New from the World Socialist Party (Ireland) (1988)

From the October 1988 issue of the Socialist Standard 

Ireland — Twenty Years of Struggle 

A pictorial calendar of the political struggle in Ireland, including a resumé of major events. Educational and practical — a must for the politically aware.

£2 each, including p&p

Cheques etc are payable to World Socialist Party (Ireland)

Available from WSP. 41, Donegall Street, Belfast 1, Northern Ireland.

Current issue of journal, Socialist View No. 13, also now available (20p)

Blogger's Note:

Sadly, I've never seen a copy of this calendar. It sounds like something that should be scanned in and placed on the World Socialist Movement website.

 

P.S. Does this qualify as a pamphlet?

Laundering people: the Catholic work machine (2026)

From the June 2026 issue of the Socialist Standard

The Irish state has never stopped warehousing women it deems sexually inconvenient. It merely changed the branding.

Feminism as a tool of repression

On the surface Ruhama is a feminist charity helping women affected by sex work and trafficking. Founded in 1989 by the Good Shepherd Sisters and the Sisters of Our Lady of Charity, Ruhama operates today as a secular organisation with state backing and trades in the language of women’s liberation. These same religious orders are the institutions that operated Ireland’s Magdalene laundries. The continuities between the two systems are not cosmetic. They are structural.

A history of enthralment of women

The Magdalene laundries operated from the eighteenth century until 1996. Women and girls deemed fallen, wayward, or simply poor were confined in institutions that functioned as commercial laundries. They worked without pay, washing linen for hospitals, prisons, churches and hotels. Exhausting work in brutal conditions. The reason? To discipline women’s sexuality through productive exploitation. The state outsourced its moral regulation to the Church, and the Church turned a profit.

In 1993, building work at the former High Park Magdalene laundry in Dublin, previously owned and run by the Sisters of Our Lady of Charity (sic) revealed the vile nature of those god-botherers when 155 bodies were recovered from an unmarked grave at the site. Most lacked death certificates. Some remain unidentified as they had previously passed through institutions that included Mother and Baby Homes, industrial schools, and psychiatric wards, all devoutly segregating and controlling women and children who violated the Catholic sexual moral code or lacked social power.

The modern rebranding

Ruhama emerged from this same institutional matrix. Its founders were not peripheral figures in the laundry system. They were its operators. It’s argued that historical continuity does not matter because the organisation has since secularised, but institutions survive by adapting their methods, not by abandoning their function. The Magdalene laundries would have you believe their inmates are fallen women in need of moral rescue. Ruhama frames its service users as traumatised victims lacking agency, who have false consciousness or are at risk of exploitation. The vocabulary has been updated. The categorisation of women as problems requiring institutional intervention has not.

Ruhama’s Bridge to Work programme ‘engaged with’ 102 women in 2022, with 37 reportedly gaining job placements. Only five of those placements were paid. Women were once again working without wages, this time under the banner of rehabilitation rather than penance. The institution that emerged from a system of unpaid laundry labour is now placing women in unpaid work placements and calling it empowerment.

Money in the temple

The funding structure reveals where the money goes. In 2024 Ruhama received €2,015,271, with 91.5 percent coming from the state. Of this, 99.64 percent was spent on salaries and administration. Despite taking in €96,945 in donations, the organisation directed €71,799 towards actual service users. A resource distribution model that’s not liberating women from economic precarity. It is a model that sustains an institutional apparatus while keeping its subjects dependent and unpaid.

Ruhama’s own reporting acknowledges that poverty is a primary driver pushing women toward sex work. The logical material response would be substantial direct economic support: rent assistance, debt relief, emergency grants, childcare funding, and guaranteed paid work. Instead, the organisation expands a category called ‘at risk of exploitation’, which is sufficiently elastic to include migrants, single mothers, homeless women, women in informal economies, and young women whose sexual behaviour is considered immoral. This is not targeted intervention against identifiable trafficking. It is preventive institutional capture of a broad population of economically vulnerable women.

Historically, women did not need to have committed a crime or suffered a defined abuse to be confined. Suspicion, poverty, perceived moral danger, or simply being inconvenient to family or state was sufficient. Contemporary anti-trafficking frameworks reproduce this logic but with humanitarian language. ‘At risk of exploitation’ functions as the modern equivalent of fallen or wayward: a classification to justify intervention, surveillance, and unpaid labour regardless of the woman’s own assessment of her situation.

The Magdalene laundries were never abolished. They were incorporated into the state apparatus.

What exists today is an organisation founded under a regime of moral control through unpaid labour, now continuing to place women in unpaid work placements under the promise of moral reform and freedom from sexual exploitation. The women are not being economically liberated. They are being redirected into socially respectable forms of precarity while the institution that processes them absorbs state funding and reproduces the same carceral feminism it claims to oppose.

(Figures on Bridge to Work placements and Ruhama’s 2024 funding and expenditure are taken from research by Grace, Artist and Activist, Ethical Hoes.)

A.T.

Inconvenient commemoration (1984)

From the December 1984 issue of the Socialist Standard

Not every liar, cheat and hypocrite is qualified to be a politician, for which a high standard of expertise is required. Even so equipped, however, politicians can frequently become victims of what has come to be known as the banana-skin syndrome. A pesky civil servant is sometimes the agent of this dreaded problem which can bring about political death, or even reveal the fact that a female generalissimo was lying through her teeth when she disclaimed responsibility for the slaughter of 350 of her fellow human beings.

Whether the suggestion by that well-known Christian. Enoch Powell, that the murder of 350 Argentinian sailors should have been an occasion for “justification and rejoicing" (as reported in the Belfast Telegraph, 3 October. 1984) is genuine hypocrisy, is open to doubt. It is true that according to the Christian ethic “thou shall not kill", but Christian practice has never been averse to a bout of murder, providing it is committed under the guise of war. At any rate, it is conceivable that the eminent Enoch is quite genuine in his well-publicised hatred of all but the best of white-anglo-saxon protestants.

Timing is critical in the use of hypocrisy. It is fine, for example, for the British Labour Party to show righteous indignation about the Tories presiding over rising unemployment; attacking the health service; breaking strikes and using the full rigour of the capitalist law to punish pickets and strikers and, indeed, all the other dirty things that Tories do. But the Labour Party can protest only when it is Her Majesty’s Loyal Opposition — and its parliamentary representatives should leave the House before the Tories remind them that all Labour governments — all seven of them — have done all of these things in the past and will be obliged to do so again if they ever become the government again.

Yes, timing is always vital; but then, how fickle is the public memory? Who is likely to remind the pensioned media that butchering the people of Afghanistan was a practice taken up by British governments long before the Russian ruling class ever thought of it? Churchill, arguably one of the greatest exponents of political hypocrisy. just got his timing right in 1939 when he told the British working class to pledge their lives in the fight against Hitler — just two years after he had told readers of The Times that if Britain ever got into difficulties he hoped a man with the will and determination of Hitler would emerge. Mind you, this feat of monumental hypocrisy was almost eclipsed by the Russian Foreign Minister. Molotov, when he told his German counterpart that the Russian rulers had always held that a strong Germany was indispensable to world peace — about a year before their respective leaders sent their wage-slaves out to slaughter each other.

Then there was Kenyatta of Kenya, the leader of the Mau-Mau. If we believed the British press, this unsavoury bunch not only killed our brave boys who were upholding the flag in foreign parts, they actually ritualised the savaging of their corpses. Finally a deal was done with old Jomo that helped to keep trade and commerce intact and Kenyatta was canonised into the ranks of secular saints who help to keep the world safe for hypocrisy and capitalist exploitation.

Given half the space used by the press for bingo and trivia, we could lengthen indefinitely the list of current and past examples of hypocrisy. Where these examples proved successful, you can be sure that the timing was right. Bad timing and . . . there’s a banana skin!

