Communist fusion or communist network?

The Forging Communist Unity (FCU) fusion process, inclusive of specific meetings between one or two individuals leading/representing different organisations and, more collectively, those get-togethers that have filtered out into online discussions (principally through whymarx.com ), has for me revealed differences that defy attempts to fuse.

These differences, no doubt, arise from the ways in which we use language and terminology, i.e., over meaning. Yet it is the real differences that matter: differences over programmes, how long a programme ought to be, what content they should include, what ‘dialectical’ balance between minimum and maximal demands, have emerged that are beyond repertoires of language complications. Differences over the nature and time scale of transition, or whether the transition is from capitalism to communism or from socialism to communism, or where actual worker power (other than those representing workers) is driving the transition, and whether it is towards radical political democracy as the prelude to abolishing value, surplus value, abstract labour and so the workers freedom from the entire economic edifice of capital’s exploitation of our labour power. We could all go on…

Nevertheless. there are also real points of general unity, as there always are among socialist/communist/Marxist groups. The essence of this unity is a commitment to the view that the only force for abolishing capital and capitalism is the working class; and that it is the working class alone that can achieve this. Another related source of unity is that ending capitalism and driving forward to communism requires the political organisation of the working class. This requirement makes necessary a mass party of the working class to facilitate workers to develop their communist consciousness and allow for the transformation from a class ‘in itself’ into a class ‘for itself,’ on a mission to overthrow capitalism.

So, on the one hand, there are communicative and all too real divisions that manifest in political and cultural differences, regarding how discussion and theory and practical involvement with the working class develop within each group, as well as which individuals in their group get a hearing more than others in the group. To an extent the latter is an inevitable outcome of small groups isolated from working class struggle. While on the other hand, there is a general level of unity distinguishing groups as revolutionaries and not reformers of a capitalist system that is clearly in decline.

So, where do we go from here?

If the will is genuinely there to create a new Party it will only arise, in my view, if:

1. There is genuine willingness to have a new name (preferably with the words ‘Communist’ and ‘Party’ in it but not ‘Great’ or ‘Britain’)
2. The Party has a programme that is a genuine synthesis of existent ‘draft programmes,’ or list of inter-linking principles, which speaks to the present condition of capitalism and the working class. In other words, the new programme must arise from a genuine commitment to produce a programme fit for advancing the political consciousness of the working class.
3. A wider layer of members from each group form part of a larger working party to develop the programme within a time-limited period long enough to allow space to create, discuss, report back to members, to the point where a rough draft can be taken to a wider fusion conference of all members to discuss, revise and hone (i.e., no use waiting for a wider conference that brings along pet programmes for a Darwinian struggle that the largest group wins by default).
4. Party positions are based on periodic election, the capacity for members to have recall on such positions, that leadership positions are not for life, based on first in last out, but are time limited and based on the democratic will of members.
5. The Party puts in place an education programme in Marx’s critique of capitalist political economy, as a basis for a critique of developments in capitalism and the nature of capitalism and class struggle today (i.e., weekly discussion on ad-hoc areas of interest to socialist definitely have their place, as do one-off yearly educational weeks, but cannot expect to replace a programme of education in Marx’s critique of capital and how it can be applied and renewed as a tool in the struggle for workers power and communism. As part of this, the Party should have its own journal with regular issues to encourage the broader membership to write and reflect, develop their ideas, and learn to critique and engage with members that usually dominate the written word, and so policy formation.

For me, they are basic requirements. If there is no genuine agreement on issues such as the above, then what we have before us is not a fusion process but an attempted ‘hostile takeover.’ We all know there will be no pure fusion. If it happens it will be because we have all had to compromise along the way. We know there is broad unity: we are Marxists, committed to revolution, ending capitalism, workers’ power and a communist future. So, the inevitable compromises that each group will need to make will be made in light of the greater benefits of broader unity and also the wider implications a new Party might have for bridging between other individuals and groups currently within and without existing socialist parties. A new Party could be the necessary anchor/gravitational pull, leading to the building of bridges and a new mass party.

If not a Party, then a unifying network towards a mass Party?

It could well be that we cannot hope to immediately resolve differences and so a fusion into a mass communist party is not possible any time soon. What we can do is to work towards developing what unites us. We can test the veracity of this unity, by accepting that we are currently in small groups, willing to develop a communist network. This network would allow a space for wider debate without the threat of ‘my group being absorbed by your group,’ mentality.

A network might consist of online discussion, face-to-face conferences, written materials in a jointly-run journal for communism, among other initiatives. It might provide the space between (and progressively within) groups to put forward perspectives broad and narrow on trends in capitalism and the capitalist class, the scope and nature of working-class struggle, and how to develop and learn further from those struggles and the organisational forms capable of advancing the working class’s collective challenge to the capitalist elite and a declining capitalism.

I could go on, but the essential outcome of such a network of communist unity, might be the development of a future mass communist party. As things stand, a new Party would be a resounding positive for workers and as a bridge to the broader Marxist left. Yet, the prospects for fusion do seem limited now.

Am I being too pessimistic? What are your views?