The British left has seen better days. Your Party, having taken a sizable chunk of the far-left’s time since summer 2025, is decomposing before our eyes. Taking the inverse of the First International’s rule, “that the emancipation of the working classes must be conquered by the working classes themselves,” as its dictum, it refused to yield any sovereignty to its membership. It failed to even become an electoral vehicle, as the squabbles between the left and right of the leadership (each orienting itself around Zarah Sultana and Jeremy Corbyn, respectively) evaporated any political content, transforming two completely different visions of left politics into a leadership competition for a “party” that couldn’t even be bothered to share with its membership the necessary support to form viable branches. By the sorry end, the Corbynite leadership could only congratulate itself when some “backed” candidates of separate community campaigns got council seats, irrespective of Your Party’s existence. In the meantime, the Green Party of England and Wales is surging in membership, hoping to galvanise enough support for a green “populist” programme. Most worryingly, a Reform UK government is slowly creeping towards us. 

How much steam do the Greens still have? Will they cave again to the pressures of managing local councils, implementing austerity cuts? Will they move to the right as a Green government or a Green-involved coalition becomes a possibility to “stop Reform”? Meanwhile, the far left, in all its variety, remains fragmented and organisationally dispersed, despite an objective need for unity in a common political and intellectual project. The same far-left organisations that built Your Party proto-branches and gave life to that moribund entity will likely return to reproducing themselves and pursuing single-issue movements, never consolidating into a national organisation that could act against the British state.

If the above sounds grim, it does, on the one hand, reflect a perennial cycle of political optimism and pessimism. Today we find ourselves jumping between Marx’s often-(mis)quoted “the English working class will never accomplish anything”¹ and Steban, the Student Communist from Disco Elysium: “In dark times, should the stars also go out?” On the other hand, it also reflects the negative outcomes of both last year’s The World Transformed (TWT) and the Your Party founding conference. If there is a lesson to be learned, it is that the left in Britain needs to start organising not around reactive coalitions, but instead thinking seriously about what we need to put forward our own politics and our political project. 

The Furies of the British left – sect reproduction, programmatic incoherence, the endless cycle of broad left projects that absorb and dissipate radical energy – cannot simply be banished by an act of will. They persist because they perform real organisational functions in the absence of anything better. It is only by struggling against them that we can solve both the question of left disunity and the political decomposition and subordination of the proletariat in Britain and internationally.

Let The Dancers Inherit The Party²

In mid-October 2025, at TWT, thousands came together to discuss the way forward for the left, including how we relate to Your Party and the Greens. Comrades from socialist organisations³, renters unions and diaspora groups came together to sharpen their analysis of how to resist the Zionist entity’s genocide in Gaza and an increasingly repressive Labour Government. An innovation on the previous year’s TWT, three assemblies were held to debate how socialist politics can develop in Britain. Before and after TWT, attendees and sympathisers alike formed political factions to help democratise the process of founding Your Party, strengthening its political foundation, and drawing lines of demarcation around trans liberation, ecosocialism, and anti-imperialism. Over forty submissions were made to discuss various aspects of left strategy and historic disorganisation, exploring what a new left party could have become.

As Lewis Hodder captured: “it became clear that the class consciousness of large sections of the room exceeds the movement’s leaders”.⁴ The room vibrated with the stirrings of a will to build something committed to a socialist horizon, not a merely electoralist project content to operate within the existing order, but a party capable of building a hegemonic bloc that refuses to leave any of the oppressed behind. By the end of the third assembly, several of these groups drafted a provisional Unity Platform⁵, which the final TWT assembly overwhelmingly endorsed – a first, fragile moment of (frankly quite rare) unification among otherwise dispersed forces.

The World Transformed was one of a few moments that gave me hope of communist unity in recent years, but as I slowly left Hulme, I started thinking that we could’ve done more. Future events validated this hunch as Your Party underwent a frankly outstanding sequence of tragedies and farces. While there was shared communication between the Your Party factions that lasted for some time, there was a failure to formally cohere the dispersed left forces into a unified political project by the end of TWT. The activists who chose to engage in Your Party often simply chose a faction based on their respective ideological niche and started preparing for the founding conference, but they missed an opportunity to go beyond assembly speeches and turn The World Transformed itself into an embryo of a communist-party-to-be. We should’ve left TWT with a vehicle for the attendees to fight for and start a process of uniting TWT into something more than a festival, something that could’ve set the agenda within the socialist movement. What happened instead is that we left TWT with limited coordination or impactful apparatus and spent our remaining interventions on the defensive, hoping to salvage some sort of structural window in Your Party to allow us to articulate our politics within it.

