textfiles/politics/SPUNK/sp001102.txt

2 articles
2nd is 'When the unemployed elected their own TD'

********** Why Anarchists don't vote in Elections *********
                          from Workers Solidarity No 32

IT'S LOCAL ELECTION time and as usual 
politicians of all parties will be promising us 
wonderful things.  It's probable that this election 
will also show an increased vote for the Labour 
Party.  Yet it is fair enough to ask "what difference 
will it make". 

We are used to being promised the sun, moon and stars 
in elections only to receive cuts, cuts and cuts.  Is this 
just because all politicians are liars or are there deeper 
reasons?  Abstention from elections has been an 
anarchist tactic from the time of Bakunin.  In this article 
we look at some of the reasons anarchists advocate 
abstention/spoilt votes.

The right to the vote was part of the hard won struggles 
of workers (and suffragettes!) over the last couple of 
hundred years.  Obviously it is preferable to live in a 
parliamentary democracy rather than a dictatorship.  
Even the most flawed democracies are forced to concede 
rights that dictatorships do not, such as relative 
independence for trade unions, the right to limited 
demonstrations, a certain amount of free speech, etc. 

However it is clear that none of these are absolutes, as 
anti-trade union legislation, Section 31 and the refusal 
to allow nationalist marches into Belfast city centre 
adequately demonstrate.  The amount of freedom is set 
by how much the bosses need to give to keep the system 
flowing, plus the amount that is forced from them 
through the struggle of workers.

The real purpose of parliament is not to ensure the 
country is run according to the wishes of all the people, 
cherishing all their views equally.  Parliament instead 
provides a democratic facade beyond which the real 
business of managing capitalism goes on. 

The Goodman affair and the bailing out of Insurance 
Corporation of Ireland a few years back demonstrate 
how the real decisions are made in the boardrooms of 
the large industrial concerns.  In the unlikely event of a 
government being elected which goes "too far" in the eyes 
of the bosses they are quick to use any means necessary 
to remove it.

BEHIND THE FACADE
	
The best known example of this is perhaps the removal 
of the democratically elected Allende government in Chile 
in 1972.  They had attempted to bring in a limited 
package of reforms and nationalise some of the larger 
American industries.  The result was a military coup 
backed by the CIA. 

The workers in Chile were politically disarmed by their 
reliance on a small group of elected deputies to liberate 
them.  There was little organised resistance to the 
military and in the immediate aftermath over 30,000 
militants were executed and 1,000,000 fled into exile.

In practise however capitalism seldom finds need for 
such methods, their complete control of the media and 
the reliance of the political parties on big business for 
funds is enough of a check.  Organisations like the Irish 
and British Labour Parties spend most of their time 
trying to prove they can manage capitalism just as well 
as the Tories or Fianna F<>il. 

They argue their policies are a way of avoiding strikes 
and any other form of class strife.  They say their politics 
of class collaboration are more efficient to capitalism 
then a hard headed class strife approach of lock-outs 
and union busting. 

To the bosses this is often a good argument, sometimes 
it is worth handing out a few crumbs in return for 
industrial peace. At other times when a serious crisis 
necessitates a driving down of wages or living standards 
they can always either force this government to 
implement the cuts, precipitate a general election or - in 
extreme cases -  turn to a police states.

P.E.S.P. LOGIC

This sort of logic has nothing to do with socialism.  
Indeed the current Fianna F<>il/PD government has been 
successfully pursuing the same logic through the 
Programme for Economic and Social Progress and before 
that the PNR.  These deals mean the union bureaucrats 
actively stopping and sabotaging strikes in return for 
pay increases below the rate of inflation.  So in a 
comparative 'boom' period of the Irish economy when 
company profits doubled Irish workers made real losses 
with regards to wages and employment and lost ground 
as regards the social wage (health care, education, etc). 

The Labour and Workers Parties may have objected to 
parts of the PESP but they supported the idea of 'social 
partnership' as it is part of their strategy for government 
as well.

