Log in

View Full Version : Referendum in Ireland



Devrim
8th July 2008, 13:04
From this Month's World Revolution (paper of the ICC in England)

http://en.internationalism.org/wr/316/eu-ref

Devrim

Referendum in Ireland:No choice for the working class


On 12 June 2008 the European Union was once again thrown into crisis with the Irish electorate rejecting the Treaty of Lisbon in a referendum. The Treaty was itself a recycled version of the European Constitution which French and Dutch voters had rejected in similar referendums in 2005. The apparent paralysis at the heart of the EU is symptomatic of the increasing pressure on the bourgeoisie as they attempt to deal with the remorseless decline of the capitalist system.

The stakes for the Irish bourgeoisie

As a relatively minor player on the world stage, it is difficult to appreciate that the Republic of Ireland has an imperialist orientation. Like all minor powers, it tends to be at the mercy of the larger states and its choices generally run along the lines of which imperialist gangster it will seek protection from. Ireland’s official policy of ‘neutrality’ is an effort to avoid the worst ravages of imperialist conflict but in practice Ireland has always been more ‘neutral’ towards some powers than others.
This basic strategy of playing one power against the other is demonstrated clearly in World War II, when Ireland discreetly supported Britain against Germany. Today, Ireland’s policy in Europe springs from the same fundamental interests. Too weak to compete either militarily or economically against the rest of the world, the Irish bourgeoisie can only pursue its interests in ‘partnership’ with other powers. For these reasons, preserving the EU is a priority for the Irish bourgeoisie and accordingly, the majority campaigned for a ‘yes’ vote.
However, like all bourgeoisies, there is a minority that dreams of a more ‘independent’ line, or which would prefer closer ties with the US than with Europe. The nationalists of Sinn Fein are the classic representatives of this tendency but they were also accompanied by the lobby group Libertas that has connections with the US military. There are fears among some factions of the American bourgeoisie that the Lisbon treaty (which foresees the appearance of a common European defence policy) will undermine NATO.

Democracy: A trap for workers

The No-vote is unquestionably an embarrassment for the Irish bourgeoisie but what should the attitude to workers be towards such spectacles?
Democracy in modern capitalism is an enormous deception aimed at the working masses. Today, no matter which capitalist is in power, the slow collapse of the system forces all of them to attack the working class. Because of this, workers gain no benefit from backing this or that faction vying for power. The real interest of workers is to fight for their own class demands and ultimately to eliminate the rule of the entire bourgeoisie and seize power for themselves, through their own organs – the workers’ councils. Participation in the electoral circus is at best a waste of time, but more importantly it is an instrument that binds the working class to the capitalist state by serving up the illusion that workers really do have some kind of choice in this society.
It is true that referendums are not about choosing a government, but the fundamental framework in which they operate is the same. The questions they pose inevitably demand workers choose between the views of one capitalist faction or another. They offer no means by which the working class can express its own political interests in contradistinction to those of their exploiters.

