Debating Left Government
A response to the Socialist Party’s critique of People Before Profit
People Before Profit’s pamphlet ‘The Case for a Left Government’ sparked outrage from establishment media and politicians in 2023, with the Irish Independent calling it “an incendiary document”. It has also led to debate on the socialist left, with a critique from Eddie McCabe of the Socialist Party[1] accusing PBP of “sowing illusions in Sinn Féin” and reflecting a “mistaken view of what Sinn Féin is”.
Here, Aprille Scully and Diarmuid Flood respond to this criticism, arguing that the socialist left should engage with the desires for a left government in a positive and principled way, not just criticise from the sidelines.
This article was originally published in Rupture 11
Fianna Fáil (FF) and Fine Gael (FG) have shared power since the foundation of the Irish state, but now their time at the top could be coming to an end. Sinn Féin (SF), their most likely replacement, has grown in size and stature and is now the largest party on the island, both North and South. This has been achieved by a strategy that has seen the party talk left since the 2008 crash, opposing the ‘old boy’s club’, and arguing for a government that represents ‘ordinary people’. They are now the most popular party - favoured particularly by young people and working class communities.
At the same time, there is a mounting pile of evidence that SF will not deliver the substantial change desired by many and will therefore disappoint. They have dropped many of their more leftwing positions - no longer opposing juryless courts, NATO, or the neoliberal framework of the EU, and courting everyone from IBEC[2] to the British Royal Family.[3] However, while this is clear to those of us on the socialist left, we need to recognise that it is not yet clear to the vast majority of workers and young people who are hopeful that change is coming.
Similar issues have faced socialists around the globe in the last decade, as people seek to strike back against the political establishment. With no strong socialist movement to provide an alternative, people have looked towards non-socialist, left-liberal, or left-reformist forces. Examples of this can be seen in the previous rise of Syriza in Greece, Bernie Sanders’ presidential campaign in the US, Podemos in Spain, and Jeremy Corbyn’s Labour Party in Britain. This poses a challenge for socialists, and how to respond to this lies at the heart of this debate. In particular, we categorise the responses from socialists to this in three different ways:
A sectarian approach: for those who see the truth of the soft-left’s pro-capitalist policies, the temptation is to confuse our understanding for that of the broad majority, and think we can simply ‘side step’ the actual illusions and naive optimism that exists, or squash it by exposé articles and condemnations.
An opportunist approach: the reverse danger is that of an ‘opportunist’ approach, which identifies the opportunities in a general desire for a ‘government of change’ but doesn’t connect this with the need to challenge capitalism in order to realise it. Through this, the illusions in non-socialist forces like SF are reinforced.
An approach of harnessing creative illusions: instead of these twin dangers, we argue the socialist left has a complicated task of trying to harness these illusions. To mobilise this hope into a movement, while also intervening with positive proposals and demands which highlight the growing gap between the aims of SF voters and the actual plans of the SF leadership.
Unfortunately, we feel McCabe’s argument (and other recent pieces from the SP[4]) falls into the first camp. What their articles don’t address is that while it might be clear to socialists that to deliver real change means breaking with capitalism, and that SF have no intention of doing so, this is not clear to the majority of working class people. In this article, we will reply to this critique, broadly defending the approach of the PBP pamphlet as an important, accessible, and ‘popular’ outline of how socialists should approach this question.
The incendiary PBP pamphlet
Before diving into the critique from McCabe, it is necessary to first outline the general thrust of PBP’s ‘The Case for a Left Government’ pamphlet for those who have not yet read it (the pamphlet is available to purchase on PBP.ie).
The pamphlet outlines the rotten legacy of FF-FG rule in the south of Ireland. It traces the state’s development to its modern form as a partitioned tax haven with housing gobbled up by vulture funds, endless hospital waiting lists, and a vicious cost of living crisis. It argues the primary reason these crises cannot be solved is because of the “established belief that there can be no alternative to capitalism and the best that can be achieved is to manage it in a progressive fashion.”
