💾 Archived View for gemini.spam.works › mirrors › textfiles › politics › SPUNK › sp001102.txt captured on 2022-03-01 at 16:47:14.
View Raw
More Information
-=-=-=-=-=-=-
2 articles
2nd is 'When the unemployed elected their own TD'
- ********* Why Anarchists don't vote in Elections *********
from Workers Solidarity No 32
IT'S LOCAL ELECTION time and as usual
politicians of all parties will be promising us
wonderful things. It's probable that this election
will also show an increased vote for the Labour
Party. Yet it is fair enough to ask "what difference
will it make".
We are used to being promised the sun, moon and stars
in elections only to receive cuts, cuts and cuts. Is this
just because all politicians are liars or are there deeper
reasons? Abstention from elections has been an
anarchist tactic from the time of Bakunin. In this article
we look at some of the reasons anarchists advocate
abstention/spoilt votes.
The right to the vote was part of the hard won struggles
of workers (and suffragettes!) over the last couple of
hundred years. Obviously it is preferable to live in a
parliamentary democracy rather than a dictatorship.
Even the most flawed democracies are forced to concede
rights that dictatorships do not, such as relative
independence for trade unions, the right to limited
demonstrations, a certain amount of free speech, etc.
However it is clear that none of these are absolutes, as
anti-trade union legislation, Section 31 and the refusal
to allow nationalist marches into Belfast city centre
adequately demonstrate. The amount of freedom is set
by how much the bosses need to give to keep the system
flowing, plus the amount that is forced from them
through the struggle of workers.
The real purpose of parliament is not to ensure the
country is run according to the wishes of all the people,
cherishing all their views equally. Parliament instead
provides a democratic facade beyond which the real
business of managing capitalism goes on.
The Goodman affair and the bailing out of Insurance
Corporation of Ireland a few years back demonstrate
how the real decisions are made in the boardrooms of
the large industrial concerns. In the unlikely event of a
government being elected which goes "too far" in the eyes
of the bosses they are quick to use any means necessary
to remove it.
BEHIND THE FACADE
The best known example of this is perhaps the removal
of the democratically elected Allende government in Chile
in 1972. They had attempted to bring in a limited
package of reforms and nationalise some of the larger
American industries. The result was a military coup
backed by the CIA.
The workers in Chile were politically disarmed by their
reliance on a small group of elected deputies to liberate
them. There was little organised resistance to the
military and in the immediate aftermath over 30,000
militants were executed and 1,000,000 fled into exile.
In practise however capitalism seldom finds need for
such methods, their complete control of the media and
the reliance of the political parties on big business for
funds is enough of a check. Organisations like the Irish
and British Labour Parties spend most of their time
trying to prove they can manage capitalism just as well
as the Tories or Fianna F?il.
They argue their policies are a way of avoiding strikes
and any other form of class strife. They say their politics
of class collaboration are more efficient to capitalism
then a hard headed class strife approach of lock-outs
and union busting.
To the bosses this is often a good argument, sometimes
it is worth handing out a few crumbs in return for
industrial peace. At other times when a serious crisis
necessitates a driving down of wages or living standards
they can always either force this government to
implement the cuts, precipitate a general election or - in
extreme cases - turn to a police states.
P.E.S.P. LOGIC
This sort of logic has nothing to do with socialism.
Indeed the current Fianna F?il/PD government has been
successfully pursuing the same logic through the
Programme for Economic and Social Progress and before
that the PNR. These deals mean the union bureaucrats
actively stopping and sabotaging strikes in return for
pay increases below the rate of inflation. So in a
comparative 'boom' period of the Irish economy when
company profits doubled Irish workers made real losses
with regards to wages and employment and lost ground
as regards the social wage (health care, education, etc).
The Labour and Workers Parties may have objected to
parts of the PESP but they supported the idea of 'social
partnership' as it is part of their strategy for government
as well.
There are times of course when more radical reformist
governments are elected (in other countries if not as yet
in Ireland). These included Spain in 1936 and the post
war British Labour government. The function of these
governments however was to lead the working class
away from the road to social revolution, to suggest the
same gains could be made through parliament.
When put to the test however in the Spanish case by the
fascist coup the government preferred negotiation with
the fascists to arming the working class. In Spain the
initial resistance to fascism was carried out by the
militant workers of the anarchist C.N.T. who seized
arms or attacked fascist barracks with dynamite and
shotguns.
