Thank you for the extra context, that’s useful to form a better rounded opinion on the situation.

This was apparently an unapproved unilateral action: https://reddthat.com/post/50303806

The paid‑for “membership portal” appears not to be a democratically ratified decision but a unilateral move by Zarah Sultana, imposed on a movement that promised collective ownership of its direction. By turning entry into a £5‑a‑month subscription, the party treated political belonging as a commodity, reproducing the market logic it claims to oppose and alienating volunteers who expect free, universal access to a socialist organisation. This top‑down imposition sidestepped the pre‑figurative principle of participatory decision‑making and reinforced a Westminster‑style habit of fundraising through mandatory fees rather than genuine solidarity.

A more socialist approach would replace the subscription with a voluntary‑donation model built on transparency and collective control: open‑ended contributions, tiered solidarity pledges tied to specific grassroots projects, and worker‑run funding circles that let supporters decide how money is allocated. By treating money as a means of sustaining collective activity, not as a gate‑keeping ticket, the party could align its finances with democratic planning, reinforce accountability, and turn fundraising itself into a concrete expression of socialist solidarity.