McDonalds workers to strike in Britain

McDonalds opened their first store in Britain in 1974 and for the first time ever workers are set to take industrial action.

Workers at McDonalds, members of the Bakers, Food and Allied Workers Union, have been leading the Fast Food Rights campaign in Britain which has been campaigning for secure hour contracts, £10 an hour and trade union representation and rights. Previously as part of the campaign the Labour Party, under Corbyn, refused a McDonalds stall at their annual Party conference.

The campaign has just achieved an initial victory as McDonalds has introduced some guaranteed hour contracts. Following the ballot for industrial action the fast food chain confirmed that all restaurants will have fixed hours contracts in place by the end of this year, in an agreement that campaigners claim would effect 80,000 workers.

Two stores at Cambridge and Crayford have now balloted overwhelmingly for strike action to keep momentum going on the campaign. President of the BFAWU, Ian Hodson, confirmed to TULF the reasons for this action:

This is an historic decision by a small but significant group of workers. This strike is due to a culture of bullying, sexual harassment, reduction of hours and failure to offer guaranteed hours contracts promised since April. The workers are also calling for a wage of £10 an hour and union recognition. The BFAWU is 100% behind the decision taken by our members and congratulates them on their historic stand. Already this campaign has led to McDonalds  finally posting an offer to 119,000 workers of a guaranteed hours contract. This response demonstrates the power workers have when they stand together and shows the power a union can bring to a workplace.

 Trade Union Left Forum supports these workers.

Public Transport or Private Gravy Train

It has been announced that the operation of 10% of Dublin bus routes has been handed over to a private transport company ironically named “Go Ahead” as if to indicate the nod and the wink that usually accompany such deals that our gombeen political class are involved in.

This is nothing less than the start of the privatisation of the public transport system. They can parcel it up whatever way they want but it is privatisation. Public ownership and management of our services is about providing them in a decent reliable safe and environmentally friendly way at the same time as providing good well paid jobs for the workers involved. Put another way in the interest of the citizens who use and provide them ie. Society.

When operations are privatised the only interest of the operator is maximum profit. With the type of contracts that have been given to “Go Ahead” the options are quite limited namely the pay and conditions of employees and safety standards due to the fact that buses and revenues are kept in state ownership for the moment.

This is the method that our political class are using to bring in privatisation by the back door. We will be told what a wonderful job the operator is doing for a fraction of the cost (poverty wages), that competition is good for the consumer and it’s time more franchises were put up for tender since some of the fleet owned by the state is getting old and needs to be renewed why not let the privateers tender for this as well. The propaganda will continue and before we know it the “Go Ahead” will be given for the complete privatisation of the public transport system.

Then the real agenda starts unprofitable routes will be stopped, off peak services will be reduced to a trickle, fares will increase, wages slashed, standards will plummet health safety and the environment will be set to a bare minimum as a private monopoly or duopoly takes over and “goes ahead” with their insatiable appetite for ever more profits. This has been seen time and again when public services are handed over to privateers.

The  role of the trade unions cannot be overlooked as they came to an agreement to allow 10% of the services to go out to tender. This was done as the unions have been caught napping after years of social partnership followed by a decade of austerity which led to the narrative of ‘it’s the best we can do at this time’ being accepted. Some unions have said they will allow this but no more privatisation will be accepted . This is encouraging and needs to be built on following the recent victories of workers in Luas, Dublin Bus and Bus Éireann after strike action being taken .

This illustrates how important it is for workers to get involved in their trade unions and be willing to go the extra mile to defend their jobs and the rights of society as a whole ultimately the best way of achieving this is to fight to have the anti trade union laws repealed and tip the balance back in favour of workers. Political understanding and intervention is needed in our union movement by workers and activists themselves.