The Workers Solidarity Movement: anarchists in the circus

One of several groups to support the ‘no’ campaign in the Referendum is the anarchist Workers Solidarity Movement Their leaflet (http://www.wsm.ie/voteno) called for workers to “Vote No – Organise For Real Social Change”. The leaflet states “this treaty asks us to support changes in the EU to make money transfers and trade relations between them easier. Why should we give them the thumbs up when they couldn’t care less about us? Vote ‘No’ to their restructuring. But a vote ‘No’ is worth little on its own if things are not changed at home. The EU must change but so too must Irish society”. The leaflet goes on to say “through its commitment to liberalisation, this treaty is endorsing the passing of more of our public services in to private hands. This is robbery. It is maintaining, reinforcing, and expanding the undemocratic structures of Ireland today on to a European level”.
Why, indeed, should workers endorse the policies of the Irish bourgeoisie or the wider EU? The WSM’s endorsement of the ‘no’ campaign effectively means they are “giving the thumbs up” to another faction of the bourgeoisie, the Euro-sceptics. What does the working class have in common with the nationalist Sinn Fein or the arms dealers of Libertas, apparently backed by the US military? Nothing! They are enemies of the working class and the proletariat has no more interest in supporting them than it does the majority of the bourgeoisie who favour the treaty. And because workers have no interest in supporting either side there is nothing to be gained by voting in this or any other referendum or election.
As for public services, they may currently be part of the state, but that state is a capitalist state: the executive committee of the ruling class. Transferring them to private hands (i.e. another capitalist) certainly isn’t equivalent to ‘robbery’ against the working class. This is because the working class does not own these so-called ‘public services’. To paraphrase Marx, you cannot take from the proletariat what it does not have! This is simply a transfer of ownership from one part of the bourgeoisie to another. Now, undoubtedly, privatisation is usually accompanied with attacks on working conditions – as is the case with a transfer from private to state hands. Workers should certainly fight these attacks but not by getting involved in arguments about which capitalist should own what company or service!
Lastly, the talk about changing ‘Irish society’ reveals the incipient nationalism behind the WSM’s vision. The workers’ struggle does not aim to change the society of any one nation. Workers have no country – their struggle will abolish ‘Irish society’ along with all national societies as part of the creation of a global, integrated human society.
The WSM makes the same fundamental arguments as the Trotskyists on these questions: state capitalism is nicer than private capitalism, ‘national’ capitalism better than ‘global’ capitalism, etc. They also perpetuate the myth that workers have some sort of say in capitalist society either through state ownership or the democratic circus.
Certainly, workers should “organise for real social change”. But they must organise themselves in struggle, not through the ballot box, and defend their real interests against the whole bourgeoisie, not lining up with this or that faction of it.

Hessian Peel
6th January 2009, 21:10
What a load of shite.

Sendo
6th January 2009, 21:14
in some places lesser evilism can make a difference. Also, if you can vote on issues directly that's just fine.

This isn't about asking workers to sacrifice their time to rally behind vague sloganeers masquerading as candidates. With something simple like this it's quite wrong and snobby to tell workers to stay uninvolved.

Cumannach
6th January 2009, 22:19
I'm sorry, but this is a dreadful article in almost every way.

spartan
6th January 2009, 22:25
At least the Irish get a chance, well two chances now, to say yes or no to the Lisbon Treaty, we here in Britain were promised it in Labour's last election manifesto but the cowards are too scared to hold one because they know the majority of us oppose the EU in it's current form.

Anyway if the Irish give another no vote then that will definately bury this Lisbon Treaty shite, though with the recession I imagine that many voters will see the benefits of the EU and vote yes this time around.:(

Sam_b
6th January 2009, 22:44
The WSM’s endorsement of the ‘no’ campaign effectively means they are “giving the thumbs up” to another faction of the bourgeoisie, the Euro-sceptics

This is bollocks. Are the ICC calling for a vote of abstention?

This is a terrible article.

Pogue
6th January 2009, 22:50
I loved it when the No vote came through and the BBC news camera zoomed in on a copy of irish Socialist Worker being held in the air.

Q
6th January 2009, 23:04
Nice gravedig :cool:


It is true that referendums are not about choosing a government, but the fundamental framework in which they operate is the same. The questions they pose inevitably demand workers choose between the views of one capitalist faction or another. They offer no means by which the working class can express its own political interests in contradistinction to those of their exploiters.
This is where left-communists fail time and again as they don't recognize the potential of political radicalisation that can happen using these democratic tools (albeit limited) offered by capitalist parliamentary-democracies. The No-campaign against the Lisbon Treaty was a perfect platform for socialists to stand on and argue for a real alternative.

