Dublin Lockout 1913 And Its Relevance Today

'What degradation is more abysmal than that of those who prostitute their manhood on the altar of profit-mongering?' - James Connolly

This year celebrates the centenary of the 1913 Lockout (26th August 1913 - 18th January 1914). In one of the most significant workers' movement of its kind until that point seen in Europe, approximately 25,000 workers went on strike against 300 employers. The spark was caused by William Martin Murphy, an influential tycoon, who sacked 340 of his workers in a deliberate attempt to ignite a conflict with the unions - and he was considered a 'good employer' (Greaves, 306, 1976) at the time.  The strikes which followed led to a lockout of workers by employers from their premises.  It also highlights a version of spiteful corporate media bias against the poor and starving people of Dublin.

'All the capitalist newspapers of Friday last join in urging, or giving favourable publicity to the views of others urging the employers of Dublin to join in a general lock-out of the members of the Irish Transport and General Workers’ Union'. - James Connolly,

With the current capitalist crisis, how shall we remember the heroes of 1913?  What is its relevance in 2013 Ireland?  Today, ordinary people have been pushed to breaking point, and beyond, by a policy of austerity which does not work (unless you are part of the 1%).  But there is a fightback. With the Campaign Against Home and Water Taxes (CAHWT), and the unions' rejection of the Croke Park II deal, the issues that the souls of 1913 fought for are still on the agenda.  There are also smaller, but equally significant campaigns - to keep hospitals open, for the rights of care assistants and those who depend on them, and others, which taken together, are just as important and relevant as any of the largest movements. 

The reality is, Ireland is in a very similar situation to that of 1913. - 100 years on, we are yet to control our own futures! Ireland has lost her sovereignty to the Troika - we now answer to a financial dictatorship of the IMF, ECB and EU triumvirate.  In practice, our sovereignty is lost to capitalism.  The voice of workers throughout the world is drowned by the interests of capitalism.  The German Reichstag knows details of Ireland's budget before her people do.  Similarly, in 1913, Ireland was a colony of the imperial British Empire - Home Rule was the nationalist bourgeois topic of the day. Today, many argue for the same empty dream - the return to national sovereignty, and for what? - when the discussions in homes around the country and Europe should be the overthrow of capitalism! Capitalism is our backward parasitic occupier.

Do we see, for example, with high unemployment, decreased living and working conditions, and property taxes among other draconian measures pushed upon the working-class, that Larkin's words are as relevant today as ever?; as people struggle to pay mortgages, warm their homes, or put food on the tables for their families, massive corporations are pandered to by a government that is supposed to protect and represent its people; that Google pay virtually no tax back to the economy; that Starbucks have paid less tax in the past 7 years than a couple would.  Do we see that 'employers... throughout Ireland generally... use and exploit individuals as they please', just as Larkin said in October 1913?  If there has been a change since this was said, it is that the employers of Larkin's time have grown, into massively powerful global corporations and banks that have adopted an aristocratic position through bailouts at the expense of the ordinary citizens of Ireland - these corporations, they tell us, 'cannot fall!'.

The concessions won by workers in earlier days, have been turned belly-up, inevitably, as recession comes around once again.  We see how hard-won rights have been eroded and reversed as the unions have been weakened by Thatcherite policies and thinking.

Some would argue that we have come a long way.  We have running water (soon planned to be charged); we have central heating (which people cannot afford and is increasing in price); we have televisions (soon to have a broadcasting tax, as if paying for your xbox, tv, xbox live membership, netflix subscription etc. on top of advertising revenue were not enough); we have "free" education (which is not free - and a decreasing group has access to third level studies); we have made advancements in medicine and healthcare technology (which is unaffordable - waiting lists are so long for public healthcare, people are needlessly dying before they receive treatment), we have an educated workforce (who cannot find employment, are emigrating, or are working in part-time positions well below their ability - Tesco has a highly educated part-time staff indeed!).  Suicide and depression rates are up, and have become a national tragedy.  So sure, we have moved forward a lot.

But more importantly, relative to our problems in Ireland, are the conditions of less developed nations.  Unlike 1913, the world is in a more perilous place than ever. Global warming and climate change is a reality; capitalism has been its contributor.  Throughout the world, more people are exploited than ever before - to an even worse extent in the developing countries.

'It is then upon this working class so enslaved, this working class so led and so enriched with moral purposes and high aims that the employers propose to make general war. Shall we shrink from it; cower before their onset? A thousand times no! Shall we crawl back... abase our hearts, bow our knees, and crawl once more to lick the hand that would smite us? Shall we, who have been carving out for our children a brighter future, a cleaner city, a freer life, consent to betray them instead into the grasp of the blood-suckers from whom we have dreamt of escaping? No, no, and yet again no! Let them declare their lock-out; it will only hasten the day when the working class will lock-out the capitalist class for good and all' (James Connolly, Irish Worker, 30th August, 1913)

Who Are Direct Democracy Ireland?