There are times of course when more radical reformist 
governments are elected (in other countries if not as yet 
in Ireland).  These included Spain in 1936 and the post 
war British Labour government.  The function of these 
governments however was to lead the working class 
away from the road to social revolution, to suggest the 
same gains could be made through parliament.

When put to the test however in the Spanish case by the 
fascist coup the government preferred negotiation with 
the fascists to arming the working class.  In Spain the 
initial resistance to fascism was carried out by the 
militant workers of the anarchist C.N.T. who seized 
arms or attacked fascist barracks with dynamite and 
shotguns.

A similar example is seen throughout Europe in the 
immediate aftermath of the Russian revolution as the 
reformists in one country after another stood on the 
basis that electing them would prevent revolution.  Vote 
for us and save capitalism.  Unfortunately at such times 
such parties often gain mass support, this is why it is 
vital anarchists take up the arguments around 
reformism rather than assuming such ideas will just 
fade away with the revolution.

GOOD LEADERS?	

These arguments are common to most revolutionary 
socialists, but anarchists have another and more 
fundamental reason for opposing the parliamentary 
process.  This process involves the mass of the working 
class relying on a few representatives to enter 
parliament and do battle on their behalf.  Their sole 
involvement is one of voting every few years and perhaps 
canvassing and supporting the party through paper 
sales or whatever.  A reliance on a physical leader or 
leaders from Neil Kinnock to Mary Robinson to sort out 
the situation for us.

Anarchists do not belive any real socialist / anarchist 
society can come about through the good actions of a few 
individuals.  From the beginnings of the anarchist 
movement around the International Working Mens' (sic) 
Association (better known as the 'First International') 
over a century ago, we have argued that the liberation of 
the working class can only be achieved through the 
action of the working class. 

At the time this argument was with the Marxists, now 
with the collapse of many major Marxist parties in the 
wake of the collapse of Eastern Europe it is mainly with 
reformists.  The process of bringing about an anarchist 
society will either be carried through by the mass of the 
workers or it will not happen.

This idea is obviously the complete opposite to the 
parliamentary idea.  We do not seek a few leaders, good, 
bad or indifferent to sort out the mess that is 
capitalism.  Indeed we argue constantly against any 
ideas that make it seem such elites are necessary. 

Parliamentary politics relies on voting for people because 
they are going to do the job (or some of it) for you.  Even 
the best intentioned individual on receiving a position of 
power finds a divergence of interests with those she/he 
represents.  This is as much true of revolutionaries and 
union bureaucrats as it is of ministers and prime 
ministers.
	
MAKING THE ARGUMENTS

This brings us to the question of how should anarchists 
tackle the parliamentary system.   How do we convince 
everyone not to vote?  Perhaps we should put all our 
energy into anti-election campaigns.

In fact this is not seen as a major activity by most 
anarchists at all.  Our aim is not to have elections where 
only 10% vote, for such a thing would be meaningless in 
itself.  In the U.S.A. only about 30% vote in most 
elections and it is possible that up to 50% of the 
population is not even registered to vote.  Only a fool 
however would claim this meant the U.S. was more 
anarchist then Ireland.  If that 10% or 30% is still 
electing the government it might as well be 99%.

Our aim is to change society by winning the working 
class to the ideas and tactics of anarchism.  This will 
involve the overthrow of the economic system 
(capitalism) we live under and its replacement with 
socialism under workers' self-management.  Not voting 
may just be a sign of despair ("What's the point"), we 
want workers actively struggling for the alternative. 

Our anti-electoralism is designed to say two things.  
Firstly that parliament is not the real seat of power in 
society.  Secondly that the task of bringing in anarchism 
is for the working class, not some small group of TD's. 

We will gain support for anarchist ideas not just through 
abstract propaganda but also by our involvement as 
anarchists in workers' struggles and demonstrating 
how anarchism provides the best tools for winning day 
to day reforms.  
	
REFORMIST WORKERS

Most of the active militants in the working class support 
reformist parties, this is an obvious fact.  This has led 
many revolutionary groups to adopt slogans at election 
times telling workers to "vote Labour with no illusions" 
or "vote Labour but build a socialist alternative".  We 
don't.  

