By now, many people across the Marxist left know about the Forging Communist Unity (FCU) process, which involves the Communist Party of Great Britain (CPGB), the Unity Faction of the Editorial Board of the Prometheus online journal (PUF) and Talking About Socialism…from a Marxist point of view (TAS).
However, as some may be reading about this for the first time, I intend to set out some the approach of TAS to the process. Inevitably, there will therefore be a repetition of points made in previous articles I
This is the first of what I hope will be four new articles on this issue. In this first article, I reiterate why we in TAS see achieving communist unity to be so important. I will then deal with points raised in recent articles in the Weekly Worker from comrades Mike Macnair and Jack Conrad. I will then report from the last meeting of FCU held on Sunday 13 April 2025, giving my own assessment. As I have stated previously, due to work commitments, I am not able to do all this as quickly as I would like.
We also intend to present for discussion with the other FCU participants a draft programme for any fused, united group that may emerge out of the FCU process.
By communist unity I mean the unity into one political party of those who aim to abolish capitalism, not to manage it; those who seek to create a society that supersedes the present capitalist system, based on the democratic common ownership of the means of production – the land, the waters, the factories, means of transport, machines, science and technology. I am not referring to the political unity of Marxists in a broad left party with social democrats, or reformist socialists, who seek only to obtain reforms from the present ruling class, without aiming to remove it for ever.
Communists fight for reforms within capitalism and, more importantly, for a fundamental break with capitalism.
While communists must involve themselves in all aspects of working-class struggle, alongside those with different politics, communists need to be in a clearly defined, unambiguously communist party. Those reformist socialists who do not agree with the necessity or aim of abolishing capitalism will support or form other parties. While struggling alongside workers who are members or supporters of other parties which disagree with communist aims, communists should always seek to raise communist ideas and seek to persuade those workers who are not yet communists of the necessity of a communist programme and of the importance of them becoming members of the communist party.
In my opinion, it is necessary to repeatedly stress the importance of communist unity to the central task facing the working class in Britain and internationally. That task is the self-emancipation of the working class from its own exploitation, through the abolition of capitalism, laying the basis for a new stage in human history.
The society that we aim for – communism, or socialism (I use the terms to mean the same thing II ) – will be a society without classes. It will mean an end to all the ills that flow from the present exploitative division of society into classes and the drive for profit: inequality, poverty, hunger, war, including the threat of nuclear war, and climate catastrophe. These will become things to read about in history books. The generations of the new society will be able to concentrate on how to live in harmony with the rest of the natural world, and enjoy the time they have, liberated from the toil and misery of a life of labour in the service of a privileged minority class.
The international working class is an immense and powerful force. It has the ability to act in its own interest – and that of all humanity – and bring about the fundamental change needed. Any divisions within the working class, whether based on nationality, ethnicity, colour, localism, sex, religion, disability, sexual orientation or gender identity, which undermine or are used to undermine the central task of abolishing capitalism, must be overcome. These divisions weaken the strength of the working class. Without seeking to minimise any such differences, they must not be allowed to prevent the unity of the working class in its primary aim – the abolition of capitalism.
In order to achieve the unity of the working class, and to give clear direction to its struggle for emancipation, we also need the unity of Marxists along with all those who share our goal of doing away completely with the capitalist profit system. The role of communists is to help to develop the consciousness of the international working class so that it knows its own aims, and is conscious of its power to achieve them; to help to organise, to strengthen the ability of the working class to fight; and, most importantly, to provide a programme as a guide to action to accomplish our ultimate goal, overcoming differences and obstacles in our way.
Our programme must become the property of the working class, so that every worker knows that the communist party stands with them in their struggle for change, and that for that change to become permanent it is vital to have a mass communist party in every country, collaborating across borders with a shared internationalist perspective for change.
We communists need to take the ideas of communism – the good news of how things can be different – to the rest of our class, and to those in other classes who may come to see the necessity of our struggle for all humanity. Communists have an obligation to do this. We cannot rest idly while exploitation and oppression exist.