Who are Direct Democracy Ireland (DDI), this seemingly grand party who claim to represent all people regardless of their political beliefs?  What are DDI's policies?  Why are they so afraid to state a position on any topic?  It is believed that they are a nationalist anti-left party attempting to create division among working class people.  They do not state their ideologies because they fear to do so. How do they accumulate their funds? -  which appear significant for such a small and recent group.  They have links with the UKIP and the Christian Solidarity Party - a party which cannot muster a single member to be elected at local level in Ireland such is their irrelevance.  I believe DDI is a political front for Christians who oppose a woman's right to choose - is that democratic?  We gain just a glimpse of DDI bigotry from their representative Ben Gilroy:

'- If you are a RICH banker you get a bailout

- If you are POOR you get a handout

- If you are in the MIDDLE you get left out and wiped out.'

This is  a direct attack on the working class in Ireland - those who have been hit hardest and sacrificed most during this recession.  Evidence converse to the DDI claim regarding 'handouts' is ubiquitous.  Their assertion of creating a transformation from the current 'political system... to one of direct democracy' seems all very well, but is not backed up with any meaningful policy - What difference would simply changing how we vote ultimately affect the current economic climate? - we are still subject to a financial capitalist dictatorship.  DDI make no such declaration about economics, or their position on it, or anything else.

Instead, DDI have burrowed their way into the circles of credible political campaigns which are justifiably protesting government policy.  DDI are exploiting the need for an alternative party which exists; they do this by leeching on the achievements of others within those campaigns to build a support of citizens tired and disillusioned with the current political climate.  They make romantic reference to 'founding fathers of the Irish free state' in an attempt to appeal to the sentiments of Irish people. It is hot air.

Once again, there is an different, wholly more democratic option - one which is built on sound social, economic and political theory, and strengthened continuously by its consistent analysis and criticism of itself and the world around it - socialism.  It is this idea which has striven tirelessly for the rights of people all over the world.  The battles which have been won did not come without struggle and can be easily reversed; the war has not yet concluded.  This struggle is not based on any false, misguided and divisive notions such as religion, race, nation or gender as other political ideas are, but on scientific and historical analysis of the system in which we live - and it has identified class-conflict within a backward  and oppressive capitalist paradigm as the obstacle to democracy and progress.

"I detest it when people think Marxism is some sort of intellectual exercise: we interpret things, we understand, we are more clever. Marxism is about action" ~Tony Cliff

Read more about DDI right-wing policy here.

 

Campaign Against Property Tax & Austerity (CAPTA)

A movement has been ongoing in Ireland during the past year.  This started with the Campaign Against Household & Water Taxes (CAHWT) and has evolved to become the Campaign Against Property Tax & Austerity (CAPTA).  CAPTA has come about as a result of many hundreds of thousands of households (approx 700,000) refusing to pay taxes which are being used to bailout corrupted banks, financial speculators and unsecured bondholders - who have been largely responsible for the economic crisis in Ireland.

The household tax, and now the property tax (which is more accurately a tax on people's homes) are yet more burdens placed on the ordinary people of Ireland who have already contributed to a universal social charge (USC) which is taken directly from every person's income, as well as continuing cuts to public services, increases in other taxes such as motor tax, and a high cost of living and increased VAT rate (which Irish is the sixth highest in the EU at 23% - up from 21% in recent years).  On top of all this is an environment of high unemployment - currently at 14.8% (2012) - it's highest since 2007 when the global recession started. This unemployment rate represents over 324,000 people, a figure which would be even higher if Ireland was not witnessing mass emigration of approximately 200 people per day.

Last year, news of the implementation of a household tax upon Irish families was announced.  The household tax would be a flat rate of €100 per house, with an additional monetary fine if you refused or otherwise did not register.  This household tax was defeated as a result of a mass boycott by the CAHWT movement (slightly more than 50% of households refused to pay, even after threats of fines and court proceedings) and became obsolete in January 2013.  However, the household tax was replaced by a so-called 'property tax' on people's homes.  The property tax is equal to 0.18% of most peoples' house value, or €400 on average per year.  It should be noted that the property tax does not affect business properties, but just homes and is therefore, in effect, a home tax. 

CAPTA is calling for the boycott of the property tax and a mass active movement to protest it.  In West Dublin, one of the largest populated areas in Ireland, support for CAPTA is a significant majority.  Indeed, it is in this area where the campaign has been largely initiated by left-wing activists such as Joe Higgins TD, Cllr. Ruth Coppinger and Cllr. Matt Waine as well as ordinary people dedicating their free time to the cause.

