Gowain McKenna ✒ Genuine intentions are superseded by a want for garnering attention and votes. Under such circumstances is helping those in need an act of genuine kindness from a position of concern, or is it a manipulative act designed to trick the electorate?

There can be no question that the working class continues to suffer immensely with those who are unemployed or on minimum wage often being denied adequate benefits, basic opportunities in education, housing, health care and an overall quality of life. It is also fair to say that this is a result of a deeply flawed system that is designed to complement and reward the few as opposed to the many. But does the working class (and socialist movements within) have anything to answer for in regard to this disparity; has their activism and actions been inert as opposed to being purposefully impactful? 

Unfortunately it is in the nature of politics for parties and other entities to blame social problems on the ‘other’, and in the process forgetting or ignoring the need to engage in a critical self analysis. For it is only through such an analysis that social movements can improve, adapt and implement lasting change. We will use the paradigm of the ‘ineffective socialist’ activist (and characteristics thereof) as a basis to address this.

The ineffective socialist has little desire to improve his or herself or to make their own way in the world through sustained individual effort and self-determination. This may be because they feel oppressed and so assume they do not have the ‘self worth’ or ‘self belief’ required to act in such a way, or it may be due to laziness. In any event, they tend to shy away from any form of 'self-actualisation' and instead prefer to engage in a herd mentality characterised by 'group think'. Yet it is precisely this herd mentality that underpins the problems inherent to socialist movements and collectives for it always amounts to an ‘us versus them’ praxis (in this essay praxis is defined as ones way of being and interacting with the world around them).

By solely wanting to belong to a group and become one of the herd, often the very definition of socialism and the required praxis is altogether lost on the ineffective socialist. He or she will instead see themselves as belonging to a separate, privileged and distinct grouping that is cut-off from the rest of society and humanity. In this way, the ineffective socialist believes he or she cannot be understood by the rest of society, and by believing that they can never be understood the ineffective socialist is wholly incapable of communicating and expressing themselves and their ideas to the masses. For to communicate and express ones ideas effectively, a degree of individuality and self-actualisation is required.

While it is true that unconstrained individuality and liberal capitalism is the enemy of a healthy socialist society, the ineffective socialist fails to grasp that social revolutions are not possible without individual participants first engaging in a 'revolution of the self.' The individual liberty and self-actualisation of individual members is not just best for the individual, but it is also best for the group, 'party or 'state'. Rather than living in submission to the state the socialist should strive to live in accordance to the ideals of the state. But what are these ideals and what does this entail? This brings us onto the ineffective socialists refusal to embrace nationalism and the national question.

The ineffective socialist will reject nationalism and the national question. Yet the pending realisation that the 'state' or 'party', and the culture, language and heritage of the nation are one and the same is of absolute importance. Therefore, the effective socialist should always strive to live in accordance to the ideals, language, culture and heritage of the home nation, and be willing to fight in defence of the freedom of that home nation. And by understanding that the language, culture and heritage of the nation can only ever be sacrosanct, effective socialism strives to unite the masses by living in accordance to such an ideal.

In this regard, let us look at the type of socialist who forsakes the unique strain of socialism inherent to his or her native country and instead prefers to fight for an admixture of internationalist socialist ideals. In this case the ineffective socialist wastes time, effort and resources in an effort to unify and identify with international strains of socialism at the detriment of socialist politics at home. This is because focusing on an international dimension brings with it no tangible basis or ‘foothold’ for progression.

Such an approach assumes that socialism in other nations is the same as the home nation when in reality it is not. This is because no two governments, cultures, political upheavals and environments can be the same. Indeed, certain strains of socialist analysis on the current situation in Ukraine has demonstrated this point perfectly. Such ineffective socialists can only isolate the oppressed at home and bolster their oppressor through such actions. They will refuse to adopt the flag, colours and language of the home nation, preferring instead to fly flags and adopt promotional colours that harks back to a past ideal that is both foreign and irrelevant. They cannot accept the fact that the state, the nation and it's culture are one and the same. In doing so they isolate themselves from potential supporters at home (electorate) and sacrifice any chance of political power. Such socialists will prefer to adopt a soviet communist outlook as opposed to focusing solely on the primary task of creating a socialist republic at home that is inclusive to all. In short, while international morale and support to other socialist entities is necessary, the belief that international socialism can be amalgamated and merged must be abandoned.