However, we communists cannot do this effectively as individuals. We need to be organised. We need to be organised into a party. The existing revolutionary socialist and communist groups and parties already partially understand this. But they understand it only in a limited way. These groups have taken the step of being organised. But they each see themselves as being the only path to achieve communism. Unfortunately, they eschew unity with other communist groups. There is a real, damaging aspect to this multiplicity of communist/socialist groups. It impedes and weakens the work of communists. It unnecessarily duplicates the work of communists. It sets communists against one another.
We need more than to be organised into different, competing communist and socialist groups. We need one united, democratic, mass communist party. (As long as the party’s programme and aims are clear it does not matter, in my opinion, what it this party is actually called – that is a secondary issue.)
It would be ridiculous to pretend that there are no differences between the existing socialist or communist groups. However, for the most part there is no reason why these differences cannot be accommodated in a genuinely democratic communist party. Most of the differences between these groups are of a secondary or tertiary nature. They should not lead to serious, dedicated Marxists being in separate organisations. A serious and democratic communist party would recognise that there will be differences among comrades about how to do things, how to say things, where to focus limited resources, how to best advance the ideas of communism, and so on. These differences will be resolved through open, democratic and comradely discussion. Egos and personalities should not play any decisive role in deciding differences.
We do not ask that individuals or groups give up on their points of view, but argue for them in a single democratic party, engaging with other communists who share their ultimate goal.
So what should form the essential points of agreement for communists being in the same party? In the TAS document submitted to the FCU process on 22 February 2025, for the meeting the next day, we set out for discussion some points that we thought were important areas where agreement should be sought. These seventeen ‘Heads of Agreement’, as we called them, were, we thought, uncontroversial. In fact, there was agreement on most of them, but differences emerged on several.
In that document, TAS also proposed the inclusion of a “statement in respect of the current inter-imperialist rivalry between the USA and its subordinates and the rising power of China should be part of our programme. Specifically, our position is that we do not take sides in the battles/rivalries, whether economic or military, between rival capitalist/imperialist powers, but point out the need for the working class to impose its own solution.”
Exception was taken by the representatives of the CPGB to this last proposal on the basis that there should be nothing in the programme that is time sensitive, or becomes out of date. I agree with that but see no reason why a general statement on imperialist wars could not be agreed and included in the programme, supplemented by an additional statement on the specific issue facing us now. How this is dealt with is not the fundamental issue. Our position on war is.
These essential points could, perhaps, be distilled further:
Firstly, a commitment to fight against the capitalist system and to seek its overthrow. Secondly, a commitment to internationalism and an agreement that communism has to be international; there is no national road to socialism-communism. (This would preclude unity in the same party with supporters of the programme of, for example, the Communist Party of Britain’s British road to socialism’, informed, as it is with the Stalinist idea of “Socialism in one country”.) Thirdly, that the emancipation of the working class can only be achieved by the working class. Fourthly, a commitment to the fight for an extension of democratic rights. This means fighting for a republic in which the majority working class rules with extreme democracy, including the election of all officials, the right of recall, and the involvement of all in decision-making. Fifthly, that the task of the working class in coming to power is to abolish capitalism, that is, to expropriate the capitalist class. (This is, perhaps, a reiteration of my first point above, but it needs emphasising.) Sixthly, that we do not want to see the establishment of the forms of society that existed in the former Soviet Union and similar states, or those that exist today such as China and North Korea. Those societies were not/are not socialist-communist societies, nor a step towards becoming one.
I quite accept that these points need discussion. That is why we presented them for discussion.
In addition to political agreement around the essential ideas of communism-socialism, any groups and individuals coming together to create a new, fused organisation must have a commitment to establishing a democratic party, in which every member who adheres to the basic essentials of the party programme has the right, indeed the obligation, to raise differences and criticisms.
Disagreement is inevitable. A healthy, democratic party would accommodate such disagreements. It would encourage it. Only through discussion, debate and the clash of ideas can differences between communists be resolved, through votes of the membership. Those with minority views must have the right to argue publicly for their point of view, while implementing the agreed actions of the party.
The culture of the party is extremely important. Anything that prevents serious communists from joining it must be jettisoned. This applies both to the internal and external culture of the party. By this I mean the way in which differences between members are dealt with inside the party, and the way in which differences with other communists are dealt with in inter-party debates or discussions. Again, while debates, including sharp debates, between communist groups are inevitable, we need to make it clear by our behaviour that we want to be in the same party with those with whom we are engaging.