A similar example is seen throughout Europe in the
immediate aftermath of the Russian revolution as the
reformists in one country after another stood on the
basis that electing them would prevent revolution. Vote
for us and save capitalism. Unfortunately at such times
such parties often gain mass support, this is why it is
vital anarchists take up the arguments around
reformism rather than assuming such ideas will just
fade away with the revolution.
GOOD LEADERS?
These arguments are common to most revolutionary
socialists, but anarchists have another and more
fundamental reason for opposing the parliamentary
process. This process involves the mass of the working
class relying on a few representatives to enter
parliament and do battle on their behalf. Their sole
involvement is one of voting every few years and perhaps
canvassing and supporting the party through paper
sales or whatever. A reliance on a physical leader or
leaders from Neil Kinnock to Mary Robinson to sort out
the situation for us.
Anarchists do not belive any real socialist / anarchist
society can come about through the good actions of a few
individuals. From the beginnings of the anarchist
movement around the International Working Mens' (sic)
Association (better known as the 'First International')
over a century ago, we have argued that the liberation of
the working class can only be achieved through the
action of the working class.
At the time this argument was with the Marxists, now
with the collapse of many major Marxist parties in the
wake of the collapse of Eastern Europe it is mainly with
reformists. The process of bringing about an anarchist
society will either be carried through by the mass of the
workers or it will not happen.
This idea is obviously the complete opposite to the
parliamentary idea. We do not seek a few leaders, good,
bad or indifferent to sort out the mess that is
capitalism. Indeed we argue constantly against any
ideas that make it seem such elites are necessary.
Parliamentary politics relies on voting for people because
they are going to do the job (or some of it) for you. Even
the best intentioned individual on receiving a position of
power finds a divergence of interests with those she/he
represents. This is as much true of revolutionaries and
union bureaucrats as it is of ministers and prime
ministers.
MAKING THE ARGUMENTS
This brings us to the question of how should anarchists
tackle the parliamentary system. How do we convince
everyone not to vote? Perhaps we should put all our
energy into anti-election campaigns.
In fact this is not seen as a major activity by most
anarchists at all. Our aim is not to have elections where
only 10% vote, for such a thing would be meaningless in
itself. In the U.S.A. only about 30% vote in most
elections and it is possible that up to 50% of the
population is not even registered to vote. Only a fool
however would claim this meant the U.S. was more
anarchist then Ireland. If that 10% or 30% is still
electing the government it might as well be 99%.
Our aim is to change society by winning the working
class to the ideas and tactics of anarchism. This will
involve the overthrow of the economic system
(capitalism) we live under and its replacement with
socialism under workers' self-management. Not voting
may just be a sign of despair ("What's the point"), we
want workers actively struggling for the alternative.
Our anti-electoralism is designed to say two things.
Firstly that parliament is not the real seat of power in
society. Secondly that the task of bringing in anarchism
is for the working class, not some small group of TD's.
We will gain support for anarchist ideas not just through
abstract propaganda but also by our involvement as
anarchists in workers' struggles and demonstrating
how anarchism provides the best tools for winning day
to day reforms.
REFORMIST WORKERS
Most of the active militants in the working class support
reformist parties, this is an obvious fact. This has led
many revolutionary groups to adopt slogans at election
times telling workers to "vote Labour with no illusions"
or "vote Labour but build a socialist alternative". We
don't.
The problems with both these slogans are they still
reflect the idea that change should be brought about be
the small elites. They are normally defended by saying
this is putting the reformist parties to the test so that
they can be exposed to their supporters. This is a
nonsense, as a brief look at any of the Irish left reformist
organisations shows.
The reformist organisations have failed the 'test' on
dozens of occasions. Workers vote for these
organisations not because they believe they will
introduce socialism but because they are seen to offer
the best of the bad deal that is capitalism.
This is also presented as an argument for voting for the
reformist parties. Is it not ultra-left to refuse to support
these parties while they may be slightly better than
Fianna Fail or Fine Gael? Two answers exist to this.