Public Service Stability Agreement 2018 – 2020

Article by a public sector worker on why they are voting No to the PSSA as it increases the working day, intensifies work with insufficient return for workers and has wider negative implications for all private sector workers

Every so often I think has Karl Marx’s analysis of capitalism any relevance today? Then I come across the following from Volume 3 of Capital:

“The level of exploitation of labour, the appropriation of surplus labour and surplus value, can be increased by prolonging the working day and making work more intense”

The Public Service Stability Agreement 2018-2020 carries out both these actions. The public service which employs 300,000 workers may not be seen by those in the private sector as being subject to the same laws of capitalist exploitation as the private sector but in fact both are connected. The capitalist class used the financial crisis to attack the pay and conditions of the public sector and try to drive a wedge between workers in the public and private sectors. The attacks on the public sector were a useful diversion to avoid debate on the whole austerity programme and the distribution of wealth in the country. Weak governments in place since 2007 acquiesced in these attacks, reduced pay, lengthened the working day and then introduced the FEMPI legislation. This agreement locks in those worse pay and conditions. It effectively copper-fastens longer working days, career average pensions, later retirement dates and lower wages while claiming to restore pay.


This is really the only positive part of this agreement and even it is pretty basic. Before any further outsourcing takes place public sector unions will have to be consulted. The original Lansdowne Road provisions remain in place. More importantly outsourcing decisions cannot be based on lower labour costs of the private sector. Private sector employers would like nothing more than to grab public money while offering the minimum wage and zero hour contracts to employees.


Following the rejection of Croke Park 2 the Haddington Road Agreement was negotiated. Under the terms of that agreement the working day was increased by an average 2.5 hours a week. This was in effect an unpaid prolonging of the working day by 7% or a decrease in pay by the same amount. There have been 15 million unpaid additional hours across the public service. The prolongation of the working day is now effectively embedded. When the reduction in public sector numbers is factored in, the work has become more intense as there are fewer people to do the same work. The deal offers 2 options which make it clear that the additional hours are a pay cut: the option of working the pre-HRA hours with a cut in pay and pension or more insidiously sacrifice a portion of holidays above the statutory minimum. These options will mainly affect those with young children and force them to either take a cut in pay or have less leave.

Pay & Pensions

The whole point of this agreement was to unwind FEMPI and restore pay. It was well highlighted in the media and the Public Services Pay Commission Report what would be on offer. The gross public sector pay bill fell 9% between 2007 and 2016. Average private sector pay was 3% above 2008 levels by 2016 whereas average public sector pay was 8% below for the same period. Effectively this deal will restore gross pay figures for 90% of public servants to where it was in 2009 by 2020. For the other 10% by 2020/2021. By 2020 73% of public servants will have had a gain of 7% over current levels. Roughly 25% will exit the FEMPI pension levy. On the face of it this does not appear to be too bad until you realise that on average the working week is 2.5 hours longer which is about a 7% pay cut so the gain of 7% on the headline figures is not a gain at all. In fact by 2020 not only will there be no gain but as average inflation since 2010 has been 0.5% it is a pay cut on the headline figures. If inflation increases further there is no provision in the agreement to address that issue.

The other major change in unravelling FEMPI occurs around pensions. Under FEMPI there was a Pensions Related Deduction which had absolutely nothing to do with pensions, despite the name. This was a special levy that only applied to public servants. This is now being renamed as an Additional Pension Contribution. Public servants currently pay €1.2 billion made up of €500 million in occupational pension contributions and €720 million in Pension Levy. Post 95 entrants also pay Class A PRSI. Once the Pension Levy is converted to the Additional Pension Contribution public servants will be paying 15% plus towards their occupational pensions without any improvement in pensions. This APC is purely to appease the neo-liberals who oppose defined benefit pension schemes. Post 2011 entrants will be on a career averaging pension scheme which in practice will be comparable to a defined contribution scheme. There is also another stealth provision for those paying Class A PRSI to keep working until you are entitled to the State Retirement Pension.  This will push the retirement age from 65 to 66 and further out in subsequent years. You will be a wage slave for most of your life.