While good socialists will identify and stand-up for the downtrodden and oppressed, the ineffective socialist will not rejoice when some of the oppressed escape from poverty and oppression through self-determination and hard work. No, for when that happens they can only become a traitor who belongs to the ‘oppressor class’ as opposed to a success and inspiration worthy of admiration and respect.

Therefore, the ineffective socialist will always reject any form of class collaboration, even if such collaboration has been shown to help the oppressed. Indeed, the ineffective socialist fails to grasp that class disparity and oppression can only be abolished through some form of class collaboration, and that the concept of class warfare is in fact nonsensical and deeply damaging. In this way, while there is a genuine desire for improvement and fairness, the ineffective socialist will always strive to reduce society down to a level of ‘sameness’ and equity such that individual members can pose no threat to a perceived status-quo. 

Therefore, we can say that there is a great difference between wanting to improve the lives of the oppressed and in only having hatred and bitterness for those who are assumed not to be oppressed. For such an approach can only isolate the movement from a much wider strata of society and support, thereby rendering the attainment of political power practically impossible.

Let us now analyse the unhelpful need for the state (and/or party) to exercise control over the autonomy, personal boundaries and individual freedoms of it's members. The state can have no right to interfere in such matters and in doing so serves to stunt the social cohesion, growth and progression of a healthy socialist society. More importantly, who exactly exercises direct influence over ‘the state’ or ‘the party’? Because it is almost always just a small body of men and women who believe that they know what is best for the state; when in reality the nation, culture and language can only ever be sacrosanct. Such an approach is nothing more than a deeply flawed power matrix that is more than willing to sacrifice the needs of the people to achieve increasing state militarisation and power. 

Yet, in reality the sacrifices of society does not equate to the progression of the state or party. An effective socialist state or party will always put the health of its members (and public institutions) first so that a rigorous ‘bottom-up’ democracy is possible thereby ensuring the health of the state and the proletariat. Without this mechanism an environment of autocracy, cult of personality, cliques and control can only flourish which can bring nothing but suffering to the nation. In this regard socialism grounded in such autocracy can only devour itself in the fast-changing pace of modern society.

The role of religion and spirituality in a healthy socialist society must also be addressed. The type of socialist who rejects all forms of religion, spirituality and God and replaces the idea of 'God' with the party or the state sets a dangerous precedent. For by doing so the party or the state becomes omniscient and omnipotent (all-seeing and all-knowing) and therefore is beyond reproach. Such a secular society creates the very real risk of autocracy and cult of personality, and also negates the possibility of a 'bottom up' socialist democratic mechanism. An effective socialist society will always permit it's members the freedom to exercise their individual faith as they see fit, and by doing so their loyalty to the state can only be strengthened and consolidated.

Finally, the ineffective socialist fails to appreciate the fast changing pace and flux of modern society, and the ramifications thereof on implementing an effective political strategy. Instead he or she has a praxis firmly grounded in the past and is unwilling to consider or adapt to any form of political and democratic change. Indeed, the ineffective socialist will consider such changes to be ‘revisionist’ or ‘Trotskyist’ and therefore no careful consideration or thought can ever be permitted to take place. Therefore, the ineffective socialist is one dimensional in thinking and fails to recognise that historically speaking ‘effective social movements’ have always been ‘thinking social movements’ who are open to new possibilities and opportunities.

⏩ Gowain McKenna is a writer, structural engineer (marine), musician, political theorist (and sometimes poet). His political compass is far-left moderate libertarian and identifies himself as an Irish Republican first and foremost and Connolly socialist second. He runs a blog The Road To No Town and he has three degrees in the field of aerospace engineering: - M.Phil M.Sc B.Eng (Hons)

The Ineffective Socialist

Gowain McKenna ✒ Genuine intentions are superseded by a want for garnering attention and votes. Under such circumstances is helping those in need an act of genuine kindness from a position of concern, or is it a manipulative act designed to trick the electorate?