The problems with both these slogans are they still 
reflect the idea that change should be brought about be 
the small elites.  They are normally defended by saying 
this is putting the reformist parties to the test so that 
they can be exposed to their supporters.  This is a 
nonsense, as a brief look at any of the Irish left reformist 
organisations shows. 

The reformist organisations have failed the 'test' on 
dozens of occasions.  Workers vote for these 
organisations not because they believe they will 
introduce socialism but because they are seen to offer 
the best of the bad deal that is capitalism.

This is also presented as an argument for voting for the 
reformist parties.  Is it not ultra-left to refuse to support 
these parties while they may be slightly better than 
Fianna Fail or Fine Gael?  Two answers exist to this. 

The first is that as the real decision making takes place 
in industry and not in parliament these organisations 
even in majority government can only do what 
capitalism allows them.  Their only argument is to 
organise capitalism more "humanly".  We want to 
smash capitalism, not give it a human face.  The sight of 
a "socialist government" implementing cuts and 
breaking strikes damages the credibility of socialism in 
the eyes of workers, as did the existence of the "socialist" 
police states of eastern Europe. 

Secondly, it is a question of energy.  The sort of effort 
that is spent supporting (critically or otherwise) 
reformist organisation is energy taken away from the 
struggles for improved working conditions, better wages 
etc.  Elections do not take place in a vacuum in which 
nothing else takes place in society for a number of 
months. 

A strike or demonstration of thousands of workers has 
more chance of effecting real change then 20 Labour or 
Workers party TD's.  In times of mass unrest energy 
pumped into reformist parties will be energy used to 
undermine the revolution.  As so many Chilean socialists 
found, revolutionaries supporting such organisations are 
likely to find the are literally digging their own grave.
	
EXCEPTIONS TO THE RULE

There are occasions where anarchists might support 
individuals standing in elections.  This is when such 
people stand on a single issue and abstensionist basis.  
At times this may be an effective way of showing mass 
support for something when faced with a massive hype 
against it from the capitalist press.  Other forms of 
demonstrating support may be difficult due to large 
scale intimidation, victimisation of activists, etc. 

One example of such an occasion in the Irish context was 
the H-Block hunger strikes of 1981 for political status.  
The election of Bobby Sands as MP for 
Fermanagh/South Tyrone and the election of two more 
H-Block prisoners as TD's south of the border 
demonstrated a mass support for the hunger strikers.  It 
undermined government and press claims that they had 
the support of only a tiny minority. 

Such support must be on the basis of giving workers the 
confidence to openly come out and demonstrate, strike, 
etc.  It is a tactic towards such mobilisations not an end 
in itself.

Problems exist with this, commonly the individual 
elected may take up her/his seat despite pre-election 
promises of abstention if elected.  Even in the hunger 
strike case where those on hunger strikes could not take 
up their seats the danger of such tactics is obvious.  The 
vote was seen by Sinn Fein as proof that a turn towards 
electoral politics was the correct direction for anti-
imperialism to take. 

The potential of a mass campaign at the time of the 
hunger strikes based on strikes North and South of the 
border was thus lost.  The decision to support a single 
issue candidate would have to involve hard arguments 
on the subsequent direction of the campaign and could 
not be taken lightly.

Another instance where anarchists would not urge a 
abstention from the bosses electoral process is in the 
case of referendums.  The WSM was involved (and 
indeed still is) in the Divorce Action Group.  Despite the 
severe limitations of the 1986 referendum we still 
canvassed for a YES vote. 

In the 1983 anti-abortion referendum anarchists 
advocated a NO vote.  Of course we don't accept the 
conclusions of either referendum as final.  We still fight 
for the right to divorce and a woman's right to control her 
fertility up to and including free, safe abortion on 
demand.  Such things are democratic rights in 
themselves, something no majority should have a veto 
over.

What do we say to people in the reformist parties?  They 
can not (and should not) be ignored.  We say look at the 
record of your party in government or to the Workers 
Party when you supported the 1981 minority Fianna 
Fail government. 

