The following letter, which is self-explanatory, was sent to the Forging Communist Unity (FCU) participants today.
TAS letter to the comrades of the Prometheus Unity Faction & CPGB
Dear Comrades,
TAS has decided to pause its involvement in the Forging Communist Unity process talks until 6 July 2025 so that TAS can produce its own draft programme for submission to the FCU discussions.
It has been clear for some time that there is no agreement between TAS and the CPGB over what programme any new organisation arising from the FCU process should adopt, or how a programme should be produced.
On 22 February 2025, two documents were submitted to the FCU process on behalf of TAS. One was a formal agreed TAS document: A contribution to the Forging Communist Unity process from TAS.
The other was a contribution submitted in the name of Ed Potts: Developing a suitable programme for communist unity. This second document contained the following,
“We in TAS hope that the FCU process will bring about a new fused partyist organisation which is greater than the sum of its parts.
As part of that process it would be a positive step forward if it could produce its own programme which represents the common effort of the various tendencies involved, which is simultaneously ambitious and bold and yet also accurately reflects the level of development of the organisation as it actually exists in the coming period.
This would be preferable to a process which limits itself to trying to reach only “acceptance” of any document or draft that currently exists.”
This was and has remained the shared position of the TAS comrades involved in the FCU process.
On 7 March 2025, the comrades of the Unity Faction of the Prometheus Editorial Board (PUF) sent an untitled submission by them to TAS and the CPGB which began,
“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.”
The CPGB has rejected this collaborative approach and stated that it intends to submit the CPGB’s own draft programme as its proposed basis for any organisation to be created by the FCU process.
In these circumstances we in TAS committed ourselves to produce our own draft programme for consideration in the FCU process. We have not so far been able to do so. For that we apologise.
We have now concluded that in order to produce such a document, we in TAS need to focus for a short period on drafting and agreeing it.
To accomplish this, TAS has therefore decided that it will pause its participation in the FCU process until 6 July 2025, by which time we hope to have completed our period of discussion and to be able to submit a TAS draft programme to the FCU discussions.
We do not comment on whether the comrades from the CPGB and the PUF continue to meet in our absence.
The FCU meetings have usually taken place on a fortnightly basis. Our ‘pause’ will mean that we will not be at meetings that would (if continued) take place on 1 June, 15 June, and 29 June.
We believe that this pause is necessary for TAS to be better able to present its views in a written form to the FCU process. In our opinion, the FCU process will benefit from this pause.
This does not mean any pause or cessation of the parallel discussions involving TAS, the CPGB and the PUF in preparation for the Communist University.
Comradely,
Ed Potts
Nick Wrack
(Talking About Socialism…from a Marxist point of view)
29 May 2025.
In his Questions of Communism in the weekly Worker,(25/05/2025) Mike Macnair makes it clear that a revolution in Greece or Britain is not worth a can of beans. Britain is no longer of world significance. Britain is merely a protectorate of the USA with an offshore financial sector and a moderately sized economic sector. You might as well have a revolution in the Isle of Man. A revolution in Britain would be snuffed out or starved out without a world wide revolution. He rejects the view that the transition to communism can begin in Britain and trigger a European revolution or be triggered by a European revolution or be part of a revolutionary wave in Europe. Europe is just a small corner of the world. We have to wait for the world to be ripe for communism.
This means the CPGB restrict their political horizon to democratizing the Capitalist state and supervising the bureaucracy, the mixed economy(capitalism) and co-existing with the middle class. This perspective is at odds with Marx’s view of the transition from capitalism to communism, as the self government of the producers absorbing the functions of the state which begins to wither away. As Mike concedes, the CPGB view of the transition is unorthodox. He confirms the CPGB view of the transitional society is that it is not an alternative mode of production.
As Peter Kennedy observes the CPGB kick communism into the long grass, the distant future. Mike mocks Peters argument saying its all about practical tasks. So if you change the car wheel make sure you jack up the car first or if you want to change the light bulb turn off the electricity first. But, its not a question of common sense. Its about an historical period, a generational long period as Jack Conrad has said. For the CPGB the first stage is of political freedom and the much later stage is economic freedom.
The limited first aim of the CPGB is for a Democratic republic. But, if the working class is powerful enough to establish political power why would it stop halfway and not take economic power or expropriate the Capitalist class? In 1917 the workers, peasants, sailors and soldiers went beyond the Bolshevik minimum programme of the Democratic Republic. The CPGB understanding of the transition seems to be the political rule of the Party at the level of high constitutional politics deciding how far to take the revolution. The danger of such a view is substitutionism, the party substitutes itself for the class.
The CPGB perspective is pessimistic, Communism is unlikely for a considerable historical period. Macnair is profoundly gloomy. Is communism even possible? The USA might unleash a nuclear war and destroy the world His fear is that the most likely outcome is that Capitalism cannot escape world degradation. Macnair’s theory of transition reminds me of Rosa Luxemburg’s criticism of the leaders of German Social democracy. They would never consider any situation ripe for Communism (or Socialism). Whereas in the revolution situation in Germany in 1918 Rosa’s minimum programme was Socialism (or Communism). But, for Mike Macnair, Communism is La La land. For Macnair, it is easier to imagine the end of the world than the end of Capitalism. (Edited)