It was such a banana skin that caused no less a person than the Deputy Prime Minister of the Republic of Ireland, the redoubtable hypocrite, Dick Spring, to fall on his political backside on 1 October last. In looking at the background to Spring’s misadventure. it is important to note that the Irish government is busily re-writing history in order to distance its more prominent personnel from the activities of the Provisional IRA and events in Northern Ireland. Again, the element of time comes into this mammoth exercise; according to the comfortable Garrett Fitzgerald and his cohorts, murder and mayhem was alright in 1916 and in 1919-21 but it is quite . . . well, barbaric, today.

Of course there were differences between 1916 and 1984. In 1916. when Pearse and Connolly led a bunch of politically ignorant workers onto the streets of Dublin to kill and be killed by their fellow members of the working class, Ireland was undergoing a period of British rule less rigorous and repressive than the country had ever experienced. In the present Northern Ireland troubles, on the other hand, those who mislead workers into an anti-working-class conflict against each other have very real military repression as well as social deprivation to play the role of recruiting sergeants. But this is not the difference that concerns southern Irish politicians; the difference is that they now have power and influence as the lickspittles of Irish capitalism; power, influence, Mercedes cars and all the trappings of rich living that their ex-imperial masters used to flaunt and all derived directly from the earlier bout of killing. Can it be wondered why they want to conceal the history of their bloody inheritance?

The old songs about yesterday’s heroes that once rocked the timbers where drunken patriotism found solace no longer have official favour — what respectable politician would want to share a ballad with the Provos? The sick commemoration services that previously allowed government ministers to unveil plaques to the immortal memory of some poor, unfortunate Paddy Murphy — whose dog might have barked at the Black-and-Tans — are, similarly, now frowned upon. But sometimes it can’t be helped; members of the commemoration committee might be the same people who marshall the voting fodder for the Party and. on the principle of votes before principles, what can a Minister, even a Deputy Prime Minister, do but attend?

Doubtless, for such good reason. Deputy Prime Minister Dick Spring was the chief hypocrite at a commemoration in honour of Sir Roger Casement, a would-be Republican gun-runner who was apprehended by the Royal Irish Constabulary in 1916. Actually, there are several layers of hypocrisy in the Casement affair. After his arrest, the British authorities — who had knighted him for his civil service in the Congo — found his diaries which, they claimed, revealed that he was a homosexual. The truth or otherwise of that claim should have been irrelevant but — mindful of the sick perversity of Catholic thinking on matters sexual — both sides tried to make propaganda out of the alleged revelations. the leaders of Catholic nationalism claiming that the “Black Diaries" were forgeries and, as such, demonstrated the depravity of the British.

The truth of the matter has never been cleared up nor have Irish politicians — the political heirs of yesterday’s gunmen — or the present IRA ever been brave enough to express their admiration for Casement irrespective of the nature of his sexual proclivities. The hypocrites can only revere the memory of a heterosexual Casement. But that is the lower layer of hypocrisy; the more immediately glaring aspect of the matter — the commemoration of a gunrunner by an Irish Minister — was the part that came unstuck — through bad timing for all concerned.

Poor Dick was not to know that the latter-day gunmen were attempting an almost carbon-copy re-run of the Casement adventure — at least, not when he agreed to give the oration. As it was a seven-ton trawler, loaded with weapons and surrounded by the entire Irish navy, was sailing into port within a short distance of the spot where Dick was commemorating an equally-failed venture. Whether it disturbed the Deputy Prime Minister to the point where he left the festivities without partaking in the sumptuous repast usually allotted to a hypocrite of such high standing. is not reported. Certainly, the affair did not appear to rock his boss, Garrett Fitzgerald, who with contemptible effrontery took credit for saving the lives of “fellow-irishmen” who might have died if the weapons had got into the hands of the Provos. Presumably, had Casement's mission been accomplished, the resultant deaths might have provided another opportunity for some other hypocrite to commemorate a "successful" engagement in the “Glorious Struggle" where the "other side" were “British" members of the working class.

Paisley, one of the chief political architects of the present troubles in Northern Ireland, and the Unionist Party leader. Molyneaux, while complimenting the southern politicians on the capture of the arms, were quick to point to the hypocrisy of the Irish government. Molyneaux equated the Casement adventure with the more recent attempt to bring weapons into Ireland and he upbraided the southerners for not condemning all gun-running. A fair point, you might think, until you remember that he and his Party of Superbrits owe their existence in no small way to the fact that they conspired successfully with Germany, in 1912 — in the shadow of the First World War — to bring in guns to use against British troops if the British government intended to impose a solution of the Irish Problem that was not compatible with the political and economic requirements of the capitalist class in Northern Ireland.

Harrington might well have been referring particularly to Irish politicians when he penned the couplet:

Treason doth never prosper; what’s the

reason?

If it prosper, none dare call it treason!

We are not implying that capitalism is bad because its politicians are demonstrably cheats, liars and hypocrites. Capitalism should be abolished because it kills people by starvation, war and lack of medical attention; because it imposes poverty of varying intensity on the overwhelming majority of the world's people; because it divides. alienates and embitters the human family and denies us all the material means of a full and happy life — and finally because. even if the politicians who legalise its thieving processes were anxious to promote political honesty, they could not do so.

Richard Montague

Belfast Branch, WSP

Blogger's Note:

Embedded within this article in the original copy of the December 1984 Socialist Standard was an ad for the recently published pamphlet, Ireland — Past, Present and Future. This pamphlet was produced jointly by the SPGB and the World Socialist Party of Ireland. It can be accessed at the following link.

Letter: The Pope and King Billy (1990)

Letter to the Editors from the October 1990 issue of the Socialist Standard

The Pope and King Billy

Sirs,

The article The Lies That Kill' (Socialist Standard, July 1990) on the celebrations of the 300th anniversary of the Battle of the Boyne in Northern Ireland was topical. However, it did the position of the Socialist Party of Great Britain no good to rehash historical error, even if it is convenient.

The comment on the third paragraph on the second page of the article which refers to the Treaty (or league) powers, of which the Pope was the head, that armed, provisioned and financed King Billy when he landed in Ireland has no historical fact. Even the way the historical myth is written is out of the normal context. It is normally associated with the landing in England in 1688 when the Pope Innocent XI was on the Papal Throne but this is erroneous too (see page 202, New Cambridge Modern History, Vol VI).

While it is a popular tale to abuse the Orange conception of the Battle of the Boyne the Pope did not have a Te Deum sung in St Peter's to mark William's victory. Indeed Pope Alexander was disturbed at the report that a Te Deum was sung in Austria where the Hapsburgs ruled—one of William's allies on the continent.

David Boyce 

Hamilton, Scotland.

Reply:

If the purpose of David Boyce's remonstrance is historical accuracy, then is argument is worthy of examination. If it is intended to refute the contention in the article that the fictions, lies and historical rubbish that the opposing sides in Northern Ireland use to deceive the working class, then it is less worthy.

It is less worthy because, however valid the two points he makes may be, they represent a small part of our indictment of the viciously anti-working class and anti-democratic Orange Order. This organisation has consistently promoted the lie that Unionism and Orangeism represent a shield for workers who are protestants. It has. by its fascist-like posturings and its triumphalism, promoted hatred and division within the working class. It was founded on the lie of class collaboration and its contemporary existence epitomises the hypocrisy and distortion that forms one side of the substance of the lies that in Northern Ireland today bring death and destruction.

Mr Boyce raises two objections to the article: (1) That there is no basis in fact for the contention that King Billy was armed, provisioned and financed by the Treaty or League powers: (2) That the story of a Te Deum being sung in Rome in celebration of William's victory is a popular myth.

For his second contention he offers no evidence beyond his personal claim. Even so, it can be accepted that definitive evidence is impossible to find. James Connolly made the claim in Labour. Nationality and Religion and The Reconquest of Ireland and cited as one of his authorities the protestant historian, the Reverend Robert Murray's Revolutionary Ireland and Its Settlement. Among other historians who have backed Connolly are Beresford Ellis in History of the Irish Working Class and Klopp in The Fall of the House of Stuart. The latter cites Avaux and Macpherson as his authorities for reporting that the Catholic Austrian Court had ordered public prayers for the success of King Billy's expedition in Ireland.

