The first in-person meeting of the Forging Communist Unity process took place in London yesterday, Saturday 8 March 2025. There was a full day of serious and productive discussion which identified substantial political agreement on the fundamentals. This clearly bodes well for the process as a whole, even though it is still at quite an early stage. Discussions have been fortnightly on Zoom thus far and the opportunity to meet in person was a positive development.
The discussions are following the broad agenda proposed by TAS , the first (and most important) item of which is programme and principles. Organisational structure, culture, and more will all follow in due course.
Preliminaries
Representing the CPGB-PCC were Mike Macnair and Jack Conrad. Cat Rylance and Archie Woodrow attended for the Prometheus Unity Faction. Nick Wrack and Ed Potts represented the Talking About Socialism (TAS) steering group. Farzad Kamangar of the CPGB-PCC also attended to take minutes.
The meeting was run formally and with the seriousness the process deserves. Cat R chaired the morning meeting. At the outset it was raised that the minutes of the previous meeting on 23 February did not fully reflect the discussion that had taken place. It was agreed that in future the minutes should be a record of the decisions taken, with participants taking their own notes.
As far as more substantive reporting goes, it was generally agreed that because others in the movement are observing this process with interest, it is positive that the discussions should be reported in detail in our publications. Inevitably these reports will contain comrades’ own emphasis and views, but they should be as accurate as possible.
Programme and strategy
Cat R then introduced the morning discussion, speaking to a document submitted by the Prometheus Unity Faction. The faction clearly represents a variety of views but had agreed that they supported the TAS proposal for FCU to result in a qualitatively new fused organisation, and that this would be assisted by the collaborative drafting of a new, concise programme. The faction disagreed with certain aspects of the TAS “heads of agreement” proposed previously.
There was also a proposal that a new organisation should put serious effort not only into a programme, but also a strategy document which identified the tasks of the organisation in the coming period. It was agreed that strategy would be important, but would flow from the politics.
There was general agreement that it is necessary to some extent to go through the existing left, although this is clearly in a weak state – hardly the priority in terms of orientation that mass organisations might present in other countries or contexts.
The discussion around programme continued from the previous session. It was agreed that the programme should have a positive and compelling vision for what our class will do in power. The programme may change over time, just as the organisation putting it forward changes and learns over time. But it should set its sights high from the very start.
The programme should be a guide to action. Ultimately party members should be expected to accept it rather than agree with all of it. But it is also important to discuss what we agree on beforehand, and on an ongoing basis. This is likely to solidify and make unity more meaningful, provided that comrades are prepared to engage with sharp disagreements and not split over them.
Looking ahead
Early in the afternoon discussion, Jack Conrad commented in passing that whatever his own views on a particular point, the CPGB would not be able to “deliver a vote” on it. It was clarified that this meant that in the CPGB’s view, the founding congress of a new organisation would be sovereign, with all attendees free to vote according to their own views. The discipline or obligations that had previously bound CPGB members would no longer be in force during that congress. In the view of the TAS comrades this represented a very important clarification which showed a serious attitude to the process, although of course the FCU participants are not yet at the stage of committing to being bound by the decisions of such a unity congress. There is more to discuss and we look forward to it.
Agreements and disagreements
In terms of method, all present were content to have a discussion in the first instance to find out what we might agree on. This took up most of the afternoon session and was primarily done by going through the TAS “heads of agreement” point by point, with helpful cross-referencing to the CPGB’s draft programme as well as of course comrades’ own personal views.
There was substantial agreement on most of the topics discussed. A summary of the points appears at the bottom of this post.
In particular, significant disagreements were aired on our attitude to nationalism, the nature of the USSR and other similar states, the nature of the transition from capitalism to communism, and the nature and role of democracy. It is important to bear in mind that not all of these may in fact need to be in a programme, which would ultimately be put forward for acceptance rather than agreement as the test of party membership. Nonetheless, these are important topics which bear further discussion.
Communist University
Finally, the CPGB proposed that their annual Communist University should this year be jointly hosted by CPGB, TAS and Prometheus. It was made clear that this was not simply an invitation to co-sponsor, but rather for joint control and involvement in the agenda and the event itself. The TAS comrades responded positively, subject to ratification by their membership. The Prometheus Editorial Board will consider the proposal.
The TAS comrades were pleased with the day as a whole and are of the opinion it represented a serious step forward. Nobody in the meeting shied away from setting out disagreements, and despite significant differences on certain issues it seems clear that there is substantial common ground which will provide a solid basis for communist unity in the future.
Outline of [dis]agreements
Below is a brief summary of the heads of agreement, what was agreed and what will require further discussion:
Point i “Our aim is communism.”- Agreed
Point ii: “We aim for a world-wide system in which the capitalist profit system has been abolished.” – Agreed
Point iii: “This requires a fundamental break with capitalism.” – needs further discussion.
Point iv: “Our party does not aim to manage capitalism but to abolish it.” – Agreed.
