Partisan Patriotic Internationalist Number 155 January ... · progressive policy that finds its way there—as is intended. That is the system. What are the results and findings of

SVSocialist Voice

H HHHH H

H

Time for change!Many people in Ireland yearn for a change ofgovernment, to one that would govern in the people’sinterests and not renege on electoral promises oncethey enter Dáil Éireann. A noble dream it may be,but how real is it asks Jimmy Doran? Page 2

Communist Party of IrelandPáirtí Cumannach na hÉireann Partisan Patriotic InternationalistNumber 155 January 2018 €1.50www.communistpartyofireland.ie

IN THIS ISSUESinn Féin’s wake Page 2School for scandal Page 3Problems for organised labour Page 4Teaching is now precarious Page 5The wages system Page 6Public service union Fórsa Page 6France\Germany Page 8Understanding land value tax Page 10Housing in Ireland Page 12Tax avoidance Page 12From Burns to Liebknecht Page 14Poetry Page 14Revolutionary Patrick Pearse Page 16

2018 is the 200th anniversary of thebirth of Karl Marx

“The essential condition for the existence,and for the sway of the bourgeois class, isthe formation and augmentation of capital;the condition for capital is wage-labour.Wage-labour rests exclusively on competitionbetween the labourers. The advance ofindustry, whose involuntary promoter is thebourgeoisie, replaces the isolation of thelabourers, due to competition, by theirrevolutionary combination, due to association.The development of modern industry,therefore, cuts from under its feet the veryfoundation on which the bourgeoisieproduces and appropriates products. Whatthe bourgeoisie therefore produces, above all,are its own grave diggers. Its fall and thevictory of the proletariat are equallyinevitable.” Karl Marx The Communist Manifesto

Socialist Voice43 East Essex StreetDublin D02 XH96(01) 6708707

CLASS STRUGGLECONTINUED FROM PAGE 1

LET’S BRIEFLY look atthe Right2Watercampaign. The

Communist Party of Irelandrecognised from the startthat the class element of thewater question wasownership—not watercharges. It would be theownership of that resourcethat would challengecapitalism.It was the largest mobilisation of

citizens for many years against agovernment policy, it was wellsupported, and eventually forcedthe issue onto the floor of DáilÉireann. Alas, once there itbecame lost in the swamp of thecommittees and internalinvestigations that dog everyprogressive policy that finds its waythere—as is intended. That is thesystem.What are the results and

findings of these committees ofinvestigation? Sadly, it’s not whatwe wanted and fought so hard for.There will be no referendum onownership, water charges will bebrought in through the back doorby means of “excess usagecharges,” and Irish Water is stillintact.So when the Government gets

more confident and regroups it willcontinue on its neo-liberal journey,free to sell off Irish Water to bigbusiness at a time of its choosing.This is how our democracy works.What are we to learn from this

“victory” on water? We shouldlearn who our democracy worksfor. Is it for the people or thosethose who sponsor and controlit—i.e. big business? If we usewater as an example, the answeris quite clear; and now is the timefor change, and it is time tochange this failed system.Does this mean that if we

change the make-up of DáilÉireann, i.e. the parties, and havea working progressive leftgovernment, things will change inthe interest of the common good?Should that be our aim? Wouldthis, or could this, lead to any realchange?I think not. Since the foundation

of the state almost a hundredyears ago we have had variousarrangements in the Dáil, but allhad one thing in common. Thisremains today, whoever they are:the establishment parties, SinnFéin, the Green Party—from theleft, the right or the centre, apart

from a tiny minority of candidates,they all want to maintaincapitalism, not to smash it.And the people who vote for

them are largely of the samebelief. They may talk of change,wish for change, dream of change,even vote for change, but deepdown they want the system toremain the same, if a little bitfairer. But there is no such thingas a nicer, fairer capitalism, as itsfoundation is greed and profit.Our task is to change that

outlook. It’s not reforms that areneeded, it’s real, qualitative andtransformative change for ourcitizens, which will empower them,not quantitative changes, whichwill make things easier while thebalance of forces remainsunchanged.The battle over water is for

ownership, not how we pay for it.With housing it is all aboutownership too. The CPI hascontinually and consistently calledfor public ownership of housing:public housing, built by the statefor our citizens, available to rent bythem if they so desire, just as thestate should provide public health,education, transport etc. as a rightto all citizens.Many groups on the left have

been convinced by the “cost-rentalmodel” for public housing, which isliberal capitalism’s answer on howto water down the demand forpublic housing and allow it tocompete with the market, ratherthan challenge the market to itsvery core by bringing into stateownership the provision andbuilding of homes for all citizens.We don’t look at public health or

education and ask how theyshould be self-financing from dayto day. They are self-financing inthe effects they have on oursociety, by looking after the healthrequirements and educationalneeds of our citizens so as toallow them to fill a productive rolein their life and reach their fullpotential. Why should housing beany different?Such a policy, by providing safe,

secure homes for all citizens, willremove the effects of substandardhomes and the precarious natureand uncertainty of private rentedaccommodation that is the realityof today. This, along with the extramoney in people’s pockets, nowfree from the strangulation ofproperty debt, will benefit civilsociety immensely.The challenge is to change the

prevailing view on the manner of

housing our citizens: to win thatideological battle, where nothingless than universally accessiblepublic housing will be acceptableby the people, thus forcing achange in demand from somethinglike “social housing,” whichsupports capitalism, to one ofuniversally available publichousing, available to rentaccording to ability to pay, thatchallenges the system and willbring about a real transfer in thebalance of power from the landlordclass to the citizen.Some on theleft seem obsessed with how sucha system is to be financed withinthe confines of capitalism. Theanswer is to give priority in statebudgets to building the requiredhomes as part of a permanenthousing programme—instead ofworking out new ways of lettingbusiness escape paying taxes onthe surplus wealth that thecitizens, their workers, producedaily in their businesses.If they want to make use of our

labour they will have to contributeto a safe, secure home for theirworkers, not to leech off us in theirnever-ending greed for extra profitand in tax avoidance.If we are to defeat capitalism we

must expose and exploit itsweaknesses. This will not be donein Dáil Éireann: it will be done inthe hearts and minds of ourcitizens. Only then can we trulyhave change that will allow all ourcitizens to fully benefit from thefruits of their labour.In recent years, as capitalism

has gone into overdrive, thoseweaknesses are becoming moreand more obvious, with inequalitygoing to levels not seen since theIndustrial Revolution. Back thenwe settled for higher wages andbetter working conditions and alarger share of the wealth weproduced as part of our struggle—only to see it all taken back, bit bybit, in the intervening years, to astage where once again workerscan’t afford a roof over theirheads on the wages paid to themby employers. Which goes toprove that any gains undercapitalism are always onlytemporary, and at someone else’sexpense.The time for change is now. It’s

a battle to lay bare the classnature of society as it exists today.The Government will not changethe system; the transformativedemands of the people can be thespark to tip the balance back inour favour. H

page 2 Socialist Voice

POLITICS

Socialist Voice page 3

SINN FÉIN’S move tothe centre and torespectability—set in

motion by Gerry Adamsdecades previously—hasbegun to bear fruit south ofthe border, and the prospectof the party being ingovernment in both states isno longer as removed fromreality as it once was.The past two years have seen a

continuation and deepening ofthis strategy, with Sinn Féin usingthe cover afforded by the Brexitreferendum to soften, if notabsolutely jettison, its anti-EUposition. Its recent ard-fheisconfirmed that Adams would stepdown to present a new (politicallyunburdened) face to the public,presumably that of Mary LouMcDonald.Sinn Féin now challenges the

lower-middle-class voters ofFianna Fáil. That the powers thatbe are rattled is evidenced both byunrelenting attacks from themedia, and the Governmentparties backing down on aChristmas election.While the rise of Sinn Féin has

been the story of the left in recenttimes, and has consumed plentyof column-inches, what has beenoverlooked thus far is the otherside of the political coin. SinnFéin’s march to respectability hasleft an unoccupied space in Irishpolitics, which may yet beoccupied by reactionary forces.The Republic is almost unique

in Europe in that we have yet tosee a major right-wing or fascistparty along the lines of the FrontNationale, Jobbik, AfD, or evenUKIP. One reason for this is thefact that Ireland has been ruledsuccessively by virulently right-wing parties, both economicallyand socially. Another sometimesoverlooked reason, however, hasbeen the institutional presence of