Mr Boyce supports his first contention by a reference to Volume VI of the New Cambridge Modern History. The substance of the particular article is the English Revolution in which there is a footnote quoting a Von Pastor:

It has been said that Innocent XI supported or had some knowledge of the expedition. but the documents generally adduced for this are forgeries. It was impossible for Innocent to associate himself in any way with a Protestant against a Catholic prince.

None of the more prominent Irish and Anglo-Irish historians, past and present, support Von Pastor's contention that it was impossible for a Pope to support “a Protestant against a Catholic prince". Most of these writers make generous use of continental European historians and some of the latter say that Innocent XI was referred to as "the Protestant Pope” because of his close identification with William of Orange. Murray quoted Koch and Schoell's Histoire abrégé des traités de paix as follows:

The Pope supported the Imperial Alliance, for he aimed at the humiliation of France and he cared little whether this was brought about by Roman Catholic or Protestant means. Instead of a religious crusade headed by the Pope and the Emperor, Louis is met with the Grand Alliance, signed at Vienna, between William as Stadholder of Holland and Leopold, on 12th May 1689 against the policy of France. William bound himself to secure Germany against future aggression by Louis and Leopold undertook to support William from attack in Holland. England and Spain were also to join this League.

Mr Boyce must accept the factual evidence for the Grand Alliance, whose existence effectively refutes Von Pastor's version of events.

Editors.

Nationalism's winners and losers (1993)

From the October 1993 issue of the Socialist Standard

The IRA claims it is acting in the interests of 'The Risen People’. But as R Montague makes clear, it is our fellow members of the working class, fighting over the fictions of opposing nationalisms, who are not only the battle casualties but the social casualties of the ‘national question’.

'The cause of Labour is the cause of Ireland". So wrote the renegade James Connolly when he abandoned his concept of internationalism and aligned himself with the racist nationalist, Patrick Pearse, in a struggle to extend the power of Ireland's fledgling capitalists back in 1916.

The lie did not die with Connolly; it remained to pollute working-class politics in Ireland and to facilitate the divisive interests of Ulster Unionists and Irish Nationalists and to bolster the fiction among some workers that despite overwhelming evidence to the contrary Ireland is in some way "their country". Connolly's reformist vision of solving the "national question" in order to clear the ground for the class struggle played no small part in making the so-called national question — which should be of no concern to the working class — a battleground on which workers slaughter one another over tribal issues.

The Provisional IRA and its political cousin, Sinn Fein, frequently use the term "the risen people" to designate their members and supporters, most of whom reside in working-class housing estates or on small farms. Like much of the archaic political baggage of the republicans, the expression dates back to the early part of the present century when the Gaelic revival and Sinn Fein were a burgeoning force in Irish politics.

Not that Sinn Fein or the genteel pseuds of of the Gaelic League were particularly concerned about the ordinary people. In Dublin, where Sinn Fein was especially active, the Medical Officer of Health announced in 1912 that 82,000 people were living in one-roomed tenement slums. Poverty was endemic, grim, the sort of poverty that has an ambience of real hunger, foul smells, ignorance and beggarly hopes and expectations. In 1912, too, Jim Larkin began to unionize the low paid, the labourers and transport workers who, against a background of mass unemployment, had no protection from their particularly rapacious employers.

The employers responded with a lock-out and the Royal Irish Constabulary won a contemptible place in Irish history by brutally attacking these semi-starvelings who had the audacity to ask their employers for a little more. The priests moralized and reminded the workers that property was a divine right and that they must distrust the motives of trade unionists in Britain who opened their homes to the starving kids of the victims of property and who, according to the priests, might be careless of the religion of those they were helping!

Sinn Fein stood aloof; its founder. Arthur Griffith, making no secret of his bitter hostility to the cause of organized labour.

"The first duty of the (Irish) nation", according to Sinn Fein, was not the plight of the desperately poor and downtrodden families that represented the generality of working-class life. Sinn Fein and the Gaelic League were not on their side. On the contrary: in as much as Sinn Fein’s purpose and its policy was aimed at gaining political independence so that an Irish government could nurture a native capitalism behind tariff walls and import quotas, it can be said that it was firmly on the side of the masters whose riches and affluence were fashioned from the grim exploitation of the poor.

With fierce candour, Sinn Fein would declare the first duty of the new Irish nation to be the interests of "the home manufacturers and producers" — a euphemistic description of the Irish capitalists who were locked in class warfare with the workers. Yet it was these workers who were subsequently elevated in republican myth to the status of "the risen people" because the republicans had succeeded in convincing some of them to forgo their ow n class interests and risk their lives fighting for the political and economic interests of their enemies!

In the light of recent revelations appertaining to lifestyle, wealth and poverty in Northern Ireland, it might be of interest to take a look at the current crop of "risen people" and to assess whether they are winners or losers in the grim game of death, maiming and suffering so grandiloquently misrepresented by republican slogans.

We must make it immediately clear that when we look for those who are losers and those who are winners in the Northern Ireland troubles, we see neither category represented as catholics or protestants, or as republicans or loyalists. All such categories are among the winners and, of course, catholics, protestant, loyalists and republicans are the entire human material of the losers the people who suffer death, maiming, intimidation and imprisonment. Among the losers, too, are those who inflict these miseries on one another.

Who are the "risen people"? Where and how do they live and what sustains the claim that either in their actual conditions, or in their political aspirations, they could justifiably be seen to have "risen"? Put another way, as the media draws attention to the rich lifestyles of some people in Northern Ireland and disgraced ex-Minister, Michael Mates, suggests the British government’s £3 billion annual subvention is making life easy for some people, we might suspect that these are the real risen people. The question is, are these people whose lives have changed so noticeably for the better as to gain the attention of the national press the "risen people" of republican legend?

In offering the testimony of Michael Mates we are conscious of his dubious reputation but he is right in saying that the British government makes a nett contribution of some £3 billion annually to Northern Ireland and he is right in suggesting that some of this money goes to the Northern Ireland Housing Executive and he might even be right in inferring that that public authority has evolved a standard of housing which is superior to some local authority housing in Britain.

Where Mates lapses into nonsense is in inferring, as he does, that money invested in public housing is in some way associated with the reluctance of local politicians to hammer out an agreed solution to the province’s problems. The fact is that there is still an acute housing problem in Northern Ireland and that this is being currently aggravated by severe cuts in the housing budget.

It is true that the overwhelming majority of IRA activists and IRA supporters, the "risen people", in the cities, towns and villages of Northern Ireland live in public housing estates. By their nature, even where standards have improved, these are depressing places and when the IRA or Loyalist writ is triumphant life can be very frightening indeed.

Peculiarly, the "risen people” and their "enemies” who support the loyalist cause, live in very similar surroundings. Whether they support the posturings of the paramilitaries or remain frightened and silenced by graffiti, intimidation, hijackings, and the occasional taking-over of their homes by local or state gunmen, they live in fairly uniform poverty. Unemployment in some of these areas can be as high as 85 percent; where it is lower, it remains a fact that most of the people are wholly dependent on state benefits.

As far as political aspirations are concerned, for most people they extend to the simple and somewhat despairing hope that the killings will end and the gun bullies, legal and illegal, go away. For others, politics are the bitter reaction to the last atrocity. For others, and especially the young people, nurtured in the ambivalence of a capitalist "morality" that glorifies military thuggery, and licensed killings, it is easy to translate the machoism, romance and reaction to state violence into the cause of Ireland — or the cause of Ulster. These are the areas from which come those who are killed, those who are maimed and those who are sentenced to long periods of imprisonment — and, of course, those who are doing most of the killing. Workers in these areas are often articulate and aware that whatever way the troubles are ultimately resolved will not affect the economic life of their class. The regime under which they live — either republican or loyalist — doesn’t tolerate dissent, however. Freedom is the right to do what you’re told!

Both republican and loyalist paramilitaries accept and commonly practise capital punishment even for what they term anti-social behaviour; there is no appeal, no concern for the social conditions that give rise to the alleged misbehaviour. This is a dominant, frightening part of the life of the IRA's risen people and they are locked into it because it is the heritage of their class; because their poverty denies them the opportunity to seek another form of life that exists a short distance away — among the real winners.

