Over the weekend of January 18-19, the Marxist Unity Group (MUG) held its 2025 national congress. As part of the work of that congress MUG adopted a “draft program.” The express goal of this text is to generate a broader discussion process in DSA about the need for a revolutionary program, with this specific document as MUG's contribution to that conversation. The introduction to the published version of the program puts it this way: “Debates will continue to rage around the history, purpose, and structure of the political program as a constituent part of the struggle to build a mass socialist party in the United States. This Draft Program is our contribution to these debates, and we make it in the spirit of democratic collaboration.”

From one perspective this is a perfectly reasonable exercise for a group like MUG. Looked at from a different angle, however, it is at best inadequate and at worst an obstacle to the broader revolutionary program-development the Marxist movement in the US needs as we turn the page on the first quarter of the 21st century.

Let's take up these two elements, one at a time, then consider what an alternative process, adequate to the programmatic tasks of US revolutionaries in 2025 might look like. In the final section, I will consider a difficulty generated by the term “minimum program” that MUG uses to describe its text, since this could get in the way if we fail to listen carefully to one another.

1) A Reasonable Exercise in Program Development

MUG is a faction. I use the word “faction” here not in any pejorative sense but applying its scientific meaning: MUG is a grouping of revolutionaries who share a particular interpretation of Marxist/revolutionary history and, based on that interpretation, draw a specific ideological conclusion: the fight for a new constitution is the central element of a revolutionary strategy for the US. At the congress one person made a statement to the effect that “we are the only Marxists who understand this.” The basic thrust of his statement is correct, it seems to me, though from where I sit it would have been better had the speaker used the word “believe” rather than “understand.” This shared ideological belief is what makes MUG a faction.

In my view, there's a place in the constellation of revolutionary formations of today's world for a faction that pursues this ideological conclusion regarding the centrality of the fight for a new constitution. That's even more true because MUG is a faction that remains willing to discuss with others in ways that can create an openness for everyone involved to be influenced by alternative viewpoints—especially if we are also willing to combine the effects of discussion with lessons learned from a collective engagement in active struggles. Specifically, Cosmonaut, a project not directly affiliated with MUG but with much overlap in membership, has created a space that is among the most open to genuine dialogue among revolutionaries that I have ever encountered. This is the primary reason I continue to follow MUG's work and submit my written thoughts to this journal, even though I disagree with MUG’s fundamental ideological premise regarding the struggle for a new constitution as the most central issue of revolutionary strategy today.

We do, nonetheless, need to start our present conversation with a clear understanding that the draft program adopted by the MUG congress is a faction program. Here is how MUG's faction perspective is framed in the opening paragraph: “To defeat the ruling class in the United States, the working class must organize itself into an independent political party with the aim of conquering political power, replacing the slaver-capitalist Constitution with a radically democratic political system, and introducing socialism.” If we parse the text that was adopted we will see the fingerprint of this specific revolutionary strategy (i.e. MUG’s strategy) in its overall structure as well as in specific points (more on this below).

As long as MUG understands that this text represents a faction program, and proceeds accordingly, its adoption by the congress creates no problems—though it also doesn't solve any, a point we will return to shortly. A problem begins to arise, however, to the extent MUG thinks and acts as if it has created something that can become more than a faction program.

2) Simultaneously: A Sectarian Exercise in Program Development

The congress motion that was adopted starts with this sentence: “BE IT RESOLVED, that Marxist Unity Group will publish and fight for DSA’s adoption of the following program.” This suggests that MUG believes it has written something more than a faction program. It imagines this text might reasonably be presented to DSA as a whole for collective approval. Experience suggests that it's extremely difficult (I would say “impossible,” but at least “extremely difficult”) for any faction, working strictly on its own, to develop a program that can meaningfully take into account the diverse viewpoints of revolutionaries who do not agree with the faction's core ideology—others in DSA, in this specific case. A program that might properly be presented to DSA for a collective endorsement would, therefore, almost certainly need to be developed by a process that's broader than anything MUG acting alone can expect to generate. Yet the program approved at the MUG congress, for presentation to DSA as a whole, was formulated by MUG acting alone: setting up a committee of MUG members who discussed with each other until they had a draft they could agree on, with a subsequent process of amendment leading up to and at the congress. No other members of or currents within DSA were consulted as part of their process.