Revenue will have the ability to eventually procure the property tax from home owners, but this process should be made as difficult as possible for the revenue commissioners to do so by refusing to respond to their requests for information on your home and ultimately registration for the tax.  However, a boycott alone will not be enough.  There has already begun, a massive campaign of activism against this tax through occupations, marches and other initiatives to place huge pressure; in particular, pressure on the Labour party, which is the weakest link in the current Government.  The Fine Gael & Labour coalition is a large coalition with the ability to rush through any legislation without much opposition in the Dáil, although it is a fundamentally weak coalition due to the opposing ideologies of the parties.   

Propaganda in Irish Independent

In the past couple of weeks, there have been particularly prominent examples of propaganda in the Irish Independent.  This is based on two separate stories from the newspaper containing a similar theme about the methods of claiming and spending of salaries and expenses by Irish TD.

The first story centred around the designation of a portion of Sinn Féin TD Pearse Doherty's salary and some expenses to employ previously unemployed Sinn Féin activists to work on behalf of Sinn Féin.  The second story focused on the allocation of half of Fine Gael TD Brendan Griffin's salary to fund a primary school in its attempt to hire a new teacher.  Ironically, the primary school is unable to hire a new teacher and recently had to let go of another teacher because of cuts by the Fine Gael-led Government.

Michael Brennan, Deputy Political Editor of the Irish Independent wrote of their investigation into Sinn Féin's spending:

'An Irish Independent investigation reveals for the first time how Sinn Fein relentlessly and efficiently uses the political funding system to maximum advantage here, in the North, at Westminster and in the US.Our probe also reveals how:
- Sinn Fein officials monitor the bank accounts of each of the party's 14 TD to ensure that they use part of their wages to hire constituency staff.
- Each TD only takes the annual industrial wage after tax -- around €29,000 -- from their €92,000-a-year salary.
The balance, which works out at around €18,000 after tax and pension levies, is used to pay for additional constituency staff.
- Over €250,000 was legally diverted in this way last year alone.
- The cash is given directly to staff, rather than the party, to get around donation limits'

The findings relating to allocation of personal salaries were sandwiched between reports about "How Sinn Fein TDs are breaking the rules on expenses".  It has been found that Doherty has, in fact, not broken any rules regarding spending of expenses.  It is also worth noting that the points the Irish Indpendent highlight in their article related not to his spending of expenses, but to how he spends his own salary.


The above report regarding the allocation of Sinn Féin TD's salaries could be considered a negative report, in that it does not applaud the method of the TD's appropriation of incomes.  


6 days after the above article was published regarding Doherty, Majella O'Sullivan, also of the Irish Independent, wrote the article titled 'TD donates half his pay so school can hire teacher after budget cut'.  It included the reaction of the school principal to Griffin's donation:

'..."It's absolutely fantastic, especially when we were so downhearted after losing the appeal," school principal Angela Prendergast told the Irish Independent.  "Then Brendan came up with this proposal."  Mr Griffin said he was delighted to be in a position to help.  "It's an issue I feel very strongly about and the bottom line is there will be a third teacher in the school next September," he said'.

The above abstract can be considered to be relaying the story in a  positive light. In the article relating to Griffin, there is a stronger emotional or 'humanized' (Herman & Chomsky) element created by the inclusion of the School Principal's opinion.  In this case, the School Principal is the beneficiary.  In the former article, there is no opinion from the point of view of the previously unemployed Sinn Féin campaigners, who would be the beneficiaries in that situation. 

In respect to the first story, the Irish Independent boasts extensive background investigation and analysis displayed within the report; 'An Irish Independent investigation reveals'.  With the article concerning Griffin, there was comparatively no analysis and no background investigation.

This kind of reporting is consistent with Herman and Chomsky's explanation of a propaganda model associated with enemy and friendly states, although in this case, we can substitute enemy and friendly 'states' for Sinn Féin members and Fine Gael members respectively; 'We would... expect great investigatory zeal in the search for enemy villainy... but diminished enterprise in examining such matters in connection with ones own and friendly states'. (Herman & Chomsky, 1988, p. 35)

I conclude that the two stories, although similar in nature, are told with bias, and that the bias, in this case, is in favour of the Fine Gael agenda.


Screenshot references of the online versions of the Irish Independent articles can be viewed below:
__________________________________________________________________________________________

HOW SINN FEIN TDS ARE BREAKING THE RULES ON EXPENSES

http://www.independent.ie/national-news/how-sinn-fein-tds-are-breaking-the-rules-on-expenses-3144781.html

TD donates half his pay so school can hire teacher after budget cut 

http://www.independent.ie/national-news/td-donates-half-his-pay-so-school-can-hire-teacher-after-budget-cut-3150775.html

 

Taken from Joe Higgin's press statement, 3rd July, relating to expenses:

In 2011, apart from the Party Leader’s Allowance, the Fine Gael party received public funding of €1.9 million; Labour 1.03m; Fianna Fail 1.6million; dependent on their first preference vote in the general election. According to the legislation these parties are free to use that public funding for “coordination of the activities and members of the party” i.e. for the organisation and building of their parties. Smaller parties that do not qualify for public funding based on their first preference vote would therefore be at a serious disadvantage.