The prominence of this other form of life has become so pronounced that it has become newsworthy. On August 8 the Independent on Sunday featured an article entitled "Ulster Few Enjoy A Golden Age”. The article was accompanied by a picture of yachts and luxury cruisers tied up at Bangor marina and the lead-in proclaimed. "The sweet life goes on in North Down despite everything".

The ”story" was about luxury boats, about Jaguars and Mercs and Porsches, and the arrogant, pompous and non-productive people who own these things.

Two days later, the Irish Times took up the theme in a lengthy article entitled "The Sweet Charm of the Northern Bourgeoisie". The writer, Nuala O Faolain, festoons her article with quotes that speak volumes about the "charm" of her subjects. Listen to their words. these people who live rich lives because they own the means of wealth production or who organize the exploitation of the producing class for those owners. When you read what these people have to say you will see that, while they live a mere dozen-or-so miles from the working-class housing estates of Belfast, economically and culturally they are light-years away.

Here are some of O Faolain’s direct quotes:

"You can hear explosions across the lough. I do wonder some times why we‘re so fortunate, when they're so unfortunate."

"Pound for pound, we have a higher standard of living than anywhere else in Europe."

There’s a lot more of the same thing. But there is no talk of catholics and protestants; not a word about republicanism or loyalism. These people might compete with each other but they have no fictions to kill for. No, they know what side their cake’s buttered on and they can eat in peace — together.

And there, surely, is a lesson for us — the working class.

Richard Montague

Blogger's Note:

Embedded within this article were two 'Facts Files' giving more background on some of the participants in the conflict. Rather than try and post them within the article, I have reproduced them below:

FACT FILE: The Royal Ulster Constabulary

The RUC came into being with the Stormont state and over the years proved a willing and frequently brutal instrument of the ruling Unionist Party. With the commencement of the Civil Rights agitation in 1968 the RUC unquestioningly accepted Unionist Party instructions to deal with protest in the traditional way — with the boot, the baton and, if necessary, the gun.

Before the provisional IRA came into existence (1970) the RUC had been responsible for at least six deaths. The first two fatalities were as a result of beatings and, later, the RUC directed heavy machine-gun fire against a block of flats killing four people including a nine-year-old boy and a British soldier home on leave.

The RUC do not carry out normal policing in nationalist areas; instead, heavily armed patrols in armoured Land Rovers travel through these areas accompanied by soldiers. No attempt is made by these patrols to carry out ordinary policing; on the contrary, the frequent journeyings up and down streets in residential areas is seen as an act of provocation which helps to consolidate the influence of the IRA. Given its history, it is as difficult to see the RUC achieving acceptance among nationalists as it is to see loyalists tolerating the IRA. The force is much more a part of the problem of Northern Ireland than it is a part of the solution.

FACT FILE: The IRA's "Mandate"

The last all-Ireland General Election was held in 1918. Sinn Fein won 73 seats (for Westminster parliament); other nationalists won a further 6 seats and the Unionist Party won 26 seats. The Unionists won majorities in four only of the six counties that was to become Northern Ireland.

In 1921 the British government partitioned Ireland, creating Northern Ireland (6 counties) and the Irish Free State (26 counties).

The present IRA and Sinn Fein validate their right to carry on an armed struggle by reference to the electoral victory of Sinn Fein in 1918. Given that numerous general elections have taken place in both parts of Ireland since that date and that, when they have contested these elections. Sinn Fein have failed to achieve a significant vote, the IRA/Sinn Fein "mandate" claim is patently absurd. Current indications are that in an all-Ireland election Sinn Fein could expect two percent of the vote.

The Provisionals do not mention that the Irish electorate in the 1918 election was staunchly catholic and conservative and that today that electorate oppose contraception, divorce, abortion and all the other trappings of a pluralist state. The IRA/Sinn Fein, on the other hand, have abandoned the old 1918 conservatism: today, despite their claim to be faithful to 1918. they not only mouth the sort of left-wing shibboleths that would cause the 1918 electors to rotate continuously in their graves but they have, also, espoused most pluralist reforms.

Irish presidential election (What’s the point?) (2025)

From the October 2025 issue of the Socialist Standard

A presidential election is looming in the Republic of Ireland with the election date set for 24 October this year. While most elections under capitalism result in negligible meaningful change to peoples’ lives, the Irish presidential election, which takes place every 7 years, is an exceptionally good example of a purely ritualistic exercise in democracy. The socialist view is that elections in capitalism, no matter where they occur, are really just exercises in ‘rearranging the deck chairs’ as all that happens is a change in the personnel who administer the same social system. This is not to disparage democracy as a process but just to highlight the pointless nature of many elections. This is certainly the case for this election.

Decorative

The office of the Irish President dates from 1937 and the role essentially mimics the position of the monarch in the UK. It is mostly ceremonial such as receiving foreign ambassadors, attending significant sporting and cultural events, signing some official documents, representing the country abroad, etc. It does have a specific political role in terms of deciding the process of government formation in the event of a hung parliament where a government has lost its majority. One other duty (with nothing equivalent in Britain) is the power the President has to refer any law passed by the Irish parliament to the Supreme Court to have its compatibility with the constitution tested. Historically both these latter two tasks have rarely been exercised.

The constitution too makes clear that the office of president is almost entirely decorative; subservient to that of the Taoiseach (Irish prime minister) and is not an independent branch of government (as in the United States). It has no role in making or executing public policy. So why would anyone be interested in running for it? Well it does have some obvious attractions; high pay (€332,000 per annum) with lots of expenses thrown in and no specific list of mandatory duties apart from the two mentioned above. There’s no boss checking on your productivity or your schedule. So if the President decides he/she is going to work a 3-day week, sleep in most mornings or take plenty of long weekends, so be it.

The origins of the office lie in the secession of the Republic from the UK in 1921. There was a transition period from that date up to 1937 where the British monarch remained as the titular head of state of southern Ireland until this role was superseded by the creation of the office of President of Ireland. From its inception up until 1990 the contest for the office was mainly a tribal competition between the two large Irish political parties, Fianna Fail and Fine Gael with the former always winning because of its greater popularity with the electorate. The office became a desirable retirement home for elderly Fianna Fail politicians who were beginning to find the stress of day-to-day politics excessively taxing. Considering the first three presidents, Douglas Hyde was 85 when he left office. Sean T. O. Kelly was 79 and Eamon De Valera was 90 when their terms finished. These three were followed by two more party stalwarts whose terms were cut short by a death and resignation respectively and the next Fianna Fail incumbent, Paddy Hillary, was younger than his elderly predecessors and was noted for his enthusiasm for the game of golf. He actually won a prestigious amateur golf competition in Ireland while President, presumably thanks to having plenty of time to practise. In the words of one acerbic commentator at the time ‘Paddy Hillary used the post to get his golfing handicap back in shape’. This pattern suggested to the public that either the role was quite undefined (and the holder could selectively undertake whatever duties they personally warmed to) or that the duties of the office itself were very light. Both views were correct. This in turn prompted people to wonder what the real point of the office was, because the performance of many of the incumbents to date had been perceived as lacklustre and uninspiring.

Reboot

The office got a notional reboot in 1990 when Mary Robinson won and her election was portrayed as heralding a new Ireland with a more energised presidency, although the job description remained exactly the same. She promised to be more active in the position and to speak out for sections of Irish society that previously had not had their voices heard. Mary Robinson, although effectively elected on the Labour ticket, with wider left-wing support, was in fact a classic middle- class liberal coming from a wealthy background. In her earlier days she played a significant role in the process of liberalising Ireland from the oppressive dictates of the Catholic Church which particularly negatively affected women’s lives. She subsequently resigned the Presidency to become a UN High Commissioner. Before becoming President, she had been a law professor and since leaving the UN has had prominent roles with a number of international quangos and think tanks. In fact, like many of the other presidents, she’s an example of the kind of ‘important’ person in the superstructure of capitalism who moves from one ‘important’ job to the next. Her two successors, Mary McAleese and then Michael D Higgins (the outgoing President) have tended to follow her example, speaking out in general terms about disadvantage in society, the future of the planet and other worthy (and wordy) matters. Most of their pronouncements are purely rhetorical, unobjectionable in terms of content but empty in terms of any substance.