Point v: “This requires the abolition of the private ownership of the means of production – the land and the minerals within it; the seas, lakes rivers and waters, the factories and means of transport, science and technology -and the establishment of the common ownership and democratic planning of the resources of the world.” – Agreed
Point vi: “This means expropriating the wealth of the minority capitalist class and transferring it into the collective ownership of the majority working class.” – Agreed
Point vii: “It requires the abolition of the exploitation of labour to make a profit.” – Agreed subject to referring to control over the surplus rather than to “profit” per se.
Point viii: “In the new communist society, everyone will work and contribute towards enhancing the conditions of life to the best of their ability, and everyone will receive what they need.” – Agreed
Point ix: “To achieve this, the world’s massive working class – the overwhelmingly decisive majority on the planet – must come to rule with the clear aim of eradicating completely the profit system and all institutions of power and privilege that defended it.” – Agreed
Point x: “The working class in power will establish new forms of democracy at all levels of society which will enable everyone to participate in the running of society.” – Agreed
Point xi: “We aim to build a mass, working class, communist party in Britain that, together with similar parties across Europe and the rest of the world, aims to unleash the latent power of the world’s labouring billions to achieve all this.” – Agreed
Point xii: “Our party stands for the unity of the working class. We fight against all divisions that weaken that unity.” – Needs further discussion
Point xiii: “We reject nationalism. There is no national road to communism.” – Needs further discussion.
Point xiv: “Communism is democratic. We reject the idea that what existed in the former Soviet Union and similar states, or that exists today in China or North Korea, was or is in any way communist or a transition to communism. We oppose all forms of dictatorial rule.” – Needs further discussion.
Point xv: “In the struggle to end the present system our party bases itself on the working class, the only force in society that has the size, strength and potential power to change the system.” – Should be redrafted to make clear that the working class being the bearer of socialism is due to both its interest in doing so (as a result of being separated from the means of production), as well as its strength.
Point xvi: “The act of transforming society will require the conscious involvement of the working class to implement a programme for fundamental change.” – Agreed
Point xvii: “We reject the idea that tiny groups/parties can bring about the fundamental change required. The challenge requires a mass party.” – Agreed
In his report on the fusion process on the 8th March, Jack Conrad said he would have difficulty in accepting that communism is defined as democratic and against any form of dictatorial rule. Indeed, he seemed to regard the sharp break with Capitalism, a revolutionary transformation into another mode of production as utopian. On the few occasions when Marx spoke of the dictatorship of the proletariat, he was referring to the self government from below, the democratic rule of the vast majority. But ultimately what counts for Jack Conrad is the opinion of Lenin. But, Lenin consistently argued that the Dictatorship of the proletariat was the dictatorship of a government and state aimed at crushing counter revolution. But, in discussing the potential of the commune Marx was clear the people in arms should have crushed the counter revolution in Versailles. As Engels wrote, talk of the state should be dropped after the Paris Commune. The communes potential significance was the absorption of state functions by the immense majority of society. It was no longer a state in the proper sense of the word. The transition from Capitalism was not a distinct historical phase separate from Communism, as in Lenin’s interpretation. It was a transition based on communal control by the associated producers, not rooted in the Capitalist mode of production accumulating value in monitory form as an end in itself. Lenin pushed the free association of producers in a non capitalist mode of production into the far distant future. Lenin spoke often about smashing the state, but aspiration and rhetoric aside, the Bolsheviks did not smash the Tsarist state. The Bolshevik leaders based themselves in the ministries of the Tsarist bureaucracy which they utilised and added even more bureaucratic structures. It was the party dictatorship substituting for the dictatorship of the proletariat which most people associate with with communism. Free of the context in which Marx occasionally used the phrase it now simply invokes the elimination of workers power and freedom from below. Surely we should stick to Marx and communism meaning democracy for the vast majority. As Rosa Luxemburg put it you cannot separate democracy from the definition of communism/Socialism.
Jack Conrad in his political report (30/03/2025 gave some more political hints at his understanding of a transition period to a break with Capitalism or Socialism. In his talk he said it was not possible to take significant action against the rich in Britain this side of a Europe wide Socialist break with Capital. He expressed his agreement with Rachel Reeves and against utopian dreamers, that it is simply not possible to tax the rich since this would simply encourage the rich to flee Britain and take their capital with them. This puts him to the right of the Liberal Democratic deputy leader who has said she is in Favour of taxing the rich a little bit. So expropriating Capitalism is not on his political horizon in Britain. We must wait for a European wide event. Presumably we cannot trigger action form Britain or expect solidarity. What we are then left with then is the minimum programme and building up our electoral strength. His model is German Social democracy who supported the first world war, and used Fascists to kill revolutionaries and revolution after the war. Neither did their parliamentarianism stop the Nazi takeover. It seems we have to join jack in the Labour party and fight to transform it. He also conflated the Bolsheviks and Russian Social democracy with German Social Democracy. Bourgeois democracy played no revolutionary role in 1917 and the worker sailor and soldier masses were to the left of the minimum programme. In terms of high constitutional politics favoured by Kautsky the Bolsheviks dissolved the constituent assembly.