As Britain ramps up more support for genocidal war in West Asia, and as a fuel and food crisis is right up on our doorstep, we need to take this popular discontent and provide a positive initiative uniting left forces to demand peace and bread as we confront the capitalist class and the British State. With TWT27 already being planned, we need to ensure that for the next time the British far left decides to congregate, it leaves with a vehicle capable of embedding itself in class struggle, armed with a communist programme.⁶

We Only Want To Make You Happy

By last November, the original Unity Platform agreed at TWT slowly evaporated and a second Unity initiative, led by various far-left groups and building on the momentum of the original platform, emerged – the Socialist Unity Platform (SUP).⁷ This initiative aimed to intervene directly in the Your Party founding conference with a shared programme and an organised fringe.⁸ I won’t try to offer a detailed account⁹ of the shenanigans during the founding conference and the CEC elections, but instead argue that due to the lack of unity – especially on institutional terms after TWT – we spend a sizable chunk of 2025 being on a Your Party salvage operation instead of being on the offensive.

Starting with the Founding Conference, standing orders were not put to the members, emergency motions were banned, and any speakers who dared to criticise the unelected leadership were interrupted and the livestream cut off (a comical thing to experience via YouTube Live). The conference did yield some left-wing wins, such as a narrow vote in favour of collective leadership, a commitment to solidarity with trans people and for the party to be explicitly socialist. It remained unclear what the “left” intervention was at the conference beyond supporting various motions. The clique around Corbyn prioritised their ‘roadmap amendments’, which allowed them to set the agenda despite member opposition, most notably on dual membership, where the “choice” was between no dual membership and a CEC-approved list. What we ended up with was, as Ewan Ben argued, “not a party in any theoretically serious sense of the term. It ha[d] no programme. Its founding documents defer[ed] every substantive political question to future processes that have not been specified.”¹⁰

After that farce, we proceeded to the tragedy, the Central Executive Committee (CEC) elections. The Your Party membership could choose from independent candidates and candidates of two slates: a Corbynite-led The Many and a DSYP-aligned Grassroots Left (GL). Again, the lack of an apparatus capable of translating politics to people in and around Your Party led the existing left to conjure up various positions ranging from a boosterist support for Zarah Sultana and GL, to critical support for the GL slate, to arguing that somehow both slates are necessary for Your Party to succeed. It is unclear whether this messaging went beyond the social bases of each organisation and was translated into mobilisation in the Your Party branches themselves. 

To no one’s particular surprise, Corbyn’s The Many slate won a majority as Your Party continued to haemorrhage members into the aether and the Greens. No “trusted independent, third-party company” had been hired to oversee the election. This, combined with The Many controlling the membership data and digital infrastructure, and the Peace & Justice Project leveraging emails and text messages, meant the result was not a major surprise. On the other hand, the Grassroots Left had none of this, definitely not to the same scale. What it had was the mobilisation of the TWT caucuses left, mostly DSYP militants. Suffering from the consequences of coming out of TWT with no vehicle to mobilise within the proto-branches and building popular mass support for our politics, we lost to the sheer institutional capacity of The Many to win members over to their vision of Your Party. What the few CEC reports we have so far shown is a top-down approach that completely ignores both GL CEC members and the legitimacy of the proto-branches themselves.

Now we come to the third, and hopefully final act, with the Your Party CEC deciding to invite “all socialists and socialist parties” to build Your Party by declaring that their members are ineligible for membership of Your Party as long as they are members of another left party, a comically malicious reading of the Dual Membership vote of Your Party’s Founding Conference. The “choice” was between liquidation into a political formation with politics much to the right of most existing far left groups (with the CEC opting to produce a top-down list of endorsed candidates from external parties, some notoriously ex-Tories) or being kicked out. Regarding Scotland, the CEC completely ignored the decisions of the Scottish Conference and undermined both the effort of comrades to build Your Party Scotland, despite the bureaucratic incompetence of The Many and orbiting sycophants, and the voted positions of autonomy and Scottish Independence. The unsurprising outcome was that the entire interim Scottish Executive Committee and the CEC representative for Scotland, Niall Christie, resigned the day after.