The runners

There are three candidates in the field. Two are ‘centrists’, from Fianna Fail and Fine Gael, The fact that these parties are in a coalition government together means that the government has two candidates going forward sharing an almost identical world view. The ‘left-wing’ candidate in the race is Catherine Connolly. She has the formal support of various left parties in the Dail including Labour, the Social Democrats, People before Profit-Solidarity and some left-leaning independent parliamentarians. Sinn Féin too is supporting Connolly and this should be a very significant boost to her, given the electoral heft of Sinn Féin.

One of her prominent supporters has described her as a ‘principled, left socialist’. She is from a long-established tradition in Ireland going back to her namesake (but no relation) James Connolly; her politics are a blend of ‘socialism’ with nationalism. The latter means she is a proponent of a United Ireland. She stresses the maintenance of Irish neutrality in international affairs and has a long-held opposition to any Irish involvement with NATO. In the past she has adopted what her opponents may portray as an ‘anti-western’ agenda, being moderately Eurosceptic and having a somewhat uncritical attitude to the current and previous regimes of Venezuela, Ecuador, Syria and Russia. She has long been vocal in her criticism of Israel’s treatment of the Palestinians and this has become more pronounced since the Gaza war, though of course the depth of her feelings on this are no longer restricted to the Left. In her campaign she says that she will present herself as a voice for the community, a voice for peace and a voice for tackling climate change. The brutal truth is that, if elected, she can talk all she wants about these matters but can do nothing of substance.

The non-starters

A mainstream conservative candidate, barrister Maria Steen, to represent the socially conservative section of the electorate, failed at the last moment to obtain enough nominations. Her platform was based on her history of opposing the liberalisation of society from Catholic moral values over the last 10 years or so. In that sense, she’s the complete antithesis of Mary Robinson and if elected (which was never likely) would have represented a 180 degree turn on the part of the electorate.

There were the many micro candidates running campaigns to a lesser or greater degree to be nominated, some of them having no platform at all and others having agendas that can only be described as bizarre and/or pointlessly idiosyncratic. Many of these ‘campaigns’ were just publicity stunts. Names here included a former TV weather presenter, a former professional dancer (Michael Flatley), the aged pop star Bob Geldof (who hasn’t lived in Ireland for years), Conor McGregor, a mixed martial artist (and found guilty of rape in a civil court and currently being investigated for some dubious behaviour during that same trial), Gareth Sheridan, a very young entrepreneurial whizzkid, who felt that the office of president could do with the vim he feels he could provide. There was also a far-right activist who’s worried (as all of that ilk are) by immigration and the lack of respect for ‘our’ national flag. These all dropped out because of lack of nominations, with some of them attempting to save face by claiming they were just ‘testing the water’.

The election campaign proper began at the end of September. Because the President has no real political power, the candidates campaign on personality and character and what values or ethos they will bring to the post of representing the nation. Success or failure can depend on whether embarrassing or uncomfortable incidents can be found in a rival’s past to indicate they are not of a suitable calibre. Also given Ireland’s PR system of voting, the winning candidate has to be vote-transfer friendly. This is usually achieved by making positive but bland statements on every issue that arises and not engaging with vehemence in any matter that could mean you are portrayed as being excessively negative or partisan. In that sense, appearing to be ‘nice’ and not having strong opinions on any political matter is a definite advantage. The Irish presidential election, like the office itself, is purely ceremonial. Real change must come from a different perspective and approach to politics.

Kevin Cronin

Family History and Beyond (2025)

Book Review from the July 2025 issue of the Socialist Standard

Remembering Peasants: a Personal History of a Vanished World. By Patrick Joyce. Penguin £10.99.

The author was ‘the London-born child of Irish rural immigrant parents’, and here he examines the history and current situation of peasants, concentrating not just on Ireland (where he discusses his own family history) but also Poland, and in addition with some attention to Italy. It is an eloquent and wide-ranging account, supported by a range of photographs, the earliest dating back to the late nineteenth century.

One chapter deals with the problem of defining who counts as a peasant, but there is no simple answer to this. Peasants are not necessarily serfs; they consume (part of) the products their work creates, with the family and its economy having a central role. They do not seek to maximise their income, and either owned the land they worked or had long-term tenancies. They may produce for the capitalist market, but the extent of this varies according to time and place. They live in ‘cultures of scarcity’, where prosperity for one person means another going without. Any money earned was not re-invested but kept at home or lent at very low interest rates. And ‘peasant societies are societies of the gift, not the commodity … What is given should be given freely: that which is given without expectation of return feeds the giver again and again.’ (The different tenses in this paragraph reflect those in the book.)

Religion often involved various traditional beliefs being incorporated into christian world-views, but ‘Religion usually had the law on its side, and so it also had the support of those who upheld the law, the landowners and state.’ There was a great deal of ‘everyday suffering’, and in some places it was the best of the crop that was surrendered in rent. Most years there would be ‘pre-harvest famine’ from spring onwards.

A powerful chapter deals with peasant revolts and rebellions. Peasants could feud with and even kill each other. There was a code of behaviour, which even the powerful had to recognise, and minor acts of revolt, such as quiet sabotage, could be used to get even. Sometimes this could escalate to violence and murder. In Ireland in 1882, for instance, a land agent was killed after many hundreds had been evicted and an estate converted to a place for fishing and wildlife shooting. There were larger peasant uprisings, such as the German Peasants War of 1524–5, the Romanian rebellion of 1907 and the Tambov Rebellion in Russia in 1920–1. The twentieth century indeed saw much violence inflicted on peasants: ‘These barbarities were foundational for the emergence of modern states.’ Most of those imprisoned in Soviet gulags were peasants.

Depending on the terminology used, peasants have now largely been replaced by small farmers, and globally over a billion people still do agricultural work, mostly in India and China. But whichever labels are employed, it is clear that peasant history was largely one of struggle, poverty and repression.

Paul Bennett

The Sinn Fein Policy. (1907)

From the September 1907 issue of the Socialist Standard

The Policy Foreshadowed.

“I had come to the conclusion that the whole system ought to be met with resistance at every point; and the means for this would be extremely simple: a combination amongst the people to obstruct and render impossible the transport and shipment of Irish provisions; to refuse all aid in its removal; to destroy the highways; to prevent everyone, by intimidation, from daring to bid for grain or cattle if brought to auction under distress (a method of obstruction that had put an end to church tithes before); in short, to offer a passive resistance universally, but occasionally, when opportunity served, to try the steel.”

The above lines were written by John Mitchel in 1847 when the Irish Confederation refused to endorse his policy of immediate resistance to the collection of rents, rates, and taxes. The portion relating to the transport and shipment of Irish goods referred to the exportation of Irish produce in a time when the country was devastated by famine and thousands were dying of starvation.

Parnell’s proposition to the Nationalist members, “to withdraw from the British House of Commons and organise the people in Ireland to resist English rule at every point” was defeated on a vote of the party. The idea of carrying on a campaign of passive resistance to British rule in Ireland is therefore not by any means new, but the Sinn Fein Party is the first party that has attempted to organise the people for this object. It has already succeeded in winning over the youngest and most ardent of the Irish race; it has converted four of the official Nationalist members of Parliament including one of their whips, Sir T. G. Esmonde. At a meeting of the Nationalist Party in the House of Commons it was proposed and seconded that the Party adopt the Sinn Fein policy and withdraw from Westminster. In North Leitrim the member, Mr. Dolan, having embraced the new doctrine, is about to contest the seat against the official Nationalist candidate.

The Movement Realised.

The Sinn Fein Party claim to have a majority in favour of their policy in the County and District Councils in the country, and Mr. Sweetman, chairman of the Meath County Council, at the meeting of councillors from various counties proposed and caused to be discussed at length a resolution to this effect: “that we refuse to collect any more rates or taxes”. Thus we see that the Sinn Fein policy will probably in the future be the method adopted throughout Ireland to resist and if possible destroy the domination of “the thrice accursed British Empire”.