There can be no question that the working class continues to suffer immensely with those who are unemployed or on minimum wage often being denied adequate benefits, basic opportunities in education, housing, health care and an overall quality of life. It is also fair to say that this is a result of a deeply flawed system that is designed to complement and reward the few as opposed to the many. But does the working class (and socialist movements within) have anything to answer for in regard to this disparity; has their activism and actions been inert as opposed to being purposefully impactful? 

Unfortunately it is in the nature of politics for parties and other entities to blame social problems on the ‘other’, and in the process forgetting or ignoring the need to engage in a critical self analysis. For it is only through such an analysis that social movements can improve, adapt and implement lasting change. We will use the paradigm of the ‘ineffective socialist’ activist (and characteristics thereof) as a basis to address this.

The ineffective socialist has little desire to improve his or herself or to make their own way in the world through sustained individual effort and self-determination. This may be because they feel oppressed and so assume they do not have the ‘self worth’ or ‘self belief’ required to act in such a way, or it may be due to laziness. In any event, they tend to shy away from any form of 'self-actualisation' and instead prefer to engage in a herd mentality characterised by 'group think'. Yet it is precisely this herd mentality that underpins the problems inherent to socialist movements and collectives for it always amounts to an ‘us versus them’ praxis (in this essay praxis is defined as ones way of being and interacting with the world around them).

By solely wanting to belong to a group and become one of the herd, often the very definition of socialism and the required praxis is altogether lost on the ineffective socialist. He or she will instead see themselves as belonging to a separate, privileged and distinct grouping that is cut-off from the rest of society and humanity. In this way, the ineffective socialist believes he or she cannot be understood by the rest of society, and by believing that they can never be understood the ineffective socialist is wholly incapable of communicating and expressing themselves and their ideas to the masses. For to communicate and express ones ideas effectively, a degree of individuality and self-actualisation is required.

While it is true that unconstrained individuality and liberal capitalism is the enemy of a healthy socialist society, the ineffective socialist fails to grasp that social revolutions are not possible without individual participants first engaging in a 'revolution of the self.' The individual liberty and self-actualisation of individual members is not just best for the individual, but it is also best for the group, 'party or 'state'. Rather than living in submission to the state the socialist should strive to live in accordance to the ideals of the state. But what are these ideals and what does this entail? This brings us onto the ineffective socialists refusal to embrace nationalism and the national question.

The ineffective socialist will reject nationalism and the national question. Yet the pending realisation that the 'state' or 'party', and the culture, language and heritage of the nation are one and the same is of absolute importance. Therefore, the effective socialist should always strive to live in accordance to the ideals, language, culture and heritage of the home nation, and be willing to fight in defence of the freedom of that home nation. And by understanding that the language, culture and heritage of the nation can only ever be sacrosanct, effective socialism strives to unite the masses by living in accordance to such an ideal.

In this regard, let us look at the type of socialist who forsakes the unique strain of socialism inherent to his or her native country and instead prefers to fight for an admixture of internationalist socialist ideals. In this case the ineffective socialist wastes time, effort and resources in an effort to unify and identify with international strains of socialism at the detriment of socialist politics at home. This is because focusing on an international dimension brings with it no tangible basis or ‘foothold’ for progression.

Such an approach assumes that socialism in other nations is the same as the home nation when in reality it is not. This is because no two governments, cultures, political upheavals and environments can be the same. Indeed, certain strains of socialist analysis on the current situation in Ukraine has demonstrated this point perfectly. Such ineffective socialists can only isolate the oppressed at home and bolster their oppressor through such actions. They will refuse to adopt the flag, colours and language of the home nation, preferring instead to fly flags and adopt promotional colours that harks back to a past ideal that is both foreign and irrelevant. They cannot accept the fact that the state, the nation and it's culture are one and the same. In doing so they isolate themselves from potential supporters at home (electorate) and sacrifice any chance of political power. Such socialists will prefer to adopt a soviet communist outlook as opposed to focusing solely on the primary task of creating a socialist republic at home that is inclusive to all. In short, while international morale and support to other socialist entities is necessary, the belief that international socialism can be amalgamated and merged must be abandoned.

While good socialists will identify and stand-up for the downtrodden and oppressed, the ineffective socialist will not rejoice when some of the oppressed escape from poverty and oppression through self-determination and hard work. No, for when that happens they can only become a traitor who belongs to the ‘oppressor class’ as opposed to a success and inspiration worthy of admiration and respect.