ULA Must Clarify Their Stance Regarding Mick Wallace

At the time of writing this, the ULA, remain the only members (Irish Times, the Journal) of the Technical Group in Dáil Eireann not to have requested Mick Wallace to stand down after he was found to be liable of un-declared VAT payments of approximately €1.4 million. I feel that this stance is detrimental to the campaigns that the ULA are involved in. 

The prolific debate about Mr. Wallace's future as TD is one with hypocrisy evident on both sides.  Fianna Fáil cannot be completely critical of Mr. Wallace without drawing-up reminders that they were recently one of the most corrupt parties in Ireland.  Fine Gael  are not guiltless in this regard either.

Also, from the perspective of some (journal comments), it may be difficult to understand the press' portrayal of this story as it would appear inconsistent with their portrayal of other similar stories which they report (or don't report) about corruption and alleged corruption in Irish politics.

The press' portrayal of this issue is not without its own apparent bias.  The Irish Independent, Ireland's most popular newspaper, has linked the story of Mick Wallace to the Campaign Against Water and Household Tax (CAWHT) for no obvious reason.  However, one might reasonably conclude the Independent's allusion to CAWHT in this instance might be to further the Irish Independent's own particular interests.  There is no relevance between the CAWHT and the tax dodging of individual Mick Wallace except for the fact that he happened to support that campaign.

That being said, have the press acted inappropriately by highlighting this story to the public?  I believe they have not.  Highlighting this kind of story is precisely the point of having a free media. 

So, we can see then that there are certain inconsistencies in the handling of this story by politicians, and mainstream media coverage may not be completely genuine. But it still remains that the ULA's position of not suggesting Mr. Wallace stand down places them too in a hypocritical position of their own.

The ULA have achieved this by failing to fully clarify their position about a TD who has been useful to their own interests, while simultaneously criticising the Government for not completely denouncing TD's who had also been found to have acted improperly in the past.

The Socialist Party's stated reason for not completely condemning Mr. Wallace was:

'...the Socialist Party has not joined the frenzied chorus in the media demanding Wallace’s immediate resignation.  In taking this position we believe we are reflecting the view of many ordinary people in Wexford and of those who voted for [Mick Wallace], who condemn what he did but who don’t believe it means he shouldn’t be a TD to represent their area... The media are not impartial observers. A substantial part of the media is owned by billionaires and millionaires who have a vested interested in pushing a right wing political agenda. No doubt Wallace provoked their ire when he opposed the bondholder bailout and opposed extra austerity measures such as the home tax and campaigned against the Austerity Treaty in the recent Referendum.' (Socialist Party Website)

By adding their voice to the "chorus" of politicians that have already stated that Wallace should stand down the Socialist Party would not significantly undermine the Wexford electorate any further - if at all.

Conversely, not making such a statement only serves to further highlight the Socialist Party and other ULA members as having some alliance with Mr. Wallace which prevents them from condemning his position outright.  Of course any such alliance is non-existent as Mr. Wallace is not a member of the socialist party and has no affiliation with ULA other than his mutual support of the CAWHT.

As we have seen above, the Socialist Party's position on this matter has more to do with their perception of the media's agenda in this situation.  Their assessment of the media's ulterior aims appears to distract them from the more pertinent issue at hand - that of accepting the continuance of a politician working in the Dáil whose position has been compromised by a serious injustice against the State. 

Blaming the media's coverage of previous events and shrouded agendas is seen as petty in this instance .  As long as the ULA's position regarding Wallace remains irresolute, it actually plays into the hands of anyone who would like to use Wallace as an instrument against the CAWHT or the ULA who have 'absolutely nothing to do with this in any sense whatsoever' (Joe Higgins). 

Worst of all for the ULA is that they are now perceived by some to be just like all the rest.  Fundamentally, public perception is what it boils down to.  Ever critical of Labour's failings to stand up for its convictions, the ULA is in danger of being seen to do the same. 

Ultimately, if the ULA feel they are acting on principle, the outcome of their hesitant actions regarding Mr. Wallace are the same to most people; that is, to some, their principles may just appear like excuses.

______________________________________________________________________________________________

UPDATE:
Since writing this, Joe Higgins (Leader of Socialist Party) has released a statement about his opinion on the Mick Wallace controversy. 

Crypt Sphinx has also written a response to this blog here.