29.01.2026

A little flame snuffed out

Paul B. Smith reviews M Farrar and K McDonnell Big Flame: building movements, new politics Merlin Press 2024, pp356, £30

This book tells the story of a small revolutionary socialist organisation called Big Flame. BF flickered briefly in the 1970s, but it was snuffed out in the early 1980s - starved of the oxygen of a militant class struggle against Stalinism worldwide.

The authors edited the narrative, so that it is broken up by the memoirs of over 50 former members. These are used to illustrate or exemplify aspects of the story, from its origins in the activities of a group of students radicalised by the class struggle in Italy, to its collapse - members either joining the Labour Party or prioritising the single-issue campaigns associated with the liberation movements of the period.

The authors will impress readers with the depth and extent of their research. For an organisation that never had more than a hundred members, BF writers were remarkably prolific. They left behind 29 pamphlets, 15 journals, a monthly newspaper, 15 periodicals, a monthly internal bulletin and 12 conference bulletins. BF members and sympathisers wrote about the struggles of workers in the UK and elsewhere in the world. They discussed feminism, racism and the nature of the former Soviet Union, amongst other topics. The authors write about BF’s publications in the second chapter (pp66-67). Copies of these and the archives which contain them are listed in the appendices.

BF came into being, briefly flourished and passed away during the cold war. This exercised control over the militant struggle workers undertook against Stalinism - not only in the capitalist west, but elsewhere in the world. The Vietnam War saw groups on the left giving critical and uncritical support for national liberation movements, depending on how far they agreed with Soviet foreign policy.

BF members had active roles in the anti-apartheid, anti-colonial and anti-nuclear movements of the time and, following from the influence of Trotskyist groups, criticised the Stalinist two-stage theory of national liberation. According to this, the first stage was the completion of the tasks of decolonisation in alliance with an oppressed bourgeois class; the second stage was the struggle for socialism - the false idea being that, if the left mobilised the working class around a nationalist programme, it would be in a stronger position to move on to socialism.

This was consistent with the notion that it was possible to confine the struggle for socialism within the boundaries of the nation-state. In other words, ‘socialism in one country’ was a desirable and necessary stage in itself. Orthodox Trotskyists relentlessly challenged this doctrine. Other Trotskyists, such as the followers of Ernest Mandel, adapted their thinking and accepted the two-stage idea - in effect tail-ending movements for national liberation in Latin America, Africa and elsewhere. The Stalinist two-stage theory was flexible and could be adapted to every movement of the oppressed.

The authors state that, for members of BF, the debate over the nature of a socialist society was “arcane” (p131). They imply that few members of the group were interested in the question of whether the Stalinist regimes were workers’ states, state-capitalist or some other social formation. A political culture dominated by Stalinist ideas and practices had related consequences. These included avoiding any discussion of the socialist goal that might include “a definite blueprint for how socialism might be achieved” (p261). BF was a revolutionary socialist group because it believed in a “traditional restatement of the insurrection model”. It was distinctive in its attitude to the new social movements of the time rather than in its thinking on the nature of socialism or communism.

Farrar and McDonell believe that the group’s characterisation as “soft Maoist” by members of the Socialist Workers Party was mistaken. The authors are at pains to argue that, even though BF was “too soft in its public criticism of the Chinese variety of communism” (p258), this softness had nothing to do with ideas on the nature of the Chinese Stalinist regime. This may be true. In 1976, BF members had written that China was in the process of “building socialism”. By 1980, BF’s national conference had adopted the position that Stalinist regimes such as the former Soviet Union and China were “neither capitalist nor (deformed) socialist” (p133). In other words, the group was moving away from a Maoist analysis towards a heterodox Trotskyist one. This is reminiscent of Hillel Ticktin’s work on the political economy of the former USSR in the journal Critique. The agents of this transformation were Moshé Machover and John Fantham, two non-members who had written a pamphlet for BF on the nature of Stalinist regimes.¹

BF held unique positions for the left of the period. It argued that workers’ struggles had created a partially formed anti-capitalist class consciousness. It recognised that mass communist parties are needed to support the growth of class consciousness, but denied that the historical period was conducive to building such parties. It denied that BF was the embryo of a political party, but called for the creation of revolutionary socialist organisations. These had the potential to intervene and generalise class consciousness. Members upheld the notion of the autonomy of the working class and applied this to the struggles of the oppressed and exploited worldwide - in particular, the movement for women’s liberation. BF members were encouraged to prioritise building movements of the oppressed over the party, and, if the organisation is remembered at all, it is as much feminist as Marxist in inspiration.

Unity in diversity

It can be argued that BF was a failed example of what Mike Macnair calls “unity in diversity”.² This is a necessary condition for the collective action of the working class in the process of its self-emancipation. Without a unity that respects the diverse opinions and wills of the oppressed and exploited, there can be no class - just fragmented and atomised collections of individuals.

