A Strategic Divide on Ireland's Left

Engaging with Sinn Féin

Jun 16, 2025

The discussion between Eddie McCabe's "Sinn Féin, PBP and the question of a left government in Ireland" and Aprille Scully and Diarmuid Flood's "Debating Left Government: A Socialist Response" highlights a core strategic disagreement within the socialist left in Ireland. This debate revolves around the optimal approach to Sinn Féin (SF) and the broader concept of a "left government."

McCabe's Critique: Sowing Illusions in Sinn Féin

Eddie McCabe, representing the Socialist Party, contends that People Before Profit (PBP) misinterprets Sinn Féin's true nature, and their current tactical approach risks "sowing illusions in Sinn Féin."

McCabe challenges PBP's assertion that "the privileged elite hate and despise Sinn Féin." He argues that mainstream media and the capitalist establishment have demonstrated "a notable softening towards Sinn Féin" due to SF's rightward shift and its overtures to business leaders. He cites analyses from prominent Irish newspapers, such as the Irish Independent and The Irish Times, which underscore SF's moderation on corporate tax, EU policy, and its pro-business stance.

McCabe criticizes PBP's "overemphasis" on SF's openness to forming coalitions with Fianna Fáil (FF) and Fine Gael (FG). He argues that this implies SF would otherwise enact "radical change" if not for such alliances. Instead, McCabe asserts that SF's willingness to cooperate with right-wing parties directly reflects its own political program, which is "closer to those of these capitalist parties." He points to SF's willing implementation of austerity policies in Northern Ireland and its careful moderation of stances, suggesting that anyone anticipating radical change will be "seriously disappointed."

Furthermore, McCabe questions PBP's consistent "surprise and aghast" reaction to SF's rightward shifts. He argues that SF "cannot be a vehicle for working-class aspirations" because these aspirations can only be achieved through struggle, which SF tends to avoid by steering people towards elections rather than active mobilization. He views SF's "moderate left strategy" not as a precursor to succumbing to capitalist pressure, but as "evidence of its already having succumbed."

McCabe finds PBP's description of a truly "left government"—one involving a break with capitalism and mass mobilization—to be "laudable" but "incongruous" with their focus on a Sinn Féin-led government, given SF's explicit opposition to such radicalism. He warns that PBP's tendency to refer to any government without FF/FG as the "left government" is "hugely problematic," as such a government, likely including Labour and and Green parties, would not fundamentally challenge capitalism.

Finally, McCabe criticizes PBP's tactical commitment to "participate in a left government that transforms people’s lives for the better." He believes this "sows illusions" by conflating a SF-led government with one that genuinely challenges capitalism, which he deems "not a possibility." He suggests PBP's vagueness on "red lines" for negotiation could make them appear unreasonable or lead to "widespread disappointment" when SF inevitably compromises, potentially benefiting the right-wing and far-right. McCabe advocates for a "skillful engagement" with SF supporters to shift them further left without "misleading and counterproductive, tactical ploys."

Scully and Flood's Response: Harnessing Creative Illusions

Aprille Scully and Diarmuid Flood, responding in defence of PBP, advocate for a "positive and principled" engagement with the public's desire for a left government, rather than mere "criticism from the sidelines." They categorize socialist responses into three types: "sectarian," "opportunist," and "harnessing creative illusions," placing McCabe's critique in the "sectarian" camp for "ignoring illusions" and "repeating truisms."

They acknowledge that SF has "dropped many of their more leftwing positions" and is courting business interests, but emphasize that this is "not yet clear to the vast majority of workers and young people who are hopeful that change is coming." PBP's own pamphlet explicitly warns that SF "does not want to frighten the rich" and "is committed to keep Ireland’s corporate tax rate as low as possible."

Scully and Flood agree with McCabe that socialists should not "pull our punches" or act as "cheerleaders" for a left government that merely excludes FF/FG. They insist that a "left government" must be "one committed to socialist transformation," and PBP aims to "contest the meaning" of this term in the public's mind. They argue that actively integrating criticisms of SF into public discourse, combined with demands that SF rule out coalition with FF/FG and adopt ecosocialist measures, is crucial. This approach, they contend, prevents opportunism and manages public expectations, giving people a reason to support PBP over SF.

They criticize McCabe's "sectarian" approach for not outlining concrete ways to "positively engage" with the widespread desire for change, instead suggesting socialists should wait for SF to "expose itself." They argue this misses the opportunity to "use these movements precisely as an aid in redeveloping the movement." For PBP, placing demands on SF is not naive, but a tactic to "bring SF supporters into action and highlight the difference between their aims and the actual plans of the SF leadership."

PBP advocates a "transitional approach" that recognizes and strengthens the positive aspirations of SF supporters to remove FF/FG and address societal crises. They believe that SF's limitations will become clear through "struggle," citing examples like the water charges movement where SF's positions were exposed under pressure from the socialist left. PBP aims to be "present in the movement for a left government" to "make this clear to people through the struggle itself." Their goal is to "raise the sights of what is possible" and demonstrate what a genuine left government would look like, preventing a narrative of "the left has failed" if SF falls short.

PBP also invokes historical precedent, pointing out that the Socialist Party itself adopted a more engaged approach in 2015, even promising to "discuss with others to see if a left programme for government can be agreed." They highlight the 2014 Dublin South West by-election campaign, where their predecessors (Anti-Austerity Alliance) successfully "cleaved open the contradiction of SF" on water charges through persistent demands and public challenges, demonstrating how a constructive, yet critical, engagement can expose SF's limitations without alienating its supporters.

Assessment of the Exchange

These two articles represent a fundamental strategic divergence on how a socialist organization should interact with a popular, yet ideologically ambiguous, political force within a dynamic political landscape.

McCabe's position is characterized by caution and a concern for ideological purity. He prioritizes preventing "illusions" in a non-socialist party and argues that SF has already compromised its radical potential. His "effective approach" seems to imply a more detached, educational role for socialists, waiting for SF to disappoint its base, which would then create an opening for a genuinely socialist alternative. The risk of this approach, as argued by Scully and Flood, is "sectarianism"—remaining on the "sidelines" and failing to connect with the broad aspirations of working people.
Scully and Flood's position is more interventionist and pragmatic, albeit within a revolutionary framework. They seek to "harness" existing popular hopes and redirect them towards a truly socialist agenda. They believe that by engaging with SF's base and challenging SF's leadership through concrete demands, they can accelerate the process of political education and radicalization, ultimately building a mass movement for systemic change. The risk of this approach, as highlighted by McCabe, is "opportunism"—inadvertently legitimizing SF's reformist politics or creating unrealistic expectations that could lead to demoralization.

The central tension lies in whether engaging with a perceived left-reformist party like Sinn Féin, even with strong criticisms and demands, is a necessary step to reach and radicalize a broader working-class base (PBP's view) or if it inherently risks diluting socialist principles and "sowing illusions" that will ultimately harm the movement (Socialist Party's view). The historical examples provided by Scully and Flood regarding the Socialist Party's past approach and the 2014 by-election serve to underline their point that a more engaged, demanding approach has proven effective in exposing SF's limitations and mobilizing people in the past. McCabe's response, however, seems to dismiss the potential efficacy of such tactics by suggesting PBP is being naive or inconsistent.

Lessons come from struggle

Socialists should commend PBP for explicitly outlining a vision of a "left government committed to breaking with capitalism and supported by a mass movement for socialist change", and for integrating criticisms of SF's rightward shift into their public statements. The strategy of "placing demands on SF" to "bring SF supporters into action and highlight the difference between their aims and the actual plans of the SF leadership" resonates strongly with the tactical history from the Anti-Austerity Alliance: direct challenges can expose SF's limitations and mobilise support for a more radical position.

Ultimately, the debate concerns the most effective strategy for revolutionary socialists to navigate periods of widespread desire for change that coalesce around non-revolutionary political forces. The SP and PBP both caution against any ambiguity that could lead to the perception of socialists legitimising a merely reformist, capitalist government. Their shared goal remains the socialist transformation leading to a Workers' Republic through mass action that genuinely challenges the capitalist system.

In the PBP-Solidarity parliamentary fraction, the SP and PBP have successfully shared an anti-capitalist electoral project as a weapon in the socialist struggle. Furthermore, they both understand that such a front cannot be electoralist in the usual sense, seeing it instead as a spearhead of a campaign to encourage resistance at all levels of society.