context of Israeli military practice, including the long-standing policy of assassinating political and military leaders outside its own theatre of operations. There was also a larger question: can either side actually win? The economic consequences fall unevenly - the United States differs from France, Germany, Britain, Japan or China because of its own energy resources, so a prolonged disruption of Middle Eastern oil would hit America’s economic competitors hardest.
Replying
Replying, Yassamine returned first to Iraq. The 2003 war left a sectarian political structure: the constitution distributes leading state positions on an ethno-sectarian basis - presidency to a Kurd, premiership to a Shia, parliamentary leadership to a Sunni. This has not overcome Iraq’s divisions: Shia forces are themselves split into competing factions, and outlawing armed groups or arresting their leaders risks serious internal conflict. Sunni influence exists, but is largely concerned with protecting their own minority interests. The Kurdish region, though sometimes presented in the west as a model of self-government, is in reality marked by corruption, repression and factionalism under the Barzani and Talabani camps. On the Houthis, she warned against treating them simply as Iranian proxies: Washington repeatedly underestimates their distinct political and social foundations.
When it comes to Turkey, comrade Mather continued, it occupies a contradictory position: economically, Ankara maintains extensive relations with Israel; politically and rhetorically, the Turkish government has been highly vocal over Gaza. Turkey presents itself as a defender of the Palestinians without a comparable material confrontation with Israel. On oil, she agreed with comrade Macnair that the US is not dependent on Middle Eastern oil, and its access to Venezuelan oil changes the calculation further - but this does not mean the US can isolate itself from a major global disruption, since damage to European, Chinese and Japanese economies feeds back through world oil prices.
Jack Conrad questioned the assumption that Iran could be bombed into political collapse. Destroying sections of the leadership or decapitating the state is unlikely to bring the whole structure down like a pack of cards: even Iranian opponents of the Islamic Republic face the problem of what would replace it, and it retains a substantial organised social base - arguably deeper than other regimes in the region.
Saudi Arabia presents the opposite problem: the kingdom is explicitly built around the ruling House of Saud, and the monarchy has always been wary of its own armed forces. Reliance on American protection and British military advice reflects the insecurity of the ruling order. Foreign protection functions as part of the Saudi state’s internal security as much as against external enemies. The deeper political problem is that the working class and socialist movement are largely absent as independent actors, stated comrade Conrad, so the confrontation is being shaped by states, militaries, religious organisations and regional powers.
Another comrade developed the Turkey discussion. Turkish support for the Palestinian cause has gone beyond rhetoric in some respects, including advisory ties with Hamas’s political wing. Yet Turkey remains embedded in Nato and is unlikely to be abandoned by Washington - even as Israeli discourse increasingly treats it as a potential adversary, reflecting deeper competition for influence. Turkey also has an economic advantage: cheap labour and production costs enable it to export goods competitively, sometimes undercutting domestic producers, making its regional influence economic as well as military and diplomatic.
These contradictions explain why Turkey cannot be placed simply in either camp: it pursues its own regional interests, which overlap with its Nato allies at one moment and conflict with them at another.
CU debate
Jack Conrad opened the second session with a report on Communist University 2026, giving his view on the pros and cons. This was followed by a discussion covering the venue and time of year, length and format, debate and chairing practice, technical and organisational workload, political content, international links and a possible 2027 theme. The general verdict was positive - most comrades rated this year’s CU better than previous ones, though some raised concerns about length, heat and workload.
Comrade Conrad spoke positively about the venue: central London, with excellent transport links, the right size for our organisation, accommodation for those who need it, and a suitably cool meeting room. Unlike the SWP’s rally-style Marxism event or SPEW’s economistic long weekend, CU aims to be a genuine “university” - a broad range of subjects, including the big questions (the climate crisis, danger of war, humanity’s revolutionary origins, the nature of the Soviet Union) - and, of course, plenty of time for genuine debate amongst all those participating, not just listening to ‘experts’.
CU’s dates are dictated by holidays and venue availability. Comrade Conrad noted that unlike CU 2025, which was marred by “frustrating” debates, partly resulting from departing Communist Unity constituents, and division over the Weekly Worker ‘tone’, this year’s discussions were more fruitful, centred on more interesting disagreements. In the one top-table debate, between CPGB and Spartacist League, contributions from Spart comrades in the room rather than via Zoom would have been better.