Several speakers in the congress discussion attempted to nuance the approach projected by the proposed motion with this difficulty in mind, explaining that the goal is to simply present this specific program to DSA as MUG's vision, understanding that an adequate program for DSA will have to develop after a wider conversation. The quote from the introduction above also points in this direction, and the same introduction likewise tells us that “the purpose of this Draft Program is to serve as a model for what we hope DSA will adopt.”

This attempt to nuance things is helpful, but it fails to resolve the fundamental difficulty, because MUG has still drafted the discussion starter strictly on its own, with all of the factional ideology that characterizes MUG incorporated into the text. Thus any broader discussion based on MUG's draft inevitably starts with certain assumptions embedded within it, a reality that makes it much more difficult for others in DSA to feel as if they are actually being invited to engage on an equal footing.

The quote above from the lead paragraph is a clear example. But there is more than one moment where MUG’s faction assumption is recapitulated in this draft. In a few cases the connection is subtle; the formulations do not actually require the MUG theory of revolution-by-struggle-for-new-constitution in order for someone to agree. They do nonetheless point to that theory and flow from it. This makes an engagement with this text by those who disagree considerably more difficult:

The workers’ movement has arisen from the struggle of workers to improve their conditions against the interests of their bosses, landlords, and rulers through demands that only partially address their domination under capitalism. These struggles and the collective organizations that wage them—trade-unions, cooperatives, mutual aid societies, and at the highest level, the political party—hold the secret to reconstructing a world without a ruling class and an exploited class: the democratic control of society by the people whose labor creates it…

…in short, we must merge socialism with the workers’ movement. As this merger develops, so too will the farsightedness, confidence, and organization of the working class that enables their emergence as the hegemonic class of society. Working class victory in this struggle—the conquest of political power—is propelled by the formation and practice of the socialist party...

The framework established by the Constitution, the surrounding legal order, the dominating influence of wealth on political power, and the repressive arm of the state—the police, military, and prisons—constitute the dictatorship of the capitalist class, strangling the working class in even its most basic struggles against bosses and landlords—let alone its conquest of political power. The working class must lead the battle to sweep away this political order and establish a truly democratic republic…

…we first demand a people’s constitutional convention elected by universal, equal, and direct suffrage to establish a democratic republic that allows for the political rule of the working class. Leading up to and within this convention, the Democratic Socialists of America will fight for the following demands as the foundation for the democratic constitution of a new republic…

I can give each of these passages a spin which would allow me to raise my hand in favor of adopting it. But given the underlying assumptions that MUG is bringing to the discussion, I do not believe the intent that is being expressed is actually consistent with my own approach. It is a significant obstacle to a collective process of discussion when the same words mean different things to different people. By formulating passages with this potential and putting them in its draft MUG does not contribute to a process out of which a genuine unity is likely to emerge.

It also seems important to highlight another passage from the MUG program, not directly related to the underlying MUG factional ideology, that illustrates the difficulty that arises far too easily when one faction sits down to write a draft of this kind by itself: “The experience of uniting with fellow workers in the class struggle forces the working class to confront differences imposed by race, gender, nationality, labor specialization, and other forms of stratification, or suffer from disunity and mutual destruction for the sake of special privileges for a fortunate few.”

Once again as a stand-alone statement this is true enough. And yet there would seem to be an underlying theory of how divisions within the working class that arise because of social divisions based on race, gender, and nationality (in particular) are going to be overcome that is shaping these words, and it’s not a theory I agree with. The dynamic described may be one part of a process that ultimately helps us to overcome such divisions, but it is a subordinate part. The primary process has to do with the mobilization of oppressed communities themselves in the struggle for their own liberation, which then feeds back on working class organizations and compels them to address those divisions in ways that have a chance to actually make some headway rather than in ways that reinforce the divisions which need to be overcome. History tells us that when the class struggle forces the working class to confront problems of this kind it is perfectly possible for the prevailing social norms that have been created by centuries of white supremacy and patriarchy–norms that are therefore deeply ingrained in our culture–to dictate the outcome.