Throughout this, it became increasingly clear that Corbyn and his clique had no interest in building Your Party as a genuine party, but only as a publicity network for continuity-Corbynism and the careerism of the same social base of Labourite sycophants that constituted his apparatus in the Labour Party. Your Party was not a failed attempt at party-building but the successful institutional capture of a post-Corbynite base politicised from the genocide in Gaza, the cost of living crisis and a repressive Labour government into an apparatus of idolatry to Corbyn and the continuation of his parliamentary politics. With the benefit of hindsight, the past year’s happenings should not have been a surprise, but just the latest manifestation of how the right wing of the socialist movement functions. In his book Revolutionary Strategy, Mike Macnair argued that the right wing “is characterised by persistent use of ultimatums, splits and party, union, etc bureaucratic censorship against the left”.¹¹ More importantly for us, Corbyn’s wing posed themselves as the sole representative of the worker movement and thereby entitled to its position by insisting that the only possible unity required its veto on everything. The Many and Corbyn have continually made the same argument within Your Party, that they are the “true” representatives of the membership and the sympathetic hundreds of thousands in Britain, in contrast to the left of YP, which only reflected the interests of “sectarian” groups. From day one until now, we have been fighting a losing battle because our previous failure at TWT to cohere en masse led us to play the game of building Your Party on the terms of its right-wing. 

The absence of a unified political vehicle that had the infrastructure to both further develop the demands of the TWT Assemblies into a proper political programme and translate that into cadreising the newly born branches meant that every post-TWT intervention was reactive instead of directive. We were forced to operate on the terrain of the internal procedures and milestones set by the dominant force within Your Party – Corbyn’s coterie. We spent time and time again insisting on massive procedural interventions, especially at the Conference, without developing a mechanism to make our politics popular within the wider membership itself. If the British far-left was more united before we attempted to relate to a broad left project, the scales could’ve tipped in our favour slightly more, we could’ve galvanised enough of a social base for a left-wing split, but instead what we got was fragmented attempts at influence by far-left sects at the level of the proto-branch in parallel with the slow evaporation of any capacity from the YP factions – what little capacity was left in DSYP was spent on arguing with each other on Twitter and long abusive rants on their Discord. 

What we learned was the following: reactive politics end up accepting the terrain set by the dominant force, in the case of Your Party, its Corbynite bureaucracy, with every intervention becoming a response to their agenda. The question posed right now is, how can we lead? How do we become capable of setting our own agenda?

Machineries of Joy

For Antonio Gramsci, the question of cadre was intimately tied to the question of organisation and class leadership. Are we oriented towards reproducing the existing distinction between political “leaders” and the working class, or are we producing forms of organisation that allow “the conditions in which this division is no longer necessary”¹² to flourish?

Back in December, Harry Holmes wrote that:

“[T]his moment doesn’t just reveal the historic crisis of leadership; it also reveals a deeper issue: the historical crisis of competence. At every stage of this process, if something could go wrong, it did.

This is not solely for Your Party either, irrespective of your particular political persuasion, whether a soft-left Labourism, one of Britain’s brands of Trotskyism or a more anarchistic flavour, all such traditions are in an organisationally weaker state than several decades ago. This is in terms of the quantity of membership, both of groups and of institutions of the workers’ movement – there is a failure to reproduce. It’s also in terms of quality, the depth of engagement with struggle, inquiry into our moment, and the challenges we face – an inability to cadreise and analyse.”¹³

Unfortunately for the British left, the picture remains the same four months later. Your Party barely exists, while the Greens are primarily preoccupied with electing councillors. The Greens lack an apparatus that disciplines their elected representatives, let alone one that motivates members to engage in its internal political life, with less than 1% of the 200 thousand members attending their recent spring conference.¹⁴ The membership then remains constrained within the political logic of becoming better electoral propagandists during an electoral cycle, which then vanishes to some grassroots organising outside of the party, instead of developing an apparatus that is capable of politicising wider layers to see an alternative to the existing capitalist order. 

A few years ago, Asad Haider argued that with the current socialist movement being unable to sustain the communist hypothesis, i.e. pose an alternative to the existing world, we’re stuck in a position of “adjustment”, a “modification, adjusting things within the parameters of the existing situation. But it also means adjusting oneself to the world that exists”.¹⁵ If neither of the Greens nor Your Party can move us beyond a politics of “adjustment” nor carry Holmes’ call to cadreise and analyse, what will? How do we solve this crisis of competence? 

