Partisan Patriotic Internationalist H HH Number 168 February ...Communist Party of Ireland Páirtí Cumannach na hÉireann Partisan Patriotic Internationalist Number 168 February 2019

Communist Party of IrelandPáirtí Cumannach na hÉireann

Partisan Patriotic InternationalistNumber 168 February 2019 €1.50www.commmunistpartyofirerland.ie

Page 2 Partition and ConquestPage 4 Housing crisis

Page 6 Politics and the crisis Page 6 Britain’s divided ruling class

Page 8 Venezuela under assaultPage 10 Jenney Farrell on Milkman

Page 12 BREXITPage 14 Capitalism and the State

Page 16 Bono at Davos

Socialist Voice

H

H HH

HHH

SVSocialist Voice43 East Essex StreetDublin D02 XH96(01) 6708707

Build a People’s Dáil‘We believe that all the means of producing the necessities of life, including the control of capital, all natural resources, both land andsea, should be owned and controlled by and forthe people of Ireland’. Eugene McCartanreports on the conference organised by thePeadar O’Donnell Socialist Republican Forum

NATION

2 Socialist Voice February 2019

Build a People’s DáilEUGENE McCARTAN

LATE IN January some threehundred activists from all overIreland gathered in Liberty Hall,

Dublin, to celebrate the centenary ofthe first Dáil Éireann. Eugene McCartanreports

The event, organised by the PeadarO’Donnell Socialist Republican Forum,attracted a wide range of forces,including trade union and communityactivists and women’s and culturalgroups as well as communist andrepublican activists.

The first session in the morning wasdevoted to celebrating theestablishment of the first Dáil in January1919, following the 1918 generalelection called by the Britishgovernment. Traditionally the Irish Partytook their seats in London; but, aftercenturies of colonial occupation andviolent repression, the majority of

elected representatives, elected onbehalf of Sinn Féin, refused to take theirseats in the British colonial parliamentand instead made the decision toestablish an Irish parliament in Dublin.Only the pro-imperialist unionistmembers took their seats in London.

The historian Seán Byers gave ahistorical overview of this period. Thefirst Dáil adopted a number ofimportant documents at its first sitting,including the Declaration ofIndependence, the DemocraticProgramme, and the Appeal to theNations of the World.

The second session of the morningwas devoted to reflection, “Ireland intransition: A programme unfulfilled,”looking back over the past hundred yearsat the advances made by working people,with the complete failure of the capitalistestablishment, which had quicklyabandoned the Democratic Programmeadopted in 1919—already watered downby Sinn Féin, as it was far too radical andfar too challenging for them.

Prof. Kathleen Lynch and DrFearghal Mac Bhloscaidh addressedthis legacy and the carnival of reactionthat paralysed any progressivemovement forward. Kathleen Lynch alsooffered an interesting insight into howwe could build for progressive andradical advance. Dr Mac Bhloscaidhspoke of the stranglehold ofsectarianism and its use as a weaponto block advance and prevent the unityof the people.

The afternoon session was devotedto “Building a People’s Dáil.” A numberof invited speakers addressed sixmotions that went before theassembled delegates, covering suchareas as “For a democratic Ireland,”“For a neutral Ireland,” “The globalenvironmental crisis,” “Partition,”“People’s ownership,” and “Cherishingall the children of the nation equally.”

Regarding partition, the motionstates: “Partition was a most grave andanti-democratic act imposed upon ourpeople by Britain and its allies in

LAURA DUGGAN

PARTITION IS the politicalarrangement created by Britishimperialism as a solution to the

colonial crisis caused by the IrishRevolution.

Partition and its institutions serve onlythe interests of imperialism, and weshould not invest them with any othersignificance. This division of our country isbuilt on the centuries-long colonialdomination of Ireland by Britain, theplantations and deliberate promotion ofsectarian antagonisms—all for theimperialist need to secure a stable Irelandin which capitalism could thrive.

Partition has left a scar on our country,and the division of our people has left alegacy of discrimination, fracturing usalong falsely created religious divisions. Ithas divided working people and theirorganisations, which for nearly a centuryhas hindered our ability to build moreeffective resistance against the ills ofcapitalism: mass unemployment, poverty,poor housing—the list could be endless.

It was intended to divide democraticforces and the working class, bringing theRevolution safely to an end without thesocial transformation that it threatened.

Not just endingpartition but undoing the Conquest

‘Partition was a most grave and anti-democratic act imposedupon our people by Britain and its allies in Ireland.’

Socialist Voice February 2019 3

Ireland. Partition can only be addressedby confronting its role in denyingdemocracy in both parts of Ireland,producing the ‘carnival of reaction’ thatConnolly foresaw, North and South. Weare affirmed in our belief that it is onlythe working people of Ireland that havethe capacity to end partition and uniteour people, to establish meaningfulnational sovereignty and nationalindependence in order to secure theirown material needs and interests.

“We resolve to strengthen the unityof people’s organisations on a nationalbasis and to support campaigns andsolutions that strengthen the unity ofour people in an all-Ireland struggle. Inline with the historic tradition of Tone,Connolly, and Pearse, we oppose allmanifestations of sectarianism anddivision and oppose all groups andforces that wish to sow further divisionamong our people.”

The motion on people’s ownershipand the rejection of capitalist ownershipand domination by imperialism presents

a different way forward for the people.It states: “We reject the narrow conceptof democracy that confines thepeople’s participation to a formal voteevery four or five years. We believe thatall the means of producing thenecessities of life, including the controlof capital, all natural resources, bothland and sea, should be owned andcontrolled by and for the people ofIreland. These resources are to be usedonly in a sustainable way to enhancethe social and cultural development ofour people, and not for the profit of atiny elite or transnational corporations.It is the people’s wealth and should,therefore, be owned by us.”

A new “Democratic Programme forthe 21st Century” was also adopted,based on the Irish people’s long strugglefor freedom, embracing the Proclamationof the Irish Republic (1916) and thestrategic views of both James Connollyand Patrick Pearse. The programmeadopted contains two central andstrategic approaches. In 1916 Pearse

wrote that “the nation’s sovereigntyextends not only to all the materialpossessions of the nation, the nation’ssoil and all its resources, all wealth andall wealth-producing processes within thenation. In other words, no private right toproperty is good as against the publicright of the nation.”