The subtleties of dealing with this reality require some deep reflection by any revolutionary or socialist collective that wants to put a reference to how divisions based on race, nationality, or gender will be overcome into its program. I would suggest that if initial formulations, even when proposed in the open spirit that MUG expresses in its on-line introduction, are formulated by a predominantly white collective, as MUG is, they cannot possibly serve as an effective starting point for that process of reflection. The result of a white collective offering an initial formulation is, invariably, that significant layers of oppressed people, who are most important for that process of reflection to succeed, will subsequently choose simply to not engage. They have been through the frustrating process of trying to engage with predominantly white groups who start with their own formulations many times in the past, always with unsatisfactory results.

Thus we come back to the primary conclusion of this article: that to be meaningful, a genuine process of programmatic development cannot be initiated by one narrow group, based strictly on its own ideology and its own experience. On this issue in particular, initial formulations must be solicited from the oppressed groups most concerned with overcoming their own oppression if any meaningful conversation can be expected to take place.

In essence, MUG finds itself repeating the same mistake that I have seen various groups make for generations: believing that they can sit down and, based strictly on consultation with others who share a particular set of core ideological beliefs and experiences, write the text that is going to convince the rest of the socialist/revolutionary movement that their ideological perspective is the right one. It's a fool’s errand because it ignores the fact that our programmatic differences are based on fundamental disagreements about what elements of contemporary reality in a country like the US are primary and which ones are secondary, most prominently in this case whether or not the fight for a new constitution does indeed constitute a necessary programmatic keystone for US Marxists today. I have never seen an effort like this produce anything more than an attempt, usually fleeting, by the drafters of such a program to publicize their own specific ideas. It has never succeeded, so far as I am aware, in generating a broader programmatic discussion leading to the formation of an organization that is more inclusive than a faction.

Our programmatic disagreements will only be overcome—to the extent they can or, perhaps even more importantly, need to be overcome (see section three below for a further development of this aspect)—by a process of collective experience in revolutionary struggle. They cannot be overcome by finding the right words. In an important sense, the revolutionaries we need to unite through a process of programmatic discussion in the year 2025 are not those who currently share theory X or theory Y, or who can be won to theory X or theory Y based on our current levels of collective understanding. It is those who are capable of learning from the experience of future struggles in order to participate in the creation of theory Z.

I recently participated in a conversation that considered three different theories of Black liberation: (1) the focus of the struggle should be on the development of a New African republic in the US South; (2) the whole concept of the nation state is outmoded and the Black lumpenproletariat will be the primary revolutionary subject because the lumpenproletariat has nothing to lose; and (3) the central actor in the Black revolution will be the working class on the continent of Africa. Why should we allow those who genuinely want to pursue a revolution for Black liberation to be divided into different competing factions because they hold alternative theories of this kind? Why can’t we agree to unite to advance all of the possibilities through a collective effort to generate struggles we can all support/participate in, letting the struggle for Black liberation itself reveal how it will unfold as it actually does unfold?

The same pattern—of building disciplined factions based on a specific theory of revolution—exists on the Marxist left. MUG is a prime example. Wouldn’t it be better to agree that none of us actually know how the future will unfold? It is fine to develop working hypotheses and orient ourselves accordingly. But we should acknowledge that determining which, if any, of these working hypotheses is a valid prediction of future events is quite impossible for us today. So we will simultaneously work to build a united collective that acknowledges any and all reasonable working hypotheses, allow individual factions within our united collective to pursue specific strategies as needed in order to test out the validity of their own specific theory, while simultaneously maintaining an overarching revolutionary unity based on the struggles and demands we can all support—allowing the road to the future to be revealed by the future itself

How do we identify this cohort—one capable of understanding that our working hypotheses cannot be treated as absolute truths and, because of this collective understanding, working to develop the new theory we need based on a future experience that has yet to reveal itself to us—so that we can include them in our conversation about programmatic development? The problems posed by that question are complex indeed. I cannot identify the specific groups and individuals who have this capability for you and you cannot identify them for me. We are all going to be discovering who is who (from this point of view) as we proceed with a discussion about the potential for a common program accompanied by a shared experience.

