The first socialist organisation nationally in Britain. Orthodox Marxist-ish. Most of its remnants took part in the formation of the Communist Party. Details.
This cheat sheet is neither complete nor objective, and can never be either.
A British Left Cheat Sheet.
Spotted an error, something out of date or missing, or want to suggest a change to the website? Fill in the form below.
Please note we do not guarantee your suggestion will be reflected in a change to the site.
The British far left is very small, and smaller still is the number of anti-capitalists (communists, socialists, anarchists, etc) organised into explicitly anti-capitalist organisations. Nevertheless, these organisations often punch far above their weight. Because of the small size of the British left more generally, even a hundred people in a coordinated effort can make an impact, whether in community campaigns, trade unions, student organising, or other political parties.
If you are active on the political left or the workers' movement, you will encounter members of left groups, and it is useful to know who you are talking to and where they may be coming from. This cheat sheet aims to assist with this.
The cheat sheet only covers general political, national organisations. It therefore doesn't include local or regional groups, specific campaigns, publications, unions, or personal/private networks that an individual activist has no way of getting involved with.
Other useful resources include the Unofficial Guide to the British Left (2024); the Splits and Fusions blog (regularly updated); Libcom.com's satirical (and now outdated) Trotspotting: Everything you always wanted to know about sects (but were afraid to ask) (2009); and others you can probably find.
If you spot an error or want to make a suggestion, please let us know here.
It does seem slightly insane, but there are many understandable reasons for this situation, which we can simplify and summarise in 12 points.
1) Basic differences: some groups do and believe very different things, so they have their own niche and have no reason to merge or dissolve. For example, a direct action group sabotaging fossil fuel infrastructure, and a socialist faction in an electoral party;
2) Big fish, small pond: some groups have existed for a long time and have come out of very specific traditions; they have old, entrenched leadership who aren't interested in becoming smaller fish in a bigger pond, and a membership that doesn't want to be a minority in a larger organisation that they would not feel is their political home. The group may also have existing influence and positions in campaigns, trade unions etc, that they don't want to give up;
3) Tyranny of small differences: some groups are constituted on the basis of agreement around a hyper specific set of beliefs about the world, history, geopolitics, social theory, etc, and won't accept diluting this agreement by merging with others. Nor would they dissolve, because this specific set of beliefs is seen as justification for their particular existence. This also helps to explain how groups proliferate so easily from these types of organisations: if members come to slightly disagree, a split occurs and a new organisation is formed;
4) Quiet sectarianism: many groups are not interested in engaging with other groups, because they worry that it will alienate 'ordinary people' or 'the masses', or because they don't want to give credibility to competing groups. Instead, they pretend they are the only anti-capitalist organisation that exists and speak only to 'the masses', which they hope to recruit. With this strategy, there is no opportunity to clarify political differences, or even to establish a justification for the group’s existence vs other groups, so similar organisations proliferate;
5) Unity of what?: while some groups are constituted around high-level theoretical agreement, others are bound together by shared tactics, others still by a small number of political points of unity, and others again by no explicit politics at all: shared friendship groups, personal networks, and vibes. The question of merging with or dissolving into another group is therefore complicated, because it’s unclear what type or basis of agreement may be required;
6) Fudged unity: when working together on campaigns or electoral projects, groups will sometimes agree 'unity' on a lowest-common-denominator politics, watering down their principles and anti-capitalism. They do not work through, or sometimes even debate, their substantive political differences, and they maintain their own organisational structures, so quickly and easily split;
7) Group patriotism: groups cultivate varying degrees of pride in their history and politics, and a sense of purpose and identity for their members, so the idea of dissolving or merging is difficult psychologically;
8) Old social clubs: especially the longest-standing and smallest groups, though they may have attracted no new members for decades, are engaging for the existing members because those members have known each other for many years and enjoy working and meeting together;
9) New social clubs: much of the British left today operates on a 'who you know' basis, where personal networks and friendship groups of highly committed or professional activists organise new projects with comrades they know, trust, and have worked with before. This is instead of joining and working in existing organisations, where they may have to be in a minority, win arguments, and generally operate in a more 'political' and less socially comfortable way. This leads to the duplication of similar groups;
10) This one will do it: ironically, because of the disorganisation of the left, and the lack of a mass anti-capitalist organisation, frustrated activists may think to form a new organisation, which will at last address the disconnect between the organised anti-capitalists and the mass of people. Of course, this just creates another competing group.