Also writing in 1916, JamesConnolly stated that the reconquest ofIreland involves “taking possession ofthe entire country, all its powers ofwealth-production and all its naturalresources, and organising these on aco-operative basis for the good of all.”In April 1916 he insisted to the IrishCitizen Army that “we are out foreconomic as well as political liberty.”

Planning is now under way to hold anumber of regional People’s Dálaíaround the country, and to involve agreater number of people’sorganisations and activists in discussingthe documents adopted in January andbuild grass-roots campaigns as well asa forum for deeper political debate.

As a result we are denied any realdemocracy, sovereignty, or independence.All the institutions of governance today—no longer confined to the BritishParliament: it now includes the StormontExecutive, the Dáil in Leinster House, theEU, and the euro zone—serve theinterests of capitalism and act asbulwarks against the people themselvesexercising any meaningful democraticpower.

These institutions should not bemystified by republicans and socialists.Rearranging who sits within them, ornotions of bargaining with them orchanging them from within, aremisplaced. They protect their own classand serve imperialism equally well withour participation.

James Connolly warned us of thedanger that would arise if wemisunderstood this: “If you remove theEnglish army tomorrow and hoist theGreen Flag over Dublin Castle, unless youset about the organisation of the SocialistRepublic your efforts would be in vain.England would still rule you. She wouldrule you through her capitalists, throughher landlords, through her financiers,through the whole array of commercialand individualist institutions she has

planted in this country.”While we resolutely oppose partition,

we must beware of answers that will leaveIreland firmly trapped within the system ofimperialism, such as the pursuit by someof a united Ireland within the EuropeanUnion. A country united under the rule ofanother still is not free.

The European Union and itsinstitutions were constructed to protectand advance the interests of Europeanbanks, finance houses and corporationsat the expense of the people. This isreflected in the EU-imposed debt uponthe people of this state. Our people havebeen forced to carry 42 per cent of all EUbanking debt. For republicans andsocialists, our goal remains a trulydemocratic, sovereign, independent andwhole Republic, and this is the onlymeans by which to secure the interests ofthe working class.

This domination is welcomed, activelysupported and facilitated by a subservienteconomic elite, north and south of ourdivided country—willing junior partners inimperialism. The challenge we face is notjust to end partition but to undo theConquest, to end all manifestation ofimperial domination, be it the interventionof the British state, the combined EU and

US influence, or carried out throughinstitutions like the ECB and IMF.Ultimately, our goal is the dismantling ofall the structures and institutions ofimperialism and domestic capitalism.They are all part of the one struggle.

Historical experience over the lastcentury confirms that truth. Radicalchange is required if we are to fulfil theaspirations of the Fenian and EasterProclamations and the DemocraticProgramme that we celebrate today.National democracy and sovereigntycannot remain abstract demands butmust become the tools required if we areto own and control all natural resources,to determine all economic and socialpolicies that favour the majority of thepeople, to end partition and unite ourpeople.

The imposition of partition by theBritish has succeeded in its goal oflimiting our ability to gather the forces andcreate the unity required to bring aboutradical change. We must continue to fightagainst this action in our efforts to bringabout a united socialist Ireland.

Speech delivered at thecelebration of the first DáilÉireann 26 January 2019

HOUSING

4 Socialist Voice January 2019

THE TWO main demands to comeout of the ICTU’s Januaryconference were the need for

public housing and for the right tohousing to be enshrined in theConstitution of Ireland.

The conference was attended by across-section of activists, representingtrade unions, communities, andhousing, students’ and children’sgroups, together with someacademics.

Rebecca Keating of the Mercy LawResource Centre outlined what wouldbe required in a right to housing. Theopinion was that this right should beenshrined in the Constitution as wellas in legislation, otherwise it could beoverturned by the Government. Thewording would need to be very tight soas not to leave it open toreinterpretation.

This would go a long way towardsputting some existing practices in thehousing market outside the law. If themarket was pushing the cost ofhousing beyond people’s ability toafford it, this could be challengedconstitutionally. In this case it wouldnot be profitable for the landlord class

Raise the RoofJimmy Doran reports on the ICTU housing conference in Dublin

THERE HAS been a lot of spin aboutthe recent eviction in Co.Roscommon. The fact of the matter

is that the Central Bank stated in April2018 that more than 29,000 mortgagesare in arrears for at least two years. Itestimates that more than half of thesewill end in repossessions by the banks.Roscommon is not a one-off.

A conservative estimate is that anaverage of three people live in each ofthese households. With 15,000repossessions coming down the line andat least three people living in eachhome, this will increase the number ofhomeless by a further 45,000 citizens.There are already 10,000 citizens on thehomeless list.

The Government, despite many“programmes,” initiatives, andcommittees of investigation, has failed toreduce the number of homeless—quitethe opposite: the number continues torise. It is quite possible that very soonthis number will soar to 55,000 of ourcitizens without a home to live in.

Socialism orbarbarism


to continue with the orgy of itsrackrenting of citizens. The state wouldhave to become the main provider ofhousing for citizens. It would also limitthe ability of financial institutions toevict tenants. This would further limitthe interest of privateers in thehousing market: if there is no roomlegally for excessive profits andexploitation, their reason for beingdisappears.

The demand for public housing wasraised again and again, but theinterpretation of what constitutespublic housing seems to differsubstantially from one speaker to thenext, because they represent differentinterests. Lots of excuses have beenraised for not building large-scalepublic housing—everything from lackof land to not enough builders,architects, etc., as well “not in myback yard” and ghettoisation, withsome trying to tarnish what was a raresuccess of previous governments, themassive public house-building carriedout from the 1930s to the 1960s.

It was counter-argued that there isno shortage of land, as the statecontrols 17 per cent of all land zoned

for housing. And there is no shortageof expertise (builders, architects, etc.)when we see the high-rise studentaccommodation, as well as hotels andoffices, being built by speculators,generating billions in profit for theelite.

To do away with ghettoisation,public housing needs to be universallyaccessible so as to guarantee mixed-income tenants. Proper facilities andinfrastructure have to be built inconjunction with public housing; this isa mistake made in some instances inthe past.