What is the nature and origin of the Sinn Fein movement? The words Sinn Fein mean “ourselves alone”, and those who are acquainted with Ireland know that within the last ten years a movement was set on foot for the restoration of the Irish language, customs, industries, music and art; started and organised  by the Gaelic League it was at first strictly non-political and non-sectarian, its ultimate object was an Irish Ireland, everything in language, clothing, manner and sport which was not originally Irish was banned and ridiculed, and the offenders were termed “Shoneens”, “Flunkeys”, and “West Britons”. The Gaelic League was a decided success and it did not exist long before it had a political party formed independent of all others and having for its object “Ireland a Nation”, not in the sense of a British colony, but independent of all external authority. This party was formed on the same basis as Wolfe Tone a century ago formed the “United Irishmen”, and like Tone it wanted “to unite Catholic, Protestant, and Dissenter under the common name of Irishman”. “Our independence must be had at all hazards; if the men of property will not support us they must fall; we can support ourselves by the aid of that numerous and respectable class of the community, the men of no property”. Thus we see the Sinn Fein Party is the child of the Irish education movement, and is alluded to by the Parliamentarians as the “crowd of intellectuals”, “armchair agitators”, etc.

It sees the Futility of Compromise…

The Sinn Fein Party is now possessed of several weekly journals that voice its views. It has also published a large number of pamphlets that have aided considerably in bringing the Party to its present position. In their weekly journals the Sinn Feiners riddle the arguments of the Parliamentarians, they point to the fact that in 1847 the population of Ireland was 9 millions, while today it is about 4 millions after over half a century of labour on the “flure of the House”. That the Land Acts were fraudulent and did not even touch the question of the poverty problem, that a Liberal Government is now in office but not officially pledged to Home Rule; in short, that the Nationalist Party is ineffective as a weapon against British misrule in Ireland.

The Sinn Fein Party propose the immediate withdrawal from Westminster of the 82 Irish members and that the £30,000 now annually spent in maintaining this useless weapon be spent in sending consuls to foreign countries to open up markets for Irish goods. That all monies invested in the banks of Ireland at the present time be withdrawn and a People’s Bank be formed to lend money and transact all business at interest to cover only the cost of management. That a National Stock Exchange be formed in Dublin. That the people refuse to pay rent, rates, or taxes, and that the County Councils and other such bodies responsible refuse to collect same. That, if possible, no articles from which the British Government derives a revenue be consumed by the people. That the money saved in rent, rates, and administration be used in fixing machinery and starting the disused mills and factories, to revive dying industries and introduce new ones. That, in short, by common consent, by means of duly elected members or a general council of the County and District Councils the people of Ireland will refuse to recognise English law, authorities, or customs, and that henceforth Ireland shall be ruled only by the will of the people of Ireland.

Some of the chief spokesmen of this movement are large land owners and capitalists. Mr. John Sweetman owns a large tract of land in C. Meath, is a county councillor, railway director, etc. Edward Martyn is a landowner of County Galway, a J. P. and the exact reflex of the English capitalist. Sir T. G. Esmonde, Bart, M.P., is a bank director, railway director, and landlord. These and many other connected with the Sinn Fein movement give as their principal reason for supporting it the insecurity of their stock, the railways are not making any profit worth speaking of, the canals are idle, and so on.

… But is itself Futile.

From this it is quite evident that if the Sinn Fein movement succeeds profits are intended to rise at the expense of the Irish worker. The Irish capitalist class is still to remain the proud possessor of the land, factories, mills, railways, etc., and readers of this journal know what that means for the poor wretches employed.

The proud boast of the Sinn Fein Party is that Hungary was placed in much the same position as under Austria as Ireland is under England, and that when Hungary established her independence in exactly the same manner as the Sinn Fein movement proposes Ireland should, her trade increased by leaps and bounds, her population increased and new industries were developed, yet we know that today the Magyar is as much a slave as ever, and that there are in Hungary workhouses, prisons, asylums, unemployed, and all the other characteristics of the capitalist system. We know that the trade of Great Britain was greater last year than ever before, and that last year was nevertheless for the workers a year of great unemployment, poverty and privation. Even regarding the present success of the Sinn Fein movement it may be pointed out that the prospect differs vitally from that of Hungary in the important fact that Hungary was almost the equal in population and strength of Austria, and so was able to command political success. Hungary was also helped by the important tactical position it occupied as a barrier against Russian and Turkish advance. But as far as the condition of the people is concerned the Hungarian worker is not one whit better off than the Irish worker, whilst emigrants from Hungary may be counted by the hundred thousand, by whom, it is evident, the foreign exploiters are found at least no worse than the Hungarian masters from whom they flee.

For only Socialism can help the Workers.

In view of these facts it is our duty to warn our fellow-workers in Ireland of the futility of the Sinn Fein policy as far as they are concerned. There can be no relief for the oppressed Irishman in changing an English robber for an Irish one. The person of the robber does not matter—it is the fact of the robbery that spells misery. National divisions are a hindrance to working-class unity and action, and national jealousies and differences are fostered by the capitalists for their own ends.

The crowd of hungry “intellectuals” clamouring for jobs both within and without the Irish parliamentary party do not represent the interests of the working class in Ireland. They do not, indeed, profess to favour other than capitalist interests, provided that the landlord or capitalist be Irish, but the Irish capitalist is in no wise more merciful than the English exploiter. The national sentiment and perennial enthusiasm of the Irishmen are being exploited by the so-called leaders in the interests of Irish capitalism, and the workers are being used to fight the battles of their oppressors. The Irish capitalist rebels against the English capitalist only because the latter stands in the way of a more thorough exploitation of the Irish workers by Irish capital. Let the thieves fight their own battles! For the worker in Ireland there is but one hope. It is to join the Irish wing of the international Socialist working class and to make common cause with the Socialist workers of all countries for the end of all forms of exploitation; saying to both English and Irish capitalists: “A plague on both your houses”. For the true battle-cry of the working class in broader, more significant and more inspiring than mere nationalism, and that rally cry is: THE WORLD FOR THE WORKERS!

J. McManus

Irish General Election: same old, same old (2025)

From the February 2025 issue of the Socialist Standard

A general election was held in Ireland at the end of November 2024 and the outcome seems to be that the two main parties of the outgoing coalition will be set to form the next government. As such, the electorate voted for continuity rather than change; clearly without much enthusiasm as evidenced by a particularly lacklustre campaign and with a low turnout of below 60 percent. Housing (lack of) and the cost of living were the two top issues. While there was nothing surprising about the result, the outcome has confirmed the solidity of a number of trends in the Irish political scene that have been apparent for some time.

The Government

The two centre-right parties of Fianna Fail and Fine Gael have continued to maintain their hegemony over government in the Republic. Both parties achieved approximately 20 percent of the votes cast with the former winning 48 seats and the latter 38 seats in the 174 member parliament. Both parties have been around in some form since the formation of the state in 1921 and there has never been a government since that did not include either or both of them as the dominant component. In fact, for the first 60 years of the state’s existence, general elections were primarily a contest between them with Fianna Fail having the edge and being capable of forming a single party government with over 50 percent of TDs (MPs). By contrast, Fine Gael always needed some additional support from smaller parties to form a government.

Originally Fianna Fail were more interventionist in terms of the state and the economy (erroneously and opportunistically labelled as ‘socialist’ by some commentators of the time) while Fine Gael were a little more socially liberal and also had more of a classical free enterprise philosophy which supposedly favoured the wealthier end of society. But both parties were never dogmatic in their approach to managing the Irish economy and over the years the economic differences between them have narrowed. One other point of divergence between them was that Fianna Fail was more stridently nationalistic in terms of the constitutional position of Northern Ireland and Ireland’s relationship with the UK while Fine Gael adopted a more conciliatory position. However, since the Good Friday Agreement of 1998, these differences too have diminished and now there remains relatively little antagonism between the supporters of Fianna Fail and Fine Gael. So much so, that their voters now transfer votes to each other, reflecting their similar approach to politics, and this transfer of voter preference is crucial to a party’s success in the version of proportional representation that Ireland uses in its elections. Inevitably since they are now generally seen as two sides of the same coin by the electorate, their combined share of the vote has progressively fallen, so together they can expect to receive just over 40 percent of votes cast, whereas less than 40 years ago they would achieve over 80 percent of the vote between them. However, because the opposition is fragmented, they still dominate government formation.