I do not expect this process of seeking communist unity to be easy. But because we believe it to be absolutely necessary, we are determined to try to make the current process successful. We are three very small groups. Our fusion will create a slightly bigger group. But others are watching us. There are those who want us to fail. There are others who want us to succeed. There are thousands of communists-socialists (however they define themselves) who have experienced one or other of the various Marxist organisations, maybe quite some time ago, maybe relatively recently, and have left, or ‘dropped out’ because they didn’t like the internal regime. We need to provide a place for them. There will also be members of other communist-socialist groups who will be wondering why their own leaders are not interested in communist unity.
If these discussions do not succeed, or at least do not succeed in the short term, we will just have to proceed with our patient work, seeking allies in our determination to create the basis for a democratic, mass, communist party.
But if we can make this process work and create an organisation that is politically clear and has a healthy, welcoming democratic culture, we could attract significant numbers of individuals, in the first instance. We may create something that is then able to raise the question of unity with those bigger groups who are currently not interested in discussing with us.
With a new, fused organisation we will have achieved something small but very important.
- There are quite a few articles on the FCU process elsewhere on the TAS website.[↩]
- I will return to this question in a separate article. I do not agree with those who argue that there is support in the writings of Marx and Engels for the proposition that the words socialism and communism mean different things. I do not regard socialism as a stage to communism. I do not regard socialism as a transition to communism. The two words are used by Marxists who stand for a new society of democratic common ownership of the means of production that supersedes Capitalism. Some call it communism. Some call it socialism. I do not think it is correct to suggest that Marxists who call themselves socialists are not communists.[↩]
The Mask is off. Mike Macnair, in the weekly worker, reveals the real face of the CPGB. TAS must accept the political “culture” of the CPGB which includes, name calling, abuse and rudeness in general, towards those who have differences with the CPGB. As Macnair put it, “the CPGB’S rejection of civility requirements is necessary for any real and stable unity.”
But, personal abuse and lack of politeness would simply cloud and confuse any debate of differences. Further, such an hostile approach is likely to put an end to any debate about differences. Absurdly, Macnair seems to believe civility in debate is an expression of opportunism. He conflates politeness with lack of criticism, as if you cannot be civil and critical.
Moreover, Macnair, claims comrades who seek a comradely attitude towards those with differences are useful fools for the right -wing of the Labour movement. It seems he actually believes such polite comrades have internalised the approach of the right without realizing it. Again they are fools. Those who reject the CPGB political “culture” must be treated with suspicion as possible turncoats like Paul Mason.
This absurd political “logic” is taken further. Polite comrades who don’t resort to abuse are to blame for the rise of the irrational right, since they pull their punches and don’t fight back with any abusive phrases to hand. And even more bizarre such comrades and the rest of the far left have internalised the politics of the popular front without being aware of it. Such fools.
Macnair’s “argument” is political pantomime or in the words of Nick Wrack, it is utter rubbish. Jack Conrad piles Rubbish on top of rubbish. Nick Wrack is not only strategically dumb in his approach to the middle class, he is compared to Pol Pot. Another TAS comrade is an opportunist for advocating a comradely approach to debate. As for Prometheus they are merely a loose circle and it would be far fetched to think they could produce as programme.
So where does this leave the unity process? The suggestion that a joint committee of those in the fusion talks could draw up a programme was rejected out of hand by Jack Conrad. He envisages the CPGB programme to be put to a unity conference and be accepted by the majority. The CPGB majority might not vote as a block, but since they will caucus beforehand they probably will. So the CPGB name and programme and culture. Unity on the CPGB terms. Any compromise would be opportunist.
There is a pattern here of previous unity projects involving the CPGB. They use the process to take the opportunity to demonstrate their political superiority. As Conrad boasts, “the two leaders of the CPGB do indeed think that the CPGB has the best ideas and the best organizational structure.” The emphasis on the supposed superiority of the CPGB compared with the rest of the foolish left is the politics of a sect.
Jack Conrad and Mike Macnair, The Wits!
Barry’s response above is clear, a cut-through corrective to the huffed and puffed pieces by Mr Conrad and Mr Macnair.