The first is that as the real decision making takes place
in industry and not in parliament these organisations
even in majority government can only do what
capitalism allows them. Their only argument is to
organise capitalism more "humanly". We want to
smash capitalism, not give it a human face. The sight of
a "socialist government" implementing cuts and
breaking strikes damages the credibility of socialism in
the eyes of workers, as did the existence of the "socialist"
police states of eastern Europe.
Secondly, it is a question of energy. The sort of effort
that is spent supporting (critically or otherwise)
reformist organisation is energy taken away from the
struggles for improved working conditions, better wages
etc. Elections do not take place in a vacuum in which
nothing else takes place in society for a number of
months.
A strike or demonstration of thousands of workers has
more chance of effecting real change then 20 Labour or
Workers party TD's. In times of mass unrest energy
pumped into reformist parties will be energy used to
undermine the revolution. As so many Chilean socialists
found, revolutionaries supporting such organisations are
likely to find the are literally digging their own grave.
EXCEPTIONS TO THE RULE
There are occasions where anarchists might support
individuals standing in elections. This is when such
people stand on a single issue and abstensionist basis.
At times this may be an effective way of showing mass
support for something when faced with a massive hype
against it from the capitalist press. Other forms of
demonstrating support may be difficult due to large
scale intimidation, victimisation of activists, etc.
One example of such an occasion in the Irish context was
the H-Block hunger strikes of 1981 for political status.
The election of Bobby Sands as MP for
Fermanagh/South Tyrone and the election of two more
H-Block prisoners as TD's south of the border
demonstrated a mass support for the hunger strikers. It
undermined government and press claims that they had
the support of only a tiny minority.
Such support must be on the basis of giving workers the
confidence to openly come out and demonstrate, strike,
etc. It is a tactic towards such mobilisations not an end
in itself.
Problems exist with this, commonly the individual
elected may take up her/his seat despite pre-election
promises of abstention if elected. Even in the hunger
strike case where those on hunger strikes could not take
up their seats the danger of such tactics is obvious. The
vote was seen by Sinn Fein as proof that a turn towards
electoral politics was the correct direction for anti-
imperialism to take.
The potential of a mass campaign at the time of the
hunger strikes based on strikes North and South of the
border was thus lost. The decision to support a single
issue candidate would have to involve hard arguments
on the subsequent direction of the campaign and could
not be taken lightly.
Another instance where anarchists would not urge a
abstention from the bosses electoral process is in the
case of referendums. The WSM was involved (and
indeed still is) in the Divorce Action Group. Despite the
severe limitations of the 1986 referendum we still
canvassed for a YES vote.
In the 1983 anti-abortion referendum anarchists
advocated a NO vote. Of course we don't accept the
conclusions of either referendum as final. We still fight
for the right to divorce and a woman's right to control her
fertility up to and including free, safe abortion on
demand. Such things are democratic rights in
themselves, something no majority should have a veto
over.
What do we say to people in the reformist parties? They
can not (and should not) be ignored. We say look at the
record of your party in government or to the Workers
Party when you supported the 1981 minority Fianna
Fail government.
Look at what your party stands for. Look at the record
of your party in the trade union bureaucracy. Look at
the historical role reformist parties have played in other
countries. Reformism has had it's test and failed one
hundred times. Leave it, find out more about
anarchism and join the fight for working class self-
emancipation.
Andrew Flood
Andrew Flood
Conor McLoughlin
Andrew Blackmore
Alan MacSim?in
Joe Black
Joe King
Aileen O'Carroll
IT'S LOCAL ELECTION time and as usual politicians
of all parties will be promising us wonderful things.
It's probable that this election will also show an
increased vote for the Labour Party. Yet it is fair
enough to ask "what difference will it make".
We are used to being promised the sun, moon and stars in
elections only to receive cuts, cuts and cuts. Is this just
because all politicians are liars or are there deeper reasons?
Abstention from elections has been an anarchist tactic from
the time of Bakunin. In this article we look at some of the
reasons anarchists advocate abstention/spoilt votes.
The right to the vote was part of the hard won struggles of
workers (and suffragettes!) over the last couple of hundred
years. Obviously it is preferable to live in a parliamentary
democracy rather than a dictatorship. Even the most
flawed democracies are forced to concede rights that
dictatorships do not, such as relative independence for
trade unions, the right to limited demonstrations, a certain
amount of free speech, etc.
