Why the CWI failed to back the Irish left's landslide victory

The Irish Presidential Election and the Crisis of the Ultra-Left

In October 2025, Ireland’s revolutionary left faced a decisive test. Catherine Connolly, backed by a united left coalition including People Before Profit, the Social Democrats, Labour, Greens, and Sinn Féin, won the presidential election with a historic landslide. She secured the largest percentage and largest total vote of any presidential candidate in Irish history. For the first time in the state’s history, the left won a majority of votes in a national election. Young voters swung decisively leftward; 57% of 18-34 year olds voted for Connolly compared to just 17% for the establishment candidate. Thousands of new activists were mobilised, momentum was regained by the left, and a concrete foundation was laid for building toward a left government.

Yet not all of the Irish left participated in this historic victory. Militant Left, the Irish section of the Committee for a Workers’ International (CWI), stood aside. They argued that joining a “coalition of the left” with Labour and Greens meant compromising with capitalist parties; therefore, revolutionaries must maintain sectarian purity and abstain from participation. The result was that Militant Left isolated itself from the historic opening while the left won decisively.

Militant Left’s error is not isolated. The same sectarian logic is increasingly evident across the international left. In Italy, the Revolutionary Communist International (RCI), a split from the same Committee for a Workers’ International, has adopted identical ultra-left tactics, organising a provocation against feminist organisations. Their practice mirrors Militant Left’s isolation; refusing to photograph other revolutionary organisations’ banners, editorialising other groups out of struggles, and substituting abstract purity for participation in mass movements.

Most significantly, this sectarian approach has moved beyond mere organisational practice into theoretical justification. The article “Lenin’s Method for Revolutionary Party Building” (Il metodo di Lenin nella costruzione del partito rivoluzionario) by Concetto Solano provides precisely such a justification. Recently cited in the Tendency for a Revolutionary International Facebook group, Solano’s framework mechanically privileges internal purity over strategic engagement, arguing that the party “can’t and shouldn’t adapt to labour spontaneity” because it is “permeated by the influence of the ruling class”. This theoretical argument provides intellectual cover for the very sectarian practice that Militant Left and the RCI are pursuing.

The Irish presidential election provides a crucial test case for these competing approaches. The results demonstrate concretely what the abstract debate obscures: Solano’s framework, applied in real organisational conditions, produces isolation and irrelevance. Strategic engagement combined with programmatic clarity produces revolutionary effectiveness and growth.

The Theoretical Framework: Understanding Solano’s Argument

The article “Lenin’s Method for Revolutionary Party Building” correctly highlights several fundamental aspects of Leninist thought, such as the imperative of organising revolutionary militants around the communist programme, and affirming that the party must not be replaced by a mere “syndicate”. We also share the conclusion that the early Communist International consciously campaigned against “workerism” (economism or syndicalism), emphasising that the movement must proceed beyond purely economic struggles to a political challenge for power.

However, by mechanically focusing on the principle that the party “can’t and shouldn’t adapt to labour spontaneity” because it is “permeated by the influence of the ruling class”, the article risks presenting a dangerously one-sided account of Lenin’s method. This interpretation leads to an abstract strategic position that, in practice, risks substituting sectarian isolation for revolutionary strategy.

Lenin’s Dialectical Method, Not Mechanical Purity

The assertion that the party “can’t and shouldn’t adapt to the labour spontaneity” is abstract and overlooks Lenin’s strategic instruction, which demands the constant necessity of utilising all available means to connect with the masses. Lenin was not advocating for sectarian withdrawal from movements deemed “impure”; he was insisting on strategic engagement combined with ideological clarity.

Strategy Built on Mass Movement: Revolutionary strategy must always be built upon “the movement of the masses”. While the early Marxist tenet (as cited in the article) that class political consciousness must be brought to the workers “only from without” holds true, the masses are ultimately won over “only by action”. The spontaneous upsurge of the working class is acknowledged in Lenin’s tradition as the essential raw material and the “embryonic form of organisation”. Mechanically rejecting spontaneity risks misunderstanding the very dialectical process required for the revolutionary party to conquer the majority of the working class.

The Necessity of Penetration, Not Purity: Ideological clarity is vital, but Lenin’s practical method prioritised penetration over purity to avoid ultra-left isolation. When struggling within mass bodies such as trade unions, Lenin urged revolutionaries to exercise patience, accept necessary compromises, and employ flexible tactics to achieve revolutionary aims. This flexibility, which permits participation in struggles that might initially appear reformist or “impure,” is crucial for linking immediate victories to the ultimate goal of working-class power.

