Trade union dissensions in Eire (1945)

From the November 1945 issue of the Socialist Standard

The old maxim of “divide and conquer” has been well illustrated by the turn of events in Irish Labour circles.

For some time certain reactionary elements in the Irish trade union movement have been attempting to disrupt this movement and in the past twelve months or so have succeeded to such an extent that those with a genuine understanding of the position fear that the death- knell of working-class agitation and organized trade unionism has been sounded.

Chief offender and instigator of this retrograde movement is one Mr. William O’Brien, Secretary, Irish Transport and General Workers Union, who has allowed personal ambition and private feuds to over-ride all considerations for the working-class in general and members of his own organisation in particular.

Twelve months ago he administered his “stab in the back” to the Irish Labour Party.

The reason for this secession, he stated, was because the Irish Labour Party was “communistic.”

Even in Ireland where the favourite trick of the enemies of the working class is to label any progressive line of thought, or action, as “anti-God,” “bolshevist,” or “communist,” this declaration of O’Brien’s was taken with the proverbial “grain of salt.”

Indeed it was well known that the real reason for O’Brien’s withdrawal was because of his failure to gain control of the Irish Labour Party.

His act of political sabotage being successful (the number of Labour members returned to the Dail dropped considerably at the next election), O’Brien’s next move was a step towards his dream of “one big union” and his dictatorship of the working class.

Thus at a conference held in Dublin during March the delegates of certain trade unions decided to break away from the Irish Trade Union Congress. The reason for this decision was given in a resolution which said that “the opinions and aspirations of Irish Labour cannot be expressed by the Irish Trade Union Congress, which is controlled by British trade unions, and that the Irish Unions affiliated to Congress occupy an intolerable and humiliating position.”

The lie has already been given to this sweeping statement in sections of the Irish Press, but for the benefit of readers unacquainted with the Irish trade union position I will endeavour to give a clear picture of the situation.

The Irish T.U.C. was the strongest all-Ireland working-class organisation. For it, the border was non-existent, and representatives of the workers of both Northern and Southern Ireland worked in a spirit of harmony and unity.

It had established fraternal contact with the workers of other countries and because of these facts it was able to put a strong challenge to any coercive measures attempted by the Eire Government.

That this was the principal reason for the action of the trade union “Quislings ” will be illustrated later on. As for the allegation that British Unions controlled the I.T.U.C. the plain fact of the matter was that the Irish Unions who represent 80,000 members had 115 delegates at the Congress while the British or Amalgamated Unions, with a membership of some 110,000 workers, were represented by 88 delegates. The charge that these unions are British can hardly be considered correct, for though their headquarters may be outside Eire they are affiliated to the I.T.U.C. in respect of their Irish Membership and are governed by councils elected by these members and receive no interference from their executives in Britain. In any case these so-called British Unions have always been to the forefront in the struggle waged by the Irish workers against their bosses.

The part played by the N.U.R. in the munitions strike in 1921 is only one of the numerous points in question.

And so we see that the I.T.U.C. was not controlled by the Amalgamated (or British) Unions but that rather the boot was on the other foot.

Another interesting point is that while these Eire Unions claimed that their quarrel was with the Amalgamated Unions yet it was they themselves, who were responsible for refusing to allow the affiliation to the I.T.U.C. of such prominent Irish Unions as the Workers Union of Ireland, the Grocers’ Assistants and the Irish Engineering and Foundry Workers Union.

The seceding group consists of ten Unions with a total membership of 55,000. The biggest and most powerful of these Unions is, of course, O’Brien’s I.T.G.W.U. with 36,000 members. The decision to break away from the I.T.U.C. was taken by their delegates without informing the rank and file of their unions and without their permission.

Here it will be noted the total disregard for trade union principles and the introduction of totalitarian methods. The “Council of Irish Unions” as this group has styled itself could not .have been formed at a more critical period of Irish Trade Unionism for Mr. O'Brien is nothing if not an opportunist.

What the Trade Union Act of 1941 of the De Valera Government—aimed at crippling the entire trade union organisation—failed to do, the action of this group, at the time when the proposed Vocational System of Legislature for Eire has shown what a struggle trade unionism will have for an existence in the future, has gone far to accomplishing, Mr. O’Brien makes no secret of his intentions.

In a letter inviting those unions to the conference, at which the decision to break away was taken, he referred to the report of the Commission of Vocational Organisation and its recommendation that British Unions should not be allowed to operate in Eire.

Mr. O’Brien was not perturbed at this. He, of course, welcomed it and outlined his proposals for his “One Big Union." To quote Mr. O'Brien :

"The changes likely to be made in the near future present a reason and an opportunity for putting our house in order." 

Every trade unionist must wonder how far this group will progress. Not very far, one would say, were it not for the fact that it is modelled on lines which must be very pleasing to the Eire Government. ’This Government whose each succeeding act of legislation is a step towards totalitarianism has already expressed its welcome to such a body. Indeed it must be a very satisfying thought to them to have the working-class handed to them lock, stock and barrel in one group. All this trade union intrigue must leave the ordinary worker very confused.

One can hardly blame the Irish worker if he forms the opinion that trade unionism is a racket, and being a member of a trade union is just because ho requires a licence to work. In Ireland especially, where the red herring of nationalism has so frequently been drawn across the path of the working class, this latest diversion must be very distracting especially when one remembers that in Ireland industrial development is in its infancy and, consequently, the standard of economic and political education is very low. But to a socialist viewing the situation in retrospect the whole matter is simple.