Sinn Féin.As a broadly populist centre-left

party with a strong anti-EUposition, Sinn Féin was able tocapture and mobilise post-crashanger in Ireland, particularlyamong the youth. This, combinedwith its uncompromising anti-racist position, has served topreclude the emergence of anysuch reactionary forces. Now,however, the game has changed.The toning down of its anti-EU

position, combined with a possibleloss of influence in certainconstituencies because of a moveto the centre, stemming from thecontingencies of electoralrespectability, would weaken itsbroadly progressive message andprovide room for a new right-wingforce. More than that, if Sinn Féinwere to enter government in theSouth (whether as a majority orminority party) it would quicklydemonstrate the harsh limits ofsocial-democratic reform, drivingmore people to search forsolutions on the right.It is not so difficult to imagine

that in a country still reeling fromthe savagery of the Troika, withthousands homeless and withgrowing anti-immigrant and anti-refugee sentiment, the cry of“looking after our own first” wouldbe well received by a certainsegment of the population.We must also remember that

Ireland is not immune to what ishappening on the internationalscene; and with our institutionalblocks to fascism weakened, it isnot unreasonable to fear that wemay see its resurgence in thecoming years. Any such new right-wing forces would not besynonymous with the Southernreactionaries of old (see Renua’sabortive attempt at a return toold-fashioned Catholicconservatism) but would find itsinspiration in the modern right-

wing movements in Europe, theUnited States, and further afield.The “alt-right” reaction to gains

made by feminists, LGBT activistsand other marginalised groups,already prevalent on the internet,will find expression here too,particularly among youngeconomically disfranchised men.Another financial crash or a majorterrorist attack would be morethan enough to open thisPandora’s box. For aforeshadowing of such a future weonly have to look to the erosion ofthe French Communist Party inthe face of the Front Nationaleafter ceding the anti-EU ground.We must also remember that

the far right does not need toseize state power to pose a risk.The shadow of fascism provides atwo-fold cover to traditionalliberals for enacting much of theirright-wing agenda. On the onehand it makes their own positionmore palatable (even among left-wingers) when compared with“blood and soil” fascism; on theother hand it affords an excuse forcentrist regimes to crack down onnon-conforming viewpoints moregenerally (today we see this underthe rubric of “fake news”).These illiberal measures are

unashamedly sold to us asnecessary to defend liberalism. AsMalcolm X once said of whiteAmerican conservatives andliberals, “one is the wolf, the otheris a fox. No matter what, they’llboth eat you.” France once againprovides a ready example:Macron’s fox is received jubilantlyas the answer to Le Pen’s wolf.The risks of fascism, and the

liberal response, make it morenecessary than ever for us toredouble our efforts and toexpound our principled oppositionto the EU, in the hope of a moreprogressive and more socialistfuture. H

Sinn Féin’s wake?At the time of the last general election in the South it wasin vogue to remark that the only thing Sinn Féin wereunsure of was whether they wanted to become the nextLabour or the next Fianna Fáil. Now, in the light of theevents of recent years, it seems that the latter is muchmore likely. Sebastian Müller reports.

LABOUR & CAPITAL

IN 2016 James Wickhamand Alicja Bobekproduced a report for

TASC into working conditionsin Ireland in which theyidentified “enforcedflexibility” as the majordevelopment in employmentconditions for workers in allindustries following thecrisis.This enforced flexibility comes in

a number of forms. For some it isinsecure-hour contracts; for othersit is seven-day-week contracts, on-call expectations, or hours farbeyond those specified incontracts. The report points to theincreased intensification of workand pressure and a drive to getmore from less, as capital seeksto increase its profitability. And thelogic of capital dictates that thiswill not let up unless it ischallenged in a collective andorganised way.The Trade Union Left Forum in

its WorkersFuture campaign hascalled for secure-hour contracts asa central demand. It is one of alist of demands aimed at tippingthe balance of power towardsworkers and labour away from bigbusiness and capital. It is aworkers’ programme for a futureworth fighting and struggling for.In recent weeks Mandate, which

has been to the fore in drawingattention to the plight of workersfacing insecure hours, haslaunched its own “Secure Hours =Better Future” campaign; and theTrade Union Left Forum fullysupports this initiative.In essence it is a struggle for the

control of workers’ labour power.This is all that workers have; andthe more they can control thesupply of labour the more they candemand for it. The moreemployers control the supply oflabour the less they can pay for itand the more they can exploitworkers.As the Dunne’s worker and

activist Muireann Dalton puts it,“on any payday, a Dunnesworker’s wages can be slashed by

up to 60% (more than €200).This makes it impossible for myfamily and me to plan our lives,and we’re not alone. There arealmost 10,000 workers inDunnes Stores who have thesame worries I do. Most of us arelow-paid. Most of us are women.And most of us are on 15-hourcontracts. So some weeks we willwork 40 hours, but when a localmanager takes a dislike to us,they can slash our hours to 15.”And in a recent update, the

assistant general secretary ofMandate, Gerry Light, called onthe public to put pressure on theGovernment to introduce thepromised legislation to tackle thisissue. “While there is significantsupport from the general publicand trade union movement forwhat we are seeking—we need tocontinue to put pressure on all ourlegislators to act once and for all.Local delegations to lobby TDs andsenators are being arrangedthrough your Union in the comingdays and weeks. We are asking allpoliticians to sign a pledge tosupport bringing legislationforward.”It is important to note that this

Government has already blockedlegislation proposed by DavidCullinane TD (Sinn Féin) thatwould have gone some waytowards addressing this issuewhen in October it ruled the billout, on the grounds that it wouldincur a cost to the exchequer. Thisblocking quite clearly shows whereFine Gael stand on the matter, ifanyone had any delusions aboutthat.Fine Gael, along with Fianna

Fáil, IBEC, ISME, the AmericanChamber of Commerce andother business interests seeflexibility for capital as a goodthing. In fact they want to givecapital as much flexibility as theycan, whether in relation toworkers’ rights, taxation,regulation, or pretty mucheverything. So a demand likethis is a challenge and is worthfighting for. H


Tommy McKearney

IN THE unlikely event thatany of our readers haveinvested in a significant

number of shares in theBritish company Curry’s PCWorld, they would be welladvised to sell before toolongOn a pre-Christmas visit to one

of their larger stores I wassurprised to find some shelvesempty. The goods in questionwere neither perishable norseasonal, yet at twenty minutespast opening time on the Saturdaybefore Christmas this huge chainstore was unable to offer itemsthat were obviously popular.Nothing surprising there, you

might think. Indeed it used to beviewed as a sign of success whena shop was sold out of a certainrange of goods as a result of thefrantic Christmas buying spree.Not now, though, especially if yourmain competitor is operating overthe internet and can deliver thesame goods and simultaneouslyguarantee that the customer willnot be disappointed.In brief, the century-old method

of chain-store retailing is beingchallenged by internet trading.We are now experiencing a

profound technological changethat is having a massive impacton the working class and its tradeunion movement. Often referredto as the “gig economy” or“platform economy,” thetechnology underpinning much ofglobalisation is presenting a newand different set of problems fororganised labour. Moreover, thissituation is not confined to retailindustry but has an impact over awide spectrum of serviceindustries, ranging from taxi-drivers to teachers providingexternal tuition.Nor is this phenomenon only

occurring abroad. In the daysbefore Christmas, for example, theIrish Times was reporting a plan by

a company called Mick’s Garagein Dublin to launch what itdescribed as “an Airbnb for garageservices,” which would connectmotoring customers with nearbymechanics. Investors in theproject include wealthy builders,bookmakers, and builders’suppliers.What is happening is having just

as profound an effect onorganised labour as theintroduction of mechanisedproduction lines had in the earlytwentieth century. Now we arefinding that instead of having fixedand permanent work-places fromwhere services are provided ordelivered, the internet now offersconsumers access without theneed for a local physicalpresence. This facilitates thecasualisation of labour at a rateunprecedented since the end ofthe nineteenth century.Some of the implications of this

were demonstrated recently bytwo decisions made in London inrelation to the taxi app Uber.¹ LastSeptember the regulatory bodyTransport for London refused torenew Uber’s licence for the cityon the grounds that it had failedto properly vet its drivers’competence or security clearance.This was followed in November

by a ruling by the EmploymentAppeals Tribunal that declared ineffect that the company was anemployer, and not simply aninformation platform, as Uber likesto claim. Incidentally, thetribunal’s verdict was seeminglyendorsed in December when theEU Court of Justice made a similarruling.Before we congratulate these

institutions for having provided amajor advantage for people forcedto work in the gig economy, it isimportant to consider a few facts.In the first place, Uber is only onecompany working within thissystem; other companies, such asDeliveroo² and Airbnb, continue asbefore, with the former recently

A future worthfighting for

Sign the TULF petition! Sign the Workers’ Charter atwww.tuleftforum.com/workers-charter. Sign up to Mandate’s secure hours campaign athttps://my.uplift.ie/petitions/secure-hours-now.


