As our readers will know, Talking About Socialism…from a Marxist point of view has made it a central aim of or activity to create, with others, the basis of a new, mass, democratic communist I party.
On Saturday 14 December 2024, Edmund Potts and Nick Wrack participated on behalf of TAS in a zoom meeting to discuss the possibility of a joint educational project involving a number of groups who share some similar aims and objectives. The meeting was called by comrades involved in the Why Marx? webinars and the online Prometheus Journal to discuss the possibility of working together on a series of educational webinars. TAS, the CPGB-PCC and RS21 were invited to participate.
In addition to Edmund and Nick, the zoom discussion on 14 December was attended by two comrades on behalf of Why Marx?, two comrades on behalf of Prometheus, one comrade from the CPGB-PCC, and one comrade from RS21.
We were pleased that the meeting very quickly moved towards a more ambitious purpose than simply having educational webinars. Our assessment of the discussion on 14 December and the TAS steering group’s proposals for taking the discussions forward are contained in our document below, ‘Forging Communist Unity’. This has been circulated to all participants.
There is to be a further meeting of all those involved in the first, on Saturday 11 January 2025. We see this as having the potential to be a small but significant step towards creating a much stronger, unified core of comrades who want the same outcome: a new mass communist party.
We are not getting carried away. We know this process will not be easy. But we approach it seriously, with a commitment to make it a success.
We would like to hear from anyone who is interested in what we have to say and what we are trying to achieve. Please contact us here.
Forging Communist Unity
A proposal from the TAS steering group
Talking About Socialism presents the following document in response to the discussion held on 14 December between representatives of TAS, the CPGB-PCC, Why Marx?, Prometheus, and RS21, which was convened to discuss the possibility of joint work.
TAS welcomed both the initial proposal for common work, and even more so the contributions that were made during the discussion. These in our view showed a serious attitude to working together with other communists in a comradely and collaborative way. Set against the backdrop of a deeply divided and mistrustful left, the significance of communists talking to each other about collaboration cannot be understated. People in the future looking back on that meeting may come to view it as a significant positive first step in a new drive towards unity among communists.
It was clear in the discussion that there was substantial agreement among the participating organisations (with the exception of RS21, who engaged in a positive way but were up front about not having a settled position as a whole). In broad terms there was agreement on the need for a new mass communist party, united on the basis of communist politics rather than any lesser programme, and which rejects and breaks with the “sect” model. That is clearly what is required to enable our class to fulfil its strategic objective of coming to power.
All of us would be members of the same future mass communist party. Although this should go without saying, it bears repeating because it is generally not said among members of the various competing Marxist organisations which currently exist.
We think that the question of unity cannot wait until we are on the threshold of building a mass party of millions, or even an organisation of thousands. It needs to be addressed, albeit in different ways, at every stage of our activity as communists.
As a preliminary but essential step towards the future mass communist party we all wish to see, we say that all of those who share our objective could and should be members of the same partyist organisation which organises and propagandises around that objective. In other words, those who are currently involved with TAS, the CPGB-PCC, Why Marx? and Prometheus could fuse into a single organisation.
The advantages of unity, if achieved on a viable and principled basis, are obvious: pooling of resources and effort instead of needless duplication; setting an example to wider layers that overcoming division is possible; and the potential to create an organisation that is greater than the sum of its constituent parts, as was achieved on a larger scale with the formation of the CPGB in 1920.
Creating such an organisation will not be as simple as merely declaring it, if it is to be viable and durable. There are reasons why we are not yet in the same organisation; we must acknowledge and confront these issues in order to meaningfully transcend them. A broad agreement on the need to fight for a mass communist party does not necessarily imply agreement on specifics, although it may be that through discussion we do in fact identify much deeper agreement on various specific issues.
Bringing into being a united partyist organisation through a process of regroupment would need to be the result of a process of serious discussion aimed at working out in broad terms what the organisation will look like and what it will do. We would need to confront issues of fundamental principle on which there may be disagreements, try to eliminate those disagreements if possible and try to find alternative paths to unity if not. In other words, we would need to work together to identify and remove any real barriers to unity which currently exist.
This process of discussion with unity as its goal should encompass at least the following (non-exhaustive) list of issues:
- What should a partyist organisation’s fundamental principles & programmatic commitments be?
- What is the best structure for a partyist organisation, especially at our current stage of dozens of members? Should this change when we group together hundreds, or thousands?
- What kind of democracy should the organisation adopt? How can we ensure that its democratic functioning outweighs trends towards bureaucratisation, etc?
- Who is included & excluded from membership? What principles and processes govern this?
- How should a partyist organisation at our current stage approach the question of those who claim agreement with our goal of a united communist party, but who hold positions which may undermine that commitment in practice? (We might take as an example comrades who consider themselves revolutionary communists, but advocate support for the Ukrainian war effort on the grounds of the right of nations to self-determination.)
