Beyond Activism: Building A Revolutionary Party In Ireland

In this guest post Tobias Rosandic, former industrial worker at Volkswagen in Germany, and Member of the Marxist Leninist Party of Germany, offers his opinion on pathways to a revolutionary party in Ireland.

The crisis of the capitalist-imperialist system is generating growing instability and political polarisation in Ireland, as it is internationally. Increasing numbers of people are questioning the existing order, searching for alternatives and losing confidence in the traditional establishment parties that have dominated Irish political life for decades.

The housing crisis continues to deepen, homelessness has reached record levels, and increasing numbers of working people find themselves unable to secure affordable housing despite being in full-time employment. At the same time, organisations such as CATU have emerged and expanded, reflecting a growing recognition that individual solutions can no longer resolve collective problems. Beneath the surface of Irish society, dissatisfaction with the status quo is accumulating across broad sections of the population.

Yet social discontent does not automatically translate into organised struggle. A striking feature of the current period is the gap between widespread anger and the relatively low level of sustained mass mobilisation. During the recent fuel protests, for example, significant sections of the population expressed sympathy for militant forms of action, yet this support remained largely passive. The official trade union leadership offered no serious lead, and no broader mobilisation emerged.

This points towards a deeper contradiction: the crisis in Ireland is not only a crisis of housing, living standards and public services, but increasingly a crisis of leadership and organisation. The existence of anger alone does not create a movement. The decisive question is whether forces exist that can transform diffuse dissatisfaction into conscious, organised and independent working-class action.

This contradiction raises the central question of the coming period. If the crisis of Irish capitalism is generating growing instability, while existing political and trade union leaderships remain incapable or unwilling to provide a way forward, how can a genuine revolutionary movement and ultimately a revolutionary workers’ party emerge under modern Irish conditions?

The contradiction outlined above corresponds closely to what Gabi Fechtner, chairwoman of the German Marxist-Leninist Party, recently described as a “pre-revolutionary ferment”. This should not be confused with an immediate revolutionary situation but the historical process in which the old order increasingly loses stability and legitimacy, while growing numbers of people begin openly questioning capitalism and searching for an alternative.

This development, however, unfolds through deep contradictions and intense social polarisation. More and more people become open to the idea of revolution and socialism as a genuine alternative for the future, while others degenerate into nationalism, chauvinism and the fascist swamp. Spontaneous anger alone does not automatically produce socialist or even class consciousness. Without revolutionary organisation, sections of the masses can just as easily fall under reactionary influence.

In this context, the History of the CPSU(B) states:

“From this follows the necessity of a new party, a fighting party, a revolutionary party, bold enough to lead the proletarians into the struggle for power, with sufficient experience to navigate the complicated conditions of the revolutionary situation, and with enough flexibility to overcome all kinds of obstacles on the way to the goal. Without such a party, the overthrow of imperialism and the conquest of the dictatorship of the proletariat are inconceivable. This new party is the party of Leninism.”

It is precisely this contradiction that places the organisational question at the centre of the current period.

In a previous article, James O’Toole opened his article with: “To get to a mass revolutionary party we need to focus our activity on the working class, we need to focus on union work, build broad campaigns, but also it is vital we stand in elections with openly and clearly defined politics. This is the basis for uniting revolutionaries in Ireland and turning them into a force that can tilt the balance of a future crisis in a direction that leads to working class power.”

The experiences of the German Marxist-Leninist movement in the late 1960s and 1970s remain highly relevant here — not as a blueprint to mechanically copy, but as a methodological lesson in revolutionary party-building.

Interestingly, many of the core methodological conclusions developed in Revolutionary Way No. 10 from 1970 strongly resonate with arguments already raised by James O’Toole himself in his article “How Do We Get To A Mass Revolutionary Party?” published on 10 April 2026.

In the chapter “From the League to the Party,” the KABD (Communist Workers league Germany) criticised the illusion that a revolutionary party could simply be proclaimed into existence through declarations, programmes or self-appointed leadership structures. Instead, it argued that revolutionary organisation develops through a longer process of ideological struggle, practical experience, cadre formation and increasingly unified political work.

