1913-2006 The Workers' Struggle continues

by John Tue Oct 31, 2006 20:53

According to Baby Sinn Fein "If we are to achieve an Irish Socialist Republic, the workers born in Warsaw are as important as the workers born in Wicklow". There is one major difference between workers born in Warsaw and workers born in Wicklow. The workers born in Warsaw have allready experienced a Socialist Republic. They know how crap it is. You're unlikely to win many recruits from workers born in Warsaw, or Budapest, or Prague, or Tallinn.

by Topper Tue Oct 31, 2006 23:50

Not quite, John. Polish workers will have experienced Stalinism (if they're old enough). They fought against Stalinism in 1956, in 1970 and in 1980-81 by using the same methods of struggle the Irish working class used in 1913. Solidarnosc was one of the most powerful workers' movements of the twentieth century. It contained different ideological elements: democratic socialists, free-market liberals and Catholic conservatives. Unfortunately, the latter two tendencies won out, because the Left was in poor shape in global politics when the Polish dictatorship finally collapsed (and the right-wing elements in Solidarnosc got generous support from the USA and the Vatican). They proceeded to make a mess of Poland after 1989, creating mass poverty and unemployment and imposing reactionary social policies.

It's the same story elsewhere in Eastern Europe - resistance to Stalinism often came under the banner of democratic socialism (as in Hungary in 1956 and Czechoslovakia in 1968). But liberal and conservative elements came to the fore after 1989, and made a mess of the liberation.

If Sinn Fein (or anyone else) appeals to workers from Eastern Europe in the name of socialism, they should make it clear that they believe in a democratic road to socialism, and take note of the traditions of democratic socialism in those countries. Then it should be quite possible for them to have a dialogue with them and win some of them over.

At any rate, we could do with seeing some of the spirit Polish workers showed in the Gdansk shipyards over here...

by John Wed Nov 01, 2006 09:28

Not quite, Topper. I think you'll find that the late Mr. Stalin died in 1953. I don't think you can put all the blame on him for the ruination of eastern Europe between 1953 and 1990. But, it fits a pattern. Everywhere that socialism has been tried it has led to economic catastrophe. When this becomes apparent to the masses the adherents of socialism have an escape clause which consists of saying that what was tried wasn't really socialism after all but something else, whether Stalinism, Kruschevism, Brezhnevism or whatever. If only socialists could come up with just one country in the world that they're proud to claim as genuinely socialist, then we could compare how its performing with how Ireland is performing. And, if its performing better than Ireland, I'll convert to socialism. I've asked for the name of such a country many times here, but never any answer. Perhaps you can tell me of one. No doubt if Joe Higgins and his Socialist Party sweep to power in the next election and in a decade's time we're all destitute and emigrating to by then prosperous Bulgaria and Romania in search of jobs, they'll all be saying that it wasn't socialism that failed in Ireland but Higginsism. You also say "unfortunately, the latter two tendencies (i.e. free-market liberals and Catholic conservatives) won out" and "but liberal and conservative elements came to the fore after 1989". Do you think perhaps that might be because that was the first time they'd had free elections in those countries?

by Charlie Kerins Wed Nov 01, 2006 16:37

This particular issue, or rather how it has been handled, demonstrates the contradictions at the heart of Sinn Féin policy. It is no wonder that Sinn Féin has experienced a steady decline in support in the Republic, particulay in Dublin.

Increased trade union organising efforts will be unsuccessful in ameliorating wages as long as their is an open border policy with the ten "new accession states". The Government was too hasty in waiving restrictions on the right travel and free movement of workers from those countries, which was within our right. Sinn Féin and ICTU were wrong in failing to oppose this development. The result is the displacement of Irish workers from their jobs and the undercutting of wages by non-nationals.

An example of this is Irish Ferries. Hundreds of Irish maritime workers lost their jobs to cheaper Latvians in what was a divisive issue even in Latvia. These Latvian, quite frankly, scabs. In times gone past they might well have been vulnerable to attack and worse, as such. Which is ironic because "scabs" are what so-called "radical youth" or Republicans are calling Mayo employees of Shell. Whatever one's opinions of Corrib Gas controversy, at least those workers it must be said have not deprived anyone of a job. The protestors have blocaded the terminal and are intent on preventing any work being conducted there. What did Sinn Féin or similar so-called radicals do during the Irish Ferries dispute? They held a rally. That was pretty much it. The college cumann wing of Sinn Féin and others got their day out to pretend at playing revolutionaries, condemn job displacement but not advance any practical solutions to the crisis. There was no blocade of the port, the Latvians were permitted operate the vessels. Despite unprecedented public support the two unions were left to their own devices in negotiations with the company which some observers liken to a draw: SIPTU's more senior, technical staff were retained while the SUI's membership (most of the company's employees and of same union's membership) were made redundant. There ought not have been work for those Latvians with Irish Ferries.

This was a crippling blow to the union movement and Sinn Féin was unwilling to engage more vigorously in the struggle. Why? The likely reasons are multifold: Sinn Féin's President is now deemed fit to address the Dublin Chamber of commerce and is therefore unlikely to wish to appear too "bolshie". Hence the absence of the words "socialist republican" in any official press release or document for the public. The only use of that term is now restricted to kids on anarchist websites such as this one.