Society to-day is based upon the ownership of the means of living by the capitalist class and the consequent enslavement of the working class, and, therefore, there is on antagonism of interest—manifesting itself as a class struggle. The trade union movement is one of the ways the class struggle makes itself felt. But trade unionism is an effect and not a cause of the struggle. The Socialist, while recognising the value of trade unions in the day-to-day struggle of the working class for better wages, conditions, etc., realises that no amount of bargaining with the capitalist class can free the working class from the yoke of wage-slavery. This can only be brought about by the complete emancipation of the working-class from the domination of the capitalist class and the establishment of a socialist system of society based upon the common ownership and democratic control of the means of production. But trade unions cannot bring this about.

So members of the working-class, be you from Ireland or elsewhere—for Socialism allows of no distinction of race —put not your trust in trade unions which split and confuse the working-class, but go on striving towards that goal which can only be brought about by your own efforts.

Let nothing deter yon in your fight for the emancipation of your class and the establishment of a society where the need for trade unions is non-existent.

Workers, unite for Socialism.

Mick Cullen, Dublin.

Irish Odds and Ends (1957)

The Odds and Ends column from the October 1957 issue of the Socialist Standard

Writing in the Dublin Evening Press (19/8/57), Fr. Robert Nash, S.J., says that somebody showed him a leaflet recommending Catholics to pray for the Communists; the idea being that each Catholic should “adopt” a special Communist in order to convert him to the faith. He continues: “Who he or she is will be known to God. For this precise person we are invited to pray much, to do penance, to commend him or her constantly to Our Lady”

Many prominent Communists, like Douglas Hyde, he continues, have found their way into the Church; but for those converted, millions are still “blinded and hardened, goaded to an insane hatred of God and His Church.” But, says Fr. Nash, “Suppose you entered into a pact with Our Lord to devote your life to the conversion of one of these? ”

Yes, suppose every Communist was converted to the Catholic Church. What good would that do for humanity? How would it, for example, solve the terrible poverty of thousands of Irish workers? As we see it, it would only mean that the Communists were exchanging one set of wrong ideas and attitudes for another lot— those of the Catholic Church, an organisation equally dictatorial intolerant and dogmatic as the Communist Party.

The solution to the problems facing working people, in Ireland as elsewhere in this life—the only one we Socialists know of—will not be solved by joining or putting faith in either the Communist Party or the Catholic Church. Neither warrants working-class support.

* * *

Nationalised Industries compete in England

Nationalised concerns, like private ones, are run to make a profit—and to make as large a one as possible, even if this means one State concern having to wage war on another. And this is now happening in England.

Under the heading: “Shock for the British Post Office,” an Irish Independent (20/8/57) editorial comments:—

"A novel revolt against the Post Office has broken out amongst the nationalised industries in Britain. Two of the regional electricity boards have decided that the cost, under the new increased postal rates, of sending out bills to customers would be so high that the bills will be delivered by the board’s own employees. The campaign is still in the experimental stage; but there is no doubt that it can effect substantial economies. The North Western Electricity Board will save £10,000 a year by having 250,000 quarterly bills delivered by the meter-readers. One can only guess at what the London Electricity Board, which has begun to deliver accounts by hand to 1,300,000 customers, will save.”

And later in the editorial the writer says:—

"Trade Unions will be quick to realise that their members (in Eire) would be the first to suffer if a campaign of the kind in Britain were to spread to this country."

For our part, we hope that English meter-readers in the British Electrical Trades Union will have something to say about this move by the Electricity Board to save money by making them more work.

It is about time that workers everywhere—in Britain, Ireland, Russia and elsewhere—realised that Nationalisation is no use to them, whether they work for the nationalised concerns or not.

* * *

Economic decline in Eire

According to the Irish Statistical Survey for 1956, issued by the Central Statistics Office on August 21, 1957, and published in The Irish Press, there was a decline in the national income last year. The drop was three per cent. on the 1955 figure.

The total national income in 1955 was £462 million—last year it was £449 million. Profits from agriculture, forestry and fishing fell by £11½ million in 1956; other domestic profits declined by £2½ million. Industry’s percentage of the national income, at 25.2 per cent., showed little change since 1954.

Personal expenditure on consumer goods and services dropped 3 per cent. on the 1955 figure. During the year the number of cattle on the farms dropped by 1.2 per cent.; poultry by 3.2 per cent.; sheep increased by 3 per cent., and pigs by 10.3 per cent But industrial production declined during the year by 4 per cent.—this decline in industrial production was most pronounced in construction and repair of vehicles, in distilling, boat building and repairing, furniture, sugar and mineral waters.

The Survey states that the total labour force was down by 13,000. The direct drop in the numbers working was 19,000, with an increase of 6,000 unemployed. The decline was made up of 10,000 in agriculture, 4,000 in the manufacturing industries, and 4,000 in construction. Compared with 1951 the total at work is down by 59,000. Of course, many of these workers are now abroad, in England and elsewhere; but the annual percentage unemployed was 7.7 last year compared to 6.8 per cent, in 1955.

From this statistical survey it can be seen that the Irish economy, which is predominantly agricultural, is a capitalist one, and is not in very good shape. Life for the Irish worker, whether he works in industry or on the land, is indeed an insecure one.

* * *

Sinn Fein policy is futile

Speaking against the internment and the “jailing of Irishmen” by the authorities at Curragh, Mr. Seamus South “appealed to the people to join Sinn Fein, which, he said, was a lawfully constituted organisation . . . Their aim was the re-unification of Ireland as a thirty-two county republic and the re-establishment of an All-Ireland 'Parliament. They had been accused of wanting to create a civil war, but they did not want that” (Mr. South was speaking at a Sinn Fein meeting at Listowel, and was reported in The Kerryman (24/8/57).

Whether Sinn Fein achieved their aim of re-uniting Ireland and re-establishing an All-Ireland Parliament, they would not solve the problems facing the Irish people—the problems of poverty and general insecurity.