To cut costs, public housing has tobe publicly built, instead of creating agravy train for the private sector. Publicland zoned for housing must be solelyfor public housing.

Some speakers continued to pushfor the “cost rental” model of publichousing. They don’t seem tounderstand what they are talkingabout, referring to affordable rents of€600 per month when in reality thecost-rental model for St Michael’sEstate, for example, came in at about€1,500 a month. The cost-rentalmodel is a cop-out by the state,

putting the total cost and maintenanceof the properties on the tenants inwhat is actually a permanent stateasset, instead of the state paying for apublic housing service available to allcitizens at rents linked to income.

Nevertheless the conference is agood start to the debate on a solutionto the housing crisis, which, it wasagreed, is a result of the repeatedfailures of government policy. Thecitizen has nothing to lose andeverything to gain; so it is essentialthat maximum effort is made by all tocome up with a permanent,sustainable solution to the housingcrisis and not to facilitate a temporarysolution.We need to transform housing

for our citizens: universallyaccessible publicly built andpublicly owned housing for allcitizens as a constitutional right.

A number of regional marches wereannounced to launch the campaign,beginning in Cork in March, followedby one in Galway and culminating in amass national housing demonstrationin Dublin early in the summer.

The state has got off lightly up tillnow, as two-thirds of repossessions haveresulted in the owners handing the keysback to the bank in what are termed“passive repossessions.” If a third of therepossessions that are due end inevictions, we are still looking at 5,000Roscommons taking place in the nearfuture.

It is reckoned that theserepossessions will be concluded over thenext five years, meaning an average oftwenty families being put out on the sideof the road every single week for the nextfive years.

With 17 per cent of these mortgagesowned by vulture funds, this can spiralupwards very quickly as the bankscontinue to sell these loans. Themainstream media will not be able tokeep the lid on this and tarnish fivethousand families with the same brushthat the McCann family were tarnishedwith in Co. Roscommon.

The fact of the matter is that thehousing policies followed until now have

totally failed. This is the result of wagestagnation, rent increases, greed, cut-backs, precarious work, and propertyownership being beyond the grasp ofworking people, leading to thecommodification of homes and asituation where private rentedaccommodation is now the main form oftenure in our cities and towns—allsubsidised by the state, to the tune of€15 billion over the last few years.

This public money must be useddifferently, in the public interest, not toline the pockets of landlords. To put thisanother way, housing policy has failedbecause of the contradictions incapitalism. Capitalism cannot everprovide the needs of society: it willalways create division, inequality, andpoverty; it is its very nature.

More of the same failed Governmentpolicy will only add to the homelessnessfigures. We need a government that putsthe interests of the citizens first, notthose of banks, landlords, property-owners, and vulture funds.

The CPI, as part of the campaign forpublic housing, has been consistentlycalling for an end to all economicevictions until such time as the state canprovide a suitable alternative home forthe individual or family concerned. Alongwith this, the state must build universallyaccessible public housing, and enshrinethe right to housing in the Constitution—the right to a safe, secure home for allcitizens of Ireland.Only the public building and

public ownership and managementof housing will end the merry-go-round of mortgages, arrears,eviction, homelessness, anddespair.

It is the failure of capitalism that is atthe root of the housing crisis. The onlyalternative is socialism—not sometemporary social-democratic sticking-plaster to patch things up within thesystem.

The system must be changed. It’ssocialism or barbarism.

‘Only the public building and public ownership and managementof housing will end the merry-go-round of mortgages, arrears,eviction, homelessness, and despair.’

OPINION

All will change, changeutterly—and for the betterTOMMY MCKEARNEY

THERE IS a line from W. B. Yeats’spoem “The Rose Tree.” “Oh, wordsare lightly spoken, said Pearse to

Connolly.” It is not, though, somethingalways practised by the establishment inour 26-county republic.

Their words are carefully chosen todeliver a message. Moreover, what theysay and how is frequently designed toinfluence the popular understanding oftoday, or to alter how people viewseminal events of the past.

There is a well-thought-out rationalefor this. It is geared towards directing anddictating a narrative. To put it bluntly, theintention is to create a story that suitsthe aims and policies of the ruling class.

Last month’s centenary of the firstDáil and the IRA action inSolloghodbeg provided yet anotherexample of this. Mainstream mediacoverage revealed a cleardetermination by the establishmentnot only to reinterpret the past butalso to create a revised text, anAuthorised Version, for the days tocome.

RTE reported Solloghodbeg as theplace where “two Irish policemen werekilled,” giving the impression that theRIC was a normal civilian police force.The Irish Times went even further in itseditorial, describing the ambush as“controversial at the time and thereare still divided views about itsjustification,” before going on to

lament the “brutality of the killings.”While nobody should rejoice at

violent death, it would be difficult to fitthese highly tendentious accounts intoa celebration of an incident for longrecognised as the first shots of a warfought for independence—moreover, astruggle against what was at the timethe world’s mightiest empire.

There is undoubtedly a need tochallenge and correct these pejorativeinterpretations of seminal events inour history. However, doing so inadequate detail will have to be left toanother time. It is important,nevertheless, to reflect on theunderlying message being promotedby the establishment. It is alsonecessary to recognise the risks


‘In the present era the Irish ruling class is not as secure as it may appear to be.’

arising from this attemptedmanipulation of history, as othersinister elements may well seek tostamp their own interpretation on thestory.

In the first instance, Ireland’s eliteis undoubtedly nervous. Domestically,there are difficulties thrown up byBrexit and the Dublin government’sdependence on Brussels in relation tothe issue. There is then the recentgloomy economic prognosis publishedby the International Monetary Fund,which shows a slowing down in the EUand warns that “policy space forcountries is more limited than in2008.”¹ And rumbling away in thebackground is the potential for athreatening fall-out from globaldisruption brought about by anunstable US president.

In the present era the Irish rulingclass is not as secure as it may appearto be. Set against the wider macro-backdrop outlined above are otherserious and well-known issues. There isa housing emergency, a dysfunctionalhealth service with an increasinglymilitant work force, and thousands ofworkers struggling to get by on povertywages. Meanwhile the long-term futureof the northern six-county state is indoubt, adding to overall anxiety amongthe South’s elite.