Look at what your party stands for.  Look at the record 
of your party in the trade union bureaucracy.  Look at 
the historical role reformist parties have played in other 
countries.  Reformism has had it's test and failed one 
hundred times.    Leave it, find out more about 
anarchism and join the fight for working class self-
emancipation.

Andrew Flood

Andrew Flood
Conor McLoughlin
Andrew Blackmore
Alan MacSim<69>in
Joe Black
Joe King
Aileen O'Carroll



IT'S LOCAL ELECTION time and as usual politicians 
of all parties will be promising us wonderful things.  
It's probable that this election will also show an 
increased vote for the Labour Party.  Yet it is fair 
enough to ask "what difference will it make". 

We are used to being promised the sun, moon and stars in 
elections only to receive cuts, cuts and cuts.  Is this just 
because all politicians are liars or are there deeper reasons?  
Abstention from elections has been an anarchist tactic from 
the time of Bakunin.  In this article we look at some of the 
reasons anarchists advocate abstention/spoilt votes.

The right to the vote was part of the hard won struggles of 
workers (and suffragettes!) over the last couple of hundred 
years.  Obviously it is preferable to live in a parliamentary 
democracy rather than a dictatorship.  Even the most 
flawed democracies are forced to concede rights that 
dictatorships do not, such as relative independence for 
trade unions, the right to limited demonstrations, a certain 
amount of free speech, etc. 

However it is clear that none of these are absolutes, as 
anti-trade union legislation, Section 31 and the refusal to 
allow nationalist marches into Belfast city centre 
adequately demonstrate.  The amount of freedom is set by 
how much the bosses need to give to keep the system 
flowing, plus the amount that is forced from them through 
the struggle of workers.

The real purpose of parliament is not to ensure the country 
is run according to the wishes of all the people, cherishing 
all their views equally.  Parliament instead provides a 
democratic facade beyond which the real business of 
managing capitalism goes on. 

The Goodman affair and the bailing out of Insurance 
Corporation of Ireland a few years back demonstrate how 
the real decisions are made in the boardrooms of the large 
industrial concerns.  In the unlikely event of a government 
being elected which goes "too far" in the eyes of the bosses 
they are quick to use any means necessary to remove it.

BEHIND THE FACADE
	
The best known example of this is perhaps the removal of 
the democratically elected Allende government in Chile in 
1972.  They had attempted to bring in a limited package of 
reforms and nationalise some of the larger American 
industries.  The result was a military coup backed by the 
CIA. 

The workers in Chile were politically disarmed by their 
reliance on a small group of elected deputies to liberate 
them.  There was little organised resistance to the military 
and in the immediate aftermath over 30,000 militants were 
executed and 1,000,000 fled into exile.

In practise however capitalism seldom finds need for such 
methods, their complete control of the media and the 
reliance of the political parties on big business for funds is 
enough of a check.  Organisations like the Irish and British 
Labour Parties spend most of their time trying to prove 
they can manage capitalism just as well as the Tories or 
Fianna F<>il. 

They argue their policies are a way of avoiding strikes and 
any other form of class strife.  They say their politics of 
class collaboration are more efficient to capitalism then a 
hard headed class strife approach of lock-outs and union 
busting. 

To the bosses this is often a good argument, sometimes it is 
worth handing out a few crumbs in return for industrial 
peace. At other times when a serious crisis necessitates a 
driving down of wages or living standards they can always 
either force this government to implement the cuts, 
precipitate a general election or - in extreme cases -  turn 
to a police states.

P.E.S.P. LOGIC

This sort of logic has nothing to do with socialism.  Indeed 
the current Fianna F<>il/PD government has been 
successfully pursuing the same logic through the 
Programme for Economic and Social Progress and before 
that the PNR.  These deals mean the union bureaucrats 
actively stopping and sabotaging strikes in return for pay 
increases below the rate of inflation.  So in a comparative 
'boom' period of the Irish economy when company profits 
doubled Irish workers made real losses with regards to 
wages and employment and lost ground as regards the social 
wage (health care, education, etc). 

The Labour and Workers Parties may have objected to parts 
of the PESP but they supported the idea of 'social 
partnership' as it is part of their strategy for government as 
well.