Overall this is a bad deal for the working class. ICTU likes to claim that there is about a 6% dividend in terms of pay and conditions by being a union member. However, this deal does not maintain that. For new entrants to the public sector their pay is on a par with the private sector. The value of the pension scheme has been eroded and is now little different from a defined contribution scheme in the private sector. Instead of setting a benchmark for private sector employers the Government has lowered pay and conditions for its employees to that of the private sector. This deal buys stability for the Government from the most organized section of the working class until the end of 2020. The current Government is highly unstable. The two main parties of Fine Gael and Fianna Fail are like mangy gadhars sniffing around a piece of meat and waiting for the other to make the first mistake. The water protests and the failure to criminalise political protest at the Jobstown Trial rocked the Establishment. The last thing they want is an election at the present time. The unions could have pursued a more radical programme with the threat of industrial action which would have brought down the Government. The Establishment has bought time with this agreement during which it hopes to consolidate its position. There is growing evidence that new entrants to the public sector are not joining trade unions. The main pitch of the unions to new recruits are various discounts on financial products. The unions have become complacent. If union membership declines management will use this as an excuse to attack unions as has happened in the UK. This deal shows that the capitalist class has been successful in undermining and overturning the Report of the Benchmarking body of 2002.

Good luck to Mandate and Dunnes workers

TULF wish Mandate and Dunnes workers the very best in the Labour Court next week. Mandate Assistant General Secretary Gerry Light told us today,
‘We are going before the Labour Court next week with a very important case for Dunnes workers and for workers generally. The issues we are bringing forward under the recent Industrial Relations (Amendment Act) 2015 are around hours of work and contracts. These workers should be entitled to decent secure hours of work so they can plan and budget their lives. The uncertainty they exist with is simply unfair in a so called modern economy.’
There is no doubt that this is a big case for all workers and will test the legislation brought in by the Fine Gael / Labour coalition. All workers should be entitled to decent well paid secure hours of work and there is currently legislative moves afoot to try secure this.

‘Service Providers Agreement’ to secure collective bargaining for workers in services contracts

CWU secures new service providers agreement with eir which will provide new opportunities for organising and winning with workers

Over the last number of decades outsourcing  and the use of third party service providers has become prevalent in the economy with many large companies utilising these practices to save money, increase profit and hand-over control of non-core activities to ‘specialist’ companies. In response to this workers secured protective legislation known as TUPE which secures, at a basic level, terms and conditions of employment and collective bargaining for trade unions.

However, as these business trends have developed employers have found ways of overcoming TUPE by not quite outsourcing but instead allowing non-core workers wind down before contracting in a service provider or by using third parties where excess work exists instead of hiring more permanent staff. This has meant non-union often lower paid, or on worse conditions, workers are increasingly working alongside permanent unionised staff in large employments.

The Communications Workers Union have sought to address this in former semi-state eir through achieving a service providers agreement which secures collective bargaining with service providers and also makes it a part of future tendering processes.

In a novel move, which all Unions should look to emulate, Terry Delany, Deputy General Secretary CWU stated to the Trade Union Left Forum, ‘this agreement is a result of comprehensive negotiations that we had with eir to ensure that contractors and service providers working with eir respect workers’ rights and specifically their right to be collectively represented by a union. The reality of the telecoms market now, as with many other markets, is that third party service providers are a fact of life. Our union wants to make sure that this business model is not simply used as a way to erode hard fought for contract standards. This agreement allows us to organise and build worker power in these new companies and that is the best way for these workers to protect and enhance their terms and conditions.’

The agreement outlines a number of principles that service providers must adhere to including:

  • Good standards in HR practices;
  • Engaging with the CWU and agreeing the use of the WRC and Labour Court to resolve disputes;
  • That this also applies to any sub-contractors of service providers; and
  • And a sharing of relevant information on employee numbers, disciplinary and absence management amongst other items.

