A critical assessment of the Communist Party of Ireland
As has become normalised in the Communist Party of Ireland, the leadership has again reduced itself to engaging in character assassination and forced exclusion instead of engaging in any battle of ideas. Embracing confrontation rather than engagement.
The absence of political and organisational maturity is reflected not just in how the Party treats its individual members but in the status the party now has in the political arena: a Party with a lack of organisational focus resulting in no action or development of any measurable quantity or quality. Hiding behind its overinflated sense of its own importance it has become a largely ignored phenomenon existing in a twilight of all talk and no action apart from a few performative public displays and much theoretical musing.
What a shame, for beneath all that inaction and infighting there is no doubt a revolutionary basis to build on. But, without providing a foundation – the job of the leadership for the main part – the blocks just keep tumbling down.
The present and the future of the Party could be turned around in a week. If anyone doubts that, then hear what other members and ex-members have to say about how such a transformation could be achieved.
For that to happen, the leadership – at every level – would need to resign their positions, or at the very least, allow those who have been silenced to operate in a democratic and non-threatening environment. Better still, sit across from those who have alternatives plans and strategies to offer and have an open, objective and critical analysis of what is on offer.
What possible reasons can there be for not doing that?
Meanwhile, though Socialist Voice provides a platform for progressive ideas and concepts it rarely ever gets beyond stating the obvious or just lecturing others on what needs to be done. The problem is that many people know what needs to be done they just don’t know how to do it.
However, the Party is content to just tell everyone what needs to be done without providing a single stepping stone to start from. There are hundreds, even thousands of outlets that can do the same thing.
What do you reasonably call a leadership that consistently refuses to lead? That consistently refuses to look at its past and present and conclude that it could do better? Much better. What do you call a leadership that refuses to engage in any battle of ideas? That refuses to relinquish methods that have proven to be useless generation after generation? That would resort to confrontation (but, only within its own ranks) rather than accommodation?
“Academic politics is the most vicious and bitter form of politics, because the stakes are so low.”
You only have to look at the state of the Party to recognise that there are serious problems. Don’t take our word for it. Look at it pontificating about being the elite soldiers of the revolution, how they are going to lead the way to nothing less than the destruction of the state. The only destruction the leadership has achieved is self-engineered destruction of the Party itself.
Two important questions were raised within the Party:
1) What is the party plan and strategy on any political or organisational issue? This question was asked a number of times but never received an answer. Either the plans and strategies are a secret or, they are simply not to be shared with the rabble membership. In fact, it is simpler than that, such plans and strategies do not exist.
2) What party, entity or individual woke up any morning with a problem presented to it by the CPI? In other words, what party, entity or individual has been challenged directly in any way by the CPI? Last year? This year? Any year? On any issue?
These are questions that have yet to be answered. However, the leadership makes it impossible for members to approach these issues because the reaction to these questions borders on the hysterical – either the questioner is disruptive, vexatious, accused of being in the wrong party or is dismissed as an anti-communist.
Of course, this brings us to the issue of democracy within the party. What democracy? The democracy whereby individual members get into positions of power and proceed to run riot with that power. Whether that is in the Dublin branch or the National Executive Committee makes no difference. Rulers are made up as they go along and the leadership then unites around itself to protect and promote the rule breakers. That happens irrespective or maybe despite the possible consequences for the Party itself by the pursuance of those actions. Hiding behind democratic centralism, they actually put the entire concept to shame.
Anyone who wants to challenge us on these claims is more than welcome to contact us for specifics, context or clarification.
“The smart way to keep people passive and obedient is to strictly limit the spectrum of acceptable opinion, but allow very lively debate within that spectrum — even encourage the more critical and dissident views. That gives people the sense that there’s free thinking going on, while all the time the presuppositions of the system are being reinforced by the limits put on the range of the debate.” Noam Chomsky (he sometimes hits the nail on the head).
So, what do you call a leadership that refuses to lead? That refuses to do everything possible to promote the Party? That fails to protect the Party from harm or potential harm? That refuses to examine every possible avenue to develop the Party? That refuses to get the best from its membership? That fails to protect the Party from ignominy and embarrassment and ridicule? That hounds more people out of the Party than it can recruit for the most part. That sees disillusioned and silenced members simply drift away and does nothing to stop that trend? What do you call a leadership that forces its own membership into silence and obedience? What do you call a leadership that insists – under pain of disciplinary action – that you accept all this as well as accept the lack of democracy? What do you call a leadership that fails to lay a glove on anyone or anything except its own members?
What do you call a leadership that sustains itself only on its delusions? Delusion of being the most advanced section of the working class in Ireland? Delusion of being the vanguard of the revolution? Delusion of being the masters of Marxist ‘analysis’ (whatever that is). Could it be its masterful understanding and expression of Marxist ‘analysis’ that has the party is the pitiful state it is in today?
There is a notion within the Party of an anti-communist trend in Ireland both historically and today and that this is the major reason why the Party had never developed. Certainly, there was such a phenomenon – at a time when communists were or could be a threat. However, there is little or nothing of that phenomenon today simply because there is nothing to direct its aim at. The reason for that is the Communist Party of Ireland itself. It is so irrelevant that there is no need for an anti-communist reaction to it or its philosophy. The measure of anti-communism is directly related to the level of threat posed by communists. No threat, no reaction.
Indeed, it can be said that the most uncomfortable place for a communist these days is to be within the ranks of the Communist Party of Ireland.
Whatever the reason for lack of development of either the Party or its policies, the fact remains that we have to look at who lead us to where we are today. Whatever about communist policies being accepted, no amount of external anti-communism can explain the shocking state of the Party itself. Who led us to where we are today?
So, to answer all those questions about the leadership of the Communist Party of Ireland; perhaps the only real and active anti-communists in Ireland are in the various levels of leadership within the Party itself?
If there is a better explanation for the state of the Party, today and historically, then let’s hear it.
Of course, this poses a dilemma. On one hand, it will take a communist party to provide much of the leadership and analysis and determination and philosophy to effectively challenge the current capitalist order. On the other hand, the party that could do that consistently refuses to do it. For all its faults, the Communist Party of Ireland could be part of a platform for political development. First, it has to develop political and organisational maturity and realism. Then it might earn its place at the forefront of leadership and change.
The failure to grasp olive branches extended to all levels of leadership of the Party confirmed that it did not have the political or organisational maturity to either recognise it as an opportunity or even to even use it as an opportunity to kill off the proposals using voting strength.
Instead, the leadership decided to go the path of brute confrontation using all its best and well-polished resources – ignoring suggestions, obstruction, intimidation, threatening and enforcing disciplinary actions, character assassination and other such finely tuned methods.
Anyone joining the Party in its current state does have an option: be prepared for a lovely delusional experience. Or, prepare for a nightmarish struggle with a dysfunctional leadership and a membership that has learned to cope with the irrational demands and impositions of what is effectively a cultish outfit.
One thing is for sure, there will always be communists who whether inside or outside the Party will force it to recognise its deficiencies and who will struggle to establish it as an effective political alternative.
While the leadership regularly tries to vote problems away, the ‘discipline’ that previously existed where expelled members or comrades forced out by other means would remain largely silent outside the party is no longer to be relied on. Members can be expelled or otherwise forced out of the Party but it is no longer the case that they will, like old soldiers, simply fade away.
The major problem that faces the Party is that while it owns the name of the Communist Party of Ireland, it does not own the concept. There is nothing it can do about that. The leadership could make the Party an effective political organisation or it can carry on doing what it has been doing so disastrously. That is the choice. Or, maybe not. One day that choice will be taken away from the current leadership – and the sooner the better.