The Party as the Tribune of the People

Solano correctly stresses the indispensable role of the theoretically aware vanguard. However, the notion that the party only becomes an “indispensable tool” when the working class acquires “awareness of its historical role” is misleading.

The Leninist party must operate actively in the present moment, championing not merely its internal rigour but acting as the “tribune of the people”. This requires the party to champion “every manifestation of tyranny and oppression” regardless of the stratum or class it affects. This comprehensive mandate extends to supporting all progressive democratic struggles and constantly emphasising the need to link the fight against capitalism with the “fight for the widest democracy”. The party must pursue this comprehensive democratic approach to clarify the “world-historic significance of the struggle for the emancipation of the proletariat”. By narrowly focusing on the party’s internal self-consciousness and abstractly condemning spontaneity, Solano’s framework misses this broad, interventionist mandate.

The Sectarian Approach in Practice: Militant Left’s Fatal Error

What does Solano’s logic produce when applied to actual revolutionary work? The answer is visible in Ireland. Militant Left’s position directly mirrored Solano’s theoretical framework: the party “cannot and shouldn’t adapt” to such combinations with Labour and Greens because these parties are “permeated by the influence of the ruling class,” and therefore principled revolutionaries must stand aside in the name of purity. The result was that Militant Left isolated itself from the historic opening while the left won decisively.

This was not a marginal decision. The Connolly campaign mobilised hundreds of thousands of workers, young people, and activists into electoral struggle. It created the conditions for revolutionary organisations to demonstrate effectiveness on a mass scale, to win new layers to advanced political positions, and to build concrete organisational capacity. Militant Left’s sectarian abstention meant standing aside precisely when revolutionary work was most fertile.

The Strategic Approach in Practice: People Before Profit’s Vindication

People Before Profit (which includes the Fourth International permanent observer, RISE) adopted the opposite approach. Rather than retreating into sectarian purity, they actively participated in the Connolly campaign, using it to build momentum for a left government, win new activists, and establish the precedent of left unity. Crucially, they maintained complete ideological and organisational independence throughout. As Paul Murphy (a PBP parliamentarian) explained, their condition for participation was unambiguous: “we retain our right to independence, to put forward our own ecosocialist position, and continue strengthening our connections with communities to mobilise the power of people from below.”

This is precisely what Lenin meant by the United Front tactic. It is not about endorsing reformist politics; it is about participating in common struggle to win the masses to revolutionary conclusions.

Catherine Connolly’s victory bore out this approach. She won with the largest vote share in Irish presidential history; this was not a close result but a definitive popular mandate. The demographic breakdown tells the story of what became possible through participation:

• 57% of 18-34 year olds voted for Connolly; only 17% voted for the establishment candidate Heather Humphreys

• Among 35-54 year olds, Connolly polled 49%

• The Irish Times interviewed 35 first-time voters; 29 were voting for Connolly, 5 were spoiling their ballot, and only 1 was voting for Humphreys

• Thousands of new activists were mobilised for the first time and gained organising experience

• Momentum that had slipped rightward was regained by the left

• A concrete foundation was laid for building toward a left government

As Paul Murphy wrote in the aftermath, directly addressing the sectarian tendency: “Those sections of the socialist left who gave grudging endorsements for Catherine while criticising PBP’s engagement in the campaign will hopefully reflect on what happened and what they stood aside from. A left-right polarisation took place, and the left won.”

The Catherine Connolly victory demonstrates what Solano’s framework obscures: the relationship between revolutionary organisation and mass struggle is not one of external judgment and moral condemnation, but of dialectical engagement and strategic participation.

Consider what actually occurred:

Revolutionary organisation did not weaken itself through participation: PBP maintained complete ideological and organisational independence throughout the campaign. As Murphy noted, their condition for participation was simple: “we retain our right to independence, to put forward our own ecosocialist position, and continue strengthening our connections with communities to mobilise the power of people from below.” They did not dissolve into the reformist parties; they used the campaign to strengthen themselves.

Tactical flexibility enabled strategic victory: By participating in the broad Connolly coalition, revolutionaries were able to demonstrate through action that they were “the most resolute and effective fighters.” They built trust with other left formations, with mass movements, and crucially, with tens of thousands of previously non-political people. This is precisely what Lenin meant by the United Front tactic; it is not about endorsing reformist politics, but about participating in common struggle to win the masses to revolutionary conclusions.