In many ways, O’Toole raises a remarkably similar problem from the conditions of present-day Ireland. His article does not treat the revolutionary party as something that can simply be declared into existence, but as something that must emerge through a contradictory historical process involving political clarification, organisational development and growing implantation within the working class.

This is what makes the discussion so politically significant. Despite the enormous historical differences between West Germany in the 1970s and Ireland today, certain general contradictions of revolutionary party-building reappear under new conditions:

• fragmentation,
• ideological instability,
• weak proletarian organisation,
• the danger of premature party proclamations,
• and the challenge of transforming scattered revolutionary forces into a coherent proletarian political movement.

In this sense, the debate opened by James O’Toole reflects a serious and increasingly Marxist Leninist approach to the organisational question by grappling with the real contradictions of revolutionary party-building in Ireland today.

Revolutionary Way No. 10 assesses the founding of the KPD/ML and argues that this founding was premature. The forces were underdeveloped, and there was a lack of ideological clarity and simultaneous lack of anchoring within the working class. The prerequisites to found a revolutionary party were missing.

What exactly were these prerequisites that RW10 argued were missing at the time of the KPD/ML’s founding?

They were not merely a question of numbers, enthusiasm, or the formal adoption of a programme. Ideologically, revolutionaries first had to develop a common Marxist-Leninist understanding of the concrete conditions of their own country. This required more than the study of the classics; it required the application of Marxism/Leninism to the actual class structure, political situation, level of class consciousness and development of the class struggle. Politically, a revolutionary organisation had to develop and test its political line through practical experience, overcoming both right-opportunist adaptations to the existing order and ultra-left deviations arising from impatience, dogmatism or weak links to the masses.

Organisationally, the movement had to create the foundations of a genuine workers’ party: trained cadres, functioning leadership bodies, local organisations, workplace cells, systematic political education, criticism and self-criticism, and the practical application of democratic centralism. The central argument of RW10 was that these prerequisites could not simply be assumed into existence through declarations or party congresses. They had to be consciously developed through ideological struggle, practical work among the masses, organisational consolidation and the gradual unification of revolutionary forces. The purpose of the league phase was precisely to create these foundations before proclaiming a party capable of leading the working class on a national scale.

“The history of the KPD/ML shows that it was both presumptuous and amateurish to found a revolutionary workers’ party without the ideological, political, and organizational prerequisites being in place—they still had to be created. This is the first and main task in building the party within the organizational framework of a federation.”

“However, this federation is not a federalist association of individual circles without unified leadership and without unified discipline. Its organizational foundation can only be democratic centralism. Once the ideological, political, and organizational prerequisites are in place, the task of the federation is fulfilled, and party building in the true sense, with the comprehensive activity of party organization and the leadership of the masses, can begin.”

“The process of party-building therefore unfolds in two periods: 1. The period of party-building as a league/federation, and 2. The period of party-building as a party.” (Revolutionary Way No. 10/ Page 17)

Revolutionary party building can roughly be separated in three sections: Ideologically, revolutionaries cannot simply repeat textbook formulas or abstract theory. Marxism must be applied concretely to the real conditions of the country, the state of the working class, the political situation and the actual development of the class struggle.

This process inevitably involves disagreements, contradictions and ideological struggle, which can only be resolved through principled debate and practical experience. Politically, mistakes are unavoidable in the early stages of party-building. Revolutionary organisations develop unevenly and often swing between right opportunism and ultra-left errors due to inexperience, weak links to the masses or incorrect analysis.

The task is not to pretend these contradictions do not exist, but to consciously overcome them through struggle and practice. Organisationally, revolutionary forces initially lack the capacity of a genuine mass party. The priority therefore becomes cadre development, political education, disciplined organisation, practical work among the masses and the gradual overcoming of fragmentation.

RW10 stressed that revolutionary unity cannot be built administratively, but through an increasingly close process of common political work, criticism/self-criticism and ideological clarification.

In this sense, the first phase of party-building was understood as a “school of revolutionary practice” through which the foundations of a future revolutionary workers’ party are gradually created.

The Irish working class is less industrially concentrated and less organised than the mass workers movements that shaped earlier revolutionary periods in Europe. Trade unions remain bureaucratised and politically tied to reformism. Decades of neoliberalism, emigration, precarious work and social atomisation have weakened collective class consciousness.