Two articles about our role in this referendum:
Voters say No to Lisbon Treaty (http://socialistworld.net/eng/2008/06/14irelaa.html)
Lisbon Treaty ‘No’ vote delivers major shock for political and big business Establishment (http://socialistworld.net/eng/2008/06/14irelab.html)

PRC-UTE
7th January 2009, 02:41
related topic:

http://www.revleft.com/vb/irsp-another-lisbon-t98150/index.html

IRSP oppose referendum, urge a no vote

Die Neue Zeit
7th January 2009, 04:16
What a load of shite.


I'm sorry, but this is a dreadful article in almost every way.


This is bollocks. Are the ICC calling for a vote of abstention?

This is a terrible article.


This is where left-communists fail time and again as they don't recognize the potential of political radicalisation that can happen using these democratic tools (albeit limited) offered by capitalist parliamentary-democracies. The No-campaign against the Lisbon Treaty was a perfect platform for socialists to stand on and argue for a real alternative.

Two articles about our role in this referendum:
Voters say No to Lisbon Treaty (http://socialistworld.net/eng/2008/06/14irelaa.html)
Lisbon Treaty ‘No’ vote delivers major shock for political and big business Establishment (http://socialistworld.net/eng/2008/06/14irelab.html)



I must concur with the above posters. Why doesn't the ICC at least call for spoiling ballots again and what not (for the sake of "militant action")?

The lack of differentiation between elections and referenda has lowered my view of the ICC's ultra-leftism. I betcha that they would call for abstention when plebiscites on taxes do come about:

http://www.revleft.com/vb/socio-income-democracy-t92929/index.html

Marion
7th January 2009, 14:22
So I take it all the people disagreeing above feel that referenda are organised by capitalists to provide a meaningful choice that will help us move towards the destruction of capitalism? Is there any disagreement with the idea that the different sides on the referenda merely represent the viewpoints of different capitalist factions?

Moreover, does anyone have any comments on the questions of nationalisation in the latter half of the article?

Cumannach
8th January 2009, 18:47
sorry marion I replied but it seems to have dissappeared???

Hessian Peel
8th January 2009, 19:51
So I take it all the people disagreeing above feel that referenda are organised by capitalists to provide a meaningful choice that will help us move towards the destruction of capitalism? Is there any disagreement with the idea that the different sides on the referenda merely represent the viewpoints of different capitalist factions?

Moreover, does anyone have any comments on the questions of nationalisation in the latter half of the article?

State capitalism is better than 'free market' capitalism. If the ICC was listened to the Lisbon Treaty would have been passed and Europe and the world would have been a lot worse for it.

Q
8th January 2009, 21:36
So I take it all the people disagreeing above feel that referenda are organised by capitalists to provide a meaningful choice that will help us move towards the destruction of capitalism? Is there any disagreement with the idea that the different sides on the referenda merely represent the viewpoints of different capitalist factions?
Again, I replied to this in previous post.


Moreover, does anyone have any comments on the questions of nationalisation in the latter half of the article?


As for public services, they may currently be part of the state, but that state is a capitalist state: the executive committee of the ruling class. Transferring them to private hands (i.e. another capitalist) certainly isn’t equivalent to ‘robbery’ against the working class. This is because the working class does not own these so-called ‘public services’. To paraphrase Marx, you cannot take from the proletariat what it does not have! This is simply a transfer of ownership from one part of the bourgeoisie to another. Now, undoubtedly, privatisation is usually accompanied with attacks on working conditions – as is the case with a transfer from private to state hands. Workers should certainly fight these attacks but not by getting involved in arguments about which capitalist should own what company or service!
As was pointed out by someone before the forums got reverted back, this is an absurd notion because of two reasons:
1. Public services are a glaring hole in capitalist ideology and serve as a perfect educational point for the case of a nationalised economy. The only thing we should add in our demands are under workers control and management.
2. Public services represent gains by the working class and have a certain level (although modest) of public control, private companies have zero public control. Any such gains should be defended and extended, not attacked.