Although they were the incumbent parties of government, they both had a reasonably good election by recent standards. The economic background to the election is that currently Ireland has a strong economy, tax revenue to the government is high and there’s quite an amount of money to be distributed to the electorate. With capitalism in a boom phase, governments without much difficulty can plausibly claim to be excellent managers of the economy and reap the electoral rewards. The two parties produced very similar manifestos and campaigned on a ‘more of the same’ ticket. Much of this largesse is due to corporation tax from the many US multinationals in the pharmaceutical, biomedical and financial technology fields that take advantage of Ireland’s low corporate tax regime. Whether Trump’s return and his protectionist statements will threaten this, remains to be seen. He made similar noises about American multinationals avoiding tax through their Irish operations when he was first elected in 2016 but never followed through on his rhetoric.

The Opposition

For the opposition parties, the outcome of the election was mixed. Sinn Fein retains its position as the main party of opposition having about as many TDs as Fine Gael on 19 percent of the vote and giving it 39 Dail seats. However, the party was at over 35 percent in the opinion polls just two years ago and could then confidently have expected to form the next government. It proved unable to even replicate its performance at the last general election of five years ago. Its relentless upward trend has certainly stalled but has not been reversed. The party stood on a centre-left platform: more government spending on affordable housing, cheaper childcare, reducing taxes on the low paid, more help for carers and of course advancing a united Ireland. While the optimism that they were on course to form the next government has diminished, they still remain poised to take electoral advantage of any future downturn in the economy.

Also in this centre-left political space are the Irish Labour Party and the Social Democrats (the latter essentially a breakaway group from the former). These parties are equal with 11 TDs and five percent of the vote each and stood on almost identical platforms: greater effort to meet Ireland’s climate change targets, more spending on disability support, a stronger stance against Israel with regard to the Gaza war, building more affordable homes and increased funding of the health service. Compared to its recent fortunes this was a ‘good election’ for Labour but overall it has been in a long-term steady decline. Sinn Fein and the more recent Social Democrats have usurped its claim to be the standard bearer of left-wing opinion in Ireland. One other centre-left party, the Green Party, did very poorly, lost nearly all its seats and its votes seemed to have moved over to the Social Democrats. It was the small, third leg of the outgoing government and seems to have paid the price for resentments about the costs associated with dealing with climate change; by contrast Fianna Fail and Fine Gael were more adroit on this issue and cynically managed to project the unpopularity of some green policies implemented by the whole government solely onto the Greens.

Away from the centre-ground there is another small party, technically an alliance between two parties, People Before Profit-Solidarity that in the usual terminology is described as ‘hard’ left. They are descended in part from various Trotskyist groups that have entered mainstream politics allied with popular protest movements and want to see much more substantial and direct state involvement in the provision of housing, energy and healthcare; a type of state-socialism. After the election they have three TDs, down from five previously.

At the other end of the spectrum, the ragbag of far-right, anti-immigrant micro-parties had a very poor outing with their self-proclaimed imminent breakthrough not materialising. The last remaining group that can be considered are the Independents who can be more accurately termed non-party TDs. They are almost 20 in number, some of them former mainstream party members, preferring to stand as independents for the freedom of manoeuvre it gives them without the constraint of having to stick to a party line on any issue. Generally these politicians never reveal any explicit ideology apart from a nebulous populism and focus on selling their parliamentary votes to the main parties to ‘deliver’ for their particular constituencies. While a few are seen as left, most of their vote is conservative in nature and they share the same views as Fianna Fail and Fine Gael on most matters.

Government formation

In summary then, the general election delivered a fragmented outcome with the three largest parties each receiving about 20 percent in the polls and roughly obtaining 40 seats each. The era of single-party government shows no sign of coming back. Clearly the electorate is more fickle with traditional party loyalties continuing to decline. The combined Fianna Fail / Fine Gael vote is decreasing but the opposition is fragmented; there was no left surge and the electorate has so far proved resistant to right-wing, nationalistic populism. As for the previous 40 years, the general election is followed by a prolonged session of horse trading where the parties initially speed date each other to ascertain whether any compatibility exists and then the serious negotiation ensues between like-minded partners. With pre-election polling a reasonably accurate predictor of the broad levels of support for each party, even before the results are known, the parties were posturing about the demands they would make of other groups before considering entering government. Sinn Fein went through the motions of exploring a ‘government of the left’ although even at the outset this seemed highly unlikely and right now it seems the next government will be a Fianna Fail and Fine Gael coalition augmented with eight, mostly rural, like-minded Independent TDs. With government coffers in a healthy financial state, their straightforward pork barrel demands should be deliverable without too much difficulty.

In fact a noticeable feature of this election is how similar in content were the manifestos of all the six larger political parties; Fianna Fail, Fine Gael, Sinn Fein, Labour, Social Democrats and the Greens, with the differences being more to do with presentation and style. They would all like to be in government (especially as times are good) and they don’t want to be constrained by awkward manifesto commitments that could rule out any potential coalition partners. All six parties made promises about providing more affordable housing (the only difference being the precise number of houses to be built each year) and greater funding of healthcare and disability services. The two centre-right parties talked more about support for business and farmers while the four leftish parties made a case for devoting more resources to the low paid.

Plus ça change

The general election of 2024 in Ireland is unlikely to be remembered for its exciting political campaign, vigorous and inspiring debates or momentous outcome. In spite of the strenuous efforts of the rival parties to fabricate a sense amongst the electorate of there being substantial difference between their offerings, people could see that all that was really on offer was more or variants of the same. The only question was which particular set of politicians would implement it. The process was a vindication of the socialist position that under capitalism, elections involve rival parties, all who want to administer capitalism, engaging in a manufactured popularity contest with the winners chosen by the electorate. The incumbent parties stress their proven competence in government which is not difficult if the economy is going well. Equally the opposition parties have a greater challenge to replace the government in good times. So the main factor in all this tends to be the state of the economy. Simply if the economy remains strong, the government should be able to deliver some of what was promised; the promises themselves were not too extravagant. If the economy worsens, they will not be able to do so. However, the state of the economy, particularly in Ireland, really depends on external factors and is set by the international operation or health of capitalism and no party can control this.

The best illustration of why the system itself is at fault and cannot be fixed by the electoral scheming of conventional party politics is that even though the economy has been buoyant for over 10 consecutive years, on such a basic need as housing, many Irish workers have had to live continuously with the insecurity of short term accommodation and rents that swallow up most of their disposable income. Unfortunately, there is no sign this will end any time soon.

Kevin Cronin

The Power and The Priests (1995)

From the February 1995 issue of the Socialist Standard

Hardly a day goes by now without the Catholic Church in Ireland having to face some scandal or other. However, it is not only the wayward behaviour of some of its priests that has resulted in Irish people abandoning the church in droves and ignoring its reactionary teachings

One of the many fictions that prevails among Protestants in Ireland is that the Catholic Church always stood in the forefront of the struggle for independence from Britain. The reverse of this is true but acknowledging that would not fit in with the traditional Unionist slogan that “Home Rule is Rome Rule” — even though the slogan itself contains more than a germ of truth.

The historian Beresford Ellis rightly points out that the Roman Church played a key role in preparing Ireland for the Anglo-Norman invasion and it was Pope Adrian IV who, in 1154, promulgated a Bull authorising Henry II of England to invade Ireland. After the Reformation the Catholic Church in Ireland saw its role as that of facilitating the counter-Reformation and it was identified with conspiracies, mostly emanating from Spain, aimed at bringing about the defeat of the English Reformation. These activities were not aimed at the independence of Ireland; on the contrary, Ireland was now seen as an essential springboard for restoring Rome’s authority throughout the entire Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland.