Therefore, the ineffective socialist will always reject any form of class collaboration, even if such collaboration has been shown to help the oppressed. Indeed, the ineffective socialist fails to grasp that class disparity and oppression can only be abolished through some form of class collaboration, and that the concept of class warfare is in fact nonsensical and deeply damaging. In this way, while there is a genuine desire for improvement and fairness, the ineffective socialist will always strive to reduce society down to a level of ‘sameness’ and equity such that individual members can pose no threat to a perceived status-quo. 

Therefore, we can say that there is a great difference between wanting to improve the lives of the oppressed and in only having hatred and bitterness for those who are assumed not to be oppressed. For such an approach can only isolate the movement from a much wider strata of society and support, thereby rendering the attainment of political power practically impossible.

Let us now analyse the unhelpful need for the state (and/or party) to exercise control over the autonomy, personal boundaries and individual freedoms of it's members. The state can have no right to interfere in such matters and in doing so serves to stunt the social cohesion, growth and progression of a healthy socialist society. More importantly, who exactly exercises direct influence over ‘the state’ or ‘the party’? Because it is almost always just a small body of men and women who believe that they know what is best for the state; when in reality the nation, culture and language can only ever be sacrosanct. Such an approach is nothing more than a deeply flawed power matrix that is more than willing to sacrifice the needs of the people to achieve increasing state militarisation and power. 

Yet, in reality the sacrifices of society does not equate to the progression of the state or party. An effective socialist state or party will always put the health of its members (and public institutions) first so that a rigorous ‘bottom-up’ democracy is possible thereby ensuring the health of the state and the proletariat. Without this mechanism an environment of autocracy, cult of personality, cliques and control can only flourish which can bring nothing but suffering to the nation. In this regard socialism grounded in such autocracy can only devour itself in the fast-changing pace of modern society.

The role of religion and spirituality in a healthy socialist society must also be addressed. The type of socialist who rejects all forms of religion, spirituality and God and replaces the idea of 'God' with the party or the state sets a dangerous precedent. For by doing so the party or the state becomes omniscient and omnipotent (all-seeing and all-knowing) and therefore is beyond reproach. Such a secular society creates the very real risk of autocracy and cult of personality, and also negates the possibility of a 'bottom up' socialist democratic mechanism. An effective socialist society will always permit it's members the freedom to exercise their individual faith as they see fit, and by doing so their loyalty to the state can only be strengthened and consolidated.

Finally, the ineffective socialist fails to appreciate the fast changing pace and flux of modern society, and the ramifications thereof on implementing an effective political strategy. Instead he or she has a praxis firmly grounded in the past and is unwilling to consider or adapt to any form of political and democratic change. Indeed, the ineffective socialist will consider such changes to be ‘revisionist’ or ‘Trotskyist’ and therefore no careful consideration or thought can ever be permitted to take place. Therefore, the ineffective socialist is one dimensional in thinking and fails to recognise that historically speaking ‘effective social movements’ have always been ‘thinking social movements’ who are open to new possibilities and opportunities.

⏩ Gowain McKenna is a writer, structural engineer (marine), musician, political theorist (and sometimes poet). His political compass is far-left moderate libertarian and identifies himself as an Irish Republican first and foremost and Connolly socialist second. He runs a blog The Road To No Town and he has three degrees in the field of aerospace engineering: - M.Phil M.Sc B.Eng (Hons)

11 comments:

  1. Replies
    1. Absolutely not. You have demonstrated the fact that it is almost impossible to write the word ‘nationalism’ in the same breath as ‘socialism’ or to love one’s country without being subjected to reactionary labels. The left has been hijacked by the reactionary ’woke’ and has lost it’s way. The state of the nation, the degradation of our language, the struggle for ordinary workers to live above the poverty line amidst rising rents and fuel hikes, the attack on religion and faith, the autocracy of mainstream political parties and big business is what is important. I would argue this essay has much more in common with Connolly’s writings on ‘Nationalism and Socialism’ or ‘Nationalism and Irish Socialism’, or the writings and ideas of Hegel amongst others.
      Thank you for your comment.