getting the green light to maintainits existing British practices as aresult of a ruling by the CentralArbitration Committee.Secondly, Uber, with a market

valuation of nearly $70 billionearly in 2017, is using its vastfinancial resources to appealthese decisions. Backed by aclever advertising campaign thatclaims that forty thousand driversin London were in danger oflosing their jobs, the companycollected almost a millionsignatures demanding that thedecision of the EmploymentAppeals Tribunal be overturned.Uber is also drawing support

from other interested parties inthe field. And it is thesesupporting parties that couldprove decisive if they are notcounteracted.The attraction of the gig

economy for capital is obvious. Asis apparent with the Ubercompany, this system transferscompetition and risk from thecapitalist to the worker, reducingwages in the process. Theoutcome of this type ofwidespread casualisation will bethe creation of a situation notunlike that experienced bydockers in the nineteenth century,when men often fought eachother for a day’s pay. Clearly, too,forcing worker to compete withworker for income underminesclass solidarity and thus damagesone of the essential requirementsfor a healthy trade unionmovement.So how do we deal with this

latest manifestation of capitalismin action? Let’s be clear from theoutset that it is neither possiblenor desirable to prevent theadvance of science and with it theemerging technologies that makesuch things possible. The firststep must always be tounderstand what is happeningand to recognise both theproblems and the opportunitiespresented by new circumstances.

Explaining the technology andits impact on working people’sterms and conditions is relativelystraightforward but shouldnevertheless be done as a priorityby all those interested inprotecting and promoting thecause of labour.Also, every opportunity has to

be taken to counter the insidiouspopulist propaganda thatpromotes lower prices as the be-all and end-all. All too often asmall benefit to the consumercomes at the cost of povertywages for the worker.Thereafter, it is important to

disabuse working people of thenotion that the solution to thisproblem lies purely in legislation,or in appeals to the ruling class.What appears to be concern forworking people is at bestenlightened self-interest or, morelikely, cynical opportunism.Realism dictates that capitalismwill not surrender such anadvantage that offers theopportunity to increase profits.Ultimately the answer lies in the

working class taking the means ofproduction, distribution andexchange into its own handsthrough the guarantee of aWorkers’ Republic. In themeantime, the left must notoverlook the importance of thisissue. We must search forcreative means of counteractingthis latest encroachments ofcapitalism, and continue workingwithin the trade union movementand beyond to strengthensolidarity throughout the workingclass. H

1 Uber Is a Smartphoneapplication that allows any car-owner to offer a taxi servicewithout the requirement for anearby office, radio centre, or,usually, any detailed policeclearance.2 A British on-line food deliverycompany founded in 2013 bytwo Americans.

New problemsfor organisedlabour Johnny Gaffney

MOST OF THEcampaigning onzero-hour contracts

and precarious work hasdealt (rightly) with the retailindustry, with Mandateleading the way.The education sector,

however, has increasinglybeen hit by very similarconditions, which is anexample of the growingimpact of the state’s neo-liberalism.Part of the neo-liberal

agenda is to reduce thestate’s spending and itsinvolvement in all services,essential or otherwise. Thishas resulted in the demiseof full-time, pensionableteaching posts. In manycases, when older teachersretire their posts are dividedup to create two or moreposts.To get a contract of

indefinite duration (CID) anewly qualified post-primaryteacher has to be employedby the same education andtraining board (formerly VEC)or school for two years.Again and again, however,many young teachers are letgo after one year, resultingin their being on low-hourand insecure employmentfor years.The modus operandi of

many schools is to offer ateacher perhaps seventeenhours’ teaching per week inthe first year, but in thesecond year only a smallfraction of the hours, if any.Out of frustration, and avague hope of eventualpermanence, many post-primary teachers opt forcontracts of four hours aweek or, in some cases, atwo-hour contract.An example is that of a

teacher from Galway whohas a CID of ten hours in aschool fifty miles away. Thehours are in multiplesubjects, and the classesare spaced out throughout

the week, making the job inreality full-time, five days aweek, but for ten hours’ pay.Post-primary teachers

believe this is a deliberatestate policy. Principals thenhave more teachers fordoing extra unpaid activities,in the vain hope of gettingbetter contracts or beingkept on.Teaching, once viewed as a

good, secure, lifelongcareer, has now become partof the growing class of jobsthat can be classified asprecarious employment—afeature of neo-liberaleconomics.To add insult to injury, the

NUI has abolished the one-year teaching diploma (HDip)and introduced a two-yearmaster of education degree,at twice the fee—a whopping€12,000. Besides having towork free for an extra year,the students have to findtheir own placements inschools, where they areobliged to carry outextracurricular activities.According to a trade union

source, students are votingby not enrolling. Normallyhundreds would have takenup the HDip course in eachuniversity; however, onlyseventy-five students in thewhole country haveregistered for the newmaster’s degree to beintroduced in September2018.Until the state’s new neo-

liberal ideology ischallenged, precariousemployment will remain thelot of many young teachers.Insecure employmentreduces the pension bill andensures that post-primaryteachers in vulnerable postswill carry out extra workwithout pay.A knock-on effect for

these teachers is that itdebars them from getting amortgage and buying theirown home; they thenbecome part of the housingcrisis also. H

Teaching is nowprecariousemployment

It is this class thatenforces the wagesystem, as they are the

paymasters at the end ofthe day. Working peopleenter into a contractwhereby work—thecombination of effort andtime—is exchanged forwages.The working class have endured

capitalist rule as they exchangetheir labour-time for an amountequivalent to a social necessity forthe maintenance andreproduction of the worker, basedon the level of development of theparticular country. The classnature of society, however, is notrevealed within this relationship;and so the worker and their mainorganising body, the trade unions,concentrate on the level of wagesneeded to maintain this socialnecessity, rather than on therelationship between capital andlabour.Struggles to increase the level

of wages have been and willcontinue to be a feature of the

system; but are workers and theirtrade unions, which concentrateon the level rather than thesystem of wages, blinded by whatis going on when we exchange ourlabour time for wages?The purchase of labour power

for the capitalist is a commoditypurchase, just like factories,machines, and stock. However,what separates labour power fromall other commodities is that it isthe only commodity to add greatervalue for the capitalist. Thereforeit is the purchase and productivityof labour power that generates anaccumulation of wealth for thecapitalist class.If you are to talk to anyone

earning a minimum, living oraverage wage they wouldn’tnecessarily see themselves beingexploited; but you can be surethey will say they don’t earnenough. It’s pretty obvious thatemployers and employees havedifferent interests. One wants tocontinually increase their level ofwages, while the other wants tocontinually decrease the costs of

labour. Whoever has the greatestsocial power in this relationshipwill increase their share of totalwealth.If we set up a situation where

instead of a wage system we havea barter system, in a perfectlycompetitive market, people willenter the system knowing thevalue of what they are willing topart with. In this process, onaggregate an exchange ofequivalents will take place, as itwould be nearly impossible forsomeone to continuallyaccumulate items of greater valuethan what they started with. Inthis scenario the accumulationprocess would not be able to takeplace unless done through othermeans, such a slavery or robbery.If I then add to this scenario a

money form: I am willing to givesomeone a number of hours aday in the form of work inexchange for money. I will knowthat if the person buying mylabour time is getting greatervalue from the product of mylabour, then the next time I go to

exchange my labour time I willdemand the equivalent value. Ithen use the money I earn toexchange it for my needs andwants, each time exchangingequivalents. In this scenario bothparties will leave happy, knowingthat they got what they paid for.On aggregate, the share of wealthwill be much more evenly spreadout.

‘. . . what separates labourpower from all othercommodities is that it isthe only commodity to addgreater value for thecapitalist. Therefore it isthe purchase andproductivity of labourpower that generates anaccumulation of wealth forthe capitalist class.’Marx described this process as

commodity–money–commodity, orC–M–C, where workers producecommodities in order to receivemoney so as to be able to pay for

LABOUR & CAPITAL


THE MERGER of Impact,the Civil, Public andServices Union (CPSU)

and the Public ServiceExecutive Union (PSEU) willcreate a new 80,000-member, largely public-sector union, to be calledFórsa, in 2018.Towards the end of 2017, 86

per cent of Impact members whovoted supported the merger; 76per cent of CPSU members whovoted backed it; and 70 per centof PSEU members who votedsupported it. So it has the clearbacking of a majority of votingmembers.