However it is clear that none of these are absolutes, as
anti-trade union legislation, Section 31 and the refusal to
allow nationalist marches into Belfast city centre
adequately demonstrate. The amount of freedom is set by
how much the bosses need to give to keep the system
flowing, plus the amount that is forced from them through
the struggle of workers.
The real purpose of parliament is not to ensure the country
is run according to the wishes of all the people, cherishing
all their views equally. Parliament instead provides a
democratic facade beyond which the real business of
managing capitalism goes on.
The Goodman affair and the bailing out of Insurance
Corporation of Ireland a few years back demonstrate how
the real decisions are made in the boardrooms of the large
industrial concerns. In the unlikely event of a government
being elected which goes "too far" in the eyes of the bosses
they are quick to use any means necessary to remove it.
BEHIND THE FACADE
The best known example of this is perhaps the removal of
the democratically elected Allende government in Chile in
1972. They had attempted to bring in a limited package of
reforms and nationalise some of the larger American
industries. The result was a military coup backed by the
CIA.
The workers in Chile were politically disarmed by their
reliance on a small group of elected deputies to liberate
them. There was little organised resistance to the military
and in the immediate aftermath over 30,000 militants were
executed and 1,000,000 fled into exile.
In practise however capitalism seldom finds need for such
methods, their complete control of the media and the
reliance of the political parties on big business for funds is
enough of a check. Organisations like the Irish and British
Labour Parties spend most of their time trying to prove
they can manage capitalism just as well as the Tories or
Fianna F?il.
They argue their policies are a way of avoiding strikes and
any other form of class strife. They say their politics of
class collaboration are more efficient to capitalism then a
hard headed class strife approach of lock-outs and union
busting.
To the bosses this is often a good argument, sometimes it is
worth handing out a few crumbs in return for industrial
peace. At other times when a serious crisis necessitates a
driving down of wages or living standards they can always
either force this government to implement the cuts,
precipitate a general election or - in extreme cases - turn
to a police states.
P.E.S.P. LOGIC
This sort of logic has nothing to do with socialism. Indeed
the current Fianna F?il/PD government has been
successfully pursuing the same logic through the
Programme for Economic and Social Progress and before
that the PNR. These deals mean the union bureaucrats
actively stopping and sabotaging strikes in return for pay
increases below the rate of inflation. So in a comparative
'boom' period of the Irish economy when company profits
doubled Irish workers made real losses with regards to
wages and employment and lost ground as regards the social
wage (health care, education, etc).
The Labour and Workers Parties may have objected to parts
of the PESP but they supported the idea of 'social
partnership' as it is part of their strategy for government as
well.
There are times of course when more radical reformist
governments are elected (in other countries if not as yet in
Ireland). These included Spain in 1936 and the post war
British Labour government. The function of these
governments however was to lead the working class away
from the road to social revolution, to suggest the same
gains could be made through parliament.
When put to the test however in the Spanish case by the
fascist coup the government preferred negotiation with the
fascists to arming the working class. In Spain the initial
resistance to fascism was carried out by the militant workers
of the anarchist C.N.T. who seized arms or attacked fascist
barracks with dynamite and shotguns.
A similar example is seen throughout Europe in the
immediate aftermath of the Russian revolution as the
reformists in one country after another stood on the basis
that electing them would prevent revolution. Vote for us
and save capitalism. Unfortunately at such times such
parties often gain mass support, this is why it is vital
anarchists take up the arguments around reformism rather
than assuming such ideas will just fade away with the
revolution.
GOOD LEADERS?
These arguments are common to most revolutionary
socialists, but anarchists have another and more
fundamental reason for opposing the parliamentary process.
This process involves the mass of the working class relying
on a few representatives to enter parliament and do battle
on their behalf. Their sole involvement is one of voting
every few years and perhaps canvassing and supporting the
party through paper sales or whatever. A reliance on a
physical leader or leaders from Neil Kinnock to Mary
Robinson to sort out the situation for us.
Anarchists do not belive any real socialist / anarchist
society can come about through the good actions of a few
individuals. From the beginnings of the anarchist
movement around the International Working Mens' (sic)
Association (better known as the 'First International') over
a century ago, we have argued that the liberation of the
working class can only be achieved through the action of
the working class.