It is hardly surprising, therefore,that those in power would prefer ifpeople were not to reflect positively onradical alternatives to the status quo.In particular there is a determinationto ensure that people do not lookfavourably on institutional changeinitiated by grass-roots activists. Bytraducing the reputation of those wholaunched the War of Independencethey hope to distract attention from itsrevolutionary potential, something thatwas crushed by reactionary elementsembedded within the struggle at thattime.

There is, moreover, an additionalfactor to be considered when theestablishment and its media meddlewith a long-held view of a historicalevent. There is, after all, a deep-seated residual respect in much ofIreland for those who fought the Blackand Tans. Trying to undo this may well

open the door to other unscrupulouspropagandists, happy to exploit thecredibility gap created by heavy-handed revisionism.

Much of the Trump phenomenon inthe United States, for example, hasbeen based on accusations that themainstream media produce fake news.Containing a germ of truth, this claimhas allowed him to promote an evenbigger lie.

The tactic is not new. The cry ofLügenpresse (lying press) was heardthroughout 1930s Germany.

At a time when significant politicalchange is in the offing, it becomes allthe more important that a clear andprogressive analysis is promotedenergetically.

Consider two events held on thesame day last month, one organisedby the Peadar O’Donnell SocialistRepublican Forum in Dublin, the otherconvened by a pan-nationalist coalitionin Belfast.

On 26 January a large crowdattended “Beyond Brexit: The Future ofIreland,” in what was described as aconference of civic nationalism in theWaterfront Hall in Belfast. Theaudience heard that Northernnationalists are now looking at “newconstitutional and political horizons.”The platform was occupied by seniorfigures from Fine Gael, Fianna Fáil,Sinn Féin, and the SDLP. With the bestwill in the world, it is difficult to seehow these four parties could agree ona future Ireland that any progressive orsocialist would, or indeed could, becomfortable with.

Indeed it is a moot point whetherthe two Southern parties would evensupport an end to partition. DonnachaÓ Beacháin, associate professor of lawand government at DCU, wroterecently in the Times (London) of aprivate meeting in Cork during August1975 at which the British foreignsecretary, James Callaghan, sought theopinion of his Irish counterpart, GarretFitzgerald, and Jack Lynch, leader ofFianna Fáil, on a British declaration ofintent to withdraw from the North aftera fixed period. Both opposed the ideaas “highly dangerous.”² There is littleevidence that either party has changed

its outlook in the meantime.As the Belfast event was taking

place, hundreds of delegates from awide range of organisations as well asindividuals gathered in Liberty Hall inDublin. Those attending this eventcelebrated the first Dáil Éireann andacknowledged the role of those whofought in the War of Independence.Throughout the day trade unionists andmembers of community, youth andwomen’s groups mixed with politicalactivists and celebrated theprogressive Democratic Programme ofthe first Dáil.

They also agreed on the basis for anew Democratic Programme for 21st-Century Ireland and called for thebuilding of a People’s Dáil.³ Whilethere was unanimous agreement onthe need for continuing discussion anddebate, the delegates wereunambiguous in their support for arepublic in which “all the means ofproducing the necessities of life,including the control of capital, allnatural resources, both land and sea,should be owned and controlled by andfor the people of Ireland.”

Before the event ended, delegatessupported a motion condemning theattempt by the United States and theEuropean Union to encourage a coupagainst the democratically electedgovernment of Venezuela.

It hardly needs stating which eventwas graced by the mainstream mediaand which event was not. In spite ofthis, a clear and unambiguousmessage emerged from the Liberty Hallconference, and those present nowhave the task of promoting it. By doingso they can ensure that all in thiscountry will change, and changeutterly—and for the better.

1 Gita Gopinath, “A weakening globalexpansion amid growing risks,” IMFBlog, 21 January 2019(https://bit.ly/2Hqcr7n).2 Donnacha Ó Beacháin, “Irish elitedoes not want reunification, Times, 1January 2019 (https://bit.ly/2FUAYQ7).3 Peadar O’Donnell SocialistRepublican Forum, DemocraticProgramme for a New Century(https://bit.ly/2tJuqv5).

IMPERIALISM


by ROBERT NAVAN from theVenezuela-Ireland Network

OTHER COUNTRIES in LatinAmerica have seendemocratically elected leaders

ousted by the United States or itsproxies. Jacobo Árbenz in Guatemala(1954), Jean-Bertrand Aristide in Haïti(2004) and Manuel Zelaya inHonduras (2009) are some examples.There were also several attempts toassassinate Fidel Castro during histime in office.

In 2002 the United Statesorchestrated an unsuccessful coupagainst Hugo Chávez. During the briefperiod when Chávez was removed fromoffice by the plotters and rogueelements among the military, Pedro

Carmona, the head of Venezuela’slargest business association, wasdeclared head of a transitionalgovernment. He quickly moved todissolve the National Congress andsuspend the constitution of Venezuela.

Throughout these events there wereno complaints or shouts from theUnited States or its allies aboutdemocracy. However, many LatinAmerican countries voiced theirconcern that the coup had forsakendemocratic principles, which of courseit had.

The scenes that we are witnessingnow in our television news are notspontaneous outbursts ofdissatisfaction with the governmentbut are the culmination of a processthat began in 1999 when Hugo Chávez

was first elected president.Venezuelan elections are probably

the most democratic in the world, andare overseen by large delegations ofinternational observers. No less aperson than Jimmy Carter, president ofthe United States from 1977 to 1981,has declared the election process inVenezuela to be the best in the world.In spite of this, successive USgovernments have refused torecognise the result of any of theseelections.

Venezuela has always beenportrayed in the media as a far-leftregime. Descriptions such as “failedsocialist experiment” and “21st-century socialist experiment in ruins”abound. (Interestingly, these articlesoften come from media mouthpieces

Venezuela screaming“Make the economy scream” was Richard Nixon’s instruction to the CIA when the United States decided in 1973 to overthrow the democratically elected government of Salvador Allende in Chile.

Socialist Voice January 2019 9

for one the biggest economic disastersin world history, the 2008 globalfinancial crisis.) These descriptions saymore about the general shift to theright in western mainstream politicsand their subservient media. In factthe programme of the United SocialistParty of Venezuela resembles more theradical programme of the post-warAttlee government in Britain; butnowadays supporting the nationalisingof key industries, such as coal or oil, auniversal health service and affordablepublic housing are seen as extremeleft policies.