The Roman Church was hostile to every succeeding effort by Irish nationalists to cast off “the English yoke”, especially during those periods when the national struggle was married to the struggle of the poor for the amelioration of their poverty. It opposed the Fenian movement and its opposition became hysterical when the Fenians established relations with the International Working Men’s Association. Indeed, Archbishop Moriarity opinioned that hell was not hot enough or eternity long enough to punish the Fenians.

Earlier, in the period 1845-8, when the potato crop was blighted and thousands of people were dying of hunger and its diseases, while the export of sheep, cattle and pigs, as well as most of the cereal crop continued unabated, the bishops reminded the starving of the “moral” duty to pay their rents. In 1848, a leading Catholic layman, Dr John O'Connell, the son of Daniel O’Connell, the famous Catholic Emancipator, said “I thank God I live among people who would rather die of hunger than defraud their landlords of rent.” The bishops were eloquently silent.

Boycott weapon

The events of 1879-82 are significant in that they paved the way for resolution of the land question in Ireland and the establishment of the material conditions that were to create modern Ireland. It is a classical example of how a subject class can oppose with peaceful means its oppressors and, if sufficient unity is achieved, win victory. The Land League forged the boycott weapon, not only giving a new word to the English language but also setting in train a social revolution that was to finally banish the worst features of landlordism from Ireland.

With notable exceptions, the Church was unhelpful. An earlier version of the Land League, the Tenant Right League had achieved a considerable degree of unity between Protestant small farmers in the north and their more impoverished Catholic counterparts in the south. It was potentially an exciting development but, when Lord John Russell, the British Prime Minister, responded to the Pope's attempts to establish new bishoprics in Britain with an anti-papist Ecclesiastical Titles Act, the Catholic clergy and some Catholic leaders of the Tenant Right League sacrificed the unity that underpinned the struggle of the Irish poor in order to promote the politics of Rome.

A few years later the bishops brought bitter division into the Home Rule movement with the outrageous vilification of Charles Stewart Parnell after it was revealed that the Protestant leader of the Irish National Party was involved in a relationship with a married woman. As effectively as it had split the Tenant Right League, it now shattered the unity of the National Party and inadvertently set the stage for the entrance of Sinn Fein.

In 1912-13, the desperately impoverished transport and general workers of Dublin were locked out by their employers for joining a trade union. Revealingly, Sinn Fein was promoting the political interests of the vicious coterie of Catholic capitalists who were savaging the poor and the Church did nothing to hide its bitter opposition to the workers. As a gesture of solidarity, English trade unionists (whom Sinn Fein opposed) offered to take some of the workers' children and ensure that they were provided for while the lock-out lasted. The Church went wild and priestly louts led attacks on the departing parade of hapless children. The excuse was that these unfortunates whose little bodies were suffering from the bitter rapacity of Irish capitalism might have their souls endangered by the Protestant and “pagan” English.

In 1916, the residue of the Irish Volunteers — the great majority of whom had gone to fight the Germans — combined with the Irish Citizen Army to form the IRA which staged the so-called “Easter Rising”. The ICA had been formed by James Connolly to protect locked-out workers from the thuggery of the paramilitary Royal Irish Constabulary three years earlier. Now, incorporated into the IRA, it was hijacked by Connolly into taking part in an insurrection to forward the Sinn Fein policy of legislative independence to promote the interests of Irish capitalists.

After the defeat of the insurrection the Catholic newspaper, the Irish Catholic, editorialised on the immorality of the Rising and opinioned that it was an act of treachery and that there was no reason to lament that its perpetrators (the leaders of the Rising had been executed) had met the fate that since the dawn of history had been reserved for traitors.

The subsequent establishment of the Irish Free State politically canonised the executed leaders and nowhere were they more lauded than by the hypocritical Catholic hierarchy.

Holy orders

It would take volumes to detail the way the Catholic Church wormed and bullied its way into the affairs of the newly-established Irish Free State. One example will suffice.

In February 1948, the Fianna Fail government of Eamon De Valera lost its Dail majority for the first time since it achieved power in 1932. The new government was a coalition, and a young medical doctor, a left-wing republican, Dr Noël Browne, became an enthusiastic Minister of Health.

Poverty and acute privation grew during the war despite Southern Ireland’s neutrality. In the nine years since 1939, taxable profits had risen by some 200 percent but real wages had actually fallen below their pre-war level. The war years had been preceded by the heightened poverty resulting from the British embargo on Irish imports in the early 1930s which had followed the refusal of the De Valera government to pay the annuities which Britain had imposed when the Irish Free State was established. Life was hard for the urban workers and desperate for small farmers and this proved a fecund breeding ground for tuberculosis, a poverty disease which was then sweeping Europe.

I had met Browne and can testify to the enthusiasm of his efforts to counter the medical consequences of poverty in southern Ireland. After much trimming by his cabinet colleagues, the Minister introduced a Bill in the Dail that provided for free healthcare for expectant mothers and children up to the age of five.

The Irish Catholic bishops went wild. These puny efforts to give some medical help to mothers and babies was “rank socialism” and could not be tolerated by “Holy Mother", the Church. The well- cosseted bishops, living like feudal princes, did not simply pass on their opinion that the state help for the poor was “socialism” (which the church universally had always vigorously opposed), they wrote to the Taoiseach, John A. Costello, an earlier fascist sympathiser, instructing him that the government would introduce the Mother and Child Bill "under pain of sin”. The Bill was abandoned but an amended scheme was introduced, despite clerical protest, by the succeeding Fianna Fail government.

Since then, a new reality, brought about by the needs of a burgeoning capitalism, has inhibited the more audacious arrogance of the Catholic hierarchy. For years, as the Republic first become a trading partner with Britain in the Anglo-Irish Free Trade Agreement of the mid-Sixties, and later as a minor player in big-league EC capitalism, the Church remained a formidable agent of reaction. But television, with its insensate curiosity and its international programme fare, has had a part to play in breaking down the old walls of secrecy and false piety behind which many eminent churchmen traditionally sheltered. Again, the narrow world of gombeen capitalism has been overtaken by the brash presence of the multinationals and their religiously indifferent personnel. Reality was, and is, changing fast in Ireland, sometimes pushed by European law, and the Church is being exposed as a mere part of the “hallowed sepulchre" of its teachings.

Crumbling monolith

In Northern Ireland, especially in places like Belfast, the Catholic clergy have been happy to accept the bribes of the British government to act as a counterinsurgency agent. In an effort to combat the massive unemployment that, especially in more impoverished urban areas, plays into the hands of the paramilitaries, the Northern Ireland Office introduced Action for Community Employment (ACE) which provides temporary employment in non-profit-making enterprises. Shrewdly, the government used the Catholic clergy as a conduit for distribution of the ACE largesse in the Catholic community, thus, indirectly giving priests the power to assist those whom they favoured. Doubtless, Tory largess has won the Church a few friends. Undoubtedly, too, it has made them many enemies in the more embattled regions of the north.

We do not regard priests or bishops as being especially obedient to their own precepts of “morality”. Accordingly, unlike the media in general, we see no undue significance in their being increasingly exposed as liars, cheats and child molesters. Probably, in the past, many young men who aspired to the priesthood were able to suppress normal sexuality, often at the cost of personality deviance or alcoholism. Today there are few recruits to the priesthood; young Catholics have become disaffected as reality overwhelms theology. Regrettably for their victims, it appears that increasing numbers of the sad fraternity who seek opportunities for the expression of their sick proclivities are taking advantage of the scarcity and swelling the numbers of deviant priests.

Just as the advent of electricity reduced the sightings of leprechauns, so the heightened understanding of natural phenomena and its concomitant disregard of unevidenced beliefs — both by-products of modern capitalism — has destroyed the mystery and secrecy of the holy men who presume to “sin” outside the parameters of their own precepts.

The gullible will turn to the weeping statues. More will show their contempt for a crumbling monolith that, for the love of its god, heaped misery on humanity. 

Richard Montague