Indybag: The Myth of Left Unity: Why Toxic Gatekeepers are the Disease, Not the Cure
The chatter is everywhere, even now, as the new “Your Party” conference dominates the headlines. For decades, every time the left has been smashed by the establishment, the same tired delusion resurfaces: “If only we could all just unite!” We’re told that a single, glorious, pure vehicle—a Left Unity party—is the answer to all our prayers.
I’m sorry, but that idea is a load of shit.
Let me be clear: a truly comprehensive Left Unity party, as many activists currently conceive of it, is impossible at present. And honestly, thank God for that. The simple fact is, any grouping that attempted to include certain established fringe organizations and personalities would immediately inherit decades of their inbuilt toxicity, sectarianism, and anti-democratic rot.
The Gatekeeper Problem: Purity Over People
The major obstacle isn’t ideology—it’s organizational culture. Certain groups have long operated with a disastrous sense of perceived ownership over the very concepts of “left” and “socialism.” These are the gatekeepers, the political dinosaurs who believe the movement must pass through their narrow, often toxic, ideological filter.
The result? Any structure that includes them spends more time fighting internal, purity-driven wars; often around issues of accusations of internal misogyny, anti-democratic procedure, or bullying – than it does fighting the actual class enemy. These groups don’t understand democracy; they understand control. They don’t want compromise; they want conquest. In my experience, they are more interested in shouting down a trans activist or settling a 40-year-old schism than in organizing a local food bank. Why, in the name of political sanity, would we invite that poison back into the new vessel?
A More Modest, Democratic Ambition
This is why my cynicism is, for once, guarded. What we are seeing now – or what we should be aiming at – is in my opinion not a “unity party” at this juncture, but a compromise-driven democratic structure. This means creating the biggest possible, most democratic grouping of people who are prepared to set aside the sectarian past for the sake of the future. The compromise isn’t ideological; it’s behavioral.
Frankly, in Scotland, I’m still not convinced we need this new electoral vehicle yet. I feel a better, immediate step would be a Congress of the Democratic Left—a serious, non-electoral movement bringing together the autonomous, least toxic activist groups alongside sympathetic figures and individuals operating inside the wider parties (the progressive wings of the SNP, the Greens, the democratic left in Labour, etc.). Such a forum would be the perfect interim call, provided it’s not rushed into becoming an election machine -at least not well before it’s built its foundation. Our best chance for coherent action right now might still lie with the established, but progressive, structures like the STUC (Scottish Trades Union Congress), even if these larger structures can sometimes seem archaic and exclusive.
The Cost of Purity and Necessary Exclusion
The proof of this required caution lies in the real-world exclusions that define this space. When attempts at new broad left platforms happen, there are always voices protesting that their group has been deliberately kept out. Yet, often, that exclusion is a necessary act of self-defense by the new alliance.
As one commentator, familiar with the bitter schisms that plague socialist movements, recently noted about the perpetual failure of the left to govern effectively: “The pursuit of ideological purity often ends up being indistinguishable from political self-sabotage.” When another major figure publicly stated that they refused to participate because they could not align with the “sectarian, anti-democratic instincts” of certain other organizations, it confirmed that the toxicity is not a myth—it is a verifiable, institutional reality.
The organizations being excluded from the table often contain the very groups whose legacy is defined by misogyny, sectarian abuse, and a refusal to acknowledge the pluralism of the 21st-century movement. Their exclusion, therefore, isn’t a failure of “unity”—it’s a prerequisite for viability.
We need to send a clear message: the door is open to individuals who believe in a democratic, socialist, and progressive future, regardless of their old party card, but it is firmly slammed shut on the gatekeepers and the sectarian arse-holery that has held back the working-class movement for decades. If this new political vehicle embraces that necessary self-discipline, then maybe, just maybe, we can finally stop fighting yesterday’s battles -and each other-and start winning tomorrow’s.
