The Populist Pandora’s Box: A Reply to László Molnárfi
By J.D. Troy
In his article titled ‘The Emperor Has No Clothes,’ Molnárfi concludes by calling for an open and robust debate in the communist tradition. In the spirit of his call to engage in a written debate, I have decided to also contribute my thoughts. I am a stranger to alleged backroom gossip campaigns or any other drama that has supposedly taken place. I am also not a member of any political grouping. My interest here is not to engage in pointless infighting but rather to contribute my perspective, so that Molnárfi and others who share his views might be better able to understand why others on the Left disagree with some of his recent work.
This article is written using simple language and plain English, where possible. This is not done to condescend to Molnárfi, who has shown himself to be more than capable of nuanced and complex analysis. Rather it is to enable any reader, whether familiar with leftwing terms or not, to understand what is actually being discussed. Too often, discussions become frustrating for ordinary readers due to overly-complicated and technical language.
I will be responding to his recent co-authored article ‘Warning from Citywest’ and to some of his statements more broadly concerning identity politics and criticism of other Left parties.
Warning From Citywest: Missing The Wood For The Trees
Molnárfi and his co-authors argues in the above article that the anti-immigration protest held at Citywest shows that the immigration system needs to be reformed and that the Left must recognise the valid concerns of communities regarding resource issues, so that it can “capture […] populist energies.”
I agree with him that the IPAS system is deeply flawed. It is a system which generates money for the rich and powerful, who use the system to profit from the state at the expense of vulnerable migrants. However, any criticism of IPAS must be grounded in a recognition that migration is not an inherent ‘problem.’ The issue on the ground is resource allocation stemming from the imposition of horrific austerity policies which have decimated urban and rural communities alike. While the two are considered ‘linked,’ this connection is broadly derived from the far-right playbook, encouraged by Government to distract us. The international protection system is stretched to the limit not because of immigration but because the Government has consistently failed to invest money in public services. I believe the article fails to probe this connection adequately, instead taking as a given the idea that migration ‘concerns’ and resource allocation are inherently linked and proceeding on that basis. Underfunding and lack of resources was an issue long before the Right was able to link migration to it in the minds of communities.
I fundamentally disagree with the idea of Citywest being a ‘populist moment’ in which any progressive good could be built. Racism and anti-migrant sentiment was at the core of the protest. Not everyone at the Citywest protest/riot was racist, but it is without doubt that a lot of racists were there. It is somewhat naïve to imagine that these ‘populist forces’ are neutral and can be used by the Left to push forward our own aims. To see them as an opportunity for radical action misses the wood for the trees. Radical sentiment is not a politically neutral force which can be manipulated and I am somewhat sceptical of the idea that it is a simple case of redirecting anger during a so-called ‘populist moment’ in the right direction (or in this case, a left direction). How does one on the Left step into the breach on immigration? Resourcing issues are at the heart of the problem but the idea of there being ‘an immigration problem’ is in and of itself a Right concept. I do not believe the Left can safely and effectively critique the immigration system by attempting to co-opt the space from the Right. Focusing on the issue through debate and presenting policies that do not sit well with our overall ethos can be a poisoned chalice. While seeking to make ourselves relevant in the conversation and normalising opposition to migration, I fear we are in fact opening a pandora’s box, with the real risk of a radical Right populist unknown.
An aspect of his analysis of the Citywest issue which I disagree with is the naïve view of the crowd who protested/rioted. The term ‘lumpenproletariat’ is a Marxist term used to describe a specific social group consisting generally speaking of criminals and other problematic persons who lack class consciousness. As a result, they often act against the interests of the Left, being taken advantage of by reactionary (in this case, racist and fascist) groups. In this case, racist and fascist groups like The National Party etc use the lumpenproletariat to divide our society, pulling disadvantaged people into a toxic world of blaming migrants for the countless social problems that have been caused by Fianna Fáil and Fine Gael.
My view is that Molnárfi’s criticism does not take into account this significant element of the Citywest protest. I do not believe it is correct to view the protest as a largely legitimate but misguided radical action by a class conscious proletariat. Instead, we should view it for what it was; a lumpenproletariat majority, exploited by fascists, all targeting migrants. The presence of thugs performing ‘ethnicity checks’ must give us pause for thought when describing this protest as “a peaceful movement and its radical flank.”
There is academic debate as to whether the lumpenproletariat can gain class consciousness and be part of our struggle against capitalism. I believe that discussion is beyond this brief piece. My personal belief is that Marx and Engels are correct in their assessment that this is not possible but I digress.
Again, not all people attending that protest are criminals or ‘scumbags’ etc. However, to ignore the strong presence of such persons at the protest results in a flawed analysis. Put simply, not every street protest is a useful opportunity for us to convert the masses to socialism.
The Medium is the Message: Why Online Discussion is not our friend
One other reason for caution in adopting Molnárfi’s approach for engaging the public on migration is that we do not live in a neutral society. Our means of communicating our message are inherently anti-Left. All media is biased. Social media in particular is becoming a safe space for extreme right and openly fascist groups to freely spout their vile rhetoric. The Left is silenced, punished by algorithmic systems that favour hatred over decency and compassion. To suggest that we can capture popular sentiment on divisive culture war issues in such an ecosystem is naïve. No matter how many witty takedowns you post, you will always lose to the deluge of pro-rightwing content which is promoted by the platforms’ fascist owners.
On the specific issue of immigration policies, it is far more likely that we will be drowned out by Yankee-powered ‘Ireland is Full’ rhetoric than it is that we successfully articulate the need for redistribution of global wealth and the abolition of the Nation State under communism.
I also disagree with Molnárfi’s (and others’) use of terms like ‘woke Left,’ etc. The unhelpful use of terms like ‘woke Left,’ do not serve to improve the conversation. They instead lead us further down the path of right-wing buzzwords, culture war terms that carry loaded anti-Left connotations. What is woke? What makes something woke left? This kind of reductionist and meaningless terminology is used by the Right as a weapon to attack us, serving as a ‘fill in the blanks’ so that we can be accused of being ridiculous on any given culture war non-issue. We are also not helped by using even more esoteric language than is already employed in Left online discourse. Put simply, the last thing we need is more complex terminology. This leaves us being caught in a Catch 22, a lose-lose scenario. We are either wrapped up in complex, confusing language or using terms that were specifically made to be weapons against us. This leads to our ideas being too confusing for ordinary people, while also locking us into a rigged discussion where we are forced to bend to the Right’s frame of reference.
This is not the Left censoring itself and engaging in puritanism. Rather it is an awareness of the fact that nothing can be gained by performing on the Rights’ stage, with the Right’s script for the Right’s audience.
We have to meet working people in real life, on the bread-and-butter issues that matter to them like housing, workers rights and community-based initiatives that make a difference. This is through trade union and community activism. Online evangelism can only take us so far in a toxic ecosystem.
We on the Left disagree about many things, some of them of great importance and very fundamental to our political identity. However we all share a common goal of improving things for working people and their families. We want every person, no matter who they are, to live a decent, dignified and meaningful life. While I disagree with Molnárfi, I commend him for being willing to speak and write. I encourage him to engage with my modest piece in kind and offer his own views. Through that I would hope others might also contribute and generate a positive discussion.
To conclude, radical force and revolutionary action can only ever serve to empower and uplift. We must not allow ourselves to be taken in by the siren call of a fabled idea of populist sentiment which is, at its core, reactionary and problematic.