This suggests that we have to cast a wide net at the beginning of the process, being as inclusive as possible. This is one reason why MUG's specific focus on DSA as the exclusive place to develop a programmatic discussion today is, in my view, seriously misplaced. In addition to potential revolutionaries in DSA, a current making such an attempt in a country as diverse as the US must, if it wants to have any reasonable chance to advance a process of revolutionary unity, attempt (at a minimum, and actually succeed in at least a few cases) to engage the participation of Black revolutionary currents; Chicano, Puerto Rican, and indigenous revolutionary currents; liberation theologians; anarchists; eco-feminists; various additional factions that come out of the history of organizational splits in the Marxist movement (not the hardened sects and cults but those who are genuinely capable of listening to others and learning from a collective discussion/experience); along with at least a few others for whom DSA is not, and is unlikely to become, a reference point. This is necessary because at least some of the people who are currently engaged in these kinds of formations are likely to be part of the future development of a more up-to-date and unifying theory. . The more we expand our conception of who needs to be involved the more impossible the method pursued by MUG in this case becomes—that MUG, acting on its own, will convene a committee that sits down to write the first draft of a program to start the discussion.

The most MUG might reasonably expect to accomplish with this draft program, therefore, is to win an additional layer of DSA members who are already predisposed to entertain the idea that their organization needs a revolutionary program, and can also be convinced that the fight for a new constitution should be a (perhaps “the”) central element in that program, thus recruiting more members to the MUG faction. No one can object to MUG making an effort to recruit more people to its faction. However, if MUG begins to pretend to itself that it is doing something else, i.e. that by presenting this faction program it is beginning a discussion that actually has some potential to unite revolutionaries in DSA or even the revolutionary left in the US, the same effort cannot avoid turning into a sectarian project. Nothing else can be the result when one faction takes it on itself to unilaterally determine that its preconceptions will be the starting point for such a collective conversation.

3) The Kind of Program We Need and How We Can Develop It

In October 2024, I received an email as part of a private correspondence with Mike Macnair, leader of the Communist Party of Great Britain (CPGB), which contained a vision of programmatic development that can give us a glimpse of an alternative method. I quote it with Mike's permission:

The method we (CPGB) propose is the creation of a pro-party formation on the basis of a short summary political programme, with open polemic on political and theoretical differences within it of the degree and sharpness of the Second International and the early Third (or, indeed, of the IMT versus the LTF in the 1970s USFI).

If we amplify this only slightly, to explicitly include an aspect that would seem to be implied, it then offers us a clear alternative way forward in tune with all that has been said above: the short summary political program we base our organizing efforts around should include questions of historical assessment or ideology on which there are differences that require the kind of open polemic described only if there is some compelling need to do so based on the immediate tasks of a revolutionary collective. In that case, but only in that case, it is correct to develop majority and minority programmatic perspectives pending further discussion/experience. Otherwise, such matters should simply be left to the process of open political and theoretical debate combined with experience, not taken up as part of the program.

I note however that in practice the “draft programme” of the CPGB does not follow the method suggested by my modest addition. The CPGB program includes, instead, a whole host of historical and theoretical assessments that are hardly essential for a united revolutionary party.^[1] The end result is a faction program reflecting the ideology of the CPGB—just like every other faction of the revolutionary left which offers us a program.

I am forced to conclude, therefore, that the approach I am calling for is not actually implied in the words Mike sent me as I thought when I first read them. It needs to be explicitly added. By not following this method CPGB makes the same mistake as MUG did with the development of its draft program—assuming that an adequate program for a broader formation can be developed by a group of individuals who share the ideas of a single tendency or faction. In an article titled “Programme for the Class” published in Weekly Worker more than four decades ago, the CPGB frames its programmatic goals in precisely these terms: “The formulating of such a weighty document as the Draft programme ought to serve as an example to other left groups – many are committed in theory to the creation of a mass revolutionary party, but in reality focus their main energy on building their own sect.” And:

The draft stands as a permanent challenge to them: we believe this document provides the basis for common action to take forward the struggle of our class up to the point where it can challenge for power and beyond. If you disagree with our proposals, put forward your own alternative. But doing nothing to end the criminal division of Marxist revolutionaries into numerous grouplets is not an option.