These two wits straw-man robust debate to blow unCPGB FCU comrades up to being Stalin, Proudhon – Pol Pot even. The non-CPGB FCU left are strategically dumb opportunist fish n’chip people, a left of murderous useful idiot opportunists to blame for the downrightwing cruel and atrocious political albatross-authoritarians currently laying the law in this land and abroad… don’t ya know!
Oh how these two top-laddered CPGB bookish ends of hard times imperiously pour their gallons of words…. they egg us on, othering comrades who must bear their (c)rude educational health so Mr Conrad and Mr Macnair can extend their rulers.
And so their steaming sentences grind: “We’re the it of the not being its that think we’re it sects. We bait you left over fish-for-chips to an Eff C U conference where you must go through the CPGB’s 13 to 14,000 word programme line by line because the rest of you socialist-communist left aren’t capable of lining one up. We think therefore we are it and ours is the it of the not being dunnits. We’ve head-over-reeled it over you”.
That’s entire weeks of being conference-kettled then comrades, of being bookish-ended, shelved during these hard times in dire need of solidarity.
Being communal, being part of the collective experience of the working class, being collaborative ain’t gonna be it for these two wits….
By the way, this little bit of could I be bothered responding to outright pomposity isn’t polished.
And, Comrades, this is written in the spirit of the absurd.
End of the day, all the effing and blinding, the name calling adds nothing.
I was told that considering the USSR in the 1930s as a capitalist variant was “ absolutely bonkers”. Well, what does it mean. So insane that such a view means one is unfit to be a Marxist?
I suppose I could say the same about the “ bureaucratic socialist” label or any other phrase which qualifies socialism with some adjective. But what does it help to use such language. It just justifies eventual faction banning or shuts down debate.
Some comments on the CPGB and Marxist unity. In Marxist voice Vol1 Number 3 October /November 2007.
The late Dave Spencer, of the Democratic Socialist Alliance, a group of Socialists about the size of TAS, who continued to work together after the closure of the Socialist alliance, summarised his experience of the Unity process with the CPGB in the Campaign for a Marxist Party.
The following comments from Dave might seem familiar to TAS members. “The CPGB is playing games and not being genuine, you have to guess what their motives are. What are the the ends to which abuse and wind ups are the means? In my view there can be only be two explanations. One is that they deliberately want to damage or destroy the CMP. The other, more generously, is they don’t know any other way of operating.” (page 38)
In response, Mike Macnair made the following comment which might surprise TAS members: “supposing that we did end up putting CPGB’S draft programme forward as the draft programme of the fusion of our forces, IT WOULD NOT AT ALL BE PUT FORWARD ON A TAKE IT OR LEAVE IT BASIS,BUT FOR DISCUSSION AND AMENDMENT.” (page 34) He went on to write nor “does it mean that that we think the only option is to recruit individuals to the existing CPGB on the basis of its existing draft programme and its existing name and organisation.”
Macnair envisaged “a dynamic of unification on a small scale TRANSCENDING, the existing CPGB. and this dynamic of unification might draw in other organised forces and unorganised individuals.” (Page 37) Only TAS in the unity process today offers this perspective. The CPGB puts forward its own draft programme organisation, and name as the best programme and the best organisation. It wants chatter about an alternative programme to stop, and TAS members to accept its programme and discipline. Is this a serious approach to unity?
In his recent, why Marx discussion, Jack Conrad was talking about the Russian Revolution and the class nature of the Soviet Union. He summarised the views of Hillel Ticktin. Ticktin predicted the collapse of the Soviet Union due to systematic economic inefficiencies, lack of quality products, chronic repair problems and persistent shortages, in the journal critique in the 1970s. In his discussion, Jack left out most of the politics of the Russian Revolution including War Communism, NEP, Collectivisation and much more.
Jack began with the first Five year plan, with leaves a huge gap in our understanding of the nature of the USSR. He noted that the theory of State Capitalism to describe the Soviet Union is often just a label and fails to explain the Soviet economy. But, Tony Cliffs state Capitalism is not the only theory of State Capitalism. Some State Capitalist views do explain the internal economy of the Soviet Union. However, my intension is not to examine theories about the Soviet Union. Instead, I want to focus on the meaning of the dictatorship of the proletariat in the Russian Revolution.