The present socialist movement is dominated by the prevalence of the sect-form,¹⁶ small socialist groups that often focus on a single section of activity, organising separately and against the socialist movement as a whole. Alongside that, we have various left-of-Labour electoral parties that offer nothing beyond the “adjustment” of the existing order. On the other hand, the political party, for Gramsci, the “modern Prince”, is qualitatively different from either of those options: it is “a complex element of society in which a collective will, which has already been recognised and has to some extent asserted itself in action, begins to take concrete form. History has already provided this organism, and it is the political party – the first cell in which there come together germs of a collective will tending to become universal and total.”¹⁷

 In Your Party, never mind establishing “an ongoing dialectical exchange with the popular initiatives from which the ‘modern Prince’ could emerge and into which it would seek to intervene,”¹⁸ we couldn’t even email our own branch members. Instead of the development of a collective will capable of raising political demands to the level of the State, we got AI-slop and continuity Corbynism. With the Green Party rising in both membership and popularity, how does it answer our wager? With the recent council gains at the May 7th elections, the question remains what hegemonic apparatus it offers. While they will definitely be able to produce effective electoral propagandists, it remains doubtful if they will be able to produce worker-leaders capable of bringing the “good news” of communism: “to make the workers aware of their own world-historical mission, namely, to conquer state power as a class and use it to introduce socialism”.¹⁹ 

If an organism has more than mere vocal cords, then a social organism must not just be a “political voice”²⁰; it must be able to produce a new generation of cadre who can overcome the limits of past organisational forms into one that can unite a collective will against bourgeois hegemony and successfully “recompos[e] class resistance – in the sense of cohering different elements of the working classes in Britain into linked forms of struggle, whilst also constructing collective identification amongst those resisting”.²¹ This social organism must also be able to form a new hegemonic apparatus, not merely a canvassing tool or a homunculus for sect-form recruitment, but the basis for producing mass proletarian intellectuality that enables the possibility of not merely “adjusting” the existing order but accomplishing something that neither the parliamentarist-reformists nor the sect-form can; transcending a politics of merely investing in the spontaneous-corporatist political forms of struggle to a different political level, the formation of a collective will for hegemony, where the question of political power can be posed. 

The “modern Prince” is capable of doing that by becoming what Panagiotis Sotiris termed a “laboratory of political intellectuality”.²² Sotiris argued that, contrary to Sorel, whose “myth” – an ideological-political imagery that would inspire the masses – and politics remain limited to trade union economism and the general strike (a political practice most of the existing sect-forms replicate), Gramsci attempted to think the political function of the party as: “as the terrain par excellence for the elaboration of a collective will capable of being the protagonist of a process of social transformation”. This enables us to go beyond what Holmes called “a sectionalism in activity”, focusing on one arena of struggle while being incapable of expanding to more, but linking the socialist movement together into an apparatus that becomes more than the sum of its parts. Instead of an affinity group, a “general staff of world revolution” or a mere parliamentary vehicle, it becomes a res publica where every member can become a class intellectual, and the theory and practice of a class are unified behind a political programme.

Off We Go Into The Wild Pale Yonder

Recently, Peter Thomas argued that hegemony is a practice of “consolidating social forces and condensing them into political power on a mass basis”²³ and regardless if it is elaborated within civil society, the terrain we usually operate as a socialist movement, it’s guaranteed “in the last instance” by the institutions of political society. Any working-class activity or movement that attempts to cohere or organise these social forces will be seen by the existing political hegemony as a direct challenge to its existence, and it will proceed to attack its political unity, co-opt or fragment it into powerless units.²⁴ Therefore, we must build an adequate apparatus, our “modern Prince” to struggle against this in the immediate, otherwise we will not make it intact to the “Day of the Revolution”. As Thomas stresses, we must forge ‘political hegemony’ before seizing state power or domination in political society, by articulating a popularising political programme, a “new conception of the world” beyond our immediate cadre but the subaltern masses as a whole because without it, by waiting for the day of the revolution to become hegemonic (as the existing socialist sects implicitly argue) or by becoming subordinate to alien “conceptions of the world” any so-far attempted civil hegemony will be disaggregated and subordinated to the existing political hegemony of the ruling class. 

A question remains: how do we form said apparatus? Do we exist as small groups poaching members one by one, waiting for the revolution to pose the question of the communist party, or do we attempt to build one now? It is the existence of this party before the working class poses the question of political power that allows it to raise political demands beyond mere “adjustment” and successfully confront the bourgeois State. Our so-called parties right now cannot serve that task; the majority act as only the collective memory of historic factions of the communist movement, ideological affinity groupings with a social base not much wider than their own membership. The broader parties, such as Your Party or the Greens, serve their own, either the semi-retired layers of the labour movement’s bureaucracy or aspiring electoral careerists, so where do we go from here to produce our laboratory?