““[The PBP pamphlet] argues for a ‘left government’ committed to breaking with capitalism and supported by a mass movement for socialist change””
It argues for a ‘left government’ committed to breaking with capitalism and supported by a mass movement for socialist change. It outlines a programme for such a government, including a fundamental restructuring of the housing system to end the rule of landlords and developers, complete separation of church and state, nationalisation of the banking and energy sector, and consistent anti-imperialism. It also explicitly warns that any government implementing such a programme would face opposition and sabotage from big business and the capitalist state, and would need ‘people’s assemblies’ in workplaces and communities to organise resistance to this. It states that these committees could become the basis for “a radical new form of democracy” with “a different constitution designed to advance the interest of working people”. Of course, more could have been added, particularly in relation to ecological questions, but this seems to us a good attempt to explain in popular terms the classic ‘Leninist’ argument that a left government is not enough, and what we need is a revolutionary movement to create what Marxists would call a ‘workers’ state’.
McCabe concludes:
“Much of this is laudable, and indeed a progression on PBP’s own position, which has rarely if ever been articulated in this way before. So good in and of itself, but all of which also makes [the pamphlet’s] focus on Sinn Féin all the more incongruous. Not only has Sinn Féin given no indication that it favours such a radical programme, it has explicitly and repeatedly explained that it is opposed to anything resembling such a radical programme. Yet PBP continues to speak of and argue for a left government led by Sinn Féin as if this wasn’t the case.”
McCabe goes further, criticising PBP for the ‘tone’ of their public criticisms of SF and their calls on SF not to move to the right, saying “PBP’s consistent refrain is to be surprised and aghast at every about-turn Sinn Féin makes as it prepares for power”.
An opportunist approach?
From this, you would be forgiven for thinking that those of us in PBP are naive fools, continuously astounded that SF is not in fact ,a radical socialist force ready to uproot the capitalist system. But any fair assessment would have to admit this is not the case.
As PBP member (from the RISE network) Mark Phillips states in Issue 4 of this magazine[5]; “Sinn Féin is committed to remaining within the framework of the capitalist system, including obeying the neo-liberal EU fiscal rules, continuing to pay the odious debt, and maintaining Ireland’s low corporation tax, it will inevitably disappoint its base.” Similarly, in November 2021, PBP member Kieran Allen (from the Socialist Workers Network) stated in Rebel; “In tone and rhetoric, they sound like workers’ representatives. But read the small print and you realise, this is a centre-left party hoping to enter government with other centre-lefts in Labour and the Social Democrats”. The pamphlet similarly calls out SF’s shifts to the right and warns that the party “does not want to frighten the rich” and “is committed to keep Ireland’s corporate tax rate as low as possible”.
““We must explain, as the pamphlet does, that a left government must be one committed to socialist transformation””
We are in agreement with McCabe in so far as he argues that socialists should not ‘pull our punches’ on these issues. We should reject a modern version of the ‘popular front’ policy of some Communist Parties of the past, self-censoring ourselves in the vague hope of some ‘seat at the table’ with SF. Similarly, we agree that socialists should not present a ‘left government’ as any government that “doesn’t include FG and FF – and implements some reforms.” Instead, we must explain, as the pamphlet does, that a left government must be one committed to socialist transformation. We should, in that way, contest the meaning of a ‘Left Government’ in the minds of those currently thinking of this as a government led-by SF.
If socialists become cheerleaders for a left government, without including positive proposals and criticisms of SF, it gives people no reason why they should support PBP as opposed to the much bigger SF. It also creates a danger that many will simply assume that PBP will join a SF led government without conditions. That could create significant opportunist pressure to do so and then widespread disappointment when PBP do not join because of SF’s refusal to commit to the eco-socialist policies outlined in the pamphlet,
It is not enough for us to have our criticisms of SF in a pamphlet which only a small minority will read. It must be consistently integrated into the approach of socialist public representatives. When explaining why we are for a ‘left government’, we should combine it with a call on SF to rule out a coalition with FF/FG and take the chance to highlight their moves to the right and general limitations as a pro-capitalist force. This should be combined with an emphasis on key ecosocialist measures and a ‘people power’ approach which would be required to actually deliver radical change.
A Sectarian Approach?
On the other side of the coin, afraid of these new developments, socialists can lean on a sectarian approach. Unable to be positive towards the mood around SF for fear of sowing illusions, it can be easier for revolutionaries to retreat back to safer ground and instead repeat truisms from the sidelines.