In a letter to Bukharin in 1920,Lenin made the equation, the proletariat was the Communist party. As Trotsky asserted in Terrorism and Communism, the dictatorship of the party was the dictatorship of the proletariat and since they were identical there was no substitutionalism at all. In his public comments in 1920,Lenin did not see the proletariat described by Marx in Russia. In the factories there were only casual elements of all kinds. In reality, the the relationship between the workers and the Bolshevik party was antagonistic. In 1920-1921 there was the consolidation of the substitution of the power of the Bolshevik party for the power of the workers in Trade unions and Soviets.
Lenin painted the workers in false colours. The Russian workers were the wrong kind of workers. The claim that the workers organisations had disappeared after the civil war was a gross exaggeration as recent research into the Moscow archives have shown. Workers factory organisations were weakened by the civil war, but still remained in place. One of Lenin’s Bolshevik critics, Shliapnikov, pointed out that Lenin no longer trusted Russian workers and their self activity.
For Marx the Dictatorship of the proletariat was the political and economic rule of the workers in their community organisations. State functions would be absorbed in the workers organisations in the process of uprooting Capitalism and the state. As Engels wrote after the Paris Commune of 1871 there should be no further talk of the state and state Socialism in the transition to Communism.(Lassalle) But the Bolsheviks intensified state power after the revolution.
For years before 1917 Russian Social democracy identified the Dictatorship of the proletariat with State Socialism and a socialist government. It was only in the revolutionary year that Lenin discovered Marx’s anti state views following research by Bukharin in 1916. But, the State and Revolution was abstract and remained an aspiration with no effect on the outcome of the revolution. As Lenin told Bukharin in 1918 Russia was not ripe for the commune semi state. After the Revolution power was located in the Bolshevik leaders in the ministries of the Tsarist state. The Bolshevik party ruled on behalf of the workers with the help of the former Tsarist state bureaucracy.
While Rosa Luxemburg praised the Bolsheviks for their political boldness in 1917 she reminded Lenin that that the Dictatorship of the proletariat meant the whole mass of workers must take part, not the dictatorship of a handful of politicians. Lenin described the Bolshevik regime as a workers and peasants state with bureaucracy. That is to say an alliance with a different incompatible class and a state bureaucracy. Where was workers power? There is far too much reverence for Lenin and uncritical acceptance of his description of the post 1917 state.
The CPGB’s draft programme follows Bolshevik “State Socialism.” The Bolsheviks were passionate statists and centralisers. So for the CPGB the transition to communism is not the beginning of a new mode of production but starts with Capitalism under the supervision of the communist party in Government. (Lenin) But, how can there be a transition to communism with the political and economic forms of Capitalism: the state and the law of value or exploitation?
In his letter to the weekly worker, Billy C a member or supporter of the CPGB tries to give the impression that he was restricted to three minutes to express his views in the TAS zoom discussion and this pressure of the clock rushed his contribution which would otherwise have been far better. The truth is rather different. The chair was clear that she would be flexible on the three minute time limit and allow speakers to come back into the discussion to develop their points. Indeed when he spoke he talked for more than three minutes. Nor was there any restriction on further contributions. So there was no attempt to gag him. The perceived inadequacy of his contribution was his own responsibility.
Billy’s contribution to the discussion was not entirely logical. One the one hand he asserted that we should not speculate on a time period for the transition. Yet he was also adamant that Jack Conrad’s slow long transition period was a political necessity. So speculation of a time period for the transition was both relevant and irrelevant. He had been sceptical about Ed Potts accurate point that Conrad had advocated a slow slow slow pace of transition. Billy’s instinct that a slow evolution was at odds with a revolutionary transformation was correct. He demanded the source of Ed’s view. Ed gave him chapter and verse from Conrad. Decades of slow advance out of capitalism. Slowly does it. Billy was unable to respond to Ed’ conclusion that if the revolutionary transformation lasted for generations then the revolution would be in trouble.
Billy boasted he had a rough grasp on the differences on transition between TAS and CPGB. It was without doubt crude and rough. Instead of trying to engage with the arguments from TAS he resorted to ridicule. The TAS view of the transition was caricatured as the second coming of Christ, in one beautiful day of revolution. Communism will be born in an instant burst of sunshine. Billy associated my description of Marx’s Dictatorship of the Proletariat as the self government of the commune or workers grass roots organisations absorbing the functions of the state as no different from the need for a coercive state. That’s no kind of understanding.