Fórsa will represent workersthroughout the civil service andpublic service, commercial andnon-commercial state-sponsoredbodies, community and voluntaryorganisations, and privatecompanies in aviation,telecommunications, andelsewhere. It will be the second-largest union in the country (afterSIPTU) and, according to Impact,will be “the strongest and mostinfluential trade union voice in thepublic service and semi-state[state-sponsored] sector.”Impact, the biggest component,

argued for this merger on theusual grounds: that it will have

more resources and therefore bestronger, with €85 million inassets, including a €50 milliondispute fund.Unions usually merge less for

political and industrial reasonsthan for pragmatism and survival.Research in Britain suggests thatthe main reasons for mergers aredeclining or stagnatingmembership and struggling toorganise in new areas. Thepromise is that cost savings andefficiencies will release funds fornew organising initiatives.Again looking at Britain, this

has largely failed; and whileunions have secured themselves

financially in the short term andhave carried out significantinternal restructuring (often withloss of jobs for union staff), nomajor inroads have been made inorganising.Other research also suggests

that mergers do nothing forimproving the attitude andactivism of the membershipwithin the new structure. Ratherthan inspiring them, it seems thatmembers become even moredistant from what they perceiveas a more bureaucraticallycontrolled, top-down union thatidentifies less with workers on theground than their previous union.

New public-sector union to come i

The wage system and the capitalist illusionEoghan O’Neill explores how the wage system hides the class nature of oursociety, where one section—the capitalist class, the owners of finance andindustry—exploits working people, the wealth-producers.


their needs and wants at a givenplace and time. People will beable to accumulate a level ofwealth based only on theproductivity of their labour, andthis will vary according to theirskill, talents and level ofdevelopment in a particular place

and time.In our wage system, however, at

least two processes runsimultaneously. Workers areengaged in the C–M–C cycle,while capitalists are within the M–C–M’�cycle, where the capitalistenters with a sum of money,

commodity production within thelabour process takes place, andthen the capitalist leaves with asurplus—the portion of wealthextracted from those who labour.This dual process is why

workers don’t see the exploitationtaking place, as all that isrevealed to them is the C–M–Ccycle, where they believe they arebeing paid an equivalent for theirlabour time. This is an illusion, atrick of the capitalist class.What is hidden from the worker

is the non-equivalent of exchange,which is what the capitalist paysto the worker in the form of wagesand what they keep as their profit.The wealth is created by labour,but the product belongs to thecapitalist; and through the laws,customs and standards of theprivate-ownership system thiswealth is extracted and thendivided. The strength of labour willdetermine what portion of thewealth they created they are ableto keep.By keeping the means of

production in private hands, thecapitalist class are able tomaintain the wage system andtherefore to maintain theexploitation of the working class,while also keeping this exploitativesystem hidden from the majorityof the working class.The level of M or money is what

the trade unions are interested in;and this is important, in that itprotects workers’ purchasingpower and living standards. Butstruggling inside the imposedwage system will never challengeor change the exploitation that

workers are subjected to underthe non-equivalents of exchange.Marx outlined the limits to trade

unions if they deal solely with thewage system and not the classstruggle, for the overthrow of thecapitalist system. He writes, in thefinal paragraph of Value, Price,and Profit:“Trades Unions work well as

centers of resistance against theencroachments of capital. Theyfail partially from an injudicioususe of their power. They failgenerally from limiting themselvesto a guerilla war against theeffects of the existing system,instead of simultaneously trying tochange it, instead of using theirorganized forces as a lever for thefinal emancipation of the workingclass, that is to say the ultimateabolition of the wages system.”As we face into 2018, the

working class, and the tradeunion movement especially, havemany battles ahead. If they fail tobegin to engage in politicaleducation of this nature, ratherthan being centres of resistancefor the working class, they willbecome redundant for theworking class—a warning the CPIissued in 2015.As outlined above, the class

nature of society will reveal itselfonly through the development ofclass-consciousness; and this canonly be done through directedand targeted political education.We need to make 2018 a year

of deep study in fertile soil, andsow the revolutionary seeds onceagain. H

Traditionally, the left hassupported and encouraged unionmergers as strengtheningsolidarity and unity andstrengthening the hand ofworkers. However, as researchtells us, union mergers are notalways perceived as positive bymembers after the merger andoften fail to deliver on theirpromises.Connolly, writing in Forward in

1914, said:Recently I have been

complaining in this column andelsewhere of the tendency in theLabour movement to mistakemere concentration upon the

industrial field for essentiallyrevolutionary advance. My pointwas that the amalgamation orfederation of unions, unlesscarried out by men and womenwith the proper revolutionaryspirit, was as likely to create newobstacles in the way of effectivewarfare, as to make that warfarepossible.It is the old story of adopting

the letter but rejecting the spirit.The letter of industrialconcentration is now accepted byall trade union officials, but thespirit of working-class solidarity iswoefully absent. Each union andeach branch of each union

desires above all things to show agood balance sheet, and that thatmight be done every nerve isstrained to keep their members atwork, and in a condition to paysubscriptions.The politics and ideology of the

new union are far more importantthan the size of its assets. Andnothing in this new unionsuggests anything different ormore progressive than itsconstituent parts, which hardlyinspire revolutionary advance.In fact, acting as one with a

combined membership will surelyprevent any opposition to public-sector agreements that smaller

unions might try to muster. It maymean that a deal with Fórsa isessentially a public-sector deal;so where will this leave nursesand teachers, who have very realand legitimate grievances againstthe Government?And what about organising

political opposition from a leftviewpoint? This will surely beharder in a more tightlycontrolled, unified and top-downstructure.Time will tell. One thing is

certain: that class struggle withinour trade unions remains criticalto any general advance forworking people. H

into being this year


Seán Ó Deoráin

IT’S ALMOST eightmonths since EmmanuelMacron took up

residence in the ÉlyséePalace after a second-round “victory” over MarineLe Pen’s Front Nationale.This “victory” wasaccompanied by a historicvote for Le Pen, dwarfingthat of her father’s in 2002against Chirac. Macron didnot have the support ofeven a quarter of thosewho turned out in the firstround.This did not deter France’s

new president from claiming anirrevocable mandate to pushthrough his deeply reactionary,anti-worker agenda. The newforce of French politics was atriumph of “centrism” and“reasonableness” in the face of“extremes”; except that it wasn’tso new at all. It was simply theFrench big bourgeoisie’selectoral recalibration to suit itsinterests, collapsing the vacuousopposition between socialdemocrats and the traditionalright.

WORLD

SPECULATORS NOlonger know where togo with their money.

The German share indexDAX stands at more than13,000 points; on the eveof the financial crisis, inJuly 2007, it was 8,000.Property prices shoot up; art

becomes almost priceless. For$450 million Leonardo da Vinci’sSalvator Mundi was sold in mid-November in New York.The neo-liberal counter-

revolution made this possible.The boldest dreams of thethought-leader of the economicright, Friedrich von Hayek, areabout to be realised; the lastrelic of state sovereignty—thecreation of money—shouldbecome a simple speculative

object.The “cryptocurrency” bitcoin

has increased in value by morethan 1,200 per cent since thebeginning of last year. A fictitiouscoin cost more than $10,000last month. According tocalculations by the web sitecoinmarketcap.com, whichrecords the market capitalisationof cryptocurrencies, the value ofall bitcoins is now about $180billion. This makes it almost asexpensive as the American soft-drinks giant Coca-Cola, which isvalued at about $195 billion.But it is not a “general

equivalent.” Neither centralbanks nor states draw moneyhere. The price alone determinessupply and demand. Bitcoin isbased on the so-called

blockchain technology, in whichinformation is stored, forgery-proof, in a database.The capitalists are in trouble.

Money is not only exchangevalue but wants to be hoardedby them as well. What if theprice crashes by more than1,000 per cent in the comingyear? Who is the lender of lastresort? Who is the last to standup for the debts of others? Withmoney, the fun stops.The bitcoin bull market reflects

a lack of profitable investmentopportunities. Significantly, wherethe highest profit margins exist,in China, the cryptocurrency hasbeen banned since September.The Chinese government justifiedthis by saying that trade“seriously disturbed economic

and financial order.” TheBundesbank (German centralbank), however, went to sleepagain last week. The priceexplosion at Bitcoin does notworry them. In Germany there isno indication that the speculationwith cryptocurrencies is financedby credit, said the bank’s vice-president, Claudia Buch.Incidentally, the same applies

to the price explosion in theproperty market—which is“exaggerated” by up to 30 percent, but nothing more.A hedge-fund manager told

Reuters about bitcoindevelopment: “It’s going to bethe biggest bubble of our lives.”While he may be right, it doesn’tjust affect the computer currencymarket.H

The biggest bubble of all time?

