This untitled document was sent by email by the Prometheus Unity Faction to the other participants in the Forging Communist Unity (the CPGB & TAS) process on 7 March 2025. The title here has been given to it by the editors.
It is published here because reference is made to it in the letter sent by TAS to the FCU participants on 29 May 2025 explaining why TAS is pausing its participation in the FCU process.
The Unity Faction of the Prometheus editorial board believe that the FCU process would be best served by seeking to develop, collectively, a new programme as the product of our discussions together. This could be worked on by a committee, based on an outline determined by the FCU discussions, and, if successful, could be presented to a future conference when we reach the agreed stage of progression to binding decisions. It may be the case that we can’t reach such agreement through the FCU process itself and that competing programmes or versions of programmes may ultimately be presented at such a conference, however we feel it would be productive for us to attempt to see if this could be possible.
The advantages of such a development of a new programme we believe would be in producing something which, at this initial stage of regroupment, would represent our collective endeavor and be a product which we had shared ownership over. Such a process of development itself we feel would be extremely productive in forging our identity as a new organisation.
We feel that there are significant points, as TAS comrades have argued, in favour of such a programme being an extremely concise and precise expression of the overall goal of social transformation we are fighting for and what we believe is necessary to achieve this. Particularly in terms of having a document which can be as useful as possible to us in very clearly expressing our project in the work we do, and focusing this on being a central guide to action – cutting out anything superfluous to this.
We also believe (alongside this concise programme) it will be fundamental for a new organisation to produce, through this process, an accompanying and very central strategy document outlining the tasks of such a fused organisation in the current period in terms of outlining what our work looks like in building towards a mass communist party and what our strategy of broader regroupment looks like.
With regard to current discussions and contributions:
– We agree with TAS comrades that it would be very valuable for the FCU process to engage in important discussion around agreement/disagreement and to work out the areas in which we do agree/disagree. Such a process would clearly strengthen any new organisation and any potential new programme produced through it. We also believe that this would be much more meaningful than simply beginning with what we are prepared to accept
– However, many of us have reservations about the potential idea, expressed in the TAS document, of the programme being composed of elements ‘which members of any fused organisation should agree’ (rather than being based on acceptance) – although we acknowledge that this may be a case of nuance in phrasing which needs discussing and clarifying further through the FCU discussions. Many of us agreed with the criticisms presented by Jack Conrad in this respect. This will be important to discuss further.
– In particular, for example, some of us do not agree with point 9. Xiv in its articulation of the historic experience of the Soviet Union and similar states. This is not to say that we believe that the programme should avoid discussion or critique of such experiences but:
first that establishing such a point as a central pillar of agreement is not the correct approach and would profoundly shape our concept of what ‘communist regroupment’ looks like, second that the primary emphasis in this regard within the programme should be on a positive articulation of the democratic project we are fighting for and third that any discussion within the programme of the Soviet Union etc. requires nuance in articulating that such societies do not represent communism as a realised society, presenting clear and worked out engagement and critique etc., whilst also not disavowing them from the history of communism and the communist movement