This type of agreement doesn’t represent a solution to either declining union density or the problems of outsourcing as an attack on workers conditions but it does provide a framework in which the CWU can seek to organise more workers and challenge the down grading effect that outsourcing and the use of third party providers can have on all workers terms and conditions of employment in the private sector but also the knock on effect on the public sector.

Debt, inequality, and industrial action: The chicken or the egg?

Trade unions remain the most tangible and most effective way to reduce inequality. Unionised work-places tend to have fairer, more transparent and more equitable pay models, which provide pay increases year by year for workers above inflation. They redistribute wealth from the surplus value created by workers that would otherwise go to profits (or dividends and executive pay) to workers’ wages. However, as unions have weakened, and union density throughout the economy has weakened, all workers have suffered. Low pay has become more prevalent, inequality has grown, and contracts have returned to the more “flexible” model of the nineteenth century.

      There is no one reason for the weakening of the trade union movement. Much has been written about the partnership model, the neo-liberal offensive of the last five decades, and more recently offshoring, monopolisation, and the global labour arbitrage. But there are three interrelated factors in Ireland that, while not direct cause-and-effect phenomena, are most certainly related and reinforcing, creating a self-fulfilling cycle. These are household debt, growing inequality, and declining industrial action and union density.

      The following graph, showing income and union membership in Britain, has done the rounds on social media, sparking much comment and debate. But what does something similar for Ireland (south) look like?

Increasing household debt

It is well documented that household debt, most significantly mortgages, has been on the increase in Ireland for some time and most markedly from the mid-1990s on.

The two graphs above demonstrate this, firstly in money lent and secondly in the ratio of debt to disposable income. But both clearly show the increase.

Rising inequality

While the average income of the top 1 per cent has grown fourfold and of the top 10 per cent significantly, the average income has not grown at the same rate but has largely stagnated, while at the same time house prices were rocketing. Obviously, if average incomes stagnated in the 2000s and house prices increased, then household debt will climb, as shown above.

The declining power of unions

Although power can be measured in many ways, union density and industrial action are strong indications of union power in society; and both have been on the wane since the early 1980s.

The graph above shows union density peaking above 60 per cent of the work force about 1980 and then declining each year to just over half that, at between 32 and 34 per cent today.

Using the CSO’s series of measurements of days lost, number of workers involved, and number of firms, going back to 1985, again we can just about see that, on all measurements, industrial action has been declining from the mid-80s to today, with a slight peak in 2009 as a result of action in the public sector, and again we will see a peak in early 2017 when the series are updated.

Which came first?

One might be tempted to ask, Which came first, the chicken or the egg?—but please don’t. It isn’t that simple. But there certainly is a reinforcing relationship between rising household debt and the hold this has over workers, making it much harder to take industrial action and risk losing pay. This then contributes to weakening union power, meaning that a greater share of all wealth created by workers goes to the elite and top earners.

Worker militancy on the rise

A wave of workplace militancy has arisen in recent months which has produced a number of notable victories for trade unionists.

The end of several years of muted opposition from workers to cuts to conditions and pay or doing more work without improvements in earnings – under the cover of ‘increased efficiencies’ – can be traced back to the industrial action by SIPTU members in LUAS in the early 2016.

This protracted and bitter struggle resulted in a substantial pay increase for LUAS drivers, with the victory achieved in the face of unrelenting media attack. The win set a precedent for others workers seeking pay rises in the transport sector. It also showed that even in the era of austerity a determined, well organised workforce could overcome concentrated opposition from employers, the media and a degree of reluctance on the part of union leaders, to win a dispute.

Dublin Bus workers won a similar pay increase after a series of strike actions in September 2016. This move towards a general push for pay improvement has also been evident in the manufacturing sector with many, if not the majority, of major companies granting above the rate of inflation pay increases without workers being forced to take industrial action.

However, since the beginning of the 2017 the struggle on the industrial front in Ireland has moved away from solely a fight for better pay. During February, Mandate members in Tesco successful bridged a generational divide between staff in the super market chain, bringing out newer workers in a strike action aimed at protecting colleagues who had the benefit of superior contracts of employment that date back to the British retailer’s takeover of Super Quinnsworth in 1997.