He also proposed a short set of ‘dos and don’ts’ for chairs rather than a rigid formula: judge how much time a contribution deserves, when to ask someone to wind up, and actively seek out minority voices (eg, finding a member of a rival group to speak if they are present).
When it came to the technical work, this was handled mainly by just two comrades - others should be identified for tasks well before next summer. He tentatively proposed the 110th anniversary of the Russian Revolution as the 2027 theme, ideally with Lars Lih, aiming to learn from October rather than mindlessly trying to copy it.
Comrade Conrad also praised the culture sessions organised by comrade Tam Dean Burn - Prometheus, Brecht, Darko’s contribution, Tam’s own session on the Communist manifesto - as good, wide-ranging and well attended, adding that timing across sessions might need reviewing, so that everyone “has room to breathe”.
In the following debate Carla Roberts found a full week or eight days in the heat exhausting, suggesting a long weekend (about four days). Anne McShane opposed four days and proposed six (Saturday to Thursday). I argued six days is the minimum sensible reduction: most working comrades cannot take two weekends off, mainly retired comrades stay the whole time, and there was repetition (notably in the climate sessions). Mike Macnair leaned towards six days, noting that block bookings usually run to seven rather than eight.
On the other hand, some comrades had no problem with eight days, as it allowed a wider range of topics, though even these comrades admitted they did not attend every session, or attended some online - one or two said they opted out of the evening culture sessions through fatigue. Marcus Strom noted that comrades like himself who travel from Australia to attend would be far less likely to come for just four days.
There were 29 sessions this year and I argued that cutting a few would not make CU as short as an SWP’s Marxism or SPEW’s Socialism event. Parallel sessions are possible in the venue’s smaller rooms, but attendance may not justify them; comrade Strom thought them worth considering.
When it came to the debate with the Sparts, views differed on whether advanced preparation would have been appropriate. Some thought pre-planned interventions would look odd at an educational event and that we had come across better regardless; comrade McShane thought the two sides talked past each other because the Sparts had already committed to their industrial-turn strategy; I argued that we did win the argument, but that debates need preparation, and that a chair should not let an over-long speaker continue when an otherwise prepared comrade or opponent could move things on.
On the content of the sessions, comrade Sharpe thought there was too much on climate - and too much preaching to the converted, and thought we should shift the emphasis to “what we do next”. Comrade Burn thought our four sessions on climate provided “a good balance”, comrade Conrad defended them too: it is a question of “work in progress”, so we need to rethink our programme in a climate crisis, and should definitely keep engaging with leading scientists.
On the culture sessions: comrade McShane felt that those evening events were “bolted on” and so made culture seem peripheral - she thought some should have taken place in the afternoon. Comrade Burn agreed for some items (eg, the play reading needed a full daytime slot), while, on the other hand, noting how much a half-hour session can achieve. Another comrade suggested broadening these sessions - for example, to include music.
Boycottists
Carla Roberts reminded us that CU was boycotted by parts of the so-called ‘partyist’ left following the controversy over the use of the ‘N-word’ in the Weekly Worker, with three speakers withdrawing late; yet turnouts were decent and some 200 attended overall (substitute speakers were found without major difficulty). A number of comrades stressed that international attendance at CU is a huge strength and should be actively encouraged,
When it came to international cooperation, comrade Roberts argued that ‘partyism’ is becoming an ever wider used label and that CU should support closer international cooperation without creating another sect. We could revive sessions of ‘Why Marx’ debate outside CU as an international ‘partyist’ project. Comrade Conrad said we should certainly try to engage with those who we disagree with rather than ignore them. Comrade McShane noted some ‘partyists’ want ‘polite politics’ - ie centrist conciliation with left reformists, strikes and streets economists, and outright social imperialists. That is why the CPGB is a problem for them. One comrade was completely sceptical about the actual worth of these centrists and suggested identifying new audiences.
On next year’s theme, both comrades Strom and Burn were cool on the 110th-anniversary idea. Comrade McShane stressed the impact of the Soviet Union on the struggle for a party and revolution today. Comrade Conrad agreed: the Soviet Union question is the key question for 21st century communists.