Indeed mistakes have probablybeen made by the Venezuelangovernment since the beginning of theBolivarian revolution; but is there acountry in the world (including ourown) that hasn’t made mistakes,particularly in the area of economics?Not many of them have had toformulate their policies whileprotecting themselves from theaggression of the most powerfulmilitaristic state in the world.

One of the criticisms from those onthe left has been that Chávez shouldhave taken the major food and drinksdistributors, such as Polar, into statecontrol and thus avoided themanipulation of food shortages. Polar,Venezuela’s largest private firm,

produces the traditional PAN flour usedto make arepas, the most popular foodin Venezuela. It also owns the largestand best-known brewery in thecountry.

It does seem that trying to reachaccommodation with big business hasnot worked out. You could say that thesocial-democratic and not the socialistmodel has failed in Venezuela.

Another criticism is that not enoughinvestment and effort was made tolessen the country’s dependence onoil, by diversifying into agriculture andfood production. Venezuela importsabout two-thirds of its food, and thisleaves the country very exposed attimes like the present.

Venezuela is “screaming,” and thenoose is being tightened. It is difficultto see a way out that will not result inan end to democracy and probably thesuspension of the constitution. TheUnited States is unlikely to openlycommit troops to an invasion, butundercover support for opponents ofthe elected government is already inplace. Proxies such as theOrganisation of American States couldbe used, or possibly a manufacturedborder incident with Colombia. Suchscenarios could give the United Statesan excuse to intervene militarily.

There are elements in the

opposition in Venezuela that aremoderate and are willing to work withinthe democratic structures, but theyseem to be led by more extremeelements, who want all gains andtraces of the revolution eliminated.Make no mistake, that’s what willhappen if the latter get their hands onthe reins of power.

Cuba, Bolivia and Nicaragua arenext in the cross-hairs of US foreignpolicy. There have already beenparliamentary coups in Brazil,Honduras, and Paraguay. Chile andArgentina have right-winggovernments. It’s too early to make aprediction on the future political pathof Mexico. Now is a bad time forprogressives in Latin America; but therest of the world doesn’t look great forus either.

The struggle continues!

LEFT Chile 1973 US organised coupresulted in 130,000 arrested and3,000 killed

CENTRE US National security AdvisorJohn Bolton hints at invasion

RIGHT January 2019 Less than athousand attend an anti Maduro rallyin Caracas

‘Venezuelan elections are probably the most democratic inthe world, and are overseen by large delegations ofinternational observers.’


BOOKS

JENNY FARRELL

BURNS IS the first winner of thisaward from the North of Ireland,previous Irish authors being Iris

Murdoch, Roddy Doyle, John Banville,and Anne Enright.

Any novel about the Troubles makesa statement feeding into the way historywill record those times, how newgenerations will see them. Not only isthere an Official Version, there are alsothe real experiences of bothcommunities, and various versionswithin each of these. Milkman must beseen in this context.

Milkman reads like a dystopiannovel. We are in a time and place wherenames are not mentioned, places notnamed, people referred to in terms oftheir relationship to the anonymousnarrator, or by another designation.Almost everything is expressedindirectly, by innuendo. In this way thenarrative style of the novel reflects thecoded talk of Belfast, where namesreveal an either-or identity, andpronunciation is shibboleth.

The world presented is bothdystopian and Belfast at the same time,specifically Catholic working-classArdoyne, in the 1970s, because thosetimes were as horrendous as they aredescribed here. Anna Burns conveysthis, highlighting the madness by usinga surreal narrative style. She also goesoff on frequent tangents beforereturning to the main storyline. This canmake for challenging reading on the onehand but also earned the judges’assessment on the other.

Ardoyne is a Catholic enclave inProtestant north Belfast, one of anumber of Catholic areas that arecompletely isolated and therefore morevulnerable. Ardoyne is written into thenovel in many ways, in the unnamedgeographical detail and, above all, inthe way people speak.

The title itself expresses the book’sBelfast and North of Ireland theme.Milkman refers to the clandestinetransporting of explosives in milk cratesinto the Catholic areas.

Of course the word “Catholic” isnever used, nor is “Protestant.” Insteadthere are “renouncers-of-the-state” and

10 Socialist Voice December 2018

“Incredibly original”novel about theNorthern conflictThe author Anna Burns from Belfast haswon the 2018 Man Booker Prize for hernovel Milkman


The chairperson of the judges, the philosopher Kwame AnthonyAppiah, described it as “incredibly original,” saying that “none ofus has ever read anything like this before.”

“defenders-of-the-state,” those wholook “across the border,” the others“across the water.” The suggestion isthat the micro-culture of everyday life isthe same in both communities.However, the narrator expresses theexperience of the nationalist working-class community. Reflecting generalincorrect usage, the narrator refers tothe two Christian denominations asopposite religions. The twain only meetin the city centre, in “mixed” bars and,unexpectedly, in the French eveningclass. Here the teacher struggles to getstudents to see the apparently familiardifferently. Indeed the students are sentout to really look at a sunset—the onlyvivid colour in the novel, the colour thatdefines the book’s striking cover.

Milkman himself is a 41-year-oldparamilitary sexual predator, who isstalking our narrator. She is the 18-year-old daughter of a widowedworking-class mother in this particularcommunity. It is a community undersiege by the British state and its“defenders.” However, the narrator isexplicitly on the margins of thiscommunity, and this is her viewpoint.She does not relate the experience atthe centre of the community, which isprobably why the novel has not beenhappily received by all. Her viewpoint isthat the “renouncers” have control overher, as they have over the entirecommunity. She is not involved in theactivity of the “renouncers,” yet there islittle she can do to separate herself, livean independent life.

Milkman and another paramilitarypursue her, indeed attempt to coerceher. At the same time the narrator doesnot hide the fact that this crazy situationresults from the aggressive, humiliatingand controlling treatment of thecommunity by the armed forces of theoccupying state.