The mass of the people suffer from these problems because they own little or no property in the means of life. They are either propertyless industrial or farm workers—when they are not unemployed—or their farms are too small to enable them to make sufficient money to live a comfortable life.*

Only when Irish workers and poverty-stricken small farmers unite together to make the land and the other means of life the common property of all, together with the workers of other lands, will they be able to solve their problems. Emigration is not the solution—only Socialism is!

* * *

* Sixty per cent, of the farms are under thirty acres; and the recent survey, carried out by the Central Statistics Office, showed that the income level on the majority of these farms was too low to create incentives for young folk to stay on the land.

“This factor is the main cause of our rural exodus.” —The Sunday Press, 25/8/57. Emphasis theirs.

Peter E. Newell,

Co. Kerry, Eire.

Smoulderings in Southall (1965)

From the June 1965 issue of the Socialist Standard

“I used to drink at the Eight Bells but I gave it up when the Wogs started going there.” The sentiments were depressingly popular, the accent pure County Limerick—two facts which in Southall tell their own story.

For a long time, immigrants of one sort or another have trekked to this drab wedge of suburbia on the far west limb of London. Now established, their accents often flattened out, some of them speak bitterly of the Indians and Pakistanis who have travelled to Southall for the same reasons as they did.

A lot of people here came up from the West Country and Wales between the wars, driven by the slump to seek work in the factories which were attaching themselves to the Great Western Railway line like genes to a chromosome. The Irish too have come, in a slow, persistent stream.

There were few, if any, coloured immigrants until the middle fifties. Then some came to work in a rubber factory, whose hard and unpleasant work made it difficult to compete for labour with other firms. Vacancies in local industry increased the first brown trickle into a flood. Now the Indians and Pakistanis almost monopolise some districts in Southall.

So far there have been no open clashes— nothing to put Southall into the headlines. The local Teds did manage a feeble demonstration outside the rubber factory at the time of Notting Hill but this was easily dispersed. A Sikh temple has been defaced more than once. But on the whole the Southall population has settled into a brooding resentment. Only occasionally are there small eruptions.

There was one of these over education, when parents protested that their children’s schooling was being held up by the presence of immigrant children who could not speak English. Sir Edward Boyle, who was then Minister of Education, came down and smoothed the incident over.

There are continual complaints about the immigrants’ behaviour. Some of these seem to be justified; some are due to a misunderstanding of different social habits and some to downright malice. There are the usual grisly rumours—the Asians make a curry of the local cats, they throw all their rubbish into the garden next door.

Southall’s housing problem is no worse than any of its neighbours. It has no abject slums like Notting Hill or the Black Country. Perhaps the worst it offers are seedy Victorian terraces and tawdry, featureless council estates. The immigrants have therefore moved into, for them, comparatively genteel areas, some of which are inhabited by owner occupiers who worry about a “fall in the value of property” when coloured people move into their street.

Some of these owner-occupiers, not tied to the district by being a council tenant, have moved out of Southall into the similar wastelands of nearby Greenford or Hounslow. Some have gone farther afield, to the new estates which have sprung up in places like Reading and Camberley. Others have gone farther still, emigrating to Australia, whose official bar on coloured immigration they regard as sensible and progressive. It was one of these who explained on his application to emigrate that he wanted to go to Australia “because there are too many niggers in my street ”.

Beneath Southalls’ surface calm, then, potential violence smoulders on. The local branch of the British National Party blows hard on the embers; their propaganda is exceedingly crude but they got nearly three and a half thousand votes in the general election. Last October the Tories played the immigration issue comparatively cool; Labour hung on for dear life and George Pargiter came out with a reduced, now marginal, majority. That may be a clue to a grim future. If the Conservatives decide to plug a Smethwick line in Southall, they could start something which they do not know how to stop.

Some local organisations are doing their best to keep the fires damped down. There is the Indian Workers’ Association which, now that the Labour Government has announced its new tough line on immigration, may be questioning the wisdom of its support for Pargiter last October. There are other organisations which run well intentioned multi-racial outings, meant to prove that we are all brothers under our skins. These organisations are touching only the fringes of the problem; if racial trouble ever became really hot in Southall they would be consumed in the flames with the rest.

Southall is not a pleasant place. It has an ugly industrial sprawl, acres of cramped houses, cheapjack shops and supermarkets. It is near enough to London Airport to have the big jets often screaming over the rooftops. In many ways life here is hard, and it has bred hard working class attitudes, stifling restrictions and anomalies, formidable prejudices. This is an inflammable place and next time, perhaps, there will be the fire.

Ivan (Southall).

Editorial: The Communists and Ireland. (1922)

Editorial from the August 1922 issue of the Socialist Standard 

On the front page of “The Communist ” (8-7-22) there appears an article entitled “Our Duty to Ireland ” that calls for some comment on our part on account of the nonsense contained in it.

The main struggle in Ireland is not, and never has been, a struggle of wage workers against masters. Here and there in the history of Ireland there have been minor struggles on the part of the workers, but the greater part of the stage has always been occupied by the national struggle for freedom of enterprise on the part of the various groups that might benefit by greater freedom to exploit Irish Industry. As Ireland exists principally by agriculture the small farmers or peasants have figured largely in the strife. The fact that the poverty-stricken peasants have borne the bulk of the burden of struggle is no evidence that they will obtain any benefit, whatever be the outcome.

This struggle in Ireland has been going on for centuries, and bitterly indeed have the peasantry suffered by the coercive actions of the foreign land-owning class, who were backed up by the different English Governments.

Irish industry is backward partly on account of the lack of certain economic resources such as coal and iron, partly because it suited Irish landlords and English capitalists to keep Ireland in the main an agricultural country.