At the time this argument was with the Marxists, now with
the collapse of many major Marxist parties in the wake of
the collapse of Eastern Europe it is mainly with reformists.
The process of bringing about an anarchist society will
either be carried through by the mass of the workers or it
will not happen.
This idea is obviously the complete opposite to the
parliamentary idea. We do not seek a few leaders, good, bad
or indifferent to sort out the mess that is capitalism.
Indeed we argue constantly against any ideas that make it
seem such elites are necessary.
Parliamentary politics relies on voting for people because
they are going to do the job (or some of it) for you. Even
the best intentioned individual on receiving a position of
power finds a divergence of interests with those she/he
represents. This is as much true of revolutionaries and
union bureaucrats as it is of ministers and prime ministers.
MAKING THE ARGUMENTS
This brings us to the question of how should anarchists
tackle the parliamentary system. How do we convince
everyone not to vote? Perhaps we should put all our
energy into anti-election campaigns.
In fact this is not seen as a major activity by most
anarchists at all. Our aim is not to have elections where
only 10% vote, for such a thing would be meaningless in
itself. In the U.S.A. only about 30% vote in most elections
and it is possible that up to 50% of the population is not
even registered to vote. Only a fool however would claim
this meant the U.S. was more anarchist then Ireland. If
that 10% or 30% is still electing the government it might as
well be 99%.
Our aim is to change society by winning the working class
to the ideas and tactics of anarchism. This will involve the
overthrow of the economic system (capitalism) we live under
and its replacement with socialism under workers' self-
management. Not voting may just be a sign of despair
("What's the point"), we want workers actively struggling
for the alternative.
Our anti-electoralism is designed to say two things. Firstly
that parliament is not the real seat of power in society.
Secondly that the task of bringing in anarchism is for the
working class, not some small group of TD's.
We will gain support for anarchist ideas not just through
abstract propaganda but also by our involvement as
anarchists in workers' struggles and demonstrating how
anarchism provides the best tools for winning day to day
reforms.
REFORMIST WORKERS
Most of the active militants in the working class support
reformist parties, this is an obvious fact. This has led many
revolutionary groups to adopt slogans at election times
telling workers to "vote Labour with no illusions" or "vote
Labour but build a socialist alternative". We don't.
The problems with both these slogans are they still reflect
the idea that change should be brought about be the small
elites. They are normally defended by saying this is putting
the reformist parties to the test so that they can be exposed
to their supporters. This is a nonsense, as a brief look at
any of the Irish left reformist organisations shows.
The reformist organisations have failed the 'test' on dozens
of occasions. Workers vote for these organisations not
because they believe they will introduce socialism but
because they are seen to offer the best of the bad deal that
is capitalism.
This is also presented as an argument for voting for the
reformist parties. Is it not ultra-left to refuse to support
these parties while they may be slightly better than Fianna
Fail or Fine Gael? Two answers exist to this.
The first is that as the real decision making takes place in
industry and not in parliament these organisations even in
majority government can only do what capitalism allows
them. Their only argument is to organise capitalism more
"humanly". We want to smash capitalism, not give it a
human face. The sight of a "socialist government"
implementing cuts and breaking strikes damages the
credibility of socialism in the eyes of workers, as did the
existence of the "socialist" police states of eastern Europe.
Secondly, it is a question of energy. The sort of effort that
is spent supporting (critically or otherwise) reformist
organisation is energy taken away from the struggles for
improved working conditions, better wages etc. Elections
do not take place in a vacuum in which nothing else takes
place in society for a number of months.
A strike or demonstration of thousands of workers has more
chance of effecting real change then 20 Labour or Workers
party TD's. In times of mass unrest energy pumped into
reformist parties will be energy used to undermine the
revolution. As so many Chilean socialists found,
revolutionaries supporting such organisations are likely to
find the are literally digging their own grave.
EXCEPTIONS TO THE RULE
There are occasions where anarchists might support
individuals standing in elections. This is when such people
stand on a single issue and abstensionist basis. At times
this may be an effective way of showing mass support for
something when faced with a massive hype against it from
the capitalist press. Other forms of demonstrating support
may be difficult due to large scale intimidation,
victimisation of activists, etc.