Ten days of strike action in several Tesco stores provoked massive public support and succeeded in bringing the company, that had seemed intent on pursing a union busting agenda, back to the negotiating table.

This month an impressive show of force, which included a willingness to conduct all out strike action as well as holding well supported public rallies, trade union members in Dublin Fire Brigade would seem to have forced the management of Dublin City Council to back away from its plan to run down the Brigade’s ambulance service. Similar Bus Eireann workers’ willingness to take strike action has halted a management led attack on the concept of a national public bus service.

Meanwhile, power workers at the Edenderry Power Ltd electricity generating plant in County Offaly have also declared a willingness to take strike action to force their employer to respect their right to collectively bargaining through their union.

These victories and unresolved disputes, when coupled with the demand from public sector workers that pay talks scheduled for May result in significant pay rises, seem to point to the beginning of a new, more positive period for trade union activity. A growing concern is also evident among the managerial class that the narrative of the necessity for cuts, privatisation and the general push towards a low pay economy may no longer be acceptable to the general public.   

These factors combined may lead radical trade unionists to hope that we are at the begining of a new, better, period for working class struggle of a type not experienced since the onset of the partnership era in the late 1980s.

Right to Access Bill for Unions

It is incredible that, in the 21st century, union officials can be physically blocked from meeting their members in the workplace, especially given the crucial role trade unions play in workers’ rights, pay and conditions. As we are seeing in the Tesco attack on long-serving staff, strengthening the legislative rights of trade unions is key to supporting workers in their defense and enhancement of decent jobs and decent work.

Sinn Fein are introducing a Bill to try change this. The Right To Access Bill will enhance the ability of workers to organise into unions and win better working conditions. 

The Industrial Relations (Right to Access Amendment) Bill will allow trade unions to work out a reasonable time with an employer for access to talk to workers about working conditions, health and safety, joining the union and much more.

We have seen in recent years some unscrupulous employers using the law to stymie trade unions in their work. The purpose of this bill is to bring some necessary balance to the situation.

More than any other legislation in the world this type of legislation has assisted unions in organising workers and winning better jobs and conditions. The TULF supports this Bill, Right-to Access-Bill , and calls on all supporters to lobby their TD’s to support this Bill. It is due up for discussions and voting between the 22-24 of February. So, please contact your TD’s now. Full list of TD’s and constituency at

Worker militancy on the rise

According to the latest CSO statistics worker militancy is on the rise from mid 2016. They say 100% of days lost were in the transport and storage sectors. With health service workers and other dispute looming it is likely this will continue in 2017. Workers have clearly had enough and expectations are not just for pay restoration but for real pay increases. Rent increases alone has put serious pressure on young and low paid workers in particular. Get organised and fight for better pay in 2017.


Advance or retreat?

The people’s right to the ownership of Ireland:

What does this mean today, and how do we get there? Advance or retreat?

Desmond Greaves School, Dublin, September 2016

The recent EU ruling on “state aid” by Ireland to Apple brings into sharp focus the related topics of sovereignty, ownership of the economy, and the right of the collective over the right of private individuals and corporations.

On the one hand you have a European court telling Ireland we cannot give special treatment to certain companies, or provide state aid, or interfere with the market, as they have determined it. Essentially, we are not sovereign in our economic affairs. On the other hand you have the Irish Government doing special deals with an important American monopoly corporation, facilitating them in evading the already low 12½ per cent tax and illegally evading billions in much-needed tax while hundreds of thousands of citizens are in crucial need of state services.

In many ways this reveals the position of Ireland within global capitalism: a former British colony shaped in every way by that status and essentially now an Anglo-American neo-colony, but within the European Union.

We are part of the political and economic structures of German-French imperialism, the EU, but at the same time an important economic part of the US empire and its network of capital flow and companies. Our ruling class has one foot in each camp.