Though the capitalistic development of Ireland has been slow, yet considerable progress has been made in that direction. The wage labouring class has relatively increased and the farmers have come more and more under the control of large industry. The farmers are, in the main, in the hands of the agents of the large exporters—egg buyers, cattle buyers, corn buyers, creameries and so on. The European war made the farmers temporarily well-to-do, and they poured money into the Sein Fein movement in the belief that the latter movement would conserve their prosperity. Peace, however, is bringing them back to the position of paid growers and distributors of agricultural produce.

An Irish Sein Fein Republic will not solve the difficulties of the wage labourers and farmers—it will, in fact, intensify their misery. They will then be under the control of the same people who control affairs now—Irish buyers—Irish Capitalists—without being able to salve their wounds by blaming all their troubles upon the English oppressor.

The way out of the difficulties facing the Irish town and country worker is the same as the way their fellow workers have to follow, no matter what country they chance to exist in. That way is to join with their fellow workers the world over in the struggle to put an end to Capitalism by introducing Socialism. Anything short of this will only bring in its train bitter disillusion. They who tell the Irish workers to organise for anything less than this are their enemies.

Such in brief is the general position. The article mentioned in our opening remarks advises the present minority in Ireland to fight on, and the reason they advance for backing the minority is contained in the following extract:

  “De Valera never was, never can be, a leader of the workers. Nevertheless, most of the revolutionary workers are with O’Connor and him.

  “They are with them for the same reason that we, if we had to make the choice, would be behind De Valera and O’Connor—because they are fighting the British Empire. (Italics theirs.)

   “That reason—no other.”

The Communists, therefore, support the minority in Ireland “because they are fighting the British Empire—that reason— no other.” What a brilliant attitude for a self-styled working class party to take up. If they follow this policy out logically (not that we wish to be accused of suggesting that the Communist can follow anything out logically) then on the same ground they would have been bound to support the Central Powers in the European War, incidentally supporting the oppressors of foreign working men, and the useless slaughter of working men generally. In other words they tie themselves to a policy of supporting the murderous conduct of different groups of foreign capitalists “because they are fighting the British Empire!” A delightful position indeed—but a fitting position for sensational gasbags.

The above is not all—the article concludes as follows :

  “Workers of Britain, show these politicians they are wrong.

  “You have no cause for quarrel with your oppressed comrades in Ireland. You never had. Whether the present armed conditions in Ireland are prolonged or no.”

  ”Stop making munitions for Ireland ! Stop sending munitions to Ireland ! Demand the withdrawal of British troops ! Do for the Irish what you did for the Russians !” (Italics theirs.)

This is really the most absurd part of all—if one can define one piece of nonsense as more absurd than another. Not many months ago they themselves made the following enlightening observation on “what you did for the Russians.”

  “Frankly, the National Council of Action has failed, and its failure is all the more disappointing when one remembers the unanimity and enthusiasm of the great Central Hall Conference held at the beginning of August last. It was formed to prevent the supplies and munitions being sent in support of the attack on Soviet Russia, which it is quite obviously not doing. Somehow, and from somewhere in this country, those supplies are being sent.

  “A Moscow report alleges that England has sent seven steamers of munitions, three tanks, and twelve small steamers with provisions in aid of Poland, and that these have been unloaded at Danzig. German reports refer to foreign vessels passing through the Kiel Canal, presumably to the same direction.’ ” (The Communist, 7/10/20.)

This is “what you did for the Russians.” What blind rhetorical balderdash !

“What you did for the Russians” then was to fail completely to prevent munitions being sent to assist those fighting against Russia. The Communists wish the same policy to be carried out again. Funny, isn’t it?

Taking the superficial facts of the situation in Ireland as it is at present concerning the attitude of the minority, the position is. as follows :

The Irish people have voted in favour of the Free State idea by an overwhelming majority. This is the fact that cannot be swept aside by sensational remarks. Consequently, whatever the minority may think of the Free State position, the only sensible course for them to follow is to accept the position the vote of the people has forced upon them for the present, but work to alter the mental outlook of the majority so that future elections will see the Free State position supplanted by the one the present minority favour. To endeavour to alter the views of the mass of the population by battering their heads is a nonsensical attitude to take up. Besides, has not the common cry of Ireland for years been that the majority of the Irish people were being coerced to suit the ideas of a minority ?

Whether or not the English Government has bought over the Collins group does not hide the fact that the majority of the Irish population agree to the position Collins has taken up. This should sign “finis” to the matter for the present without further useless throwing away of lives.

It may appear very heroic to fight a losing battle to the end; martrydom is always a very questionable attitude, though it may be spectacular. In the present circumstances, where it involves the lives of numbers of Irish working people who do not yet understand their social position, it is criminal folly.

Finally, as mentioned above, whatever the immediate outcome of the struggle may be, one thing is certain; it will still leave the Irish workers wage labourers—and that is the essence of the matter for us.

Jottings. (1921)

The Jottings Column from the November 1921 issue of the Socialist Standard

On the economic field there is constant conflict between the masters and the workers, each in turn fighting to reduce and increase this common standard of subsistence. If, therefore, a section of the master class are successful in shifting the burden of taxation imposed upon them by Parliament, for the purposes before mentioned, it amounts to the fact that by so doing they have succeeded in reserving for their sectional interest a larger proportion of the surplus value, which they and their class as a whole filch from the workers.

The activities of Lansbury and Co., therefore, in the interests ot the local industrial capitalists and landlords (our George is one of 'em), is another illustration of the political profiteering of this "Come to Jesus" humbug. There are others besides him, and the Communist Party of Great Britain do not intend to be caught napping by anyone after "Stunt Championships." Listen to what they have to say on the issue :

 "Poplar Borough Council is in gaol. It has done more in one week for the workers than all the other Labour Councils have done in all their little lives." . . ."The assumption of everyone was that a Labour Council in Poplar would be good and carry out the 'precept' of the L.C.C. —levy, as usual, money, that must be wrung, at any rate immediately, from the starving to save the pockets of the wealthy West Enders." —"The Communist," 17th Sept., 1921. 