One example of such an occasion in the Irish context was
the H-Block hunger strikes of 1981 for political status. The
election of Bobby Sands as MP for Fermanagh/South
Tyrone and the election of two more H-Block prisoners as
TD's south of the border demonstrated a mass support for
the hunger strikers. It undermined government and press
claims that they had the support of only a tiny minority.
Such support must be on the basis of giving workers the
confidence to openly come out and demonstrate, strike, etc.
It is a tactic towards such mobilisations not an end in itself.
Problems exist with this, commonly the individual elected
may take up her/his seat despite pre-election promises of
abstention if elected. Even in the hunger strike case
where those on hunger strikes could not take up their seats
the danger of such tactics is obvious. The vote was seen by
Sinn Fein as proof that a turn towards electoral politics was
the correct direction for anti-imperialism to take.
The potential of a mass campaign at the time of the hunger
strikes based on strikes North and South of the border was
thus lost. The decision to support a single issue candidate
would have to involve hard arguments on the subsequent
direction of the campaign and could not be taken lightly.
Another instance where anarchists would not urge a
abstention from the bosses electoral process is in the case of
referendums. The WSM was involved (and indeed still is) in
the Divorce Action Group. Despite the severe limitations of
the 1986 referendum we still canvassed for a YES vote.
In the 1983 anti-abortion referendum anarchists advocated
a NO vote. Of course we don't accept the conclusions of
either referendum as final. We still fight for the right to
divorce and a woman's right to control her fertility up to
and including free, safe abortion on demand. Such things
are democratic rights in themselves, something no majority
should have a veto over.
What do we say to people in the reformist parties? They
can not (and should not) be ignored. We say look at the
record of your party in government or to the Workers Party
when you supported the 1981 minority Fianna Fail
government.
Look at what your party stands for. Look at the record of
your party in the trade union bureaucracy. Look at the
historical role reformist parties have played in other
countries. Reformism has had it's test and failed one
hundred times. Leave it, find out more about anarchism
and join the fight for working class self-emancipation.
Andrew Flood
- ****** When the unemployed elected their own TD *******
from Workers Solidarity No 33
A SURVEY carried out by the Connolly
Unemployed Centre at three labour exchanges
in Dublin's South Inner City during the recent
local elections showed that 90% of respondents
would vote for an unemployed party if there
was one running. Is this a way forward in the
fight for decent jobs for all who want them? It
is worth taking a look at what happened in
1957 when an unemployed candidate made it
into the D?il.
Ireland saw a massive rise in unemployment in the
1950s, ironically at a time when the rest of the
'western world' was booming. Emigration was to be
the safety valve. However not all those out of work
were prepared to uproot themselves and take the
boat. Some stayed to fight.
Unemployment meant poverty. A couple with two
children on Unemployment Assistance were entitled
to just ?1.90 a week. This bought very little, e.g. a
pound of butter cost 21p. People often lived on little
more than bread, margarine and tea.
The Unemployed Protest Committee was launched
on January 12th 1957 when a chair was borrowed
from a local shop and a public meeting held outside
Dublin's Werburgh Street labour exchange. A
committee of about 16 men (no women were
involved nor does it appear that any serious attempt
was made to involve them) began to meet. Among
their number were Sam Nolan (today an official of
the builders' union UCATT and a member of the
Labour Party), Johnny Mooney, Jack Murphy and
William McGuinness.
Almost immediately McGuinness pulled out saying
that the committee was dominated by the
Communist Party (then named the Irish Workers
League) and set up a rival Catholic Unemployed
Association. With the seemingly obligatory split out
of the way the UPC got down to business.
Use of a room was provided by the Dublin Trades
Council and a march was arranged for January
16th. About one hundred men and a solitary woman
marched through the city under a banner inscribed
with "support us in our demand for work". It was a
tame beginning. Even the Catholic grouping was
looking for a 50% increase in social welfare
payments.
Agitation was stepped up and more joined the ranks
of the UPC. Up to this point most had looked to the
Labour TDs to fight on behalf of the unemployed.
Sam Nolan summed it up at a UPC meeting at the
end of January, "surely it was the responsibility of the
Labour leaders and deputies to work out some
organised plan. After all they were supposed to
represent the working class".
Most members quickly saw that the Labour Party
would contribute little more than empty platitudes.