11) The unifiers?: there are not many groups that are actively looking to work with others with the aim to reverse this disorganisation of the left. Some groups are hypothetically committed to building a future larger organisation beyond themselves, but see this as the product of future crisis or revolutionary moment that would throw people together by necessity. Building unity now is therefore not the priority, or even desirable;
12) The conditions: the largest merger/dissolution of anti-capitalist groups in Britain was in 1920 to form the Communist Party, but this was at a time of both optimism and urgency, during a time of revolutions across the world, and with the support of an international mass communist organisation (the Communist International). None of these conditions exist today.
The early socialist movement in Britain (in the latter half of the 1800s) had a similar structure of many, many small competing groups. This problem lessened, especially in the early 20th century, but has since returned. It is not an inevitable and unchangeable fact about the British left.
The New Left marked a distinct shift in the left after widespread disillusionment in official Communism following the 1956 Soviet invasion of Hungary and the Secret Speech, and the return of women's and Black liberation movements in Britain. Almost all its organisations are now sadly defunct. Details.
For the purposes of this cheat sheet, a cadre organisation is a political organisation in which members are expected to act on and agitate around the programme of the organisation, recruit to it, and self-educate around its principles.
Many, but not all, British socialist cadre organisations are based on 'democratic centralism'. While the meaning of this term is highly disputed, in this context it largely means: a ban on permanent member-organised factions; leadership elected through a 'slate' system where the current leadership often proposes itself and its allies without competing slates/candidates; some open discussion permitted in the lead up to a national conference; but crucially, subsequent adherence in action (and often in public speech) to the agreed positions at the national conference ('the line'). Criticism of the line could lead to a warning or expulsion. Sometimes, the programme and political line of the cadre organisation can include anything from strategic approaches to highly theoretical positions on historical questions or on world affairs. Due to the high levels of commitment required, cadre organisations will often punch far above their weight compared to their membership size, especially compared to the other types of organisation. Equally, the loyalty to and power of leadership figures (and to/of the democratic centralist cadre organisation itself) can lead to abuse and cover-ups.
More democratic and transparent forms of democratic centralism are also possible, but less common.
A tradition with a diverse array of historical influences and origins, most commonly united by a rejection of the state and political parties. Modern British anarchism is in part a legacy of both the anti-parliamentary left of the communist movement and British syndicalist movement of the early 20th century, amongst other influences.
Within anarchism, platformism advocates the need for a specifically anarchist organisation, which should have a unifying platform that members agitate for. Meanwhile synthesis anarchist argues for an explicitly anarchist organisation but without such a high level of unity. Syndicalism is often considered a type of anarchism that emphasises the role of the revolutionary trade union. Other anarchists reject the need for any specifically revolutionary organisation. Details.
The tradition of the official communist world movement during the Cold War, led by the USSR. The main British organisation in this tradition was the old communist party (Communist Party of Great Britain), which dissolved in 1991. Derogatorily known as Stalinism and its proponents as 'tankies'.
Within Marxism-Leninism, anti-revisionism is often associated with Maoism and Hoxhaism and rejects the more moderate leadership of the USSR after Stalin, and China after it's liberalisation under Deng Xiaoping. It often supports the approach of Maoist China, Hoxha's Albania and more hard-line Communist and anti-imperialist state projects. Details.
Beginning with Leon Trotsky's critique of Stalin's rule of the USSR, Trotskyism represents a Marxist tradition variously critical of both sides during the Cold War.
In Britain, Trotskyism split into three in 1950, led by Ted Grant, Tony Cliff, and Gerry Healy respectively. Almost all Trotskyist groups in Britain trace their origin to one of these splits. The Grantites' most influential organisation was Militant (AKA the Revolutionary Socialist League), and its entryism into Labour, which in the 1980s led to a number of MPs and control of Liverpool Council. The Cliffites' most influential organisation is the Socialist Workers Party (previously named the International Socialists). The Healyites' most influential organisation is the Workers Revolutionary Party, which mostly collapsed after Healy was exposed as a serial sexual abuser and cultish leader.
Lesser known, there are other Trotskyist traditions that have arisen mainly through important international splits in the Trotskyist movement. The Spartacists, most notably of the Spartacist League, are a result of the split in the American Socialist Workers Party in the 1960s and are known for their hyper polemical style, and this meme. The Cannonites follow the tradition of James P. Cannon, who founded the American Socialist Workers Party. The Mandelites meanwhile are associated with the Belgian Marxist Ernst Mandel and arguably the main continuation of Trotsky's original Fourth International. The Mandelites most influential organisation was the International Marxist Group, which played a notable role in the New Left of the 60s and 70s, and continues today as Socialist Action. Details.