For example, there are plenty of revolutionaries who don’t engage in parliamentary elections for fear of a corrupting influence and ‘sowing illusions’ in parliamentary democracy. They write long and true articles about how real change will occur only when people engage in mass direct action. That’s fine. But it’s also dull, and more importantly, it ignores the illusions that do exist in elections. It is a mistake for socialists to denounce on the sidelines and wait for struggle to happen on a more comfortable terrain before they engage. We must engage with the conditions as they exist now. Similarly, if the working class in Ireland are looking to a perceived anti-establishment party to kick out FF and FG and deliver a more equitable society we need to have something more to say than 'this will all end in tears'.
McCabe’s article presents his alternative to the PBP approach titled “An Effective Approach” outlining how socialists should deal with the illusions in SF. He references “skillful engagement”[1] and, in another article, his party colleague Kevin McLoughlin, calls for “shrewd and sharp interventions”[4], but what that looks like is not developed. McLoughlin becomes more concrete when speaking in terms of an electoral strategy and says socialists should position themselves as more effective fighters for the working class[9], but this is a truism. Positioning socialists as the most effective fighters is true in any election and doesn’t offer anything specific on the question of SF and what is posed here in terms of a very historic turning point in Irish political history.
McCabe admits; “Potential does now exist for a government without either FG or FF for the first time in the history of the state, which would be viewed as momentous.” But they have not outlined a way to positively engage with this support for what seems a momentous change, for fear of “sowing illusions”. Instead, McLoughlin argues there isn’t much that can actually be done now; we must merely prepare for a better time when SF expose itself:
“Left and socialist TDs should use their platform to help organise and mobilise working-class and young people to increase the pressure on the new government to act, which would also dovetail as laying the basis for the building of a new fighting left and socialist movement whenever it becomes clearer that in government Sinn Féin is not capable of delivering real, meaningful change because it is working within the confines of capitalism.”[4]
There is truth in this, but it is one sided and by itself would leave the socialist left stuck at the point of being honest and clear about the true nature of SF amongst their members and supporters, but without any ability to move forward and talk publicly to broader sections of society who do have illusions until such time as SF expose themselves.
It is precisely the mistake Mark Phillips warned of: “shying away from this development [of a desire for a left government], while we simply work on redeveloping the workers’ movement at the root. That would be to miss an opportunity to use these movements precisely as an aid in redeveloping the movement.
Harnessing Creative Illusions
Like the opportunistic approach of accepting illusions, the sectarian approach of ignoring illusions does not seek to intervene into the mood around SF by placing demands on them. For some, PBP placing demands on SF is too ‘sectarian’ and will only ‘damage relationships’ whereas for others, it amounts to misleading the working class.
McCabe argues that “to speak of and argue for a left government led by Sinn Féin” amounts to “[s]owing illusions in Sinn Féin and what a Sinn Féin-led government can achieve [which] is to mislead the working class”.
It would be wrong if we simply ‘spoke of’ such a left government with socialist policies as if it was what SF was offering. But that’s not what the pamphlet does. It argues against SF’s drift to the right and outlines an alternative path of a left government with socialist policies. Yet it seems that McCabe objects even to raising the idea that there is an alternative path, and calling on SF to take that as tantamount to ‘sowing illusions’.
If the left followed this path, it would be to fall into the trap Mark Phillips warned of: “Standing on the sidelines and pouring cold water on the hopes and aspirations of working-class people in the name of dispelling illusions will not advance the situation.”
““Another element is placing demands on SF, calling on them to be the anti-establishment and left-wing alternative their supporters want them to be””
Instead we need a transitional approach which connects with the positive aspirations for change while untangling misconceptions about SF. An important part of that is connecting ourselves with the “surprise and aghast” feelings of SF voters as SF moves to the right. Another element is placing demands on SF, calling on them to be the anti-establishment and left-wing alternative their supporters want them to be. This is not to be ‘naive’ or to ‘sow illusions’ but to actually try to bring SF supporters into action and highlight the difference between their aims and the direction of the party.