- How should any new organisation engage in the wider movement, for example how would it relate to broader formations? What obligations should there be on its members in such situations?
Inevitably there may be particular issues which we have left out which comrades may wish to add to the agenda at the outset; other issues may present themselves during the discussion.
Addressing the problems of building a partyist organisation (and a party) in a flexible but concrete way is in our view preferable to the original proposal of discussions around the Marxist Unity Group reader. In addition to the practical purpose of working through the problems of forging unity among our participant organisations, we hope the discussions would also have significant educational and explanatory value for those who we hope to win to our ideas and draw into our project.
If successful this programme of discussion, suitably amended to address the concerns of all involved, would bring us to a point where collectively we could draft a positive statement as to what kind of organisation is required by our present situation – and with the benefit of that statement we could then take practical steps to bring a fused organisation into being.
Even if the aim of a united organisation cannot be achieved immediately, direct and open engagement with these discussions may well lay the basis for more productive collaboration between partyists in the future. That would still be a meaningful step forward from where we are now.
We recognise that as well as the substantive disagreements on the issues outlined above, comrades may disagree with our proposal and how we have proposed to approach it. We welcome frank disagreement, where it arises, in the interests of moving us forward. We will engage with equal comradely frankness. We look forward to your thoughts and your response.
4 January 2025
We use the terms communist/communism and socialist/socialism to mean the same thing: a society in which the private ownership of the means of production – land, water, mineral resources, factories, science and technology, transport etc – has been abolished, along with the capitalist profit system. There will be no state, simply the administration of things. The wealth of the world will be owned in common and production will be planned democratically for the benefit of all and of the environment we inhabit. Cooperation will replace competition for resources. Everyone will contribute to society to the best of their ability, and everyone will receive what they need, according to their circumstances. From now on, instead of using the clumsy formulations “socialist/communist” or “socialist=communist”, we will generally use the terms communist and communism. [↩]
Good to see that at least some parts of the left are coming together – especially as the threat from the far right is increasing. Just one question: have members of these groups come across the concept of ECOsocialism?!
Obviously not Alan ! and yet…if dialectical materialism did mean anything to them at all, the existential threat of global warming to humanity due to our fossil fuel driven financial capitalism and petro chemical nation states should be at the core of their endeavour to build a new party. But no, much too busy arguing about sad Corbyn still and some kind of organisational unity without any sign of any serious development of what marxist theory for the 21st century should be.
Have you bothered to read anything on this website? If you had you would know that we place climate catastrophe as one of the main issues facing humanity.
It is included in Point 2 of our Statement “Who we are and the ideas that guide us“:
“Humanity is faced with a deepening general crisis of capitalism, from economic crisis, to increased international conflict and war, to the erosion of the limited democratic gains that have been won through past struggle, and to devastating climate catastrophe.”
A quick search of the site for the terms ‘climate’ and ‘global warming’ will show that we regularly deal with the issue.
We may not have the resources to cover it every week, in detail. But to imply that we don’t take global warming seriously suggests a deficiency on your part, not ours.
The discussion on Monday included a brief look at the founding of the CPGB. It may be of interest to look at the first British socialist Party the SDF. It included a range of members and opinions. For example Hyndman was always pro-imperialist (See his England for All). Morris was strongly anti-imperialist. Most members supported women’s suffrage but Bax did not. In their understanding of socialism clearly Morris supported socialism from below where Hyndman was very much an elitist. They found that the party could function despite big policy differences. It split over Hyndman’s authoritarian leadership.
The Morris/ Marx/Aveling side set up the socialist League. This included those close to Engels alongside anarchists. They argued about participation in elections. Compare this to the narrowness of the Marxist sects. Although these organisations ultimately fragmented the openness and ability to work together seem to have lessons for us.
That’s a very helpful comment from Geoff Barr. The SDF and the First International were very broad church organisations. I think we should hesitate before including in any statement of principles any proposition Marx would not have assented to (eg the class nature of China). The second we include a check list of the 20th century debates, we are going to trim our numbers so that we end up as – exactly what we are now.
I don’t think it’s quite correct to say the BSP (what the SDF had become) split over “Hyndman’s authoritarian leadership”. It actually split over an internationalist attitude towards the war. Those who took over the BSP and produced The Call newspaper could no longer stomach Hyndman’s British chauvinism and the leadership’s unwillingness to oppose British imperialism in the 1914-18 war. By being able to split the organisation (Hyndman and company formed the rump chauvinist ‘National Socialist Party’), the BSP was then able to work with other socialist groups towards the foundation of a united CPGB. So, in this instance, a correct split over principles led to unity as Hyndman would have never countenanced any such move and the CPGB wouldn’t have tolerated his pro-imperialism. In that sense, the BSP was only able to work with Hyndman until imperialist war shattered that unity.
I’m talking about the split in the 1880s when the group around Morris and Averling and Eleanor Marx set up the socialist League.