Another reason for Sinn Féin desertion of the Irish Ferries workers is that the party is now attempting to pander to a politically-correct, liberal electorate in certain constituencies such as DSE (where many of this Irish workers likely live. Methinks Sinn Féin may have won some fickle, middle class votes but lost more working class support) and as such any condemnation of job displacement is qualified with fulsome declarations to the right of foreign workers to come work here. Absent from Sinn Féin policy on this issue (if their collective positions and contradictory motions could be considered as such. Their sole policy paper which in some way concerns immigration, "Many Voice One Country" was released in 2001 and the new position paper is due in 2008. After the election, which I reckon will determine its content to some extent) is any acknowledgement of the wider societal implications of unrestrained immigration.

In summation, it's a bit rich for Sinn Féin to lecture others on trade unionism given their dereliction of duty last year on Dublin's docks. Irish Ferries will cast a long shadow for some time to come.

by Topper Wed Nov 01, 2006 17:40

For the sake of pedantic minds like John's - "Stalinism" is generally used to describe the systems that existed in Russia and Eastern Europe until 1989. Some of the worst features of Stalin's period in power stopped after his death, but the basic features of the system (one party state, censorship and political repression, command economy etc) remained very much in place. They didn't try several different systems and reach the same outcome - they repeated the Soviet model in every country, without any variation worth talking about.

There's a few examples of democratic socialism in practice that I can think of - Spain in the republican areas during the civil war, Chile under Salvador Allende, Nicaragua under the Sandinistas. Not perfect in every regard, but they worked very well under difficult circumstances, delivered social progress for the people who lived through the experiment, and had to be crushed by extreme violence because they had strong popular support from those people. Hungary and Czechoslovakia might also have developed down that road if it hadn't been for the intervention of the Soviet tanks. And while there's never been a society in western Europe that I'd consider socialist, many of the demands of the socialist movement have been implemented, at least partially, and made life a lot more bearable for people in those countries (i.e universal suffrage, an 8-hour working day, unemployment benefit, old age pensions, state-subsidised health care, trade union rights, all of which were considered crazily utopian when the Socialist International included them in its programme of basic demands in 1889).

As I've already said, the opposition to Stalinism in Eastern Europe was often inspired by the idea of democratic socialism ("socialism with a human face", as the Czech slogan had it). Imre Nagy was immensely popular in Hungary when he put forward the idea of a socialist system that would allow multi-party elections and an independent foreign policy. Alexander Dubcek probably had the support of 90% of his people when the Soviet invasion began. The Solidarnosc movement in Poland didn't describe itself as socialist, and many of its supporters would have been hostile to the term because they associated it with Stalinism. But many of its activists did consider themselves democratic socialists, and some of the demands put forward by the Polish workers' movement (egalitarian wage scales, workers' control over production) came straight out of the socialist tradition.

Very few of the dissident movements in Eastern Europe wanted to overthrow the regimes so they could establish an extreme free-market system: people like Vaclav Havel would have seen Sweden or Austria as a better model. But the collapse of Stalinism came at a time when the Left in western Europe had been on the retreat for most of the last decade: Thatcher had beaten the labour movement in Britain, the Mitterand government in France had abandoned most of its left-wing policies, even the Scandinavian social democrats were doing poorly by their standards. So there was an ideological vacuum that was filled by ultra-Thatcherite policies.

As I noted above, these policies made a complete mess of the economies of Central and Eastern Europe, economic growth fell by about a third in a few years, living standards for the majority of the population plummeted. Even in Romania and Albania, where you wouldn't have thought it was possible to make people any poorer, they managed it. People were so fed up with the social consequences that they soon voted ex-communists back into power in countries like Poland and Hungary, where you'd think anyone associated with the old regime would have been damned for many years to come (the ex-communists themselves were mostly a wretched bunch who didn't have any real alternative to offer, but the fact that they could win free elections shows how much of a mess the free-marketers mangaged to create).

You can, if you like, see this whole sorry sage as a triumph for PD-style ideology, but it requires a particularly strong effort to ignore inconvenient facts. I'm sure you'll rise to the occasion though John...

by Jan Vennegoor of Hesselink Fri Nov 03, 2006 18:17

Both of you ought to focus on the subject of the above post, rather than tangential topics......?

by Topper Fri Nov 03, 2006 18:32

I know discussion threads often wander far off the point Jan (it is a great name for a footballer isn't it) but I don't think that's the case here. The original article by the OSF member argued for a socialist republic in Ireland. The chances are, if you go out arguing for this, you'll hear the same anti-socialist arguments put forward by John. So people better be ready to answer them convincingly.

And if socialists and trade unionists want to organise immigrant workers from Eastern Europe, as the article rightly says we have to, we should expect that some at least of them will be suspicious of any idea of "socialism" because of the experience of their own countries - so democratic socialists need to be able to explain why their ideas have nothing to do with the "socialism" of the Stasi and the Gulags.

by Hugh Murphy - sacked by my union Wed Nov 08, 2006 22:08

I ask all trade unionists to read my postings on indymedia Siptu Atgwu and my blog ,Corrupt Siptu and comment.