Like other TAS members I was putting an alternative to “state Socialism” (Lassalle and post 1917 Bolshevik leaders) Not only has Billy not read Marx’s anti State views, he does not appear to have read Conrad’s writings either. He falsely claimed my opinion that Conrad’s views were rooted in German and and Russian Social Democracy, the Democratic Republic and the minimum programme and so on was wrong or without foundation. He also arrogantly claimed Peter’s views on the middle class were useless for revolutionaries. I have to say that this CPGB culture of polemic is useless for Communist unity.
Mike Macnair, in the weekly worker, Centuries of Stalinism, makes clear that the CPGB draft programme’s section on transition is based on the State Socialism of the Communist Manifesto written before Marx had developed his understanding of Capitalism in Capital and learned more about class struggle in the decades following the appearance of the Manifesto. He also confirmed that the CPGB have the old Social Democratic, old Bolshevik(prior to 1917) programme of the Democratic Revolution which is a political revolution starting with the democratisation of Capitalism. In Mikes words: “the shape of the revolution in our view remains political Democracy first then (in the second phase) then enabling a process of socialisation.
Mike then puts his own version of the caricature of the TAS view of transition as instant one day revolution when he writes that the TAS view of socialisation is pretty much immediate. But, he does admit he does not list all TAS arguments. We will have to wait until next week for him to reply to Peter on then transition. Mike imagines that TAS members fear the CPGB position on the transition involves the threat of centuries of Stalinism. His political imagination is running away with him. No one in TAS has has remotely suggested this or shares this fear.
It has to be said that political exaggerations do not help clarify the nature of the transition. I say this because Mike makes the absurd comparison of the proposals of TAS for the middle class with Stalin’s forced collectivisation which killed millions of peasants and put many others into slave Labour in the Gulag. In Mikes words: We argue that the Communist Party should not propose the instant expropriation of the petty bourgeoisie which would amount to repeating errors of forced collectivisation.” To make it clear TAS do not plan to murder millions of middle class People or put shop keepers in some kind of Gulag and it is silly to imply this is the case.
Barry, the following offers support for your reflection above that the “Communist Manifesto written before Marx had developed his understanding of Capitalism in Capital and learned more about class struggle in the decades following the appearance of the Manifesto.”:
When writing the preface to the 1888 edition of the Communist Manifesto, Engels used the occasion to draw attention to what he and Marx had jointly come to the conclusion about:
“From our joint preface to the German edition of 1872, I quote the following:
However much that state of things may have altered during the last twenty-five
years, the general principles laid down in the Manifesto are, on the whole, as
correct today as ever. Here and there, some detail might be improved.
The practical application of the principles will depend, as the Manifesto itself states,
everywhere and at all times, on the historical conditions for the time being
existing, and, for that reason, no special stress is laid on the revolutionary
measures proposed at the end of Section II…
…That passage would, in many respects, be very differently worded today.
In view of the gigantic strides of Modern Industry since 1848, and of the accompanying improved and extended organization of the working class, in view of the practical experience gained, first
in the February Revolution, and then, still more, in the Paris Commune, where the
proletariat for the first time held political power for two whole months, this
programme has in some details been antiquated…
…One thing especially was proved by the Commune, viz., that “the working class cannot simply lay hold of ready-made state machinery, and wield it for its own purposes.” (See The Civil War in
France: Address of the General Council of the International Working Men’ s
Association 1871, where this point is further developed.)”
Yes I agree Peter. The introduction to Marx’s critique of the Gotha Programme by Peter Hudis is particularly good. In one of the failed unity Projects, of the CPGB, The Republican Worker Tendency, used many of his points about the transition similar to TAS, in a supplement of the Weekly Worker, in October 12, 1995. The CPGB leader, Jack Conrad, remained unmoved. The draft programme on the transition is, as Macnair concedes, unorthodox. The CPGB do not agree with Marx on the transition from Capitalism to Communism. Modern Marxist scholarship also points to Marx constantly revising his views after important political and historical events. One of the older generation of Marxists Raya Dunayavskya argued that the Content of Capital was impacted by the Paris Commune and the civil war in the USA . ( Marx’s Capital and Todays Global Crisis.1978)
In his report of unity discussions with TAS, (10/04/2025) Mike Macnair said the CPGB put themselves some distance from the Soviet experience in their view of the transition process. So, the CPGB stands for democracy for the majority not the substitution of the vanguard minority for the class. Yet the CPGB clings to the phrase Dictatorship of the Proletariat ,in the unity discussion, which most people associate with one party Bolshevik dictatorship. This is a strange way of not regarding the Bolshevik dictatorship as a model.
