On The Red-Brown Opportunists

Neit Morrigan

There are in our modern times grave tendencies and graver yet consequences as a result in regard to our methodology in organising, winning over the support of the people in their masses and securing from them a revolutionary vanguard. Our task is no small issue, nor is it trivial, in how we perform it and with what precision. Many on the left, however, have strayed far from any principle in their desperation and, as a result, have muddied the path forward and the movement as a whole. They make false assumptions about our proletariat, make right-wing caricatures of them, and in that delusion head endlessly rightward to satisfy this non-entity. To them, to secure our fronts and bases, we must dilute ourselves with unsavoury figures who seem at all “talented” in their rhetoric and garner any base, regardless of how compatible their words may be with ours, and in their new petty-bourgeois friends who obfuscate capital with immigration myths, a new, common ground. What, or precisely who, do I speak of? What is this grave new trend that we must now dedicate our energies against? What exactly is the issue with what these people do?

We must concern ourselves with among the most contentious issues of our modern left for these answers. That is, the collaboration of certain left-wing forces with their corresponding right, or in essence, the unity between the constructive and reactive forces. This is not entirely new to us, as the phenomenon of this has occurred under countless instances both historically and in these times. Due to the establishment’s lack of ideological cohesion or indeed social mobilisation on economic affairs, it has been allowed in certain sections of the movement for the far-right to solve our manpower crisis through their participation and by sheer volume of numbers alone to produce results. In fact, many have gone so far as to disregard the social element of things altogether and thus forgoing that struggle for an ultimately economic one, and the social issues which are maintained lurch increasingly rightward to appeal to their new far-right friends. We see this on immigration, for instance. 

Many left-wing organisations, viewing the rage of the lay workers against “mass-migration”, have capitulated on these terms and now also are ultimately sceptical of immigration, whether for genuine or performative reasons. 

Such was the case with IRSP a number of years ago, who held social gatherings on the topic, and as a result of the “debate” (are right-wingers really capable of delivering one?) and ensuing results of such conferences, began professing stricter immigration controls in their programme. A great victory for the right-wing! Not alone in this, however, another organisation who under the great halo of Republicanism delivers unto us from the back of their wings a grossly anti-immigrant narrative; Fronta Poblachtach. Known for their collusive methods with the most detestable, backward far-right sycophants and even their own internal delusions on immigration, we will now give them a crash course on class character. 

When these organisations think of the far-right, they think they see us. To them, the far-right is identical in quality but merely differs in what is otherwise fixable contents quantitatively. As Communists, we appeal to the proletariat who are so oppressed by the capitalist class and toil exhaustively under their system and state. To Fronta Poblachtch, it must be the case that these poor proletarians, disillusioned with the system at hand, may also tentatively sway right rather than veer left. While it cannot be denied that some proletarians can be far-right, that does not change the fact that the far-right’s character is a petty-bourgeois one. It has become fashionable as of late to view the petty-bourgeoisie positively, as our greatest class ally, together with whom we might form a victorious coalition. 

Indeed, these people, for such an ideological framework to work at all, must imagine the petty-bourgeoisie in their woe as the new revolutionary class on the block, desperate to destroy capitalism with us and proletarianise themselves, but if only we cast aside the immigrant and the social current of our analysis to appease them in their all-mighty strength! If only we did so, there could be a revolution tomorrow! These people would kill the immigrant at the altar in reverence for the petty-bourgeoisie if it were only ever suggested to them! 

It is lost to these people (who I will not call comrades) the vacillatory nature of the petty-bourgeoisie and how they so frequently oscillate between their sympathies for the proletarian struggle and their assured maintenance of the capitalist struggle. The far-right may suggest that they are not capitalists, that they oppose such a system, that they only differ in the social realm and perhaps not altogether on the entire economic front. They might march with us on one hand on basic issues of capitalism and mobilise to our aid on these matters, but then on the other, on topics like immigration, they expose fully their oscillation to the bourgeois system. Rather than substantively tackling the issues of capital, they instead conceal the problem; to them, the problem is not that capitalism has created a system which does not adequately distribute resources, but instead they perpetuate the age-old myth that these resources are a scarce entity that the immigrants are now outcompeting us for. 