The absence of colour, of smells,and taste, is very noticeable. People inthis place and at this time do notexperience life fully. This is a half-life inthe shadows, a deprived life, diminishedin what life should be, by severerestrictions, curfews, unnerving totalobservation by state and “renouncers,”brutality and violent deaths. Indeedkillings and deaths resulting from the

all-pervasive violence far outweighnatural deaths. Every family here haslost at least one relative, frequentlymore.

Readers who remember those daysknow how true this feels. Even childrencannot imagine non-violent deaths.However, the novel does not describethese graphically. Not the violence isshown but its effect on the peoplewithin the community, its toll on theirpersonal freedom and entitlement tohuman living.

Part of this dystopian feel ofgreyness and absence of humane livingis the novel’s statement that people feelunentitled to happiness, especially to afulfilling, loving relationship with apartner. Relationships are broken offwhen partners get too close. This addssignificantly to the feeling of a life that islived on the margins, an incomplete life.Only the burst of colour when thestudents of the French class are sent toreally see the sun set over BelfastLough indicates at this level thatanother way of life is possible. And it iscross-community.

Despite the sense of entrapment,some of the community who people thisnovel rebel, and some do look forhappiness. The narrator is known forreading books while walking, books thatare removed from the twentieth century.She wants nothing to do with this realityaround her and actively tries to separateherself from it. This is not entirelysuccessful. Others who stand out forresistance are women—including thetraditional housewives who break thecurfew and engage in bin-lid banging toalert neighbours to danger. Earlyfeminists also make an appearance inthe story.

Milkman is a reminder of the bad olddays. It documents aspects of theworking-class experience of theTroubles. Other experiences, like that atthe centre of the community, are notBurns’s theme. This novel reflects in asurreal tone the experience of a youngwoman on the periphery of hercommunity, where she was not entirelyon her own. It is an experience that wasdefined by the military force of the stateand the responses such violencecreates in the besieged population.

CONNOLLYBOOKSEstablished in1932, it is Ireland’soldest radicalbookshop. ConnollyBooks is namedafter JamesConnolly, Ireland’ssocialist pioneer and martyr. H Irish history H politics H Marxist classics H feminismHenvironmental issues Hprogressive literature Htrade union affairs H philosophy H radical periodicals.

CONNOLLY BOOKS43 East Essex Street, between TempleBar and Parliament Street.Opening Hours: Tuesday to Saturday10.00 to 17.30


BREXIT

The Government are up to their necksin the propaganda war, and havefailed to deal with Brexit in Ireland’s

interest. Instead they have propped upthe false narrative created in Brussels.

Ever since the Brexit vote in Britainthe EU and the majority of the Britishruling class, supported by themainstream media, have attempted tocreate the narrative that the vote was aresult of xenophobia whipped up by thefar right and was voted in because ofopposition to immigration.

This is pure fiction. The fact of thematter is that the areas where there isleast immigration were the ones thatvoted for Brexit by a massive majority.The reason these areas voted for Brexithad nothing to do with immigration.These were the industrial heartlands ofBritain, which have been devastatedsince Britain joined the EU. Britishindustries have been destroyed, and withthem the lives of millions of workingpeople.

The vote to leave had nothing to do

with xenophobia and everything to dowith the damage the EU has done toBritish industry and jobs.

Teresa May’s phoney Brexit deal hasbeen rejected by the Parliament and hasleft the House of Commons in disarray. Itis now likely that there will be a no-agreement Brexit. This will mean that theso-called “backstop” is out of thepicture, with the EU threatening Irelandwith a “hard border.”

We must remember who’s doing thethreatening. It is not Britain’s border, orIreland’s border: it is the EU’s border. It isup to the EU to sort out this problem inthe interest of its members, in otherwords Ireland, the only member affectedby it.

This is what the Government shouldbe dealing with: a smooth transition forIreland and its citizens. It should not beassuming that Britain is going to remainin the customs union with an agreedbackstop, thereby reneging on the resultof the referendum, which was that Britainwould leave the EU—not “kind of” leave

it, partially leave it, or “sort of” leave it. Itwas a British exit from the EU. Plain andsimple.

Because of EU rules, Ireland is notallowed to have, negotiate or make abilateral trade agreement with Britainsimilar to what it had before we joinedthe EEC in 1973.

What our gombeen political class arenot doing is demanding from the EU thatthe interests of Ireland are catered forafter Brexit, even from their neo-liberalstandpoint. Instead the subservientGovernment are siding with the EUagainst Britain, which also happens to beour largest trading partner, and againstthe decision made by its citizens to leavethe EU.

The EU is doing to Britain exactly whatit did to Ireland during the financialcrash, when Jean-Claude Trichet,president of the EU Central Bank, toldMichael Noonan that “a bomb would gooff in Dublin” if we did not pay off thebond-holders and bail out the banks.They have now done exactly the same toBritain, saying there will be no agreementto leave the EU without the “backstop”and therefore an agreement only on theEU’s terms.

The EU and its anti-democratic naturehas once again proved itself to be anenemy of independent, sovereigndecision-making.

Quite obviously, the backstop isunacceptable to Britain, as it claims thenorth-east of Ireland as part of itsnational territory. What is not beingmentioned is that under the BelfastAgreement there can be no change tothe constitutional position of the Northwithout a majority of the citizens votingfor it. A majority of them voted to remainin the EU; so this has constitutionalimplications for Britain, the EU, andinternationally.

A majority of the British ruling class,along with the EU, wish for Britain toremain within the EU. They decided torenege on the decision by the Britishpeople by remaining in the customsunion, with all its regulatory obligations,thinking that the British public could befooled by the establishment’s narrative ofpending economic disaster. But theBritish working class are not fools. Theydid not fall for this narrative, and they

Fact or fiction?There is a lot more fiction than fact in theBrexit debate, the smoke and mirrorsbeing created by the establishment here,in Britain, and in the European Unionargues Jimmy Doran

‘A majority of the British ruling class, along with the EU, wish for Britain

to remain within the EU.’


know why they voted to leave the EU: foreconomic independence and to regainnational sovereignty.

Under the World Trade Organization’sGeneral Agreement on Tariffs and Trade(article XXIV:5, clause 3), Britain will beallowed to have free trade with the EU forten years while it negotiates a new tradedeal. This is not being discussed on theradio or in the newspapers; insteadOperation Fear is imposed from everyangle. People are being told they won’tbe able to buy even a sandwich or a pintof Guinness after Brexit.