Recently, Panagiotis Sotiris argued that building the party today in our currently fragmented times means “the creation of united fronts rather than single parties” and that “today the Modern Prince can only take the form of an integral united front”.²⁵ While Sotiris conflates the conditions of struggle with the form of the organisation the modern Prince takes and ultimately dissolves the question of the modern Prince, is and toward what concrete goal it strives, the integral united front is not without merit as a transitional form rather than the modern Prince itself – the organisational expression of a period in which the conditions for a modern Prince do not yet exist. 

If the British left suffers from a historic crisis of competency, then the solutions cannot be better coordination or more disciplined recruitment, but the recomposition of the organic links between the working class, the labour movement and socialist politics in a way that does not merely restore what was lost but produces a new generation of communist militants capable of functioning as organic intellectuals. What the integral united front can be is an appropriate transitional form where the embryos of political intellectuality that already exist – the constituent parts of TWT, the remnants of Your Party’s left factions and branches, the union movement and the countless socialist groups can be recomposed. It is through our capacity and willingness for joint work in both the labour movement and social movements that we can find sufficient social forces to make the “modern Prince” a reality. As Rida Vaquas has recently shown, it is sustained socialist activity and genuine pressure by organisations of the workers that allowed the question of programmatic unity to be posed in 1875 and “created a structure by which vital political questions could be debated, perspectives could be clarified and new strategies could be formulated”.²⁶ 

The political content to begin this formation can already be grasped by a recent publication from Climate Vanguard and Energy Embargo for Palestine.²⁷ The anti-rearmament demands can be the terrain on which a new integral united front begins to form – a shared struggle through which a communist programme for the 21st century is elaborated – but only if we move beyond the horizon of these demands as a vector of pressure by the existing structures of the left towards the ways the struggle against rearmament can become one front in the construction of a hegemonic bloc, capable of contesting power at the level of the integral state itself. It is only through tying these demands together into the necessity of the Party that the integral united front and the re-armament demands become a material force. Yes, they can “revitalise and coordinate left social forces through a powerful anti-imperialist coalition,”²⁸ but the decisive step is uniting that coalition around a shared programme oriented toward political power: one that achieves the gradual liquidation of the sect-form by making it structurally redundant, while uniting its collective memory and rank and file into a communist programme adequate to the 21st century.²⁹ 

A communist programme that articulates anti-rearmament demands upward into constitutional demands for the democratisation and de-bureaucratisation of the state itself; only the end of the bourgeois order and the transformation of the state into a state-form adequate for the historic tasks of the proletariat, the social republic. With the sufficient discussion of the political demands necessary for such a programme and the shared coagulation of the integral united front’s constitutive parts, it can develop from an embryo into the modern Prince itself.

We are reaching a critical juncture. As the British state becomes even more complicit in wars and genocide in West Asia, repression at home risks us falling into the hands of a Reform Government unprepared; we have no alternative left. We must take the current balance of forces of the left and turn them away from being politically subordinate to alien “conceptions of the world” and capitulating to bourgeois politics. The struggle against rearmament is our terrain of departure, but only if we articulate its demands upward, from resistance to a specific spending programme toward a constituent challenge to the integral state itself. This is what the integral united front must accomplish as it develops toward the modern Prince: the transformation of the existing left into something adequate to its historic tasks. 

To banish our Furies in the world would mean not ignoring them but sublimating them into a formation that gives the energy, memory, and discipline they contain a new function within a higher organisational form. Our modern Prince is not just a necessity but an obligation. There is no truce to be made with our Furies. Only their transformation into a mass Communist Party, armed with a programme adequate to its world-historic tasks, can pose the question of political power.