The Communist Party of Great Britain, affiliated to the Third International, claiming to base its actions on the Marxian doctrines ! Phew ! Revolutionary substitutes.

--0--

"America is the home of the free," so they say. We happen to know, however, that the workers in that country, faced with a capitalist system of production, are subject to similar evils that afflict the workers everywhere that system obtains. They do things on a much "higher" scale in America, however. For instance, we read the following from the "Daily News," 3rd Sept., 1921 :—

  "According to latest advices from Mingo, the recalcitrant miners of West Virginia are to be attacked forthwith by American aviators with tear bombs and gas bombs . . . merely a very modern form of police protection. It is probably a tip taken from a recent German book which showed how effectively aeroplanes could be employed in times of peace for dispersing unauthorised assemblies. If the American bomb droppers really get going they will be able to show the Black and Tans a thing or two."

Overlooking the sardonic suggestion to the Government for a speedy means of settling the Irish question, contained in the last sentence of the above, we did not think that the American masters would devise such an ingenious way of bringing their slaves—with tears in their eyes—to their proper senses. But the Yankee worker will tell you—chewing gum the time—that "he won the war" and that "America is God's own country—believe me." But he forgets to add "for the American Capitalist."

--0--

  "The day may be far distant when the actual political arrangements of the world will realise the highest ideal of which our social instincts are capable; but every life honestly spent in the faithful service of the Commonweal, every hour devoted to the earnest study of the public good, brings that day more surely within our reach." —"History of Politics," Ed. Jenks, M.A.

The object of the Socialist Party is the establishment of Socialism, a system of society wherein the means of production will be owned and controlled by the producers, the Working Class. It is because these means of production are privately owned by the Capitalist Class to-day that millions of the workers throughout the world are in need of food, clothing, and shelter. Wealth is socially produced; it is the result of the co-operation of effort of the Working Class of the world applied to natural resources. But this wealth and the means for producing it are privately owned. It is this antagonism which the Socialist Party is out to abolish. Under the Socialist system harmony will take the place of the existing chaos, because there will be social production side by side with social ownership. This change in the social order is the revolutionary ideal of the Socialist. All else is illusion.

Workers, mark well the words contained in the above quotation, and fit yourselves for the mission which historical development demands—that you shall, by the power ot your own individual and collective effort of muscle and brain, some day triumphantly achieve. When you will, who shall say you nay?

--0--

"Compromise is virtual death. It is the pact between cowardice and comfort, under the title of expediency."—George Meredith.

Great brains think alike, so it is said. Note the hostility clause in the Declaration of Principles at the back hereof, and in conjunction therewith, write for a copy of  our Manifesto, which explains our attitude of hostility towards all other parties. Price 3d., post free 3½d.

--0--

"CALMLY STRIVING." 

 "A sunny view of world and life 

As balm for brain and heart, 

It is with health and beauty rife, 

With noblest works of art. 

But do not for a moment think 

That it is captured in a wink. 

The golden harvest does not grow

 Unless the early tempests blow. 

And only bitter woe and strain 

Will bright and lofty wisdom gain." 

—Fr. von Sallet.

The present social structure was not conceived by any one man or number of supermen. It is the result of slow, steady evolutionary processes. So with the new order—the Socialist society of free men and women—it will come when the time is ripe, when the productive forces are developed to the point when a change will be inevitable. Our message to the workers is: Be prepared for that time to welcome the birth of the new social order ; to herald in the Co-operative Commonwealth. As the poet puts it: "What is life?

'Tis not to walk about and draw fresh air
From time to time and gaze upon the sun.
'Tis to be free. When liberty is gone
Life grows insipid and has lost its relish."

To those who yawn in this black hell of Capitalism, arouse yourselves to the work of Working Class emancipation.

--0--

Owing to the failure of the Working Class to understand their position in society, they easily become the victims of any Labour Shark desirous of fattening on their ignorance. At the present time, millions of workers unemployed or on short time are demonstrating in almost every city and town, demanding work or maintenance. Lacking knowledge, they are easily led into difficulties and conflicts with the Police. Quite recently in Liverpool the unemployed workers demonstrated in great numbers, and one of their number shouted, "Raid the Art Gallery."

Whatever could be obtained by capturing that object passes our comprehension.

The building was immediately rushed and occupied by the unemployed, but they were driven out by the Police with drawn batons, with the result that much damage to heads was done and many unemployed were arrested. We have often pointed out that so long as the workers fail to make a serious study of the Socialist proposition, that the private ownership of the means of life is alone the cause of unemployment and all its concomitant evils, the workers will, sheep-like, follow any politician or would-be Labour leader to their own destruction and disillusionment.

Apropos of the workers, we read the following in the Evening News (27/10/21) :

  "An extraordinary example of the way sheep will follow their leader, even to destruction, occurred here to-day (Yarmouth), when one of a flock of pedigree black-faced ewes attempted to eat some leaves which covered a disused well. The animal fell through the leaves and disappeared down the well. Other sheep immediately followed until 17 had leapt in. All were killed or suffocated before help arrived." 

Further comment would simply spoil it.

--0--

It is becoming almost impossible now to pick up any of the daily papers without reading in their columns terribly distressing stories of privation, starvation, suicide, or murder consequent upon the awful struggle for existence of the Working Class. If man's command over Nature had not reached the point it has, where, with the aid of wonderful machinery, he is able to produce wealth in abundance, such starvation and want in our midst to-day would be understandable. Millions to-day are idle, cannot obtain permission to manipulate the machinery of wealth production, and, with the raw material provided by Nature, fashion into the finished products we need for food, clothing and shelter. And yet we can read of the following in the so-called Twentieth Century of Enlightenment

"CRYING FOR BREAD." 