The test of a method designed to “end the criminal division of Marxist revolutionaries into numerous grouplets” can, after more than four decades, reasonably be measured by how well it succeeded. What would be the balance sheet on the approach described by the CPGB—of each individual faction offering up its own program in an attempt to address the division of revolutionary forces? To me it seems obvious that this method has to be judged a failure. CPGB's pursuit of it has simply perpetuated the tendency to focus on constructing organizations that are united around specific ideological reference points (most, but not all, thereby transforming themselves into sects) in contrast to a broader revolutionary formation.

I would therefore like to suggest that we try a different approach: to begin a cross-tendency dialogue that simply poses a series of programmatic issues to start with, placing all currents of thought on an equal footing. Some examples of the kind of issues we should place on the table at the outset: do we support the right of oppressed nations to self-determination (with all the subordinate questions of what do we mean by the term “nation” or “self-determination”)? What social group do we consider to be the main “revolutionary subject”? Do we need to have agreement on this in order to create a common revolutionary organization? How do we define the term “revolutionary”? And what is the relationship between a revolutionary struggle and struggles for reform? What is the proper relationship between a “vanguard organization” and the mass movement? How does a “vanguard organization” establish its proper claim to that status?

We must remain conscious at the outset that we aren’t going to agree on most of these questions. Each tendency/faction/individual should, therefore, consider what, in their judgment, is essential and what is secondary with regard to each issue that is up for discussion. As we proceed we will continually assess: do we share enough in common with others in terms of what is essential, (considering the content rather than arguing over terminology—see section four below for a case in point) to overcome our organizational divisions, developing a common program that stresses the elements we share in common, while leaving the rest for an ongoing process of discussion/experience?

It seems to me that this has the possibility, at least, to be a more productive method if our goal is to explore the potential of overcoming the “criminal division” of the revolutionary left in both Britain and the US in the year 2025. Let's make the issues we agree on the starting point for any discussions about revolutionary unity, along with a collective commitment to a method of engaging in sharp political debates on other matters without becoming enemies, while basing all of our debates on a shared political experience.

4) The "Minimum-Maximum" Program Format

Finally, let's consider another issue that was raised in “Programme for the Class.” In this case it reflects a difficulty with an easy fix, in my view, because the conflict that is being discussed results strictly from a terminological misunderstanding:

Orthodox Trotskyists totally disapprove of this ‘minimum’ section of the Draft programme (although many seem to agree with large parts of its actual content), believing that the mere existence of such a section damns the organisation upholding it as incorrigibly reformist. Of course, this ignores the fact that the Bolsheviks themselves favoured the minimum-maximum format. In practice, however, the so-called ‘transitional demands’ of such comrades frequently end up bowing to spontaneity, echoing whatever calls are currently being heard within the working class.

I start this part of our conversation by informing readers of Cosmonaut that as an unorthodox Trotskyist I have concluded that I have no problem with the way CPGB and MUG formulate the idea of a “minimum program.” But I will also report that I had to engage in some considerable intellectual struggle before I could reach that conclusion. I am hoping that if I explain how I was able to resolve the apparent contradiction I perceived when I first encountered MUG's approach it will become clear that there is a serious flaw in the sentence about the Bolsheviks above—a flaw which distorts the way the Weekly Worker article considers the objections of “orthodox Trotskyists.”

In other private correspondence with Macnair, I clarified for myself that the term “minimum program,” as the collective MUG/CPGB current is using it, refers to the minimum program needed in order for a dictatorship of the proletariat to establish itself.^[2] That appreciation of what our understanding of the term “minimum program,” when used by MUG/CPGB, ought to be is reinforced by two references in MUG’s introduction to the program adopted at its recent congress (emphasis added in both quotes): “We consider the pillars of this Draft Program to be it’s expression of the minimum-maximum format (elaborated below) and its radical democratic demands—the revolutionary reorganization of the state, consummated in a democratic constitution, along the lines which will allow for the rule of the working class over society.”

Followed by:

The minimum program is the set of radical democratic and economic demands which, while individually achievable under capitalism, taken together form the basis for a revolutionary rupture with current society and the establishment of a democratic worker’s republic. In the long run, they also represent the minimum basis for our Party’s taking responsibility for government.

There is no other way for a Marxist to think about “the rule of the working class over society” or “the establishment of a democratic worker’s republic” except as an expression of the proletarian dictatorship.