A transitional approach
The starting point of a transitional approach is first recognising the positive changes that the SF support base desire - to remove FG and FF from power, to solve the crises in housing, healthcare, and climate, to change Irish society - and to state openly that we align fully with these desires and will join the fight to achieve them. Rather than pouring cold water on this growing mood of enthusiasm and anticipation, we seek to strengthen it. However, while these aspirations are positive, they are often ambiguous and half-formed. Our role is to give form to these desires and to deepen an understanding of the root of these crises and what would be necessary to solve them.
This then raises the question of SF. Are they willing to take the steps to achieve this? We know SF are not committed to fundamental change, their track record alone shows this. As mentioned, the problem is significant sections of the working class and youth do not. How does their understanding of SF change? Unfortunately, it's not from reading our articles. The truth is that these lessons come from struggle. This was the case with the water charges where SF exposed their own limitations by refusing to adopt non-payment from the start. The socialist left had a critical role in drawing that out and must do so again. It has been the case recently where SF initially refused to adopt the demand to expel the Israeli Ambassador until PBP put pressure on them. It will be the case down the line when they refuse to rule out a coalition with FF/FG and refuse to adopt a programme for government akin to what’s found in the PBP Pamphlet.
““This does not mean we should not act to expose their limitations right now - the pamphlet spends ample time doing this””
This does not mean we should not act to expose their limitations right now - the pamphlet spends ample time doing this. The fact, plain to most, is that PBP has repeatedly hammered SF’s compromises to make its character clearer and is intervening in the Left Government debate precisely to further this effort. We should continue to act consistently in this way and should be present in the movement for a left government in order to make this clear to people through the struggle itself. As Mark Phillips states:
By campaigning for a left government, while emphasising the necessity of socialist policies and mobilisation from below, the socialist left can connect with the aspirations of broad sections of working-class people, while helping to reveal the reality that Sinn Féin is preparing to govern in coalition with the traditional right-wing parties.
Making the alternative clear
A feature of the Irish political landscape right now is the presence of the far-right. If elected, a SF government will be perceived as the ‘left alternative’ to FF and FG. We want to intervene as much as possible to demonstrate what a left government would look like and make it clear that SF walked away from this. If "the left has failed" is the narrative post sell-out, it would aid the far-right. We are limited in how much we can control this, but if we can build a campaign for a left government along the lines of the pamphlet, it can raise the sights of what is possible and hopefully motivate workers and young people to fight for those demands.
We want to be part of the movement to kick FF and FG from office and to replace them with an alternative government committed to radical change. In the minds of many working class people this alternative government has a ‘left character’ and in the minds of many more, this is a SF government. If possible, we want to lead this movement, and seek to turn it from a passive one, waiting for the next elections into something active. Mass rallies could be held around the country mobilising people to fight for a left government and giving us a platform to place demands on SF.
We want to contest in the minds of people what it means to be a ‘left government’ and what it means to enact change. We should say we are open to discussing this with SF, forcing them to either engage openly on the grounds of our proposed programme or to openly refuse in favour of coalition with the right. But we should also be upfront and clear that we hold little confidence in them accepting it given their recent trajectory and pro-capitalist nature. We want to make clear that in order to be a true government of change and in order to solve the crises in housing, health, and everyday life, it’s not enough to simply turf out FG and FF.
You need to build a movement for a left government that fights for ecosocialist change and is ready to take on the bosses and corporate landlords. You need to be willing to build a socialist movement ready for rupture. Being present in the debates about the next government, and putting forward our alternative ‘left government’, will form part of building that movement.
Diarmuid Flood is a member of Dublin People Before Profit and the RISE Network; he is a host and co-producer of Rupture Radio and a former member of the Rupture editorial board.
Aprille Scully is a former member of the Anti-Austerity Alliance and is now a member of the Limerick branch of People Before Profit.
The following two sections were presented in stand-alone boxes within this article when it appeared in print in Rupture 11.
Socialist Party -v- Socialist Party
The Socialist Party did not always take the approach outlined by McCabe and McLoughlin’s recent articles on the question of ‘Left Government’.
In 2015, an Irish Times opinion piece[6] by Socialist Party TDs, and agreed by the party leadership, took up the issue of SF well. It promised that “If it is possible after the next general election to form a government without the traditional establishment parties, the Anti-Austerity Alliance will discuss with others to see if a left programme for government can be agreed” It spoke about the kind of ‘left’ programme needed to deliver change and raised doubts over SF’s commitment to this.