When it comes to water charges they tell us the EU makes them do it, but when it comes to this present issue with Apple they say the EU can’t make them. The jingoistic ‘patriotism’ from FG/FF, egged on by the media, over this Apple issue is comical and does not fool our class, not this time I don’t think. But it does reveal the almost unique position of Ireland and the ruling class in Ireland. It isn’t a question of “good national” versus “bad international”; these are just frictions between the local domestic ruling class and its more powerful allies.

And if we are honest we don’t deserve the taxes. The vast bulk of the wealth of Apple is created by poorly paid and treated Asian workers. Don’t get me wrong we should take the money, the State has colluded with Apple to evade tax but the money should be given mostly to those Asian workers who created it. To not have this as a position is to except that Ireland and Irish workers should benefit from the super-exploitation of those workers. It is to accept Ireland’s position within global imperialism and to support the extraction of surplus and capital from the east to the west which is a key part of the system today.

The Irish ruling class, to avoid more class compromise locally, has made strong alliances internationally and so relies heavily on the EU and the United States to maintain its hegemonic position. It receives economic, political and ideological patronage from abroad to maintain its rule here—the alternative, of course, being compromise and an alliance with the working class to build a national capitalist development that challenges the hegemonic powers of others, such as can be seen elsewhere but that also opens the way for the necessary transformation and transition to socialism. The ruling class, the O’Brien’s et al, obviously don’t want that and so we have the final and complete victory of Redmondism. The politics and ideology of John Redmond are hegemonic in Ireland today. The Irish State is, and wants to be, part of Imperialism not in opposition to it.

But the fundamental question of people’s rights versus individual rights and ownership is more crucial now than ever before. The world is on the brink of ruinous environmental destruction that is already killing off many species and does in fact threaten the reproduction of the human species. So this peoples’ right to the ownership of Ireland expressed 100 years ago is more crucial now than those who expressed it could possibly have imagined.


A simple right

The people’s right to the ownership of Ireland: how has such a simple and noble aspiration remained unfulfilled a hundred years later? Unfortunately, this seemingly apolitical value comes into conflict with the overwhelmingly dominant social and economic system, monopoly capitalism. It is an extremely political value; in fact it is the essence of class politics. Ownership. Private or common. Individual or collective. The small minority or the vast majority. The 1 per cent or the 99 per cent. Workers versus the bosses.

Sadly, we have probably never been further away from this aspiration than when it was written in 1916. Yet in other ways the crisis of monopoly capitalism, a crisis that is going on and on and seems unlikely to let up, potentially endless, creates opportunities to really push to achieve this right to common, collective and social ownership.

I’m not going to list out statistics, or put forward a neat ten-point plan. There are many of these out there. There are many excellent critiques of the inhumanity, inequality and injustice of the world, as there are also many excellent alternative programmes and policy propositions. Instead I want to focus on the political economy of achieving this right. I want to look at the world as it is and how trying to achieve progress towards a system based on people’s ownership will present difficult options, repeatedly asking the question, Advance towards socialism or retreat to monopoly capitalism and the neo-liberal order?

Mobilising the working class isn’t easy. The odds are stacked against us. But that has always been the way. It’s hard to imagine a revolution now in the classic sense of seizing state power in the midst of violent conflict; and so the immediate potential progress towards common ownership, for us in Ireland, is likely to be more gradual. This means that the question of advance or retreat is likely to be asked more often, in more subtle ways and not always in the form we want. Therefore, the need for greater political awareness and understanding within our class is even more necessary than during times of violent upheaval and near-zero-sum options.

Each advance will open more contradictions and present more difficult questions, not as we would wish them but as a hostile global economic, political, media and military order presents them. There is no point denying this reality. We have to understand it and educate, organise and agitate our way through it.