That was not, however, the conception of a “minimum program” when that term was used by the Bolsheviks in pre-revolutionary Russia, and this is the source of some considerable misunderstanding. The Bolsheviks collectively believed, until April 1917, that an anti-Tsarist revolution in Russia could not possibly create the dictatorship of the proletariat. The level of Russian social development would limit the potential of this revolutionary moment to the creation of a bourgeois-democratic republic. The term “minimum program” in that context identified a set of demands that would be made by the working class as a prerequisite to their full support to such a bourgeois-democratic revolution. Thus the parallel set up in the quote above between the Bolshevik “minimum program” and the CPGB/MUG “minimum program” is inaccurate.

An alternative to the pre-April Bolshevik theory—that the coming Russian revolution would be limited to the establishment of a bourgeois-democratic republic, and that a “minimum program” was therefore needed to develop the demands working people would make on such a republic—was developed by Trotsky with his theory of “permanent revolution.” Trotsky argued that a proletarian dictatorship could take power in Russia as the result of an anti-Tsarist revolution, provided the revolution spread to Western Europe, thus enabling the Russian working class to overcome the economic and social backwardness of their nation. Further, a proletarian dictatorship was needed even to simply complete the bourgeois-democratic revolution in Russia, because the Russian bourgeoisie was too weak as a class to accomplish this task.

Thus I completely understand why “orthodox Trotskyists” respond badly to the idea of a “minimum-maximum program” when this concept is raised today by MUG and CPGB—especially when MUG/CPGB reference the Bolshevik's “minimum-maximum program” as a historical precedent. Such Trotskyists assume that the idea of a contemporary “minimum program” is, like the Bolshevik's “minimum program,” based on a need to limit ourselves to demands focused on the completion of the bourgeois-democratic revolution (the establishment of bourgeois democracy) and thus “incorrigibly reformist.” As noted, however, this badly misjudges the nature of the call by MUG and CPGB for a contemporary “minimum program” as demonstrated by my correspondence with Macnair and our assessment of the quotes from MUG’s introduction above.

We can see, therefore, that the misunderstanding here is mutual and therefore self-reinforcing in any conversation between MUG/CPGB and “orthodox Trotskyists”: both currents believe there is a parallel between the idea of a “minimum-maximum program” when raised in pre-revolutionary Russia and today. One puts a plus sign next to this parallel, the other puts a minus sign. But both the plus and the minus are incorrect because, in fact, there is no parallel to begin with.^[3]

As a means to overcome this misunderstanding—two currents who are using the words “minimum program” to mean two completely different things—allow me to suggest that we might agree to call what MUG/CPGB are projecting “the immediate program of a democratic workers’ republic” while also projecting a companion “longer range program of a democratic workers’ republic.” I believe that if MUG and CPGB make this terminological shift, which is completely compatible with their theoretical outlook (if I understand that outlook correctly), they will discover that the objections of “orthodox Trotskyists” to their “minimum program” disappear. It is also possible, of course, for all the orthodox Trotskyists to come to the same conclusion I have, simply acknowledging that the two uses of the term “minimum program” are not the same. To me, however, it seems a bit more difficult to change the ideological appreciation of many currents—especially when MUG/CPGB insist that in their view the two uses of the term are the same—when a simple terminological fix by one current will achieve the same result. I therefore make this appeal to MUG/CPGB.

It also seems important to note another reason why the words “minimum program” require a trigger warning for those of us who still identify with Trotskyist history—whether we consider ourselves “orthodox” or otherwise. The idea of a program that would limit itself to demands that are compatible with a bourgeois-democratic republic became the hallmark of the Stalinist “popular front” policy that derailed many potentially revolutionary struggles beginning in the mid-1930s. This approach, too, was “incorrigibly reformist.” It was rooted in the idea that to pursue the struggle against fascist dictatorship the working class must cement an alliance with liberal elements in the ruling class, requiring the workers' organizations to limit themselves to an immediate set of demands that would be compatible with continued rule by the “progressive bourgeoisie.” The battle against this variety of reformism—which remains a considerable force within the workers' movement to this day—was one of the defining characteristics of Trotskyism as a historical current. The fact that MUG and CPGB are not among these reformist forces in the year 2025 is clear to me from all of their actions—and especially from their acknowledgment that the “minimum program” must be one that can lead to the establishment of a “workers’ democratic republic”—though I repeat that I too was confused initially by the terminology of a “minimum/maximum program.” I can therefore understand once again why many who identify with a Trotskyist tradition continue to assume that MUG/CPGB's “minimum program” is of the reformist variety. The same adoption of a new terminology suggested above will resolve this misunderstanding too.