1.  Karl Marx, “Letter from Marx to Engels In Manchester”, 11 December, 1869, https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1869/letters/69_12_10-abs.htm ↩︎
2.  I’m borrowing some of the first paragraph from a piece I wrote for Partisan Magazine some months ago: Andreas Chari, “Your Party – Another Formation Struggling to be Born”, Partisan Magazine, Nov 27, 2025 https://partisanmagazine.org/2025/11/27/your-party-another-formation-struggling-to-be-born/ ↩︎
3.  Noteworthy that a sizable chunk of the far-left ignored an opportunity to put forward their political programme and opted for either setting stalls outside the venue (they could’ve at least tried to get a stall within the venue) or ignored TWT’s existence. ↩︎
4.  Lewis Hodder, ”Class Consciousness at The World Transformed”, Prometheus Magazine, October 16, 2025, https://prometheus-mag.com/2025/10/16/class-consciousness-at-the-world-transformed/ ↩︎
5. The World Transformed Assembly, “For a member led, Socialist party”, Prometheus Magazine, October 13, 2025, https://prometheus-mag.com/2025/10/13/for-a-member-led-socialist-party/ ↩︎
6.  Parker McQueeney, “Why Have a Political Program?”, Cosmonaut Magazine, 3 September 2018, https://cosmonautmag.com/2018/09/why-have-a-political-program-2/ ↩︎
7.  https://dsyp.org/sup/ ↩︎
8.  A report of the fringe can be read here: https://weeklyworker.co.uk/worker/1564/ideas-unity-action/  ↩︎
9.  Carla Roberts’ reports on the Weekly Worker can be perused for the detailed happenings.  In particular: 
   Carla Roberts, “A party divided”, Weekly Worker, https://weeklyworker.co.uk/worker/1564/a-party-divided/, 04 December 2025,
   Carla Roberts, “Corbyn’s suffocating regime”, Weekly Worker, 12 March 2026, https://weeklyworker.co.uk/worker/1576/corbyns-suffocating-regime/,
   and Carla Roberts, “Definitely His Party now”, Weekly Worker, 05 March 2026, https://weeklyworker.co.uk/worker/1575/definitely-his-party-now/,  ↩︎
10.  Ewan Ben, “Woe to the Gravediggers”, State and Confusion, 13 April 2026, https://open.substack.com/pub/stateandconfusion/p/woe-to-the-gravediggers?utm_campaign=post-expanded-share&utm_medium=web ↩︎
11.  Mike Macnair, Revolutionary Strategy, November Publications, 2008, pg. 90 ↩︎
12. Antonio Gramsci, Selections from the Prison Notebooks [SPN], (International Publishers, 1992), p. 144 ↩︎
13.  Harry Holmes, “Disorienting Times”, Prometheus Magazine, https://prometheus-mag.com/2025/12/16/disorienting-times/, 16 December 2025 ↩︎
14.  Carla Roberts, “Getting ready to govern”, Weekly Worker, https://weeklyworker.co.uk/worker/1579/getting-ready-to-govern/, 02 April 2026 ↩︎
15.  Asad Haider, “On Depoliticization”, Viewpoint Magazine, https://viewpointmag.com/2019/12/16/on-depoliticization/, 16 December 2019 ↩︎
16.  Andreas Chari “Towards a Mass Communist Party”, Prometheus Magazine, https://prometheus-mag.com/2025/02/19/towards-a-mass-communist-party/, February 19 2025 ↩︎
17.  Antonio Gramsci, SPN, p. 129 ↩︎
18. Thomas, The Gramscian Moment, p. 437 ↩︎
19. Lars T. Lih, Lenin Rediscovered: What Is to Be Done? In Context, (Haymarket Books, 2026), p. 6 ↩︎
20.  Mike Macnair, “What sort of party?”, Weekly Worker, https://weeklyworker.co.uk/worker/1516/what-sort-of-party/, November 21, 2024 ↩︎
21.  Holmes, “Disorienting Times” ↩︎
22. Panagiotis Sotiris, The Modern Prince as Laboratory of Political Intellectuality. International Gramsci Journal, 3(2). https://doi.org/10.14276/igj.v3i2.4222 ↩︎
23.  Thomas, The Gramscian Moment, p. 194 ↩︎
24.  Salar Mohandesi, “Party As Articulator”, Viewpoint Magazine,
    https://viewpointmag.com/2020/09/04/party-as-articulator/, September 4, 2020 ↩︎
25.  Sotiris, The Modern Prince as Laboratory of Political Intellectuality, p. 35 ↩︎
26.  Rida Vaquas, “The Long Road to the Gotha Programme”, Prometheus Magazine, “https://prometheus-mag.com/2026/01/28/the-long-road-to-the-gotha-programme/, January 28 2026 ↩︎
27.  Climate Vanguard & Energy Embargo for Palestine. Resisting Rearmament: A Unified Path Forwards for the British Left, (Climate Vanguard & Energy Embargo for Palestine, 2026) ↩︎
28.  Ibid, p. 11 ↩︎
29.  Andreas Chari, “First Steps Towards a Politics of Non-Domination”, Prometheus Magazine, https://prometheus-mag.com/2025/12/10/first-steps-towards-a-politics-of-non-domination/, December 10 2025 ↩︎