Readers will appreciate the critical observations about this failure in chapter 8. Farrar and McDonnell draw our attention to the weakening influence of the Italian school of Marxism in the 1960s and 1970s to explain the failure of policies of unity in diversity. This included the collapse of the Italian “sister party”, Lotta Continua, under the double impact of an inability to respond to the sexism of male members and the turn to the urban guerilla movement by a section of the Italian left. Nonetheless, Italian theory and practice had a “very significant influence” (p252) on the organisation. For example, BF borrowed the idea from the Italians that “communism is inside the struggle of the masses”. This position challenged ideas associated with Lenin and Kautsky that class consciousness was developed outside the workplaces and communities. There was therefore no need to recruit the most class-conscious leaders of struggles to a vanguard party.

Notwithstanding BF’s overall failure to realise unity in diversity, it did attract the attention of some other groups. BF fused with two groups, one of which had split from the International Marxist Group (IMG). This was called the Revolutionary Marxist Current. The other evolved out of anarchism. It was titled the Libertarian Communist Group. These groups joined on the basis of BF’s ‘Draft manifesto’, published in 1977. This addressed the problem of the role of the party in overcoming barriers to socialism. It argued that the chief impediment was the existence of divisions within the working class - the major ones being between women and men, black people and white, the waged and unwaged and between young and old (LGBTQ+ people were not mentioned).

In order that unity within the class can be achieved, organisations are needed that prioritise the various movements for liberation. As the authors state, “The abiding principle was ‘The movement comes first, the party second’” (p257). This meant that unity “would emerge when the oppressed groups had increased their strength”. A party would come into being at some point in the future when the liberation movements of the oppressed had acquired a status equal to the organisations workers had created through the class struggle. BF was not the embryo of such a party. Nonetheless, it showed how a party could be built with an uncompromising commitment to movementism and autonomy.

Autonomy

The notion of autonomy adopted by Big Flame was taken from Italian Marxism in the 1960s. This informed militant workers’ struggles in what is known as the ‘Hot Autumn’ of 1969, when workers organised outside the trade unions and battled with the police. This led to the emergence of new political groups such as Lotta Continua (‘The Struggle Continues’). BF copied the methods of LC, forming ‘base’ groups. These created links between external militants, worker activists organising within workplaces and community organisations.

BF started life as a rank-and-file newspaper that reported local industrial struggles critical of the opposition of trade union shop stewards. This had a limited programme, calling for work-sharing, opposition to productivity deals, unionising the unemployed, housebuilding for the homeless, and the creation of a “socialist Britain” (sic, p48).

BF understood working class autonomy in various ways, including support for workers’ action independent of the trade unions - such as wild-cat strikes or a refusal of work (p103). Autonomy was a form of political independence from capital’s constant attempts to “restructure the way in which it rules” (p102) The assertion of workers’ autonomy challenged every form of political and economic oppression facing workers, including those imposed on workers’ struggles by self-proclaimed Stalinist or Trotskyist ‘parties’ corrupted by Leninist ‘theories’ of organisation.

The authors tell the story of an organisation with a deeply ambivalent attitude to Leninism. This was, on the one hand, a belief that there were real barriers inhibiting the growth of class consciousness. These needed to be overcome at some stage through the creation of Marxist parties. On the other hand, if these parties adopted a Leninist form, they would be centralising and repressive. They would turn the dictatorship of the proletariat into a dictatorship of the party.³

Farrar and McDonnell point out that BF was quite confused about the nature of revolutionary organisation. It vacillated between two poles. On the one hand, the organisation was “neither Leninist nor libertarian” (p1). On the other, it was not “completely dismissive of Leninism” (p97). They argue that libertarianism was more influential on the group than Leninism, and list various themes the group adopted. These were derived from libertarianism and included pre-figurative politics, non-hierarchical organisation, direct action, local organisation and an openness to feminism (p38).

Women in BF were quick to embrace the notion of autonomy and to apply it to strategies for women’s liberation. Like other socialist feminists, they distinguished between autonomous organisation - independent of the influence of men - and separatism. Autonomy enabled safe spaces for women to meet, free from the influence of overt sexism. Separatism, on the other hand, entailed, wherever possible, ending all relationships with the oppressor - including sexual relationships. It became the dead end known as ‘political lesbianism’.

The authors define autonomy as the recognition that “those whose form of oppression is not your own have the right to make their own decisions”. This included the right to reject joint work with others (p256). The justification for this politics was that the forms of organisation revolutionaries adopt should in some way “prefigure” the communist society of the future. This led to some BF men’s involvement with anti-sexist politics, such as organising creches for women’s conferences and support for childcare generally. It led others to argue that it was not right to have anything to say to the social movements, since they were autonomous. This was compatible with self-censorship and the censorship of others (p255).

It is arguable that this interpretation of autonomy undermined the rationale for having an organisation that prioritised building social movements over building a revolutionary socialist party in the first place. If so, the commitment to autonomous organisation contributed to BF’s ultimate demise in the early 1980s, when activists abandoned the notion of involvement in revolutionary organisation for a deeper involvement in the single-issue campaigns of the movements and the Labour Party.