1916, 1919, and Bolivia today

The 1916 Proclamation declared “the right of the Irish people to the ownership of Ireland, and to the unfettered control of Irish destinies, to be sovereign and indefeasible.” In 1916 Pearse wrote that “the nation’s sovereignty extends not only to all the material possessions of the nation, the nation’s soil and all its resources, all wealth and all wealth-producing processes within the nation. In other words, no private right to property is good as against the public right of the nation.”

Connolly stated, also in 1916, that “the re-conquest [that is, of Ireland] involves taking possession of the entire country, all its powers of wealth-production and all its natural resources, and organising these on a co-operative basis for the good of all.”

The Democratic Programme of 1919 developed this: “We declare in the words of the Irish Republican Proclamation the right of the people of Ireland to the ownership of Ireland, and to the unfettered control of Irish destinies to be indefeasible, and in the language of the first President, Pádraig Mac Phiarais, we declare that the Nation’s sovereignty extends not only to all men and women of the Nation, but to all its resources, all the wealth and all the wealth-producing processes within the Nation, and with him we re-affirm that all rights to private property must be subordinated to the public right and welfare.”

Today, we might consider the Bolivian constitution, brought in by popular social mobilisation and, ultimately, by referendum in 2009, which states:

We, the Bolivian people, of plural composition, from the depths of history, inspired by the struggles of the past, by the anti-colonial indigenous uprising, and in independence, by the popular struggles of liberation, by the indigenous, social and labour marches, by the water and October wars, by the struggles for land and territory, construct a new State in memory of our martyrs.

        A State based on respect and equality for all, on principles of sovereignty, dignity, interdependence, solidarity, harmony, and equity in the distribution and redistribution of the social wealth, where the search for a good life predominates; based on respect for the economic, social, juridical, political and cultural pluralism of the inhabitants of this land; and on collective coexistence with access to water, work, education, health and housing for all.


Loan sharks and enforcers

Right-wing and populist economic commentators love to reduce matters of the national economy to our family household situation. They are usually not helpful and actually are used to disguise the real forces at play. But let me try to present a useful one.

My wife and I decide together, with some (limited) input from a seven-year-old and two three-year-olds, what our priority expenses are: what has to be paid for us all to continue as happily as possible. We pool all incomes and cover our costs. What we want to avoid, as far as possible, is loans, because we know that once indebted to these lenders, some legal but many illegal, we’ve lost control and we will be locked into debt, pay-back, exorbitant and penalising increases in interest rates, sometimes with the ultimate threat of repossession and violence.

This is the situation we all want to avoid, even if we can’t always, but that many families face every day, because public right and welfare has been subordinated to private ownership and to private accumulation in a system called capitalism.

Yet this state seems happy to exist on this basis. It goes to these money-lenders and, yes, it too faces the ultimate threat of violent action, often in the form of “austerity” programmes against us. Where the loan shark might seize my car or television, the international banks will seize a Greek island or public utilities.

The same loss of control and sovereignty a family suffers when indebted to a loan shark or credit institution the state suffers when it is structurally indebted to banks, lending institutions, and the whole political, economic and military apparatus associated with this.


The world as it actually is

The world is not as we wish it to be. Questions are not always posed as we wish them to be. Contradictions in the system and structures do not always give us an easy choice or option—take the Brexit choice as an example. The debate on Brexit was deliberately framed around immigration, and not democracy, sovereignty or public ownership as it should have been, and many on the left fell for this. Or what if, for example, we decided we wanted to fully fund and support a health service that marginalised and forced out private, profit-making health companies. This would no doubt lead to a breach of fiscal, funding and competition rules within the EU. But that debate and choice would no doubt be framed and presented in a hostile zero sum way with the full force of the establishment against the choice of public ownership.

This is the reality of the world as it is. Democracy and the people’s right to collective and social ownership as a priority ahead of private ownership creates conflict with capitalism and with the global order. Pursuing a direction of the people’s right to the ownership of Ireland will quickly bring about the question of advance to socialism or retreat to the economic straitjacket of global monopoly capitalism.

The question of “socialism or barbarism” is not just a moral question: today it is the question that capitalism presents us with if we want the human race to survice.