Shiny mask


A series of defections fromthese two formations swelled theranks of Macron’s new party, LaRépublique en Marche (TheRepublic on the Move), in timefor the legislative elections,coupled with its running dozensof candidates from civil society,few with any political experienceor convictions—the perfectbunch of yes-men buying in tothe illusion that they were part ofa crusade to reform Frenchsociety.To characterise Macron’s

manifesto as a departure fromthat of his political mentor,François Hollande, would be amistake—not surprisingly, onemight say, given Macron’s role asan economic adviser and ministerin the Hollande government. Therepeal of hard-won labour lawsdating from the time of thecommunist involvement in post-war governments continuedapace, dismantling theindependent health and safetycommittees required by law incompanies employing more thana certain number of workers.Deaths at work will result

directly from this measure, inindustrial and agri-food sectors in

particular. Employers of fewerthan twenty workers will be ableto conduct elections foremployee representatives by ashow of hands. The expansion ofcontracts of indefinitedetermination, relative only to aspecific project or mission,defined by the employer, willincrease precariousness informerly well-paid technical andmanual sectors, consigningyoung workers with appropriatequalifications to a sort of pariahstatus within any company thatmay hire them—for one specificproject at a time.Contrary to its fallacious self-

image as a founder, promoterand defender of civil rights andbourgeois-democratic liberties,Macron’s tenure has thus farbeen marked by an increasinglyauthoritarian turn by France’sruling class.The Fifth Republic’s

constitution was born out of astate of unofficial war withAlgerian guerrillas fighting forindependence. Even by the poorstandards of classical liberalism,France falls far short. No properseparation of powers exists, withthe judiciary and the legislature

muzzled by the executive, andthe intransigent upper echelonsof the civil service ensuringadministrative continuity, in truetechnocratic style.By far the most egregious

example of the deep state’sclampdown on political dissentersin recent years has been thestate of emergency adopted afterthe terror attacks of 2015.Macron plans to revoke the stateof emergency in the new year—while transcribing essentialelements of it into ordinarystatutes, including such powersas the arbitrary detention ofsuspected “terrorists.” Thisvicious legislation has alreadybeen used to arrest trade unionactivists protesting against thelabour reforms.The great lie of a grander EU-

wide project of integrationpromoted by the latest Frenchgovernment, encompassing co-operation, enhanced security andother empty slogans, was laidbare after the steadfast supportlent by the French state to itsSpanish counterpart in theaftermath of the latter’s brutalcrackdown in Catalunya. Francehas a vested interest in opposing

self-determination, as swathes ofthe “national territory” would beclamouring for similar treatmentshould the Catalan independistassucceed in breaking away fromMadrid’s clutches.Yet what has been most

conspicuous of all is thecomplicit media, particularlyforeign correspondents,trumpeting the gains of France’spremier. Any reader familiar withthe Irish Times will have surelyremarked the fawning coverageof Macron by the besotted LaraMarlowe. He is a “pragmatist”and yet a visionary, still on a“winning streak”—just a few ofher latest plaudits. His opponentsare quasi-Luddites, afraid of thatmost meaningless concept thatpunctuates so much of accepteddiscourse, “globalisation.” She isbut one example.Make no mistake: the ruling

class of the EU’s second-biggesteconomy is very much on theoffensive. Lackeys such as LaraMarlowe undermine themselvesby ignoring its ever moreunnerving excesses. They are farmore afraid of an organisedworking class that could strikeback. H

From junge Welt(Berlin)

IN ITS ELECTRONICnewsletter in mid-December the web site

German Foreign Policy(german-foreign-policy.com)reports on the launch of theEuropean Union’s new“Military Union” strategy.The report states: “The German

Government has announced thatthe EU Military Union will beofficially launched this Monday,with the EU Council formallyadopting 17 projects aimed atcreating joint EU militarystructures. Germany is in chargeof the establishment of a

European Medical Command,considered an indispensableelement of future EU militaryoperations, alongside theEuropean Air TransportCommand, which has existedsince 2010. Berlin is alsoestablishing logistical structuresthat would facilitate rapid

interventions.“The German Bundeswehr is

also active in both fields withinthe NATO framework. Theoperational preparation for futuremilitary missions is influenced bya fierce power struggle betweenGermany and France. Accordingto the German ministry of

defence, the military union is notonly aimed at reaching more‘independence’ from the UnitedStates, but also at advancing EU‘integration,’ which is difficult toachieve with civilian means.”Just another confirmation—if

another one was needed—of thearguments put forward by theCPI, the People’s Movement andPANA regarding the direction inwhich the European Union washeading during the numerousreferendums that the Irish statewas forced to allow the people tovote on.We rejected two of the treaties

but then of course had to voteagain in order for the state to getthe right result.And still the Irish establishment

claim that we are neutral. H

But we are still neutral?

teeth don’t a vicious bite

DISCUSSION DOCUMENT

AFTER HEARINg the minister forhousing, Eoghan Murphy,declare the Government’s

response to the housing crisis—namely changing planning regulationsand restrictions for developments andthe clear impact it would actuallyhave—it reminded me of a smallpamphlet that I picked up in ConnollyBooks back in 2008, Land Value: ForPublic Benefit, by Jerry Jones, which isthe theme of this article.Eoghan Murphy’s answer, rather than

solving the crisis, will more than likely make itworse, as easing restrictions will act as anincentive for developers to hold off building,as the value of land would increase becauseof increased density in housing units. It isclear that the minister is listening to thosevested interests, who want to see the price ofland continually increase.The recently established Campaign for

Public Housing is quite clear on what itargues is needed: the building of universallyaccessible public housing. But what is ourresponse to the hoarding and unproductiveuse of land by landowners, which has a direct

effect on house prices and rents, afoundation-stone of our housing crises?Note: Most of what follows is taken directly

from the pamphlet. I have added my owninitial thoughts and have placed it more in theIrish context.

Land value tax (LVT)The first thing to note is that land, unlikelabour and capital, is (relatively) fixed. Whileits supply is finite, it is more resilient to wearand tear: it can be used and reused fordifferent purposes. A dump one year can bethe site for a housing estate the next;agricultural land can be turned intoresidential land. Land that is built on is themost valuable of land: think of Dublin citycentre compared with a field in Co.Longford.The demand for land, with its limited

supply, gives it its value. The demand andtherefore its value depends on many factors,including fertility, its natural resources andnatural beauty, its proximity to work, markets,and transport services (railway lines,motorways, airports), and its access toservices (water, electricity, gas, shops,

schools, hospitals, etc.). The use of theland—residential, commercial, oragricultural—will determine how valuable itmay be.The value of land is not created by

landowners but by nature and by thecommunity and society at large, through theireconomic and social activity. But land islargely privately owned, and it is thelandowners and their associates (banks,estate agents, solicitors) who benefit fromrising land values, at the expense of societyas a whole. It is in the interests oflandowners, therefore, to use their influenceto direct policies that increase the value ofland.Introducing an LVT would make more

efficient use of land, because landownerswould have to pay the tax according to thevalue of their land; a rate would be set thatwould make sure that hoarding forspeculation would become unviable. If alandowner could not make best use of theland in line with prevailing planningregulations they would have every incentive tosell it on as quickly as possible to someonewho could make more economic use of it.


Understanding land value taxIn Ireland our cities and towns are littered with derelict sites anddilapidated buildings, while we continue with the outward sprawl of thegreater Dublin area into adjoining counties and beyond, with its ever-increasing house prices and rents and its impact on the environment andon family life. Eoghan O’Neill reports


This would end the wastefulness of derelictland and decaying buildings standing emptyfor years on end that blight some districts.Furthermore, it would more or less endspeculation in land, as it would become toocostly to hold on to land for that purpose. Bygradually raising the rate of LVT—and at thesame time reducing other taxes—landownership would begin to lose its significance.The only point now of owning land would be

to use it in a productive way. In other words,the income from land would derive solely fromthe particular economic activity or buildings onthe land. There would be no gain simply fromowning land, receiving economic rent, as now,which is at the expense of the rest of society.