This is all utter nonsense; and thecitizens of Britain and Europe will seethrough the lies. The open borders fortrade within the EU are self-regulatory, inthat all members comply with theregulations, and there are no tariffs. IfBritain wants to deal with the EU afterBrexit it will have to do the same; sothere is no need for queues at borders,whether “hard” or “soft.”

There will be random checks, such asexist now, for what would be deemedillegal goods. (Mind you, this didn’t stopTesco putting horse meat inbeefburgers.) If British companies arefound to be outside the regulations theywill be dealt with by the legal system.

The only thing standing in the way ofthis is if the EU wants to impose tariffson trade with Britain. In that case itwould not be possible, and there wouldbe delays, or Britain could choose to endtrade with the EU; but with so muchtrade between Britain and EU countries itis unlikely that the capitalist class willwant to lose this market.

The EU has to be seen to punishBritain for leaving, or other countries willdemand to leave also. But whateverhappens, the decision will be made bybig business and the ruling elite in theirown class interest.

Many countries would be very happyto begin trading with Britain that are notallowed now under EU regulations. Theywill now be free to trade wherever theywant.

The British people have taken the firststep towards economic independence byrejecting control by EU capital. The nextstep is for us to do the same with thenative capitalist class.

Join the fight for socialismSend me information on the Communist Party

name

address

post code

e mail phone

send to CPI 42 East Essex Street Dublin DO2 XH96 or CPI PO Box 85 Belfast BT1 1SR

s "As Trump and his allies gang up against what they call a Venezuelandictatorship, here are the numbers showing that Venezuelan presidentMaduro has been elected with a higher competitive vote and a greaterproportion of all possible votes than any of those trying to oust him."--RedFish


THEORY

EOGHAN O’NEILL

IN THIS SERIES on the Capitalist IllusionI have tried to expose as clearly andplainly as possible the exploitative class

nature of the capitalist system at the levelof both the individual worker andinternationally. The next task is to clearlyunderstand how all this is facilitated withinborders, structures and laws, created by

citizens of a state, in order for us to furtherunderstand the exploitative system and itsability to perpetuate itself.

When dealing with the state it woulddo well for readers to read Lenin’s bookThe State and Revolution (from which Ihave taken some extracts). Even thoughit’s more than a hundred years old it’s asrelevant now in Ireland as it was in Russiain 1917.

The modern state of the westerncapitalist model comes in many forms, butgenerally it has a central government todevelop, oversee and implement statepolicy and law. It has a judiciary to overseeand apply the law. It has a form of lawenforcement, i.e. police and secretservice, etc., to ensure that people abideby the law; it has courts and a prisonsystem to ensure that those who don’tabide by the law are punished orpenalised; and the modern state will havesome form of armed forces to protect itsborders and, in some cases, to extend itssphere of influence.

Within all these institutions there is anarmy of civil servants, who take on thefunction of running and maintaining statepolicy.

Conventional thought would say thatfrom these structures stems the rest ofsociety, organised in different areas, ways,and means, including agriculture andindustry, services to education, andeverything in between.

There are those who are employers,and those who are employable, those whoare dependent and those who areindependent; and all must abide by thelaw of the land, whereby each memberand each section of society is equal, hasaccess and is able to direct state affairsthrough the democratic procedures andpractices that have been established.

This summary of the state defines it asa neutral actor, a steward between all thevarious strands and groups in society,acting above and outside classes.However, this too is another illusion,perpetuated throughout our society, onlybecoming convention because the truenature of the state is camouflaged bythose very powers that have and controlstate power.

The premise we need to begin with, inreference to the state, is that, as Leninexplained, “bourgeois states are mostvaried in form, but their essence is thesame: all these states, whatever theirform, in the final analysis are inevitably thedictatorship of the bourgeoisie.”

The conclusion reached here by Leninis worthy of some thought, becauseunderstanding this will allow us tounderstand the class nature of the state,thereby shattering the illusion that thestate is an arbitrary actor and allowing us,

The capitalist illusionand the independentstate


‘...bourgeois states are most varied in form, but their essence isthe same: all these states, whatever their form, in the finalanalysis are inevitably the dictatorship of the bourgeoisie.’

as a class, to expose the class nature of the state for those whoare still spellbound by its illusion. To do this it is important at thisstage that we give a brief outline of political economy, notablyusing Oskar Lange’s writings on the subject as a frame ofreference, in order for us to embed our analysis and critique inMarxist theory.

We as a species have adapted our natural world (resources) tosatisfy our needs and wants and have gone through variousstages of historical development—from slave to feudal tocapitalist. The activity of creating goods is known as production,and human labour is the effort and time an individual contributesto producing goods or services. Products are goods resulting fromproduction, and our activity in the material world is part of thesocial process of production, which determines the productiverelations, which in turn determine the distribution relations.

The ownership of the means of production (factories, ports,railways, roads, tools, resources, etc.) determines how labour isorganised, divided, and put to use (productive relations) and how,through exchange mechanisms, goods meet our needs(distribution relations). The ownership structure determines whoowns the products, hence who decides how they are distributed.

Ownership can be either private or social. If it is private itbelongs to an individual or group, such as a family or company,and does not include every member of society. If it is social it isthe common property of all citizens, and so its production anddistribution are directed by all members of society, or thosemandated by society, to meet the needs of all members ofsociety.

The production and distribution of goods and services hasdeveloped over time. Historically there have been five basicmodes of production: primitive communal, slave, feudal,capitalist, and socialist. These modes have either beenantagonistic or non-antagonistic. They have also developedthrough transitional stages, a mix of modes, where remnants of

the old society persist and survive in the new dominant mode ofproduction; think of Britain’s (capitalist) parliamentary democracyunder a (feudal) constitutional monarchy.

In antagonistic modes (slave, feudal, capitalist) not allmembers lay claim to the ownership of the means of production.This causes a split in society into distinct groups, which we labelclasses. In a capitalist society there are those who own themeans of production (capitalists) and those who operate themeans of production (labour).