There are times of course when more radical reformist 
governments are elected (in other countries if not as yet in 
Ireland).  These included Spain in 1936 and the post war 
British Labour government.  The function of these 
governments however was to lead the working class away 
from the road to social revolution, to suggest the same 
gains could be made through parliament.

When put to the test however in the Spanish case by the 
fascist coup the government preferred negotiation with the 
fascists to arming the working class.  In Spain the initial 
resistance to fascism was carried out by the militant workers 
of the anarchist C.N.T. who seized arms or attacked fascist 
barracks with dynamite and shotguns.

A similar example is seen throughout Europe in the 
immediate aftermath of the Russian revolution as the 
reformists in one country after another stood on the basis 
that electing them would prevent revolution.  Vote for us 
and save capitalism.  Unfortunately at such times such 
parties often gain mass support, this is why it is vital 
anarchists take up the arguments around reformism rather 
than assuming such ideas will just fade away with the 
revolution.

GOOD LEADERS?	

These arguments are common to most revolutionary 
socialists, but anarchists have another and more 
fundamental reason for opposing the parliamentary process.  
This process involves the mass of the working class relying 
on a few representatives to enter parliament and do battle 
on their behalf.  Their sole involvement is one of voting 
every few years and perhaps canvassing and supporting the 
party through paper sales or whatever.  A reliance on a 
physical leader or leaders from Neil Kinnock to Mary 
Robinson to sort out the situation for us.

Anarchists do not belive any real socialist / anarchist 
society can come about through the good actions of a few 
individuals.  From the beginnings of the anarchist 
movement around the International Working Mens' (sic) 
Association (better known as the 'First International') over 
a century ago, we have argued that the liberation of the 
working class can only be achieved through the action of 
the working class. 

At the time this argument was with the Marxists, now with 
the collapse of many major Marxist parties in the wake of 
the collapse of Eastern Europe it is mainly with reformists.  
The process of bringing about an anarchist society will 
either be carried through by the mass of the workers or it 
will not happen.

This idea is obviously the complete opposite to the 
parliamentary idea.  We do not seek a few leaders, good, bad 
or indifferent to sort out the mess that is capitalism.  
Indeed we argue constantly against any ideas that make it 
seem such elites are necessary. 

Parliamentary politics relies on voting for people because 
they are going to do the job (or some of it) for you.  Even 
the best intentioned individual on receiving a position of 
power finds a divergence of interests with those she/he 
represents.  This is as much true of revolutionaries and 
union bureaucrats as it is of ministers and prime ministers.
	
MAKING THE ARGUMENTS

This brings us to the question of how should anarchists 
tackle the parliamentary system.   How do we convince 
everyone not to vote?  Perhaps we should put all our 
energy into anti-election campaigns.

In fact this is not seen as a major activity by most 
anarchists at all.  Our aim is not to have elections where 
only 10% vote, for such a thing would be meaningless in 
itself.  In the U.S.A. only about 30% vote in most elections 
and it is possible that up to 50% of the population is not 
even registered to vote.  Only a fool however would claim 
this meant the U.S. was more anarchist then Ireland.  If 
that 10% or 30% is still electing the government it might as 
well be 99%.

Our aim is to change society by winning the working class 
to the ideas and tactics of anarchism.  This will involve the 
overthrow of the economic system (capitalism) we live under 
and its replacement with socialism under workers' self-
management.  Not voting may just be a sign of despair 
("What's the point"), we want workers actively struggling 
for the alternative. 

Our anti-electoralism is designed to say two things.  Firstly 
that parliament is not the real seat of power in society.  
Secondly that the task of bringing in anarchism is for the 
working class, not some small group of TD's. 

We will gain support for anarchist ideas not just through 
abstract propaganda but also by our involvement as 
anarchists in workers' struggles and demonstrating how 
anarchism provides the best tools for winning day to day 
reforms.  
	
REFORMIST WORKERS

Most of the active militants in the working class support 
reformist parties, this is an obvious fact.  This has led many 
revolutionary groups to adopt slogans at election times 
telling workers to "vote Labour with no illusions" or "vote 
Labour but build a socialist alternative".  We don't.  