But fast forward to today, and McCabe’s article is impatient with entertaining this idea:
“No matter what PBP comes up with, however, Sinn Féin could make some concessions that can make PBP look unreasonable as a result, and responsible for any failure to agree a programme for government, and the dashing of hopes PBP itself has raised; by promoting the prospect of a left government that doesn’t really exist. Is PBP [...] prepared to compromise? Of course it shouldn’t, as nothing good for the left can come from participation in what would be a capitalist government. But if it isn’t then why bother engaging in this charade at all?”
The Socialist Party did not think that SF was the progressive option in 2015 when they wrote that Irish Times opinion piece. They did so because they wanted to engage positively with the illusions people had in a SF government. In fact, SF had less popularity amongst working class people than they do now. The relevance of engaging with illusions in SF are even greater today. We also have more opportunities to expose SF today, as explained in the rest of the article.
A case study: the 2014 Dublin South West by-election
Socialist TD Paul Murphy was elected in the 2014 by-election in a shock result as the seat was considered a shoo-in for SF. This election campaign was on the wave of the water charges and the Anti-Austerity Alliance undertook an electrifying campaign. One of the authors of this article was part of this campaign and found it an inspirational and formative experience, particularly on the issue of how to take up SF.
The campaign attempted to cleave open the contradiction of SF purporting to be a vehicle for change, while at the same time, having a ‘soft’ position on water charges. While building the movement against water charges with street meetings in local communities and local protests advocating for non-payment, every opportunity was used to call on SF to move to the left on the issue.
At first, SF refused to commit to scrapping water charges if in government, so the campaign called on them to give that commitment. When they did, we welcomed this step and pushed for them to go further, printing leaflets saying:
“With 14 TDs and 159 councillors Sinn Fein could also play a major role in building mass non-payment of the water charges..”[7]
When they refused to back non-payment, the campaign urged people to use the election to send them a message and “make clear to Sinn Féin that a weak position on water charges in the future will not be tolerated.”[8]
Imagine if instead, the campaign had simply replied, as McCabe argues, that “Sinn Féin cannot be a vehicle for working class aspirations precisely because these aspirations can only be achieved through struggle.” It would be too abstract. Instead, we raised demands that would be necessary to beat the water charges and challenged SF to join the boycott. SF baulked in the face of these demands.
Then, towards the end of the by-election campaign when key SF TDs announced they would be paying their water bills, the campaign was able to seize this opportunity with a final leaflet calling them out. This could be done, without it seeming as simply sectarian point scoring ‘politics’ precisely because we had consistently been constructively calling on SF to stand with their supporters on this, rather than just attacking them from the sidelines.
Notes
Eddie McCabe, Sinn Féin, PBP and the question of a left government in Ireland, 4 August 2023, available at socialistparty.ie
Mark Paul, ‘Ibec says Sinn Féin ‘not mad’ when it comes to the economy’, Irish Times, 10 February 2020, available at irishtimes.com
Martin Fletcher, ‘The remarkable reconciliation between the royal family and Sinn Féin’, The New Statesman, 14 September 2022, available at newstatesman.com
Kevin McLoughlin, Socialists and a Sinn Féin Government, 1 December 2022, available at socialistparty.ie
Mark Phillips, ‘'Creative illusions': The ‘Left Government’ slogan today’, Rupture, Issue 4 (Summer 2021), also available at rupture.ie
Paul Murphy and Ruth Coppinger, ‘Sinn Fein not committed to an anti-austerity left wing government’, Irish Times, 9 December 2015, available at irishtimes.com
“Strike fear into the hearts of all the parties on water charges” leaflet, Dublin South West by-election campaign 2014
“If you want to oppose water charges & show your support for non-payment - put your number 1 vote beside Paul Murphy on the ballot” leaflet, Dublin South West by-election campaign 2014
For example: “Most people are focused first and foremost on defending and improving their own and their loved ones’ lots, which means there is potential for sections to be won to a more fighting and left and socialist position, as the best way of doing that.“ - Kevin McLoughlin, Socialists and a Sinn Féin Government, 1 December 2022, available at socialistparty.ie