These two classes have interests that are antagonistic to oneanother, because the share of total wealth of capital and labourexpands at the expense of the other; however, it is only thecapitalist class that actually don’t create wealth, they only takeownership of it. Labour, the productive mass of the people, intheir relationship to the means of production create the wealth,which is appropriated by the capitalist.

Only one of these classes is actually necessary for theproduction of goods and services to meet the needs and wants ofsociety.

It is vital at this stage that we make this distinction—that classis a relationship rather than a category construct—so that whenwe make reference to class we think of it in these terms: therelationship between the individual and the ownership of themeans of production.

This is the distinguishing feature that separates the workingclass from the capitalist class. The wage system that exists incapitalist countries, the category that many people mistake asdefining class, we must remember is a capitalist construct,developed by capitalists, and is in existence in order for thecapitalist to be able to get more value from the worker than theypay them in wages—a non-equivalent exchange—without theworker being conscious of the fact that they are being exploited.

Part 2 will be published in the March issue.

A plaque to the memory of the Kildarecommunist Frank Conroy, killed in Spainwhile fighting with the InternationalBrigades, will be unveiled in June inKilcullen Heritage Centre, Co. Kildare, byChristy Moore.

Frank Conroy was born on 25February 1914 in Kilcullen and was killedon 28 December 1936 at Lopera. Hisfather, Michael Conroy, a baker by trade,worked in Michael O’Connell’s bakery inKilcullen.

The plaque was presented to NessaDunlea of the Kilcullen 700 committeeby the Frank Conroy CommemorationCommittee, on behalf of the Friends ofthe International Brigades, Ireland. It is atwin of the one presented to the towncouncil of Lopera in April 2016 by theFIBI.

Christy Moore to unveil a plaque to Kildare communists


MORALITY

Bono atDavosDAN TARAGHAN

IUSED TO own an Alsatian dog. Hewas very partial to a dog biscuit calledBonios. When I first heard that Paul

Hewson was known as “Bono” I wasunable to dissociate him from the dogbiscuit. He used to hang around GraftonStreet in Dublin with the other membersof U2. Personally, I considered themfairly mediocre.

However, since then they havebecome a global brand. Hewson isreckoned to have a net worth of about$700 million. In January he appeared atthe World Economic Forum in Davos,Switzerland, and made a number ofstatements about capitalism that werewidely quoted in the capitalist media.

Hewson is a bit like the dog. The dogwould perform to get a Bonio; Hewsondoes the same—otherwise he would notappear at Davos.

Davos is an invitation-only event. Itcomprises the CEOs of the top 1,000companies in the world, together withpoliticians, academics, and others. Inorder to be invited you would have toingratiate yourself with the capitalist class.

Hewson made a number ofstatements, such as that capitalism is not“immoral,” it is “amoral.” This profundityis about as meaningful as saying thetransmission system in a car is amoral.Capitalism is a mode of production, not areligious code. Just as the car needs adriver to start it, so capitalism needshuman beings. On the one hand youhave individuals or groups of capitalistswho band together in order to use theircapital to make a profit. In the early daysof the capitalist mode of production theywould have set up a manufacturingbusiness and produced something to besold for a profit. In order to sell for a profityou have to look at costs. One of thosecosts is labour.

Say the business is the manufactureof nails; then at each stage from the rawmaterial of the iron or steel, machinery,infrastructure, all stages will have labour

costs. These labour costs give value andare the source of the profit. The lower thelabour costs the greater the profit. So,when the workers organise, form unions,and seek better wages and conditions,this will affect the amount of profit. It isthe capitalist who is immoral, seeking tokeep wages and terms of employment toa minimum.

If Hewson ever looks around he willsee child labour, precarious workingconditions and slave wages anywhere thatthe capitalist mode of production exists.

I am no fan of their music, but theyare reckoned to make €5 million fromeach performance. When the Governmentintroduced a cap on artistic earnings of€250,000, U2 moved their business tothe Netherlands. To put it another way:instead of having their business pay itsdue taxes here they moved it elsewhere,to maximise profits. All perfectly legal, buthardly “amoral.”

Another statement from Hewson isthat capitalism has “taken more peopleout of poverty than any other ism.” Howhe came to this conclusion boggles themind. It might sound good to the peopleat Davos, but for everyone else it isbonkers.

Supporters of capitalism, fromThomas Piketty (author of Capital in the

Twenty-First Century) to Warren Buffet(the Sage of Omaha), recognise thatmore wealth is concentrated in fewerhands than at any time in the past.Looking specifically at U2: essentially,they produce sound and songs usingrhythms that appeal to an audience. In alive show they will invest in lighting,venue, etc. Profit is derived from takings,sponsorships, sales of music, less thelabour costs of riggers, ticket-collectors,etc., and tax. They don’t get the takingsand distribute them equally to all whoput the show together. They maximiseprofits by keeping labour costs down.

Hewson may have noticed peoplefleeing sub-Saharan Africa in order toreach Europe and have a chance of abetter life. Capitalism has never takenmore people out of poverty than anyother ism. In South America colonialforces from Spain and elsewhere not onlydecimated the indigenous populationsbut raped these countries of naturalresources and assets, such as gold,silver, copper, and rubber. The colonialistsfrom Europe did the same in NorthAmerica.

It is highly likely that there will be acoup against the democratic forces inVenezuela, supported by the UnitedStates and Britain. Even in Ireland theEnglish asset-stripped the country of ourforests and attempted to destroy ourculture. On the other hand the SovietUnion, Cuba and China lifted millions outof poverty and gave education and asecure standard of living, despiteattempts to undermine it.

Capitalism produced fascists likeHitler, and the Holocaust. If it continuesas it is it will destroy the planet andhuman existence.

When the Paradise Papers exposedHewson as using property investmentsstructured through Malta to avoid tax,his comment was: “It’s just some smartpeople we have working for us trying tobe sensible about the way we’re taxed.”

Why pay fees to these tax plannersand instead just pay your taxes? That isa question of morality. Few capitalistsare that ethical.

The World Economic Forum says itwants to end world poverty by 2030. AsJohn Wayne might have said, “That’ll bethe day!”

Documents

Partisan Patriotic Internationalist H HH Number 168 February ...Communist Party of Ireland Páirtí Cumannach na hÉireann Partisan Patriotic Internationalist Number 168 February 2019