How does it work?The first thing that would need to be donewould be to separate valuing land fromdevelopments on the land. Valuing land isless complicated than valuing buildings,because the only factors that need to beconsidered are location and potential useconsistent with prevailing planningregulations. Modern technology, includingcomputer-aided mass assessment andgeographical information systems (GIS), canbe applied by the authorities to track nationalland values.A simple method of calculation (residual

value) is to start off with the known marketvalue of the property as a whole, then deductthe value of the buildings (estimated rebuildingcosts for insurance purposes, adjusted fordepreciation) to be left with the remainder,being the value of the land.The authorities can then begin to “map” out

land values. One such technique, known as“land-value-scape,” instead of showingcontour lines on a map representingtopography shows lines marking off localitiesand zones with equal land values. Once it isoperating, the recording and tracking ofproperty sales throughout the country could bedone continuously. More information and datacould be incorporated in the series forrefinement, to include such things as proximityto amenities, transport hubs, businesses,congested roads, etc.The valuation of land needs to be conducted

regularly, because land values can changeconsiderably from year to year. These areaffected by various factors, such as its use—residential and commercial being morevaluable than agricultural. Changing from oneuse to another by the planning authorities canhave a huge effect on the value of the siteand also the surrounding area.The demand for land, and therefore its

value, is highly dependent on the health of theeconomy and on the availability of credit. Wewitnessed with the great recession the fall indemand for property and land, thus causing afall in property prices and land values.It must be said that in Ireland today we

have a situation in which generally peopledon’t have access to credit (unlike the “CelticTiger” years). It is very difficult for a workingfamily to obtain a mortgage, yet we have seen

and continue to see increases in house pricesand rents. (A further 20 per cent increase isexpected between now and 2020.) What wehave to consider here is that credit is availablebut it isn’t available for ordinary workingpeople.It is the wealthiest in society that have the

means to purchase property, along with largeforeign vulture funds and property companies,which are driving these increases, with theirunique access to credit because of theirwealth status and their ability to purchase landand property, which has also caused a hugeshift from people owning their home to havingto rent their home. We are witnessing a newwave of absentee landlordism.Property-owners are accumulating more

land and property and in effect, thanks to theirown demand, they are increasing the costs forsociety, whose level of income cannot meetthe continuous increases in rents andmortgage payments. The consequences of thisare clear when we turn to our homelessnessand housing crisis.What happens to rent and property prices

when an LVT has been introduced?The higher the rate of LVT, the more this will

tend to lower the market value of land, or itsprice, but it will have no effect on total landvalues, including the amount going to thecommunity in the form of LVT, because thetotal value of the site is equal to the marketvalue (what it is sold for) plus the rate of LVT(the amount of tax revenue going back to thecommunity in spending).In other words, the higher the rate of the

land value tax the more is taken away fromthe landowner and put back into thecommunity. If LVT was at 100 per cent,owning land for the sake of earning rent wouldbe abolished. Even lower rates might have thesame effect if the rate of return on land islower than using the capital for real productiveuses.

LVT and general tax policyGenerally speaking, people do realise thatgovernments need sources of income tocover their expenses: the provision of servicesand amenities from which everyone benefits.However, different taxes have differenteffects, some tending to enhance economicactivity and contributing positively to society,others having the opposite effect.Having a tax system based on land value

would encourage house-building and otherproductive activities, because not makingoptimal use of the land would be penalised.Rents and house prices would stabilise, asspeculation would no longer be an option, andtherefore house prices would not inflate to theposition where people are becominghomeless; whereas if you just tax ondevelopment or on existing buildingsthemselves, this might not have the desiredeffect and might even be a disincentive todevelop.Clearly the main burden of tax is imposed

on working people, but the benefits arecaptured by the landowners and the owners of

the means of production (quite often thesame people). But as the Government needsto raise revenue and cut expenses, it punishesthe largest contributors of tax—workingpeople—which has adverse economic andsocial costs, such as displaced families andcommunities, homelessness, mental healthissues, and urban sprawl and itsenvironmental impact.Governments are very quick to tax goods

where the impact of a price increase won’taffect its demand, such as tobacco, alcohol,and petrol; but the best example of acommodity whose supply is almost inelastic(not affected by variations in price or cost) andtherefore a good candidate for tax is almostcompletely ignored by economists andgovernments, namely land.If land is taxed according to its value—

mainly determined by the demand for land—there would be no dead-weight loss (taxesthat disincentivise people or society to work,invest or consume and therefore have anadverse effect on welfare). According to thisargument, land should be the most heavilytaxed item of all.The advantages of tax on land value are

huge. There is huge potential for a continuousrevenue stream for government expenditure.This would allow the state to have the revenueto establish (among other things) an all-Irelandhousing enterprise, dedicated to meeting thepeople’s needs in housing, from planning tocompletion, while also having the means topurchase lands.In addition, an LVT is inherently a fair tax,

because the value of a site on which the taxwould be based is determined not by theowner or occupier but by its location, and thesocial and economic activities of society as awhole, which should be shared by all.LVT is fairer because it is practically

impossible to avoid. People do not end uphaving to pay more tax to compensate forthose who evade it, which is becoming moreand more of a problem globally. There is awhole “shadow economy” and a whole armyof tax-avoidance experts geared to helpingpeople and businesses evade tax. But youcannot siphon off land into an offshore taxhaven.In short, an LVT could become the core

source of finance for public expenditure, whichwould be topped up by other taxes that alsobenefit society in various ways.What we must be mindful of is not to

replace a radical transformative strategy with areformist one, based solely on LVT as apanacea for removing the class struggle in ourday-to-day campaigns. What we can insist onwithin the short and medium term is that thestate becomes an active purchaser of sitesthat become available because of thedisincentive to hoard and its increasedrevenue from LVT in order to increase its sharein the ownership of land and of housing stock,allowing it to become more of a price-maker,stopping the constant increases in houseprices and rents and the endless housing andhomelessness crisis. H

Housingmodels in theIrish contextIdeology has dominated the Irishhousing sector since the outset.There is no period in history, evenduring times of relatively robuststate house-building, that couldbe said to have had a stable orworking housing system arguesDaithí Ó hAirtrí


HOUSINGFROM TENEMENTS to

failed housingexperiments to bubbles,

the Irish story of housingprovision is littered witherrors.In this article I outline a proposal

for how the CPI should think abouthousing, and explain why we mayneed to think about ourterminology.The existing Irish housing model

operates in what is called a“differential rental” system, wheresocial housing is financed bytenants paying a percentage oftheir income in rent to the localcouncil. This model has largefunding shortfalls, because of thefact that it is only a safety net andis not intended to be an alternativeto the provision of private housing.It can never be self-financing,since it is only ever a house of lastresort, and there are no well-offpeople seeking these houses fromwhich higher rents can beleveraged.The well-off pay for these

housing differences indirectly,through general taxation, whichleads to housing costs being seenas a burden to be borne, andconstantly cut by right-winggovernments.The rents are “differential” in

two senses, in that the rents differfrom person to person but also inthat the private housing system iskept distinct, hermetically sealed

from “contamination” by the publichousing system.The reason for this red line

between private and publichousing is that if the state is seento interfere in the private housingmarket, undercutting it and forcinglandlords out of the marketbecause of the state’s increasedscale, that is illegal state aid andwould lead to fines under EU law.These flaws have led to the

counterproposal of a cost-rentalsystem, where the costs of thebuilding and maintenance ofhousing is pooled. Over thelifetime of the house the costprice of building, the largest costof a home, is reduced as a totalof the cost of servicing the debtused to finance the building of thehome, because of inflation. This iscalled “maturation.” It is thematuration that allows cost-rentalmodels to operate. Older buildingscost less, and this lower cost iswhat allows the relatively highercost of new buildings to besubsidised.These schemes are very easily

self-financing, since the rents areliterally the sum of the costsdivided by the number of tenants.However, these schemes can leadto housing poverty, even amongthose who are in the socialhousing system. For this reason itis necessary to also have housingcredits for those who areunemployed or on fixed incomes,

Kieran Crilly

IN THE early 1950s UScompanies wanted toinvest in Ireland so that

they could expand into theEuropean market; and Irishcorporation tax policy wasadapted for them.In 1956 export profits tax relief

was introduced. Exports ofmanufactured goods were zero-rated (no tax); so Americancompanies that exported all theiroutput paid no tax on theirprofits.This rate of tax applied to all

foreign companies, and manyEuropean companies set upsubsidiaries here to avail of itbefore Ireland joined the EEC, asit was then. Ireland joined to giveAmerican transnationals tariff-freeaccess to the EEC countries’markets, and agreed to phase

out the zero-rate corporation tax.In 1980 a 10 per cent tax on

manufacturing activity wasintroduced, with EU approval. In1987 a 10 per cent tax onfinancial services was introduced,again with EU approval. In 1996the EU withdrew its approval forthese tax incentives, and theywere phased out between 1996and 2010.Between 1996 and 2003 there

was a phased reduction in thegeneral rate of corporation tax,from 32 per cent to 12½ percent to apply equally to allcorporate taxpayers on tradingincome, and to 25 per cent onnon-trading income.The present rate of corporation

tax is 38.9 per cent (soon tobecome 20 per cent) in theUnited States, 34 per cent inFrance, 30 per cent in Germany,19 per cent in Britain, and 12½