Meanwhile, much of the radical left has historically been shaped by Trotskyism, electoralism, NGO politics and activist spontaneity rather than long-term proletarian party-building. This has often produced fragmentation, instability and weak roots within the broader working class.

At the same time, the growing crisis of capitalism increasingly breaks apart the old social stability that defined Ireland for decades. The fuel protests showed that beneath the surface exists a much deeper anger and willingness to confront the state than many previously assumed possible in Ireland. But spontaneous militancy alone does not yet answer the question of political leadership.

James O’Toole correctly points out: “In Ireland today there are a number of tiny revolutionary groups, most on the margins of the working class. Uniting them is pointless unless that unity has as its aim the merger with the best workers who are active in all the unions and with those who are active in the working class estates. That means having a clear rank and file union strategy, taking elections seriously and employing the united front method to organise in social movements where we aim to break sections of reformist groupings away through common action, all while upholding clear revolutionary politics.”

Yet recognising the need to orient towards the working class and actually rooting revolutionary politics within the working class are two different things.

Theoretical Online Magazines from Horizon to Aontacht to “you name it”, publishing clever articles written by petty-bourgeois intellectuals within the left bubble, for the left bubble, about how to approach the working class. They all fall for the same mistake, the working class does not seek the enlightened intellectual leader, coming from the outside to educate them how to do class struggle. Regardless of whether these articles contain correct or incorrect ideas, they ultimately become useless exercises in petty-bourgeois self-aggrandizement if they are not rooted in practical work within workplaces, working-class estates and mass movements and even practical work is doomed to fail if not part of an organised revolutionary party building following a genuine strategic plan.

One possible orientation under Irish conditions would be sustained rank-and-file work in strategically important sectors such as Dublin Port. Revolutionaries cannot remain external commentators on the working class. They must root themselves within workplaces, unions and working-class communities through long-term practical activity. Revolutionaries should seriously consider rooting themselves in strategically important sectors such as Dublin Port.

Historically, revolutionary movements have often approached this question consciously. In the 1970s, many cadres of the German Marxist-Leninist movement relocated to major industrial centres such as the Ruhr area, Hamburg, Wolfsburg and Salzgitter in order to root themselves among miners, steelworkers, dockworkers and industrial workers. The reasoning was not that these occupations were somehow morally superior, but that they occupied strategic positions within the economy and concentrated significant sections of the working class.

The specific conditions of Ireland today are, of course, very different. Modern Ireland is characterised by a different economic structure. The lesson is therefore not to copy the exact workplaces of previous generations, but to apply the same method. Revolutionaries must identify where strategically important concentrations of workers exist under contemporary Irish conditions.

Depending on the region, this may include transport and logistics, manufacturing, pharmaceuticals, food processing, healthcare, energy infrastructure, ports, distribution networks and other sectors whose functioning is essential to the wider economy. The significance of a workplace lies not in its resemblance to historical examples from Germany, Russia or elsewhere, but in its capacity to connect revolutionaries with organised sections of the working class and to provide a basis for long-term political work among the masses.

The central lesson is that revolutionary organisation cannot remain detached from the decisive sectors of working-class life. Whether this requires relocation to major industrial centres or the development of roots in strategically important workplaces already present in one’s own region depends on the concrete conditions. What remains constant is the need to consciously establish deep and lasting links with those sections of the working class capable of exerting significant influence on economic and social life.

Modern capitalism is highly organised. Governments, corporations, banks, media institutions, right wing agitators and fascists and state structures work together to defend the existing order and stabilise capitalist rule, especially in times of crisis and growing instability.

This is where the principle of democratic centralism becomes essential.

Democratic centralism is often caricatured either as blind obedience or rigid bureaucracy. In reality, its original Marxist meaning was the exact opposite: creating an organisation capable of combining the broadest possible internal political discussion with unified and disciplined collective action.

Without democracy, revolutionary organisation degenerates into bureaucracy detached from the masses. Without centralism, it dissolves into fragmentation, endless internal disputes and political paralysis.