''It is one of these awful cases of dire distress and starvation," said Detective-inspector Hall, in the Thames Police-Court.
Emma Coughlin, aged 41, of Willis Street, Poplar, was remanded on a charge of attempting to murder her three children and commit suicide by means of coal gas.
When arrested she said : "I put some money in the gas and locked the bedroom door. I only did it to frighten him (evidently meaning her husband). I do not know why I did it.
The children are continually crying for bread, and I do not know where to get the money. . . . I sold some furniture and I have pawned nearly everything. I have no clothes for my bed. I did not know what to do." Evening News, 1/10/21

Bread, like every other form of wealth, can only be produced by applying human energy to Nature's resources.

The land, all in it and upon it—the workshops, factories and machinery, the mills, mines, and railroads, all the necessary tools and implements for producing and distributing wealth—are owned and controlled by a comparatively few people in society. The vast majority of the human race, being divorced from the means of life, obtain permission from the owners to produce wealth for the latter, with a view to profit, and in return receive a wage, just a portion of the total value produced.

When a profit is no longer forthcoming, and, incidentally, when the markets of the world are glutted with the good things of life, the workers in thousands remain idle and go without just at the time they should be enjoying the fruits of their energy. Such cases as above could never disgrace a system of society where the means of life were the common property of all, inasmuch as when the whole of those who are physically and mentally fit, capable of contributing their quota of energy in association with their fellows the world wide, would, when the wealth is produced, socially own, control, and enjoy the results of their social labour.

--0--

That vile, sickly sentiment, of which only the Press of the Capitalist Class is capable, is once more being indulged in by the daily papers, concerning the coming anniversary of the signing of the Armistice.

Once more they are urging that November 11th should be a day of "National Observance" as paying a tribute to the "Heroic Dead."

If our masters were able to show and to prove that those who survived the terrible struggle in France and Flanders were passing through those "fields of waving corn" promised so often, which have never materialised, something might be said for the tribute they wish us to pay.

Right from when the last cannon and machine-gun spluttered forth its deadly missile, until the present time, the Working Class, including the ex-Service men, have faced a far worse struggle for existence than ever known before.

Since the last anniversary, the workers, irrespective of whether they had been in the armed forces or munition factories, fighting and slaying to maintain the "glorious prestige of the British Empire," have suffered a greatly reduced standard of subsistence as a result of the reductions in wages forced upon them by the Capitalist Class.

Far more common it is to-day to see the "brave lads" begging support in the streets, playing barrel-organs and generally trying to appeal to the generosity of our benevolent Ruling Class! Thousands are seeking employment, many of whom are physically wrecked on account of their experiences in the trenches. Their chance of employment is almost hopeless, and doubtless they will find their way to the heroes' home—the workhouse, or a premature grave, the victims of starvation.

The hypocritical Ruling Class will always pay tributes in words, but not in deeds. Those workers who perished fighting the battles of our masters to satisfy the latter's insatiable greed for profits, we know only too well, did so under a conception of patriotism drilled into them when young and fostered since.

Were it not for the fact that they have no understanding of their position in society, where they are divorced from the means of life, we should see them fighting the battles in the only fight that does matter —the Class War. We who lived through those four years of unparalleled destruction of precious human lives, say again, as we did in our September, 1914, issue of the Socialist Standard: "The struggle did not justify the shedding of one single drop of Working Class blood," and that it was "a commercial war being fought out in the interests of the Capitalist Class for the markets of the world in order to dispose of the wealth robbed from the workers." While we regret that so many workers of all countries lost their lives in the bloody shambles, the appeal of the Capitalist Class leaves us cold.

--0--

On many occasions in the columns of the Socialist Standard we have pointed out that the object of Sinn Fein was to further the material interests of the manufacturing section of the Ruling Class of Ireland, and whatever be the outcome of the conflict between them and the British Government, the wealth producers of Ireland will find little alteration in their position. 

This question was dealt with more fully in our issue of June, 1917, but we do not think it would be out of place for our readers to note the following (Evening News, 3/10/21) :

"LABOUR TO FIGHT SINN FEIN.'' 

"Irish labour leaders do not hide their anxiety regarding the future under a Sinn Fein government. Sinn Fein is claiming greater powers than Ulster regarding the repeal of legislation passed by the United Kingdom Parliament, and in particular takes exception to restrictive trade union practices which are accused of stifling Irish industrial development.
"It is well-known that some of the most prominent men in Southern Ireland believe the Trades Disputes Acts to be inimical to Irish interests and will not assume responsibility for enforcing such laws in Ireland. Realising that they may have to fight their own Government harder than they did the British authorities, the Irish labourers are preparing for conflict.
"They threaten to fight every constituency in the towns, and expect that with the issue of self-government out of the way it will he easier to make headway against official Sinn Fein."

Members of the Communist Party and the S.L.P., please note.

O. C. I.

A Letter To An Irish Worker (1947)

From the October 1947 issue of the Socialist Standard

Not far away lies the country where you were born, Ireland—Ireland, geographically, but not politically. Politically, there are two lands—as you know—Eire and Northern Ireland. Ireland as a geographical unit does exist—Ireland as a nation, no.

Unpalatable as this fact may appear to you and the majority of Irishmen and women in this country it remains none the less a fact and to ignore it in any review of the situation in Ireland would be sheer folly, if not deceit. More important still: since it is the position of the working class with which I am concerned it is from that class point of view that I examine Ireland. To express any other point of view but the working class one would not only be detrimental to the real interests of Irish workers both here and in Ireland, but would also be tantamount to a surrendering of my Socialist principles.