When the government fell in February after S?an
McBride's Clann na Poblachta withdrew their
support Jack Murphy proposed that the UPC run a
candidate in the coming general election. This was
seen as a way of putting the need for jobs onto the
political agenda.
Two names were put forward, Nolan and Murphy.
Both were unemployed building workers. Nolan was
a leading Communist. The Communists were divided
on running him. Some, including Nolan himself, were
unwilling to allow the UPC to be seen as a front for
their party.
Murphy was a left republican who had been interned
in the 1940s and had been a militant shop steward.
He was selected to contest the election in Dublin
South Central. The ?100 deposit was raised from
unlikely sources. ?25 each came from Toddy
O'Sullivan, manager of the Gresham Hotel; Fr.
Counihane, a Jesuit priest; a Fianna F?il senator
called Mooney and Mr Digby, the owner of Pye Radio.
After a vigorous campaign Murphy gathered 3,036
votes and was elected. His seat was gained at the
expense of the Labour Party who had run James
Connolly's son Roddy. Murphy's success was
encouraging to unemployed activists and new
organisations were set up in Waterford and Cork.
If the unemployed thought that having one of their
own in the D?il would force the government to take
their concerns more seriously they were in for a
shock. Murphy could not even get an answer to a
question about how much unemployment relief
money would be spent in Dublin.
There was no problem, however, in providing an
answer to Fine Gael's Belton when he asked about
the "hardship imposed on cricket clubs because of the
cost of cricket balls".
The new Fianna F?il government's budget provided
for the ending of food subsidies. This was going to hit
the unemployed and low paid workers very hard.
The response of the trade union leaders was
pathetic. The Provisional United Trade Union
Organisation (forerunner to the ICTU) had a lot in
common with today's leaders - an overwhelming
concern for industrial peace and the bosses' profits.
It pointed out "that the removal of food subsidies was
neither necessary nor wise. While creating terrible
hardships for the unemployed it also created a
situation where claims for higher wages would be
made with the threat of widespread instability or
industrial strife".
Jack Murphy and two other UPC members, Tommy
Kavanagh and Jimmy Byrne, went on hunger strike.
This was not a UPC stunt, in fact they learned of the
hunger strike through the newspapers. Murphy, as
'the elected representative of the unemployed', didn't
see why he should have to consult with the
committee.
The hunger strike lasted for four days. Each evening
several thousand turned up to protest meetings at
the corner of Abbey Street and O'Connell Street.
Over 1,000 marched to Leinster House seeking a
meeting with the Minister for Industry and
Commerce, S?an Lemass - who sneaked out the
back gate.
Resolutions began to come from trades councils and
union branches calling for a one day strike. There
was now a possibility of building the sort of
campaign that could force the government to back
down.
This possibility quickly evaporated when Murphy fell
sick and with Byrne and Kavanagh called off the
hunger strike on day four. To save face the UPC
arranged for trade union leaders to appeal for its end
in order to save lives. It was wrong to rush into a
hunger strike, and the way it was called off caused
much confusion and demoralisation among the
unemployed.
All that followed was a few delegations to plead with
Fianna F?il TDs and a meeting between Murphy and
Catholic Archbishop McQuaid. McQuaid made it
clear he would not interfere in political decisions
(which had not stopped him dictating to the previous
government over the Mother and Child Scheme). He
further warned Murphy of the danger of associating
with Communists.
The last big demonstration was a 2,000 strong
march from S?an McDermott Street to the D?il.
Jack Murphy opposed the demonstration saying it
conflicted with his D?il work. In August he broke
with the UPC and the next year he resigned his D?il
seat.
The unemployed movement was dead. The biggest
mistake they made was getting involved in
parliamentary politics. Far from building active
support for the UPC it made its supporters passive.
Why bother marching, going to meetings and seeking
trade union action if you have a TD to 'represent'
you? The election of Murphy was seen by most as
an end in itself.
The key to winning on issues like extra jobs, higher
payments and lower food prices is a mass, active
movement. A movement that can and will fight
alongside those in work. This is incompatible with
electing figureheads to speak for us, to argue for us,
to make decisions for us.
Real democracy is necessary. This means those
affected by decisions having the power to make
them. It does not mean handing that power over to
a few individuals, that only makes people passive.
No boss or government feels under pressure to make
concessions to the passive.
Joe King