Simon Pirani’s research into the the Moscow archives of the Russian Communist party, trade unions, factory meetings and so on, reached this conclusion: did it make any sense to call their state a workers state. This state reimposed alienated labour and hierarchical Social relations. It carried out functions in the absence of a ruling class and then played a central role in ushering in a new ruling class. It did this through the ownership of the state.
As Pirani says, meanwhile the concept of a workers state took on a life of its own in Socialist thinking. It pushed the irreconcilable opposition between Socialism/Communism and the state, which had been at the centre of Marx’s thinking into the background. In 1921 the Bolsheviks chose to strengthen the party/state rather than revive Soviet democracy. The Workers state became a shibboleth for the workers movement.
So why make a fetish of the Dictatorship of the Proletariat?
See Simon Pirani, The Russian Revolution in Retreat,1920-24. Routledge 2008.
Mike Macnair, in his Weekly Worker talk,25th of May 2025, has a bleak and pessimistic view of the prospects for Socialism in Britain or Europe. To take power in Britain alone would be delusional. He does not think we can begin the revolutionary process in Britain in a European wide rise in class struggle. In Britain, he argues ,we pay for our food with Taxes on Bankers and financial services. We are dependent of the financial sector. This is why he has said previously CPGB do not agree with the slogan Tax the rich. So we have to wait for European or world wide Socialist revolution and learn to live with the rich.
He seems to believes the USA will not face a Socialist Challenge and the USA will Nuke any attempt at Socialism in Britain. In fact, he has a fear that the future will see a Nuclear war. This was a fear in the 1950s, but since then we have had numerous wars including the present one in Ukraine where a nuclear war has not been triggered and the fear has declined. In the modern world the fear of the consequences of Climate change poses more of a threat to humanity.
Mike does make it clear that the CPGB draft programme is unorthodox on the transition between Capitalism and Communism. It does not agree with Marx that the transition is based on the first phase of communism and a new mode of production. The CPGB sees the transition period as the Dictatorship of the proletariat. This is political revolution first. The Democratic Capitalist republic. He asserts the TAS position is socialisation first. But, the TAS view is the orthodox Marxist view that the economic and political are not artificially separated as Rosa Luxemburg argued in the mass strike in the 1905 Revolution and Marx advocated in his judgement on the Paris Commune. The political and economic revolution go together.
Mike maintains that the TAS view on transition, socialisation first, is Bakunin . He doesn’t mean this as an insult he says. Since, he also has said TAS view of the middle class is Stalin not Marx, Bakunin is not much a an insult. Lenin thought Bukharin’s discovery of Marx’s anti State views in 1916 to be Anarchist as well until 1917 when he abandoned the Idea of a democratic revolution first.
Mike also reiterated that his view that the actions against the middle class would be as slow as necessary. He repeated his claim that TAS wanted to seize the the assets immediately which would be utopian and logically lead to the politics of Stalin. If people want to be their own boss then they would be reluctant to join a collectivisation or socialisation project. Further because of the power of the US and the weakness of the working class in Britain the middle class would not follow the workers.
In Capital Vol 3, Marx explains why the political form of the state, including a democratic republic cannot be separate from the economic form of society. So according to Marx, “It is always the direct relationship of the owners of the conditions of production to the direct producers-which reveals the inner secret, the hidden bases of the entire social structure. In short, the corresponding form of the state”. The dominant political form corresponds to the prevailing economic form. This is why the state is a political instrument of the economic exploitation of the working class. So the state cannot be the political instrument of workers emancipation. The state in the USSR, even before Stalinism, secured the Party’s rule over society. The counter revolution originated within the state/party apparatus.