A nice country to

Dublin’s Henrietta Street originally housed the city’s gentry but fellinto disrepair during the 19th and 20th centuries, with the housesbeing used as tenements. Wikimedia.


to ensure that they can afford tolive in the social housing system.The increasing sums in the

cost-rental collective coffers overtime also give local authorities afinancial clout that is separatefrom the central government. Theadministration of these vastreserves is perhaps an explanationof why it is popular among bothpolicy wonks and some electedofficials.The tensions here seem

obvious. The cost-rental model isnot financed in a progressive way.It does not take into accountability to pay. For all the faults ofthe current differential-rentalmodel, once you get a councilhouse there is no housing povertywithin the housing system: yourrent is adjusted so that you havethe ability to pay—the issue beingthat getting a council house is sodifficult.The issues with the differential

model are that there just aren’tenough houses built, it isunderfunded, aimed only to everbe social housing, and isprevented by EU rules from takingon the private rental market.For this reason we need to

come up with a new terminologyfor what the CPI’s demand is:publicly built and owned housingfor all, with rents determined byability to pay.This is the tension that will bring

our class into conflict with the

landlord class and the EU (in itsposition as guarantor of rent-seeking capitalism). We need totake what is good from thedifferential-rental model, the lackof housing poverty—but it needsto be expanded to be a housingsolution for all who live in Ireland.In an ideal world, if a public

housing system for all wasimplemented, the rents leveragedon high earners would subsidisethe lower rents given to theunwaged, pensioners, and theprecarious. This would besupplemented by taxation whereneeded. The explicit aim of such ahousing policy would be to providea public home for everyone. Inthis way it would cease to be“differential” in the second senseoutlined, in that the aim is tosqueeze the private system out ofexistence.In 1945 the British state

established the National HealthService. Posters at that time read:“Your new National Health Servicebegins on 5th July. What is it?How do you get it? It will provideyou with all medical, dental andnursing care. Everyone—rich orpoor, man, woman or child—canuse any or part of it. There are nocharges, except for a few specialitems. There are no insurancequalifications. But it is not a‘Charity.’ You are all paying for it,mainly as taxpayers, and it willrelieve your money worries in the

time of illness.”It is this universalist principle

that we need to bring front andcentre. Public housing is notcharity. It is the provision of apublic need in the pursuit ofpublic good, by the public.The cost-rental model is

economic appeasement. It isabout depressing the housingmarket through the use of non-profit aims. But it is not achallenge to the private housingmarket. It dovetails into theprivate housing market. It is, bydesign, a unitary system thatattempts to improve standardsand reduce costs in the housingsystem as a whole through marketmechanisms.With respect to the good people

in many of the voluntary groups

who have done good work inresearching this area, as theCommunist Party we should beaiming for better.In It’s a Wonderful Life (1946)

George Bailey runs a family-ownedbuilding society that pools moneytogether to build nice houses forhis community. In the alternativereality, where he doesn’t exist, weinstead get Potterville, whereslums run rampant.While cost-rental systems might

be better than Potterville, we mustkeep one thing in mind. It’s aWonderful Life was a RepublicanParty vehicle for warning againstthe excesses of capitalism;instead they preferred thecompassionate face of localismand the petit-bourgeois. Weshould fight against both. H

per cent in Ireland. In a tax havenlike Jersey the rate of corporationtax is 0 per cent.So, if a transnational can shift

its profits from, say, France toIreland, it reduces the tax ratefrom 34 per cent to 12½ percent. And they have been doingthis since the 1950s.The savings can be immense,

especially if an Americantransnational operating fromIreland can reduce its rate ofcorporation tax to about 0 percent, as Apple has done in the€13 billion case taken by the EUCommission. If €13 billion is thetax you pay at 12½ per cent,then the profits involved would beover €100 billion. As thecorporation is an American one, itwould pay €38.9 billion tax onthese profits if they were declaredin America. So there is a savingof €25.9 billion by declaring in

Ireland and not declaring in theUnited States. That is, if theypaid the €13 billion to the Irishgovernment. As they did not, thesaving was €38.9 billion.The people who gain from all

this are the shareholders oftransnational companies; becauseif the companies pay nocorporation tax, then shareholderspay no corporation tax.If shareholders receive

dividends (income) fromcompanies each year, they haveto declare them to the taxinspector. The method ofdeclaring the dividends is self-assessment. Dividends, paid outof profits after corporation tax,are also subject to income tax.What’s left after dividends are

taken from profits and aftercorporation tax is called retainedearnings, and these are ploughedback into the company. They

cause the share price to rise, butagain the method of collection isself-assessment. But there is aloophole. If shareholders buytheir shares on the internet,national governments will notknow about their ownership ofshares. The shareholders will beable to avoid declaring theirdividends or capital gains. Sothey could end up paying nocorporation tax, no tax on theirdividends, and no tax on theircapital gains—no tax at all.Because of this the Irish

government has introduced awithholding tax on dividends of20 per cent. This applies only toresident Irish companies. If acompany that shareholdersinvested in is abroad, it is unlikelythat the Government will get anytax from the shareholders.This excludes the multi-

millionaire shareholders who are

resident abroad for tax purposes.They pay no tax in Ireland, eventhough they wield a lot ofinfluence here.Compare this 0 per cent tax

with the current PAYE tax rate of49 per cent for people earningover €33,800 in 2017, or on theannual average earnings of€37,419 in the third quarter of2017. These people pay 49 percent on each extra euro theyearn.Compare the shareholders’ 0

per cent tax with the current PAYErate (26½ per cent) for a personworking 40 hours a week on theminimum wage of €9.25 perhour. When tax and USC andPRSI are taken into account, theperson on the minimum wagepays 26½ per cent on each extraeuro he or she earns.It surely is a nice country to be

a shareholder in! H

be a shareholder in

Every so often, history presents uswith an amazing affirmation of ourhumanity, a sense of continuity, thepassing on of the torch. Jenny Farrellsuggests that this applies supremelyto Robert Burns’s song “For A’ That.”

ROBERT BURNS, born on 25 January 1759, lived inan age of revolution: the American War ofIndependence, the French Revolution, the anti-slavery

and anti-colonial revolution in Haïti and an agrarianrevolution in Scotland, to name some landmark events.Modernised agriculture brought with it financial gain on theone hand and social polarisation on the other—wealthytenants versus a rural proletariat.A class struggle in the modern sense ensued. Those owning the

means of production, providing food to the battlefields and theindustrial centres, made enormous profits. The poor had too little tolive on; financial crisis, hunger and tuberculosis swept over Scotland.The dispossessed of Scotland, among them Robert Burns1, warmly

welcomed the new ideas coming from across the Atlantic—“We holdthese truths to be self-evident: that all men are created equal”—joineda few years later by the French declaring a new era of liberty, equality,and fraternity. Not long before his early death at the age of thirty-sevenin 1796, Burns wrote his most famous song, “For A’ That,” a songcelebrating and affirming the idea of the universal brotherhood of thedispossessed.

Is there for honest PovertyThat hings his head, an’ a’ that;The coward slave—we pass him by,*We dare be poor for a’ that!For a’ that, an’ a’ that,Our toils obscure an’ a’ that,The rank is but the guinea’s stamp,†The Man’s the gowd‡ for a’ that.*we pass by the coward who is ashamed of his poverty†aristocratic rank is only the face stamped on a coin‡gold

At the heart of all Burns’s poetry are the concerns of the ordinarypeople of Scotland. By addressing the specifics of their lives, Burnsachieves a universality that applies to all working people. He gives voiceto milkmaids and ploughmen, weavers and farmers’ wives, soldiers andtravelling musicians, creating a cosmos in which ordinary folk canrecognise themselves as part of a whole community.Such a complete and realistic portrayal of the people asserts their

humanity and engenders pride in themselves, and a hatred for theirenemies. Depictions like these help Burns’s readers to feel the conflictbetween their humanity and the misery they endure. Ultimately, thisportrayal of the ordinary people points to the need for revolutionarychange.This logic lies at the core of Burns’s poetry, and perhaps most

outspokenly in “For A’ That.” This song reflects a sense of dignity, ascorn for the rich and a longing for universal brotherhood. The ideas ofliberty, equality and fraternity are no abstract slogans but already exist,rooted in the lives of the people, logical projections of their humanity.