The party’s tribune role was enlarged, not diminished: By championing Connolly’s anti-imperialist programme, her defence of Palestinian liberation, her opposition to NATO rearmament, and her housing justice demands, revolutionary socialists demonstrated that they could be the “tribune of the people” on all questions affecting the masses, not just narrow “class” issues. This is what enabled revolutionary forces to gain hearing among 57% of young voters.

Sectarian purity guaranteed marginality: Militant Left’s stance meant that when a historic opening developed, when the masses were ready to engage in electoral struggle around left demands, revolutionaries stood aside preaching abstract purity. The concrete result: marginalisation and irrelevance while history moved on without them.

The Dialectics of Spontaneity and Consciousness Revisited

Solano writes that the party “can’t and shouldn’t adapt to labour spontaneity” because it is “permeated by the influence of the ruling class.” This is true in the abstract; ruling-class ideology does permeate spontaneous struggle. But this is precisely why the party must engage with spontaneity, not withdraw from it. The dialectical process of raising consciousness requires the meeting point between revolutionary theory and spontaneous practice.

In Ireland in October 2025, hundreds of thousands of workers, young people, and activists moved into struggle motivated by economic demands (housing), anti-imperialist solidarity (Gaza), and democratic aspirations (neutrality and opposition to rearmament). Their consciousness was shaped by ruling-class ideology; they initially saw a presidential campaign, not a revolutionary transformation. And yet, by participating alongside them while maintaining ideological clarity and organisational independence, revolutionaries were able to deepen that struggle, win new layers to advanced positions, and build organisational capacity.

The Connolly victory proved that Lenin’s method is not about mechanical rejection of “impure” struggle. It is about strategic engagement: entering into every struggle the masses undertake, learning alongside them, demonstrating revolutionary effectiveness through action, and patiently linking immediate demands to the ultimate goal of workers’ power.

Avoiding Ultra-Left Isolation

The strategy recommended by Lenin requires combining “enthusiasm and cold calculation”, ensuring a “firm political identity” while consciously avoiding the dogmatism that leads to isolation. The fundamental strategic error inherent in rejecting engagement with spontaneity is that it hinders the crucial work of revolutionary strategy: patiently entering every struggle, no matter how small or “impure,” to link immediate victories to the ultimate goal of working-class power.

This practice mirrors the errors Lenin attacked in Left-Wing Communism: An Infantile Disorder; groups that refused to work in mass organisations, that abstained from electoral struggles, that stood aside from spontaneous movements in the name of revolutionary purity. They believed they were protecting their organisations from corruption. In practice, they guaranteed their own irrelevance.

A revolutionary organisation committed to Leninist strategy cannot build strategy “upon the possibility of an exceptional, easy victory”, but must patiently engage in tactical work to win the majority of the working class. The Catherine Connolly campaign showed what this looks like in practice: thousands of new activists, tens of thousands of votes, demonstrated revolutionary effectiveness, strengthened organisational capacity, and a concrete foundation for building toward a left government.

Conclusion: From Theory to Practice, From Isolation to Irrelevance

The crisis revealed in Ireland is symptomatic of a broader malaise affecting sections of the international left. When organisations like Militant Left, the RCI, and others adopt Solano’s theoretical framework, they set themselves on a path toward sectarian isolation. When they refuse to participate in mass struggles because those struggles are “permeated by ruling-class ideology,” they guarantee their own irrelevance.

This is not an argument for abandoning revolutionary independence or programme. Rather, it is an insistence that revolutionary independence is maintained and sharpened through engagement with struggle, not through withdrawal from it. It is an insistence that Leninist method is dialectical; it engages with the actual movement of the masses as it exists, even when that movement is shaped by ruling-class ideology and reformist politics. Through that engagement, combined with ideological clarity and organisational coherence, consciousness is raised and revolutionary capacity is built.

The Catherine Connolly victory proves the living power of genuine Leninist strategy. It also provides a cautionary tale for those who would substitute abstract principles of purity for the hard work of revolutionary engagement with the masses. History moves on; the only question is whether revolutionary organisation will participate in shaping it or stand aside preaching doctrine to empty rooms.

The choice before the international left is clear. Embrace the dialectical method that Lenin actually practiced, or follow Solano’s mechanical framework into increasing isolation. The Irish people have already made their choice. They demonstrated that when the left unites around a genuinely progressive programme and shows revolutionary effectiveness through action, the masses respond decisively. The question is whether revolutionary organisations will learn that lesson before sectarian purity consumes them entirely.