Marion
9th January 2009, 10:32
I guess this has been covered elsewhere, but do you not think that the recent moves towards nationalisation of certain financial institutions show clearly that nationalisation is merely a strategy used to shore up capitalism. Do the fact certain of these institutions are now under "public ownership" really represent a gain by the working class? Do you not think that certain sectors of the bourgeoisie are quite happy with nationalisations as they allow fresh injections of capital?

duffers
9th January 2009, 14:36
Short term wise, of course they are. But in the long term, it presents itself as on obstacle that they seek to banish. Such is the reason nationalisation occurs in unusual times.

I myself am a Left communist, but I find the ICC's position disconcerting; a plebiscite is not an acceptance of parliamentarian, merely to prevent the meager gains we have been thrown away. I disagree firmly, and say the no vote is the class related one.

Die Neue Zeit
10th January 2009, 01:59
I guess this has been covered elsewhere, but do you not think that the recent moves towards nationalisation of certain financial institutions show clearly that nationalisation is merely a strategy used to shore up capitalism. Do the fact certain of these institutions are now under "public ownership" really represent a gain by the working class? Do you not think that certain sectors of the bourgeoisie are quite happy with nationalisations as they allow fresh injections of capital?

But those aren't real nationalizations - more like government loans with little accountability. The bank shares are still privately owned.

Devrim
10th January 2009, 06:51
I myself am a Left communist, but I find the ICC's position disconcerting; a plebiscite is not an acceptance of parliamentarian, merely to prevent the meager gains we have been thrown away. I disagree firmly, and say the no vote is the class related one.

Duffer's you are not a left communist in any way. You support Irish republicanism.

Devrim

Magdalen
10th January 2009, 23:34
Just out of interest, how many ICC members are there on the ground in Ireland?

Die Neue Zeit
10th January 2009, 23:40
About the same as there are "Revolutionary Communists" like yourself (one wonders how you guys specifically account for at least half of the intellectual Marxists on some of the more right-wing newspapers wagging the "Marx was right / told you so" tail) :p

Magdalen
11th January 2009, 00:16
About the same as there are "Revolutionary Communists" like yourself (one wonders how you guys specifically account for at least half of the intellectual Marxists on some of the more right-wing newspapers wagging the "Marx was right / told you so" tail) :p

You're mixing us up with the Revolutionary Communist Party of Frank Richards/Furedi, which originated from a grouping expelled from the RCG back in 1976.

Die Neue Zeit
11th January 2009, 00:32
My apologies :(

Devrim
11th January 2009, 07:07
Just out of interest, how many ICC members are there on the ground in Ireland?

None, the ICC doesn't have a section in Ireland.

Devrim

Charles Xavier
11th January 2009, 16:48
Whoever wrote that article is a douche with no brain in their head. The No vote to Lisbon was a huge victory to the working class. The No vote is the worker's vote.

duffers
11th January 2009, 18:15
Duffer's you are not a left communist in any way. You support Irish republicanism.

Devrim

Much like punctuation, something you know very little about.

Shouldn't you be focusing on something a bit worthwhile, like an actual stance the working class should take on the Lisbon Treaty, rather than telling us how to fence sit?

ComradeOm
11th January 2009, 18:42
What a load of shite.That about sums it up. Such "wait and see" tactics reveal a complete and utter disconnection with the proletariat and, in particular, the interests of the Irish working class


Just out of interest, how many ICC members are there on the ground in Ireland? Of course the irony is that it doesn't matter if there were ten thousand - they'd all be too busy sitting on the fence to involve themselves :rolleyes:

Devrim
11th January 2009, 19:42
Shouldn't you be focusing on something a bit worthwhile, like an actual stance the working class should take on the Lisbon Treaty, rather than telling us how to fence sit?

The communist left has historically taken the position that the working class has nothing to gain from taking sides with different bourgeois factions. I don't think that either voting yes or no has anything to offer the working class. There is no class side in this referendum. Of course that shouldn't surprise us as it is a bourgeois referendum.

