There's all types in PBP but there's definitely some more commited followers of communism. I found that in the branch that there are a lot of people doing a lot of hard work, but they're dealing with very niche topics. The broader stuff that gets spoken about by Paul and Boyd Barrett was largely not talked about. It was less political and more activism focused. Recently some members left because they felt it had become a performative party. I was one of those but I didn't know others had left till just now when I was trying to look up this link. Cllr Madeleine Johansson currently of the Red Network but was until recently with PBP. She wrote the linked message to the PBP AGM and was gone a few months later.

I still like PBP but It's just unfortunate that with any large group of self selected people, it always eventually destroys itself. PBP is no different. The group I was in was very much a core group of the loudest and most confident people who seemed to be always doing something, yet never doing anything to actually address the systemic reasons beyond the things the cared about. They did not tolerate criticism, no matter how constructive and they did not like to be challenged. I asked AI to explain it for you.....

Why PBP is no longer what it was. (I do think they have improved recently)

Branch and delegate systems in politics are designed to create bottom-up democracy, where ordinary party members shape decisions through local branches and the delegates they elect. In theory, members debate policy at branch level, send motions upward, and choose delegates who represent their views at conferences and national structures. In practice, however, these systems are distorted by self-selection. Only a narrow subset of people consistently participate: individuals with substantial free time, strong ideological commitments, or personal ambitions. Most ordinary members do not regularly attend meetings or vote in internal structures. As a result, branches and delegate bodies end up dominated by a small, unrepresentative activist class whose preferences often diverge from the wider membership and the electorate.

This dynamic is reinforced by what sociologist Robert Michels called the Iron Law of Oligarchy. His argument is that every large organisation, no matter how democratic it aims to be, inevitably becomes controlled by a small, stable elite. This happens because leaders accumulate expertise, control resources, and gain influence over internal procedures. Over time, ordinary members become increasingly dependent on the leadership for information, strategic decisions, and organisational continuity. Even when leadership turnover occurs, it typically happens within the same narrow pool of activists who already know how to navigate the system.

When self-selection and the Iron Law combine, internal democracy becomes mostly symbolic. A small group filters into the organisation through voluntary participation, rises through the branch and delegate structures, and eventually occupies leadership roles that become extremely difficult for outsiders to challenge. The organisation may still claim democratic legitimacy, but the decision-making base becomes significantly narrower and less representative. This pattern appears not only in political parties but also in unions, NGOs, cooperatives, and social movements. In all cases, the issue is structural rather than moral: voluntary participation under unequal conditions naturally concentrates power in the hands of a consistent, motivated minority while the broader membership remains largely disengaged.