Finally, let me pose a modest objection to the CPGB's rejection of “transitional demands” in the quote above. Once again we should address ourselves to the substance of a question rather than the terms used to describe it.

It's certainly true that many who call for a “transitional program” will “frequently end up bowing to spontaneity.” It does not follow, however, that their error flows from the concept of a transitional program itself. After all, most activists who end up bowing to spontaneity as described have never even heard of a transitional program. It's an easy mistake to make, with roots that are far deeper than mistaken terminology. Let us note further that many who claim to believe in the concept “dictatorship of the proletariat” end up establishing a dictatorship over the proletariat. Do we therefore reject the concept? Many who tell us they are practicing “democratic centralism” end up creating the worst kinds of bureaucratic sects, and many who have embraced the concept of a “minimum program” end up trapped in a purely reformist political practice. In all of these cases we should work hard to combat the incorrect application of a particular concept or theory without drawing any conclusion that the concepts themselves are to blame for the errors made by specific currents or individuals.

The idea of a transitional programmatic method was conceived in the Comintern during its first four congresses, at a time when the Third International was still a venue for the development of revolutionary ideas. It was rooted in the actual method embraced by the Bolsheviks as they called for “All Power to the Soviets” after April 1917. The idea of a “transitional program” was later codified and given its name by the Trotskyist movement. Like any concept, it can be used well or it can be used badly. The fact that it is often used badly hardly invalidates the concept. That there is an affinity between the actual demands in the “minimum program” of CPGB/MUG and a transitional method properly understood is demonstrated by the fact, noted in“Programme for the Class,” that “many [orthodox Trotskyists] seem to agree with large parts of [the minimum program's] actual content.”

Let's move forward in our programmatic conversations by embracing all of that commonality, rather than drawing battle lines over what to call the things we agree on. The continuation of our existence as individual factions engaged primarily in building our own organizations is completely unjustified. If MUG/CPGB's concept of a “minimum-maximum program” and the Trotskyist concept of a “transitional program” lead us to a struggle for the same social objectives, we should each hold out a hand to the other in an effort to forge a common revolutionary political current.

1. Some examples: “Despite its early limitations and later failures, as an organisation the CPGB is undoubtedly the highest achievement of the workers’ movement in Britain”; “The October 1917 revolution in Russia marked the beginning of the present epoch. Socialism was transformed from the realm of theory to that of practice. However, the workers’ state in backward Russia was left in asphyxiating isolation. Social democracy betrayed the goal of socialism for the sake of gaining substantive reforms within capitalism. A whole raft of reforms were in fact conceded. The capitalist class was determined that there should be no more Octobers”; “A prerequisite for the final victory of the working class is winning power in the advanced countries. Only here has capitalism fully proletarianised the bulk of the population and accumulated the wealth needed for communism. The working class can come to power in backward or medium-developed countries. But such salients will prove short-lived unless revolution follows in advanced capitalist countries”; “The socialist revolution must triumph in a tranche of advanced countries if it is not to suffer deformation and counterrevolution in one form or another. National revolutions are therefore best coordinated and where possible synchronised”; “When the post-World War II boom came to an end, Britain no longer enjoyed the option it had in the 1930s of cushioning itself through the system of empire preference. British capitalism had to renew the class struggle at home. A whole swathe of Britain’s industrial base was sacrificed so as to undermine trade union power.”

   ↩

2. See weeklyworker.co.uk/worker/1502/in-search-of-a-synthesis/ under the subhead “misunderstanding” where I document this.

   ↩

3. I recently published another article in Cosmonaut taking up the theory of Lars Lih, who asserts that there was a fundamental theoretical continuity between Lenin's “struggle for democracy” before and after April 1917. This reflects the same error made by the CPGB article. Taking a look at what's wrong with Lih's theory will thus help us understand what's wrong with the assertion above about the Bolshevik's “minimum program” too.

   ↩