At present you are being asked to give your support to a campaign to ”end partition in Ireland.” You are asked, as an Irishman, to "help end the unnatural division of Ireland, to make Ireland, once more, as she was in the past, a free and united nation.” Those organisations that are very much interested in getting your support for their nationalist policies are constantly reminding you of “your glorious heritage,” of ”your proud past, your great Irish nation and your nationality.” However, I would urge you to stop and think, and ask yourself what it’s all about—remember, the hand that heartily slaps you on the back may yet conceal a knife.

Ireland, today, represents a glaring example of the utter futility of supporting nationalist parties, from the workers’ view point. From long before the French Revolution to the Civil War of 1920 Irish men, women and children, have died a hundred-and-one deaths through war, famine and pestilence caused either directly or indirectly by the pursuing of this "pure ideal” of national independence. Of course, one can look back upon it all as ‘‘just history” and murmur about the "inevitability of social development.” However, such an attitude is not enough—to stop there is to close your eyes to what is happening now and what may happen in the future. History follows no preordained, inexorable path—it is men who make history, and men who change the world. And because Irish working men and women still give their allegiance and support to this nationalist ideal of a “free and united Ireland” so are they also prepared to follow in the footsteps of those who went before them and lay down their very lives, in one way or another, for something they believe to be in their interests.

And what has been the result of it all in Ireland? What has been achieved through the misery and the suffering and the death of the countless thousands of unnamed Irish peasants and workers? What concrete and tangible gains have been made by those who always bear the brunt of wars, whether national or international? Shall we assess our gains? Surely it is high time we did.

Now, then, note these data: Eire (26 of the 32 Irish counties) is a Republic, an independent state. It has a population of about 3,000,000, of which number 66 persons are considered wealthy to the extent that they receive an average £27 10s. each per day; the great remainder of the population—the working class—being so poor that their income is below the 1939 cost-of-living figure by over 30 per cent. in the cities and 15 per cent. in the country areas; of the 70-odd-thousand registered unemployed members of this population the unmarried man “exists” on the munificent sum of 22s. 6d. per week. Emigrant ships (you’ve experienced the luxurious comfort of these sea-greyhounds!) have carried on an average a daily cargo of 78 Irish men and women to this and other countries since 1922. Slums, hovels and dilapidated houses that constitute “habitable accommodation” for a great many; all the poverty-diseases, of which tuberculosis causes one-half of all the deaths between the ages of 15 and 25 each year. One hundred and forty politicians who prate about "equality of sacrifice” and, at the same time, increase their salaries from £40 to £52 per month while 140,000 old-age pensioners “exist” on £2 10s. per month. Charitable organisations are as much a part of the Irish scene as are the Mountains of Mourne or the Blarney Stone. (One of these organisations issued its 157th annual report in June. That report stated that in Dublin City—capital of this proud “Irish nation,” Eire—about 8.500 families are trying to live on incomes of between five shillings and £1 per week. It continued, in like vein, to enumerate the many afflictions from which the working people of city, town and village suffer; and for the hundredth-and-fifty-seventh time this unctuous, back-slapping Christian organisation, shedding crocodile-tears, bemoaned the fact that to find large families accommodated in one ramshackle room, damp and miserable, without anything like sufficient food, clothing and bedding is a common experience.)

Well, that’s Eire today after a quarter of a century’s self-government. I think you’ll agree that all the “heroic” national struggles that have been waged in Ireland have—so far as the Irish worker and his family is concerned—achieved absolutely nothing. Today, behind the brave talk of the politicians, behind the backs of the cultured gentlemen of the Gaelic League and the language revivalists, beneath the cloak of nationality and religion, lies the stark reality of the slum, of rampant disease, of poor wages, of high prices, of dole and emigration queues—poverty is the daily companion and bed-fellow of the majority of men and women in Ireland.

Yes—of course—there have been changes, the strategically-important seaports are no longer the legal property of the British Government, the British Governor-General is gone, the tricolour now flutters triumphantly in the breeze over Government House in Merrion Square . . . Changes? Well, of a sort; changes which certainly haven’t changed your wage-slave position in the least—and, surely, that’s the one thing worth changing?

No, nationalism has nothing to offer you—except a change of masters. Whether the Eire Government of De Valera or the Northern Ireland Government of Basil Brooke rules the whole, or only part, of Ireland, whether the flag be the tricolour or the Union Jack, whether partition ends or continues, you, as a worker, will in no wise be any better off. Your problems will still continue, will still confront you—worrying you and causing you many a headache—while the present system of society lasts. To solve those problems—which never leave yon, be you in Ireland, Britain, America or any other part of the world—you’ll most certainly have to struggle.

But let your struggle be one against the real origin of your problems, against the system of capitalism, and against those who support it. Struggle against the system which condemns all workers, regardless of the place of their birth being Ireland, Britain, America or anywhere else, to a life-time of toil and poverty, from cradle to grave ; struggle against the wealthy few who, because they own the factories, mines, railways and all of the means and instruments for producing wealth, compel you—because you own nothing—to labour for their benefit.

Your struggle, in common with the struggle of workers everywhere, to be successful must be a revolutionary one. Your aim? To take from the capitalist class its ownership of the means of production and make them the common property of all mankind, without distinction of race or sex. When you’ve achieved that—when you’ve won that revolution — living will really be worthwhile then, it will be a joy and an adventure.

Then things will be produced because people need them and not in order to sell for the purpose of making profit; then poverty will disappear, insecurity vanish, and wars will be nothing but memories . . . That will be Socialism—so, speed the day!

Comradely Yours,

Chris Walsh.

The Workers in Ireland (1973)

Book Review from the February 1973 issue of the Socialist Standard

A History of the Irish Working Class by P. Berresford Ellis. Gollancz. £3.50.

The Rise of the Irish Trade Unions 1729-1970 by Andrew Boyd. Anvil. 50p.