They lash out with extreme anger against these immigrants, therefore, attacking them and deluding themselves and others with fantastical myths of an immigrant utopia within Ireland. The immigrant needs only to knock on our door and receive our entire house for free! They get endless social welfare payments at our expense, they strain our supply chains in housing (which the far-right dare not mention as a result of the vulture landlord with whom they share a common interest) and consume what is ours at their leisure. This is a sinister lie, totally out of line with any credible data or statistics. Any concrete scientific analysis, with which we must constantly burden ourselves, would immediately expose such falsehoods and create the real picture of the issue. 

The immigrant here, on average, does not receive any of the suggested benefits. They are often crammed, whole families at a time, into small rooms where they are hardly fed and given a meagre fifty euros weekly with which they must live. Legally speaking, they are also not permitted to work (a very inconvenient truth for the lazy migrant stereotype). I know this because I lived near immigrant encampments and at my place of work, an unpaid volunteer position, mind you, I worked with an immigrant who was a qualified accountant, but who could not work a paid job due to legal constraints. A man who otherwise could live a comfortable life has now subjected himself to such things in order to pass the time and help others while he himself suffers. What a utopia! I do not have to be believed; if you are so sure of your scientific method, research the topic, and you will be astonished by what you find. 

Beyond this, since when are immigrants not proletarian? Are they not equally qualified for such a label and entirely deserving of our same self-liberation? According to Fronta Poblachtach, this does not seem to be the case, for in appeasing their petty-bourgeois friends, they forgo any common understanding of class as defined by relation to the means of production, which would then correlate ourselves with the immigrant far more than with the petty-bourgeoisie, but instead define their class lines by blood. Let us consider their statements:

“We didn’t time the judgment of a British court. “British nationalists” like those who implement mass immigration policies aim for the destruction of Ireland and its working class. Siding with them makes you an enemy of Ireland.” 

Found after only searching the term immigrant on their Twitter account, they promote a disastrous, almost laughable excuse for an analysis. Do they think we are literally importing solely and exclusively the bourgeoisie from foreign nations? If it were so, where are the corresponding thousands of businesses overnight propped up by these immigrants or at the very least, any detailed transcripts of their accounts or owned capital? To them, it would seem, this great foreign bourgeoisie has, in their masses, invaded Ireland at the behest of mingling foreign institutions to…live in cramped, terribly maintained emergency accommodations? Oh woe to them who steal exclusively the Irish right to be impoverished in our nation! 

On a serious note, they do not dare suggest such a thing, as even for them it would be too obviously false. A vast majority of these immigrants are, in fact, proletarian.

 That raises a question, though: what system exactly is being threatened here? If they, as they claim, want a system of and for the workers, how would the addition of more workers threaten this? To any logical mind, it would be completely the opposite; more workers only strengthen the workers’ movement. However, the petty-bourgeoisie elements, threatened by such a concept and out of fear, preserve themselves by shifting the class narrative to an ethnic one of blood. As they do not hide what it is they exactly want, calling themselves for a “Free and Gaelic Ireland”.

Notice this sleight-of-hand, as this is exactly the whole issue of their red-brownism. They preface their extreme ethno-nationalism at the beck and call of the fascist petty-bourgeoisie with the term “free” in order to deceive themselves and others that they suggest a socialist system. What exactly is it they mean by Gaelic here? Is it blood? Over the centuries, the Gael has intermixed as a result of colonialism and earlier waves of migration and as a result is magnitudes different in orders of blood than what it perhaps once was. Also, the burning of a significant amount of family and census records in the Irish Civil War has consequently made it impossible to distinguish exactly how Gaelic someone is by blood alone.

Do they intend to issue DNA tests to everyone on the island to solve this issue and separate the Irish from the non-Irish? Since we qualify it by blood, following this logic, does someone with more Irish blood qualify for more things more easily? Where precisely do we draw the genetic line of counting someone as Gaelic? One per cent Irish DNA? 20%? 50%? Or so and so forth? 