Devrim

duffers
11th January 2009, 20:40
Yet it's not a question of "taking sides", it is a divisionary surrender to not vote no. What you think is quite contrary to the truth.

The ICC isn't likely to have a section in Ireland in the future neither.

Dóchas
11th January 2009, 20:45
does anyone actually know what the lisbon treaty is about because all i heard was that it may have affected our neutrality but the rest im not sure about? :confused: i just got the impression that it was bad because of the Libertas campaign

duffers
11th January 2009, 21:18
It's quite a lengthy answer to your question. In short, it strengthens the EU's hold over the states within, and relinquishes many liberties we have. Best to actually look through the document or a review of it.

Dóchas
11th January 2009, 21:22
ye ok i was just wondering what it meant in a nutshell, thanks

Cumannach
11th January 2009, 22:43
“The working class must not constitute itself a political party; it must not, under any pretext, engage in political action, for to combat the state is to recognize the state: and this is contrary to eternal principles. Workers must not go on strike; for to struggle to increase one's wages or to prevent their decrease is like recognizing wages: and this is contrary to the eternal principles of the emancipation of the working class!

“If in the political struggle against the bourgeois state the workers succeed only in extracting concessions, then they are guilty of compromise; and this is contrary to eternal principles. All peaceful movements, such as those in which English and American workers have the bad habit of engaging, are therefore to be despised. Workers must not struggle to establish a legal limit to the working day, because this is to compromise with the masters, who can then only exploit them for ten or twelve hours, instead of fourteen or sixteen. They must not even exert themselves in order legally to prohibit the employment in factories of children under the age of ten, because by such means they do not bring to an end the exploitation of children over ten: they thus commit a new compromise, which stains the purity of the eternal principles."

-Marx (Political Indifferentism, 1873)

being sarcastic

Q
12th January 2009, 07:48
“The working class must not constitute itself a political party; it must not, under any pretext, engage in political action, for to combat the state is to recognize the state: and this is contrary to eternal principles. Workers must not go on strike; for to struggle to increase one's wages or to prevent their decrease is like recognizing wages: and this is contrary to the eternal principles of the emancipation of the working class!

“If in the political struggle against the bourgeois state the workers succeed only in extracting concessions, then they are guilty of compromise; and this is contrary to eternal principles. All peaceful movements, such as those in which English and American workers have the bad habit of engaging, are therefore to be despised. Workers must not struggle to establish a legal limit to the working day, because this is to compromise with the masters, who can then only exploit them for ten or twelve hours, instead of fourteen or sixteen. They must not even exert themselves in order legally to prohibit the employment in factories of children under the age of ten, because by such means they do not bring to an end the exploitation of children over ten: they thus commit a new compromise, which stains the purity of the eternal principles."

-Marx (Political Indifferentism, 1873)

being sarcastic

Hah! This kind of sarcasm exposes the failure of the left-communists to engage in the class struggle and give a direction forwards quite well! Very nice! :lol:

Devrim
12th January 2009, 08:27
“The working class must not constitute itself a political party; it must not, under any pretext, engage in political action, for to combat the state is to recognize the state: and this is contrary to eternal principles. Workers must not go on strike; for to struggle to increase one's wages or to prevent their decrease is like recognizing wages: and this is contrary to the eternal principles of the emancipation of the working class!

Of course, it is nothing like we have argued. We are for a communist party, and support wage struggles, but that wouldn't fit your parody, would it?

Devrim

Charles Xavier
12th January 2009, 14:13
Of course, it is nothing like we have argued. We are for a communist party, and support wage struggles, but that wouldn't fit your parody, would it?

Devrim

Marx is attacking all ultra-left positions, you have some of the silly ones so yes you are part of the silliness. Whats the point of an organization if you aren't going to do anything? Why not just make a drinking club instead?