resolution on communist recomposition

22 09 2010

Recently there have been discussions in an around The Commune about how communists should work together. At our recent conference we passed this motion on principles of communist recomposition.

“Recomposition” is a term used within The Commune to denote an organisational regroupment of existing communists in which we would participate.  Various conceptions have been suggested.  However, we should agree a few basic principles which will guide us as an
organisation:

•  Politically, openness to recomposition recognises that we are not the group the left — or the class — has been waiting for.  We are not sufficient, nor can we expect to grow by accretion to the point where we are.  We don’t know it all.  There are comrades in other organisations and none with experience and ideas that need to be shared.  At present we “represent” nothing significant in the left, or the workers’ movement.  In short, openness, in general, to recomposition is just a rejection of organisational self-importance, and the improbability of growing by ones and twos to become a serious organisation.
•  The traditional left practice of “offering oneself as a pole of attraction” is unlikely to inspire confidence in a milieu burned out by sectarianism and failure.  Whilst in some ways we really can claim that we are more open, less sectarian, and are perceived as such — for example in terms of the opportunities for real discussion that we provide in our forums — of itself, this is not likely to be enough.
•  Therefore, recomposition, insofar as it occurs, will necessarily be both a political and an organisational process.  It involves a willingness to open, challenging dialogue on our basic politics.  It cannot, however, commit us to altering our basic politics with anyone with whom we so discuss.  Recomposition will be something that happens above and beyond us.
•  Recomposition must not take place on the basis of diluting our politics, or even on the basis that our official politics – in the sense of what is expressed in our platform – is enough.
•  Recomposition must not be seen as a one-off event, or even a process with a definite end.  Were some sort of foreseeable regroupment to occur, involving The Commune as it is now, it results in organisational terms would nonetheless be totally inadequate to the task at hand, and qualitatively similar to our current situation.  At best it would be a moment in an ongoing process of recruitment and recomposition.  We should reject the small group mentality, whereby leftists seek to feel safe in groups of 50, 100, 200, and so on.
•  The recent contribution by the Permanent Revolution group raised the necessity to build trust as part of a recomposition process, along with intentional attempt to focus political debate on areas of possible or actual disagreement, the development of joint work, and ongoing communication.  We need these things within our group as well.  So for example, in future, the whole group should be made aware of initiatives related to recomposition by members — such as roundtable discussions.  Similarly, the whole group should be involved in discussions about the content of such initiatives, including topics of discussion, who is invited and how, etc.  We should work on the basis of a commonly agreed plan, relating to a commonly agreed list of groups and individuals.
•  As a priority, we should also take time to understand how others see recomposition or regroupment, and what political ideas or practices, or processes, they consider important to it.
•  Recomposition is no substitute for developing our own concrete practice in relation to the class struggle; and must not detract from this.  Serious efforts relating to recomposition may take a long time to do properly.

About these ads

Actions

Information

3 responses

27 09 2010
Brian

I am very much in support of this approach and think that it is essential to move in this direction whilst maintaining the independence of the Commune. This approach to recomposition is however echoed in many groups in the left today but the lack of trust and adversarial approach taken by many groups in their dealings with each other over particular issues leaves many distrustful, alienated or even disillusioned. Building trust and looking honestly at differences as well as unifying points with other groups is essential to this process being of any real meaning, whilst also helping to thrash out more coherent stances. Without taking on this this process we are guilty of allowing the left to be a myriad of political ghettos, divided and easily dismissed. My main reservation with the process is to ensure that authoritarianism is not allowed to become a substitute for voluntary solidarity within the Commune and the wider associations in the left that the Commune makes.

As a footnote could the sentence “There are comrades in other organisations and none with experience and ideas that need to be share.” be explained, is it a typo or have i misread it?

28 09 2010
darren redstar

David, I have just noticed that the ephemeral yoof paper that the Workers liberty promised when they tempted you across has finally materialised… Barricade is a very sorry affair, a sub socialist worker, with the cringing patronising air that the politically active adopt whenever they attempt to appeal to the ‘yoot’.
There is a distance between us politically, which is due to my own disillusionment with the history and practice of the left.
Even so, it is clear that you and the commune are collectively producing so much better stuff, and are a healthy and vibrant group which manages to exist in what has become a stagnant pond of political hypocrisy.

29 09 2010
c0mmunard

Hi Brian –

“There are comrades in other organisations and none with experience and ideas that need to be shared”

It just means that there are others – who may or may not be members of a group – with ideas and experiences we can learn from.




Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 16,925 other followers

%d bloggers like this: