Naturally these entities don’t all share the same politics, which can present difficulties for someone trying to find a definition of what socialism is. So we must struggle to find a definition of what we’re struggling for. I wouldn’t expect everyone to agree with my own definition of socialism, so at the very least this piece might inspire a few other to contribute to the debate, even if it’s only to point out just how wrong I am.

Socialism, to me, is the democratic control by the working class of the means of producing wealth, and of its distribution and exchange too. This doesn’t just refer to manufactured goods, but also to the natural resources we find around us, whether they be oil, gas, gold, diamonds, or fertile soil.

This definition may be troublesome to some people. Which groups exactly compose the working class, for instance, and some even claim that the working class doesn’t exist anymore. Again this depends on how you define working class, which I believe to be every person who is forced to sell his or her labour to make enough money to survive – and just barely survive in many cases.

So how do the working class gain this control? Through a socialist party being elected to government? Through one big union? Through a vanguard party? Through workers’ councils? Through armed struggle?

I don’t personally believe that a socialist party in government can usher in socialism. Even assuming that socialists could get the majority of people to vote for them even though the system has been designed to disenfranchise workers and the oppressed, the fact is that the apparatus of the state is not going to allow any real change to come about. The rich and powerful will not allow their interests to be threatened, and they have many methods at their disposal to achieve their aims. They can stifle left voices in the media when they own so many papers and radio and TV stations. They can throw money around to fund opposition groups and if all that fails they can support coup d’etats.

This creates another question for socialists. There is going to be a section of the population that will be opposed to socialism, opposed to progress in general, and unless you’re a utopian socialist you’ll understand that the rich and powerful aren’t going to give up all of their wealth and influence because you explain how much better the world will be for it. They also have no shortage of followers even amongst the working class, people who have bought into the dream of upward social mobility or who have simply accepted the status quo (preached to them since birth by their schools, their churches, their media, even by their family) and spend their days reading The Sun and watching the soaps.

In Ireland, the biggest bulwark against progress and democracy has traditionally been unionism. Due to the unfinished nature of the struggle against imperialism, it has also become a question that many socialists have attempted to tackle. Successive British regimes in Ireland have used unionism against liberation movements as far back as the United Irishmen.

Some socialists would argue that unionism is just as bad as Irish nationalism, that both are simply forms of reactionary nationalism that must be forgotten if progress is ever going to be made. However, nationalism in Ireland has generally had a progressive character, being democratic, anti-imperialist, and even internationalist; whereas unionism has supported imperialism and monarchy and has always been fundamentally anti-democratic. There is also a kind of racism at its very core typically found amongst those involved in a colonial project.

Because unionism is at its core tied up with imperialism, any socialist who seeks to challenge imperialism must also challenge unionism. Some socialists find this concept unfathomable, and so declare that anyone who challenges imperialism is sectarian, because he or she is dividing the working class. This is of course a ludicrous suggestion born out of the moral cowardice of some of the left, who won’t recognise that it is imperialism that has divided the working class because there are sections of that class who support imperialism, and who prefer using bread and butter issues in a utopian and ultimately untenable effort to unite the workers. It didn’t work in 1907 or 1932; it won’t work today.

So socialists, I believe, must come to the conclusion that it will be impossible to get consensus amongst working people and to get the support of the entire class for socialism. This of course raises questions about how progress can be achieved in spite of the opposition of a section of workers, and socialists can’t shun issues such as the use of force in advancing socialism or in defending the gains of revolution against reaction.

Obviously though there will never be a pure social revolution and, to quote Lenin, “So one army lines up in one place and says, “We are for socialism”, and another, somewhere else and says, “We are for imperialism”, and that will he a social revolution!... Whoever expects a “pure” social revolution will never live to see it. Such a person pays lip-service to revolution without understanding what revolution is.”

So in the Irish context the most progressive section of the community, and the most progressive politics, have been traditional found within republicanism, from the national democratic aspirations of the United Irish Movement to the socialist republicanism espoused today. There are dozens of other issues and campaigns, such as women’s rights and community groups, cultural and youth movements, trade unions etc. that must be involved in the struggle. Their interests are not peripheral of even antagonistic to socialism, but must be integral parts in the movement struggling for it.

In this sense the struggle for socialism occurs in each country based on the historical development and conditions of that particular country. So a socialist movement can’t come about with dogmatic ready-made solutions and methods of organisation that come from say the Russia of 100 years ago. The Bolshevik model of a vanguard party operating on democratic centralist principles may well have been necessary in industrially under-developed Russia, but can the same automatically be said of Ireland today?

When we ask ourselves what socialism is, we must also ask ourselves what a socialist movement is, what tactics and strategies do socialists employ to achieve their ends, what roles do political parties and trade unions and grassroots organisations play in the struggle towards socialism. You can’t go into battle certain of how it will play out though, there are no ready-made solutions, so perhaps it will only be by gaining our own experience that we can actually move forward.