A revolutionary movement operating under modern capitalist conditions cannot function as a loose collection of individuals all moving in different directions. The ruling class is centralised, organised and strategically coordinated. A revolutionary movement also requires the ability to:

• collectively analyse political developments,
• develop common strategy,
• learn from mistakes,
• intervene in struggles in a unified way,
• and maintain continuity beyond individual campaigns or spontaneous moments of anger.

Democratic centralism therefore means:

• open ideological struggle and debate internally,
• criticism and self-criticism,
• collective decision-making,
• but also unity in action once decisions are reached.

Mao described this as follows: “Within the people, democracy stands in relation to centralism, freedom to discipline. All of this forms two contradictory sides of a unified whole; they are contradictory as well as unified, and we should therefore not unilaterally emphasize one and negate the other. Within the people, one can no more do without freedom than without discipline, without democracy than without centralism. Such a unity of democracy and centralism, of freedom and discipline, is our democratic centralism.”

What Mao is essentially saying here is that neither democracy nor centralism can function in isolation. A revolutionary organisation cannot simply be a discussion circle where everyone follows their own ideas, but neither can it function through orders handed down from above without discussion. Democracy is necessary so that the experiences, criticisms and ideas of the membership can be brought forward. Centralism is necessary so that these experiences can be concentrated into a common strategy and unified action. The strength of a revolutionary organisation lies precisely in this constant movement between broad discussion and collective action.

Democratic Centralism isn’t simply a matter of order, correctly applied to an organisational structure the unity of democracy and centralism is thus a process of constant dialectical transformation of democracy into centralism and centralism into democracy. In this process, the unity and stability of the party organisation become increasingly stronger. It combines collective decisions with collective practical experience developed to new theory and new collective decisions.

It is inevitable that, due to organisational weakness in the initial stage, the comprehensive activity of a revolutionary party cannot yet be fully carried out. Much must remain unfinished. It is necessary to concentrate on the most important tasks. “Better fewer, but better,” said Lenin.

Party-building must proceed both regionally and nationally. As long as local groups do not exist in all counties and major cities of the country, one cannot yet speak of a party on a national scale.

The task of the league is to gradually create these conditions. The fragmentation of the Marxist-Leninist movement must be overcome; petty-bourgeois elements within the organisation must either be re-educated or expelled from the collective.

Cadres must be developed and functioning leaderships established, with preference given to actual workers. The organisation must be reorganised, meaning that emphasis must be placed on the creation of factory cells and branches. The education of all cadres and members must be carried out systematically according to a definite plan — not abstractly, but in connection with practical party work.

A correct style of work must be developed, and criticism and self-criticism must be practised continuously.

The task of the league, as the first period of party-building, is to create the ideological, political and organisational foundations, at least in broad outline.

Party-building requires a strategic and systematic plan, certain tasks for certain branches and continuously assessing the work being carried out. While comrades in Dublin concentrate on dockworkers, comrades in Cork might focus on Apple or the pharmaceutical sector. Evaluation and reporting in Branch meetings and so on. Without these preconditions within the framework of democratic centralism any approach to form a genuine revolutionary mass party is doomed to fail.

The crisis of imperialism will not automatically produce socialism. The old order can just as easily decay into reaction, nationalism and fascism if revolutionaries fail to organise. That is why the organisational question stands at the centre of the coming period.

The task in Ireland today is not to proclaim a finished revolutionary party out of thin air, nor to remain trapped forever in fragmented activist circles detached from the working class. The task is to consciously build the ideological, political and organisational foundations from which a genuine revolutionary workers’ party can emerge.

This means:

• rooting ourselves deeply within workplaces and working-class communities,
• developing disciplined revolutionary organisation,
• uniting scattered revolutionary forces through common struggle,
• learning through practical experience,
• and building a movement capable not only of resisting capitalism, but ultimately overthrowing it.

The road ahead will not be short or easy. Mistakes, contradictions and setbacks are inevitable. But history does not wait for perfect conditions. Under the growing instability of imperialism, the question of revolutionary organisation is no longer an abstract theoretical debate — it is becoming a practical necessity.

The future belongs neither to passive reformism nor to empty radical posturing, but to those capable of combining revolutionary theory with organised proletarian practice. The task before us is clear: Study. Organise. Root ourselves among the masses. Build revolutionary unity through struggle.

And prepare the forces capable of leading the working class in the battles to come. Youth, Future, Socialism!