A history of the working class in Ireland is badly needed but this book by Ellis is no good. It is too hastily written, too full of factual mistakes and too biased in favour of Irish republicanism. Indeed the last part is largely a list of the various republican sects, all of which claim to be “socialist”—which means they stand for an Irish state capitalism of one sort or another. Nor are we told much about the trade union movement.

This omission is corrected in Boyd’s booklet (for it is only about a hundred pages). He describes the laws passed against and the punishments meted out to the local craft unions of Dublin and Belfast in the 18th and early 19th centuries (including, be it noted, those passed between 1782 and 1800 by the Irish Home Rule Parliament). Later these craft unions were to amalgamate into national unions, though generally on an all-Britain rather than an all-Ireland basis, much to the dislike of later Irish Nationalists. Then in the years before the first world war came the organisation of the unskilled (Catholic) workers by men like Jim Larkin and James Connolly.

Irish trade unionism has of course been weakened by the sectarian divisions amongst the workers. Boyd tends to blame the Unionists exclusively for this, and indeed Ulster Unionist employers did use sectarianism in a bid to defeat attempts to organise their workers into unions. But the blame must be shared by union organisers like Connolly who openly proclaimed their own Irish Nationalism and even that the unions in Ireland should support the demand for Irish independence. No wonder the ITGWU in Belfast remained confined to Catholic workers. The Protestant workers, with some justice, suspected that Connolly wanted Protestant / Catholic unity as much for Irish Nationalist political ends as for trade unionism.

It is hard to resist the conclusion that those who argued that the trade unions in Ireland should steer clear of politics, both Nationalist and Unionist, and concentrate on bread-and-butter issues like wages and working conditions were better trade unionists than Connolly even if they weren’t always so militant over wage demands. After all, when it comes to organising workers to defend their interests at work a man’s politics or religion is irrelevant. What is required is unity.

Adam Buick

An Irish Problem in English Agriculture (1943)

From the February 1943 issue of the Socialist Standard

The need for food in war time is one of the State's greatest problems.

To feed a great hungering populace is vital to the war effort, and every conceivable method is put forth to produce the necessities of life at home. Since the advent of the war agriculture has come into its own, so to speak. Farmers have stepped from lean years to fat ones; with guaranteed prices and markets and modern machinery thrust into the industry, the British farmer now finds himself sitting pretty.

Changes have also been effected with our agricultural labourer. From his wage of about 35/- per week before the war, he now finds himself receiving a £3 minimum rate in all counties. Indeed, many labourers now come under income tax schedules for the first time in their lives, and most of them think themselves well off. Actually, of course, our farm hand is still living on a meagre subsistence level. True, his rent has remained at the same figure. Some time back a move was put forward by many big farmers to increase labourers' rents to coincide with increased wages, but the motion was shelved for the time being, and it was agreed to leave rents at the fixed rate, usually of 3/- per week.

Many of these cottages the average townsfolk would hardly accept rent free. Small hovels built in out of the way fens, several miles from shopping centres, no modern conveniences, bad sanitation, some of them not even built near a hard road, and often in need of repairs.

Of course, the farmer has his excuse just now, what with war-time restrictions, labour shortage, lack of materials, repairs are out of the question.

All these things, we are told, will be righted in that rosy period to come after the bullets have ceased to whistle.

Some of the labourers live rent free on these farms. For this little privilege a few head of cattle are kept around the place, which need to be taken care of and fed in return. This is called garthing, and, of course, entails Sunday work, so incidentally these farm hands are tied to the farm seven days a week.

But somehow our agricultural labourer is not entirely satisfied. Just now he is concerned in a little trouble known as the Irish problem. Owing to the increased production and cultivation of wide tracts To-day, what worries the land worker is the Irish problem. With the labour shortage the Government has allowed an influx of Irish labour into the country. It is a joint agreement of the two Governments concerned, and any Irishman who desires agricultural work can obtain a permit to come to England for six months. Work is guaranteed, and comparatively attractive piece rates are offered; often the English farmer will give a small gang of Irishmen one of those cottages rent free; incidentally no garthing is required. These Irishmen, for working long hours at piece rates, can earn much more than the English land worker's £3 a week, and some of the latter resent the employment of the Irish labourers. It also sets them wondering. Often at one end of a field two Irishmen are earthing a clamp of potatoes at 7/- a chain, while at the other end two English hands are doing similar work for 10/- a day.


Incidents like this have caused a growing antagonism between our English farm hand and his Irish brethren. When Saturday night comes our landworker wends his way to the village “pub,"and there he sees an Irish lad laying down his £1 note on the bar counter. That is when the canker grows. Quite heedless of the fact that well known brewers, Messrs. Ind, Coope & Allsop, recently paid a dividend of 33 per cent., the average farm hand likes his pint or two, even if it does cost 1/- or more a pint; and he finds it hard to the pocket to keep pace with his Irish colleague.


Because his wage-packet is small he blames the Irishman. He says, “The Paddies get all the piece work, they pick and choose what work they want; I get all the dirty jobs for a weekly wage. If he's not satisfied he cashes in; I'm tied till Michaelmass; besides, the guv'nor might stop me leaving or get me put in the army." And so the talk goes on.


In actual truth, the Irishman is being blamed for the Englishman's own shortcomings. It is not the Irishman's fault that English farmers pay less to English labourers. It is not the Irishman's fault that English labourers have always been miserably paid, nor is it his fault that it is only in war-time that English capitalism discovers that it greatly needs farm workers. In peace time English farmers took advantage of unemployment and the lack of organisation of farm workers to depress wages to the lowest possible level. He opposed every effort of the landworker and his union to improve wages. If, then, in war time Irish labourers are able to exact a higher wage why blame them? The English workers (and their Irish brothers) should recognise that at all times they are sufferers from the same evil, the capitalist system which divides society into a class of capitalists and a class of workers. Only then will English and Irish cease to curse each other.

G. D. Bailey.