Readers interested in the role of feminism within BF will turn first of all to chapter 5, in which three women former members discuss BF and feminism. They recall that the struggle for democracy “appeared to be unique to BF” (p181). They highlight the idea of “prefigurative politics”. This involved a commitment to collective and shared childcare, cooking and other household tasks. BF women were active in struggles around health and sexuality. The writers mention the organisation’s opposition to paedophilia, rape, other forms of violence to women, and moves to restrict or ban access to abortion facilities. They were drawn into debates about the Labour Party in the early 1980s. They conclude that they “no longer believed that it was possible to create a revolution that would fundamentally change the status quo” (p200).

The subsequent abandonment of revolutionary socialist politics was not unique to the female members of BF. Many members were influenced by the so-called downturn of the class struggle in the 1970s. This coincided with a growth of the left of Labour after the election of the Conservatives in 1979. In 1981, a group previously close to the project of creating a new revolutionary organisation argued that BF should dissolve itself into the Labour Party. Their reasoning was that Labour was a more supportive environment for the development of mass politics and that the aim of revolutionaries should be to turn the party outwards towards the movements. A former member who joined the Labour Party recalls how relieved he was “not to be a revolutionary, chasing impossible dreams” (p301). He writes in his memoir proudly of his role in the witch-hunt against the so-called “hard left” of the Labour Party in the 1980s (p302). He later abandoned socialism and became the editor of a social democratic journal titled Renewal.

There was a palpable sense of disappointment after BF’s last two attempts to create unity out of diversity. Firstly, in the 1979 election, BF formed an electoral alliance with the IMG called Socialist Unity. This had a minimal effect on the results, candidates losing their deposits. Secondly, in 1980, when 1,500 activists in the autonomist movements met at the ‘Beyond the Fragments’ conference - organised and promoted by BF - they showed no interest in BF’s project. The conference convinced some that militants should continue to reject the Leninist far left: either, from a libertarian perspective, BF was too Leninist; or, from a Trotskyist point of view, BF was insufficiently Leninist. Its attempts to build a party “from the bottom upwards without definite programmatic bases or secure organisational structures” was therefore bound to fail.⁴

Marxism

Some members found BF to be anti-intellectual, fearful of being denounced for “talking a language others would find difficult to understand” (p271). In one of the more amusing anecdotes, a former member recalls a summer school in 1978, when a comrade tried to explain Marx’s labour theory of value to a group of members. He picked up a frisbee people had been playing with and used the toy to illustrate that its value as a commodity was determined by the labour involved in its production. The audience was impressed, even though it was a hot day and some of the listeners had difficulty staying awake. When the comrade asked for questions and contributions, the first asked: “What is a frisbee?” (p191).

This story reflects an ambivalence within BF about the relationship between theory and practice. BF had a careless attitude to Marxist education. The identity of ‘revolutionary’ did not include the acquisition of political economy or a recognition of the relevance Marxism may have to developing theory and practice in general (p98). The links with Italian Marxism were abandoned, and in 1981 it was argued that BF should join the Labour Party.

The need for an education programme for new members was acknowledged, but never realised. Members’ primary commitment was “embedding themselves in … everyday struggles” (p98). On education, the focus externally was involvement in the everyday struggles of teachers within the education system. Internally, responsibility for an education programme for members was given to four different education officers, none of whom was successful in getting a study programme off the ground (pp77‑79). The authors comment that “lack of an agreed body of theory” and suspicion of ‘intellectuals’ were, among other influences, reasons why the organisation failed to promote or advance Marxist theory or practice.

This book will interest students of the left during the period of the end of the cold war. It also offers a challenge to Marxists today - to explain the mistakes BF made and assess whether these are likely to be repeated in contemporary struggles to achieve unity in diversity amongst Marxists. Farrar and McDonnell say, in chapter 8, that BF showed that it was an organisation which could operate as a “dialogic collective”. I take this to mean that the group was thoroughly democratic and non-sectarian in its practice. This is attested both in the personal memoirs and the factional disputes the authors record.

The group’s rejection of embryonic Marxist party status, its ambivalence to what was understood to be ‘Leninism’ and its abiding hostility to Trotskyism were diverse expressions of the consciousness of the period. These days it is easier to refute the false doctrine that Lenin and Trotsky built a repressive party called Bolshevism, shaping the Soviet state in the image of the party and turning the dictatorship of the proletariat into a dictatorship of one man. Fifty years ago ideas such as these were taken for granted both within and outwith the Stalinised culture of the left.

Given that BF’s notion of creating revolutionary organisation never got as far as designing or delivering what might have been recognisable as a Marxist educational programme, it is no surprise that the group would be quickly and easily devoured by the twin beasts of a disintegrating Stalinism and a sectarian Labourism.

J Fantham and M Machover Century of the unexpected Big Flame 1979.↩︎
M Macnair Revolutionary strategy London 2008, pp108-10.↩︎
Stalinist historians created the myth that Lenin’s greatest contribution to Marxism was his theory of the party. This was of a ‘new type’ called “democratic centralism”, found in Lenin’s What is to be done? This now discredited doctrine dominated both left and rightwing understandings of Leninism during the cold war. See LT Lih Lenin rediscovered Chicago 2008, p17, n21.↩︎
P Hearse On Trotskyism and the Fourth International: two essays IMG (1978), p36.↩︎