      Delete
    2. Gowain - I think Henry Joy's facetious comment really does raise a crucial aspect. I was reading your comment in response to his and while not thinking for a second that you are some quasi Nazi ideologue, I can see quite easily how the disparate elements within your comment are all too easily incorporated into a far right weltanschauung. A statement that has all the discursive features of an ideology which the statement claims not to be, really has its work cut out in distancing itself from that ideology. Ernesto Laclau and Chantal Mouffe in my view identified some of the main issues associated with how discourse plays out in ideology.

      Delete
    3. Those who reject the inherent challenges, complexities and paradoxes of accommodating themselves within the banal middle will tend to seek refuge in idealism and ideology; for some it can become a transcendental and heady idolatry.

      Delete
    4. Thank you. I will check out Laclau and Mouffe certainly. The far right certainly have a knack for incorporating almost anything into their agenda but there is no substance other than an underlying agenda of hate and fear - they have done so with writings of Patrick Pearse, Tone and Emmett etc. choosing only to see the nationalistic side that is obsessed with purity and race and not focusing on the social aspects of education, employment and inequality. I am not concerned with what can be interpreted as belonging to which camp, indeed I do not think the ‘black and white’ duality of Right vs. Left politics is efficacious for the pursuit and attainment of Irish unity. There are in fact many shades of grey, for example one can be economic left but have pro-life and anti-abortion views etc. that may not align with mainstream left thinking.

      Delete
    5. It is not just the far right - it can range across the board. The work that goes on to disarticulate key ideological elements from one ideology and rearticulate them to another is, in the view of Laclau and Mouffe, the task of political strategists. To the degree that can be done (involves building alliances) corresponds to political success.
      It is clear that as you broaden out on your original statement the further you stand from the nationalistic right. Not that I thought you were near them to begin with nor do I imagine does Henry Joy. But he did raise a crucial point which in some way indicates the work to be done in setting out your stall.

      There are of course some socialists who oppose abortion - feminists also. Ciarán Cunningham in a very well read piece on TPQ made the argument. But they appear to be a seriously small minority.

      Delete
  2. Henry. Any chance of you expanding / developing your last comment?

    It sounds interesting.

    ("Those who reject... ")

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. The Journey (Mary Oliver)

      One day you finally knew
      what you had to do, and began,
      though the voices around you
      kept shouting
      their bad advice–
      though the whole house
      began to tremble
      and you felt the old tug
      at your ankles.
      “Mend my life!”
      each voice cried.
      But you didn’t stop.
      You knew what you had to do,
      though the wind pried
      with its stiff fingers
      at the very foundations,
      though their melancholy
      was terrible.
      It was already late
      enough, and a wild night,
      and the road full of fallen
      branches and stones.
      But little by little,
      as you left their voices behind,
      the stars began to burn
      through the sheets of clouds,
      and there was a new voice
      which you slowly
      recognized as your own,
      that kept you company
      as you strode deeper and deeper
      into the world,
      determined to do
      the only thing you could do–
      determined to save
      the only life you could save.

      Delete
    2. The Road Not Taken - R Frost

      Two roads diverged in a yellow wood,
      And sorry I could not travel both
      And be one traveler, long I stood
      And looked down one as far as I could
      To where it bent in the undergrowth;

      Then took the other, as just as fair,
      And having perhaps the better claim,
      Because it was grassy and wanted wear;
      Though as for that the passing there
      Had worn them really about the same,

      And both that morning equally lay
      In leaves no step had trodden black.
      Oh, I kept the first for another day!
      Yet knowing how way leads on to way,
      I doubted if I should ever come back.

      I shall be telling this with a sigh
      Somewhere ages and ages hence:
      Two roads diverged in a wood, and I—
      I took the one less traveled by,
      And that has made all the difference.

      Delete
    3. GRPM - a poem I'm familiar with too, one I tend to view as addressing one of the four existential concerns, i.e. freedom.

      People are free to the extent that they can choose.
      Those caught up in ideology and idolatry often become ensnared and alas blind to their freedom.

      Delete
  3. Henry.

    Walk on, with hope in your heart, though sometimes you will need to walk alone, and you will see clearly once the rain has gone?

    Great poem, hadn't seen it before.

    ReplyDelete