However, the ethno-nationalists and their backward leagues may answer us, “not at all, such a thing would be entirely impractical, we mean Gaelic by culture.” This opens up a whole new set of questions. What exactly comprises Gaelic culture beyond small, unique things as a whole cultural unit? Is it Irish dancing? Anyone can learn to dance. Speaking Gaeilge? Anyone, with enough commitment and practice, can learn to speak any language. So what is it in our culture that entirely excludes these migrants, and just how rigid are these rules? Culture is already a superfluous thing that humans do, thus making such approximate boundaries is impossible. These questions cannot be answered by these people, as they certainly hoped you would never ask. Even in inventing any combination of characteristics of what makes a Gael, they only open the door to far more questions than they would ever answer. No, neither blood nor culture matters here; only class does as the only unquestionably correct unifying force of all workers. I have far more in common with the immigrant proletariat than the Irish petty-bourgeoisie. 

However, beyond all of this, they entirely misunderstand what exactly we are meant to do with the petty-bourgeoisie. We are not meant to shape or bend our ideology and become more alike to them, or at least more tolerable to work with. Quite the opposite, we are supposed to make them more like us. We are meant to proletarianise them, make them as ourselves and think as ourselves rather than vice versa. We are supposed to make them communists of the workers’ movement, not allow them into the workers’ movement as fascists. However, as long as Fronta Poblachtach (who we use merely as the greatest, though not sole, example) so reverently kneel at the cross of their petty bourgeois icons and make themselves as they are, they are forever trapped spreading the gospel of figures such as their Saint Malachy Steenson. 

Saint Steenson, a member of the petty-bourgeoisie through his law firm, has steeped himself into whatever form or organisation that will take him. He opportunistically rallies himself with any given party that bends so eagerly, evidenced by the sheer number of organisations he has been involved in or at least held good ties with. He coaxes these people by deceptively covering himself in proletarian clothing while maintaining his petty-bourgeois characterisation. He has consistently found himself in hot water for these false pretences and yet, much like a cornered rat, manages to escape and find himself anew somewhere else, where he inevitably acts as a rat does. He speaks so fiery in sermons on the petty-bourgeois mount, so convincingly and with such virulent and hate-filled conviction to all the masses of anti-migrant campaigners, he has found himself at home in the new reactionary movement, with Fronta Poblachtach platforming him along their ranks with such welcome. I use our dear Saint Steenson as the greatest example of petty-bourgeois intellectuals who venture between organisations, hoping to seep into their cracks and corrode them, and Fronta Poblachtach has provided me all the evidence needed for the results. Death to these red-brownist icons! We are proletarians and the workers of the world and have no need of them or their petty-bourgeoisie. 

Such collusions could not be said to be new. History, as always, is our greatest teacher, after all, and we see the effects of the petty-bourgeoisie. The IRSP, which had flirted with reactionary immigration policies, is in fact the party from which Fronta Poblchtach split. They attempted to appease the most reactionary sections of struggle and, in their vanity, instead created sections not even they anymore support. 

The trend is obvious, as organisations attempt endlessly to win over the support of the petty-bourgeoisie and sacrifice themselves increasingly, they realise this class, without being proletarianised, grows equally in their demands, demanding unending appeasement that if not met causes them, in their greed, to move on to their own venture with their own interests. Sinn Féin, who had long since betrayed any semblance of their old selves, also dedicated themselves to the same and as a result came Aontu. The examples one could name are countless, but they always share the same thread. When we lose our particular class character, we lose our general character. We become shapeless and alien to ourselves and our base, and “to be flexible” bend every which way for every support, but instead break ourselves and collapse. 

It must now be concluded these groups have made a terrible mistake, one perhaps in their ignorance they have failed to yet notice. Now that they have muddied their waters with petty-bourgeois delusions and hidden ambitions, they have lost sight of theory, of the significance of a proletarian and not racial or ethnic struggle. They have lost their anti-capitalist edge and worker-centric politics and attempt to reconstitute themselves toward the petty-bourgeoisie as a result. Naturally, we are not surprised by the right-wing opportunism that has destroyed these organisations beyond any reason, which has made them sources of ridicule. We, on the other hand, must now continue our proletarian works, not render ourselves unto the whims of the vacillatory class or subject ourselves to their programme, but create a new, correct programme. One that is for the workers of the world that does not weigh ethnicity against the labourer, nor their histories and backgrounds, but instead reconciles them with the broadest struggles. Only class struggle! That is the deafening cry of the Marxists of the world. That is the only banner under which we organise. Only class struggle, and death to the borders of the world.