Monopoly capitalism has been stagnating for decades. Growth has been steadily declining and this is despite the opening up of former socialist countries as new markets. It’s profitability in real production has been squeezed. It suffers numerous crisis of over-production, over-investment, over-accumulation and under consumption. It moves jobs from the west to the east to cheapen production while at the same time undermining its purchasing and consumer base in the west. It creates more weird and wonderful financial investment products as a way of absorbing surplus capital which creates more risk, debt and bubbles in the system.

It is now opening up and privatising virtually all avenues. Nothing is sacred any longer. That is why people campaigning for a nationalised public health service is a direct attack on capital, on its ability to reproduce itself. That is why proposing reasonable reforms in health or natural resources actually create the question of advance to socialism or retreat to neo-liberalism.

Acknowledging and confronting this question head on and in the course of political mobilisation through serious political education is vital if we are to maintain the people’s, and in particular working-class, support when inevitably confronted with the question of advance or retreat.

The world as it is is uneven. Class-consciousness, material productive forces and the balance of class power vary from country to country and region to region of the world. Progressive movements, as witnessed in Greece, will emerge in countries at different times, and they may have the opportunity to govern and therefor the opportunity to push forward and face the crossroads of advance or retreat.

We have seen the failure of SYRIZA and should learn from this. They put forward mild reforms, and at the crossroads they retreated. This retreat has significantly damaged working-class power in Greece and has strengthened monopoly capitalism in Greece, Europe, and the world. But for SYRIZA to advance its initially proposed reforms would not have been enough, and further and faster advance to socialism would have been required for Greece to meet even the initially mild reforms put forward by SYRIZA.

This is the era we are in. No single reform is enough, or will survive by itself. Each one will have massive consequences and so will require further reforms. To pay for policies and programmes, further nationalisations will be needed. To budget successfully, restrictions on capital outflows will be needed, etc., etc.


With or without the EU!

For those statements of 1916 and 1919 to be real and living, for us not to be trapped in a perpetual cycle of debt and money-lenders, we need to adopt a position of “with or without” the EU, the IMF, FDI, the United States, and Britain. If we choose a course of action that is democratically decided upon by the people that is opposed by the EU, or these other forces, then we must proceed without them and brave the consequences.

This is what will make each question of progress one of advance or retreat, and make each change along the path of advance present new questions of advancing to socialism or retreating to capitalism. In all likelihood, whether it is repudiating certain debts, supporting public enterprise, or taxing a particular import or wealth category, our membership of the euro and the EU will become untenable, and we will need to lead a progressive exit.

To advance towards a people-based economy and political structure means deepening a commitment to socialism during the mobilisation phase. This will require an understanding of short-term policies and longer-term strategic goals. It will also require, most importantly, addressing the issue of control and sovereignty of our borders over capital, labour, goods, and services.

We must choose our issues wisely and the timing of advances, although often contradictions will emerge not as we wish or at the time of our choosing. At each point of change we need to be shifting the balance of power to labour if reform is to lead to advance and transformation. Each reform will have consequences that will need to be resolved through strengthening labour and workers’ mobilisation. This is the advance to socialism. Otherwise reforms will be illusory or temporary but will not deepen the people’s ownership of this country and its resources.

In a hostile world, where our principles might suggest openness to us, often a more closed approach will be required. Understanding, explaining and winning hearts and minds is necessary, indeed crucial. Progress toward collective and common ownership will create conflict, conflict with those in power and in possession, and this must be understood if we are to achieve the radical Irish democratic and socialist tradition summed up by Pearse in the Sovereign People when he said, ‘The right to the control of the material resources of a nation does not reside in any individual or in any class of individuals; it resides in the whole people and can be lawfully exercised only by those to whom it is delegate by the whole people, and in the manner in which the whole people ordained.’ This remains the struggle and cause today. No retreat only advance.

Gareth Murphy, Trade Union Left Forum