CULTUREFrom Burns to Liebknecht

Ppoetry


Then let us pray that come it may,(As come it will for a’ that,)That Sense and Worth, o’er a’ the earth,Shall bear the gree,* an’ a’ that.For a’ that, an’ a’ that,It’s coming yet for a’ that,That Man to Man, the world o’er,Shall brothers be for a’ that.*take the prize

Ferdinand Freiligrath, a poet of the German bourgeois revolution ofMarch 1848 to July 1849 (and later a renegade), first translated “ForA’ That” into German, as “Trotz Alledem,” in 1843. Freiligrath, whoknew Marx and Engels, was a member of the Bund der Kommunisten(Communist League—founded in London in 1847) and a member ofthe editorial board of the revolutionary daily Neue Rheinische Zeitung,published by Marx and Engels between 1848 and 1849.At this time Freiligrath picked up Burns’s torch of revolution,

changing the text of “Trotz Alledem” to suit specifically the Germansituation while retaining the title, rhythm, and main idea. It was printedin the Neue Rheinische Zeitung2 on 6 June 1848, and this textsurvives in the German political song movement to this day.On 8 November 1918 the German sailors’ mutiny in Kiel sparked

revolutionary revolt throughout the country. When it reached Berlin, KarlLiebknecht proclaimed a free socialist republic of Germany. On 9November, Liebknecht and Rosa Luxemburg founded a new dailyrevolutionary paper, Die Rote Fahne (The Red Flag), as the paper ofthe Spartacus League, of which they were the leaders, and shortlyafterwards of the Communist Party, founded on 1 January 1919.Two weeks later, on 15 January 1919, both Liebknecht and

Luxemburg were murdered.3 Liebknecht had written his editorial for 15January the previous day. It is his final public statement, and his legacy.The article, seizing the torch of revolution, is entitled “Trotz alledem”(“For all that”), and it ends:The defeated of today will be the victorious of tomorrow . . . The

German working class’s way to Golgotha is not over . . . we areaccustomed to being plunged from the peak into the depths. Yet ourship keeps a straight course firmly and proudly to its destination.And whether we will still be alive when this is achieved—our

programme will live; it will govern the world of liberated humanity. Forall that! H

1 Burns was highly regarded in the USSR2 The final edition of the Neue Rheinische Zeitung, printed in red ink.Its editors were threatened with arrest or exile. Marx emigrated toLondon.3 The window above can still be seen in the former GDR Council ofState building in Berlin.

Cocky AbdulGabriel Rosenstock introduces and translates another poem from theIndian subcontinent, a poem that sings of man’s hope and despairand the never-ending disparity between the privileged and the poor.

Abdul SotalachRahul Rai

Samhlaigh le do thoil sotal Abdul bhoicht:Arsa Abdul bocht: “Bead i m’fhear mór lá breá éigin.”Arsa Abdul bocht: “Raghaidh mé ar scoil.”Arsa Abdul bocht: “Íosfaidh mé go dtí go mbeidh mé lán.”Arsa Abdul bocht: “Is mian liom a bheith saor.”Arsa Abdul bocht: “Is fuath liom an ricseá a tharraingt.”Arsa Abdul bocht: “Is fuath liom ragobair.”Arsa Abdul bocht: “Ní maith liom na saoistí ag tabhairt amach dom.”Arsa Abdul bocht: “Ní maith liom obair gan phá.”Samhlaigh le do thoil sotal Abdul bhoicht,a liacht sin éileamh aige, ainneoin é a bheith beo bocht.

Cocky AbdulRahul RaiJust imagine the cockiness of poor Abdul:Poor Abdul says: “I’ll be a big man one day.”Poor Abdul says: “I’ll go to school.”Poor Abdul says: “I’ll eat till I am full.”Poor Abdul says: “I want to be free.”Poor Abdul says: “I hate pulling the rickshaw.”Poor Abdul says: “I hate overtime.”Poor Abdul says: “I don’t like being scolded by the babus.”Poor Abdul says: “I hate unpaid work.”Just imagine the cockiness of poor Abdul,so many demands, despite being poor.

CONNOLLY BOOKS

Dublin’s oldest radical bookshop is namedafter James Connolly, Ireland’s socialistpioneer and martyrThe place for�H Irish history H politics�H philosophy H feminism H Marxist classics�H trade union affairs H environmental issues H progressive literature H radical periodicals43 East Essex Street, Dublin, between Temple Bar and Parliament Street (01) 6708707www.connollybooks.org

NATION


Graham Harrington

PATRICK PEARSE is anoften misunderstoodrevolutionary leader. He

is seen more as a romanticnationalist when comparedwith James Connolly. Indeedeven today some on the leftcriticise Connolly for makingan alliance with Pearse andthe Irish Volunteers in 1916.The problem with this simplistic

view is that it completely fails tounderstand that Pearse was asmuch of a revolutionary asConnolly.Lenin said that the great

misfortune of the Irish was thatthey had risen too soon, beforethe revolutionary upheavalselsewhere in Europe had time tooccur. The Great October SocialistRevolution had a massiveinfluence in countries such asIreland, with mass rallies tocelebrate it and the occupation ofwork-places around the country

having a powerful effect on Irishpolitical consciousness. Thiscreated the conditions thatallowed some of those involved inthe national liberation struggle toform the first Communist Party ofIreland in 1921.Pearse began his political life as

part of the Irish-languagemovement, joining Conradh naGaeilge at the age of sixteen andbecoming editor of its paper, AnClaidheamh Soluis, at twenty-three. He took inspiration fromsuch Protestant republicans asWolfe Tone and Robert Emmet,embracing the Irish republicanideology which was, of course,founded by Presbyterians. This iscontrary to the idea that Pearsewas a fundamentalist Catholic.Indeed, at a graveside oration to

Wolfe Tone, Pearse reiterated theUnited Irishmen’s definition of Irishnationhood as being beyondreligion or ethnicity, that in Ireland“there must be not two nations orthree nations but one nation, that

Protestant and Dissenter must bebrought into amity with Catholic,and that Catholic, Protestant andDissenter must unite to achievefreedom for all.”At the time of Pearse’s political

awakening, republicanism was themost revolutionary ideology inIreland. Karl Marx and FrederickEngels had supported the Fenianprisoners, and the Fenianmovement were the Irishrepresentatives in the FirstInternational. Pearse would laterbe one of the leaders of the IrishRepublican Brotherhood.Pearse had a radically different

understanding of education fromthe prevailing views. Hisexperiments at his own school, StEnda’s, were completely differentfrom those of the “MurderMachine,” as he characterised theBritish schooling system in Ireland.He saw the task of the educationsystem as preparing young peoplefor participation in democracy, asan environment in which it wasnecessary to create “freedom tothe individual school, freedom tothe individual teacher, freedom asfar as may be to the individualpupil.” His understanding ofeducation was completelyrevolutionary, and has manylessons for today.What did Pearse think of the

trade union movement, then in itsformative years? He was firmly onthe side of labour against capital.He wrote in response to the DublinLockout in 1913: “My instinct iswith the landless man against thelord of lands, and with thebreadless man against the masterof millions. I may be wrong but Ihold it a most terrible sin thatthere should be landless men inthis island of waste yet fertile

valleys, and that there should bebreadless men in this city wheregreat fortunes are made anddestroyed.”He later wrote in From a

Hermitage (1914): “There weremany men of money among theVolunteers of 1778–1783: it wasone of the weaknesses of themovement. Those who have arealways inclined to hold, alwaysafraid to risk. No good cause inIreland appeals for help in vainprovided those to whom it appealsare sufficiently poor.”As for politics, Pearse wrote in

The Sovereign People that “noprivate right of property is good asagainst the public right of thenation. But the nation is under amoral obligation so to exercise itspublic right as to secure strictlyequal rights and liberties to everyman and woman within the nation. . . It is for the nation todetermine to what extent privateproperty may be held by itsmembers and in what items of thenation’s material resources privateproperty shall be allowed . . . Letno man be mistaken as to who willbe lord in Ireland when Ireland isfree. The people will be lord andmaster.”Pearse was a revolutionary

democrat. His alliance withConnolly was complementary forboth leaders. His vision of a risenpeople, taking what they areentitled to, is still our demand inour own country, where thedenial of democracy has led topartition and two states caughtin the vice-grip of imperialism,with inequality and oppressionbeing the norm. The only solutionis the socialist republic, therepublic of Tone, Connolly,Pearse, Marx, and Lenin. H

Join the fight for socialismSend me information on Communist Party membership

name

address

post code

email phone

send to CPI 43 East Essex Street Dublin DO2 XH96 or CPI PO Box 85 Belfast BT1 1SR

H

Patrick Pearse: A revolutionary democrat

Documents

Partisan Patriotic Internationalist Number 155 January ... · progressive policy that finds its way there—as is intended. That is the system. What are the results and findings of