The problems with both these slogans are they still reflect 
the idea that change should be brought about be the small 
elites.  They are normally defended by saying this is putting 
the reformist parties to the test so that they can be exposed 
to their supporters.  This is a nonsense, as a brief look at 
any of the Irish left reformist organisations shows. 

The reformist organisations have failed the 'test' on dozens 
of occasions.  Workers vote for these organisations not 
because they believe they will introduce socialism but 
because they are seen to offer the best of the bad deal that 
is capitalism.

This is also presented as an argument for voting for the 
reformist parties.  Is it not ultra-left to refuse to support 
these parties while they may be slightly better than Fianna 
Fail or Fine Gael?  Two answers exist to this. 

The first is that as the real decision making takes place in 
industry and not in parliament these organisations even in 
majority government can only do what capitalism allows 
them.  Their only argument is to organise capitalism more 
"humanly".  We want to smash capitalism, not give it a 
human face.  The sight of a "socialist government" 
implementing cuts and breaking strikes damages the 
credibility of socialism in the eyes of workers, as did the 
existence of the "socialist" police states of eastern Europe. 

Secondly, it is a question of energy.  The sort of effort that 
is spent supporting (critically or otherwise) reformist 
organisation is energy taken away from the struggles for 
improved working conditions, better wages etc.  Elections 
do not take place in a vacuum in which nothing else takes 
place in society for a number of months. 

A strike or demonstration of thousands of workers has more 
chance of effecting real change then 20 Labour or Workers 
party TD's.  In times of mass unrest energy pumped into 
reformist parties will be energy used to undermine the 
revolution.  As so many Chilean socialists found, 
revolutionaries supporting such organisations are likely to 
find the are literally digging their own grave.
	
EXCEPTIONS TO THE RULE

There are occasions where anarchists might support 
individuals standing in elections.  This is when such people 
stand on a single issue and abstensionist basis.  At times 
this may be an effective way of showing mass support for 
something when faced with a massive hype against it from 
the capitalist press.  Other forms of demonstrating support 
may be difficult due to large scale intimidation, 
victimisation of activists, etc. 

One example of such an occasion in the Irish context was 
the H-Block hunger strikes of 1981 for political status.  The 
election of Bobby Sands as MP for Fermanagh/South 
Tyrone and the election of two more H-Block prisoners as 
TD's south of the border demonstrated a mass support for 
the hunger strikers.  It undermined government and press 
claims that they had the support of only a tiny minority. 

Such support must be on the basis of giving workers the 
confidence to openly come out and demonstrate, strike, etc.  
It is a tactic towards such mobilisations not an end in itself.

Problems exist with this, commonly the individual elected 
may take up her/his seat despite pre-election promises of 
abstention if elected.  Even in the hunger strike case 
where those on hunger strikes could not take up their seats 
the danger of such tactics is obvious.  The vote was seen by 
Sinn Fein as proof that a turn towards electoral politics was 
the correct direction for anti-imperialism to take. 

The potential of a mass campaign at the time of the hunger 
strikes based on strikes North and South of the border was 
thus lost.  The decision to support a single issue candidate 
would have to involve hard arguments on the subsequent 
direction of the campaign and could not be taken lightly.

Another instance where anarchists would not urge a 
abstention from the bosses electoral process is in the case of 
referendums.  The WSM was involved (and indeed still is) in 
the Divorce Action Group.  Despite the severe limitations of 
the 1986 referendum we still canvassed for a YES vote. 

In the 1983 anti-abortion referendum anarchists advocated 
a NO vote.  Of course we don't accept the conclusions of 
either referendum as final.  We still fight for the right to 
divorce and a woman's right to control her fertility up to 
and including free, safe abortion on demand.  Such things 
are democratic rights in themselves, something no majority 
should have a veto over.

What do we say to people in the reformist parties?  They 
can not (and should not) be ignored.  We say look at the 
record of your party in government or to the Workers Party 
when you supported the 1981 minority Fianna Fail 
government. 

Look at what your party stands for.  Look at the record of 
your party in the trade union bureaucracy.  Look at the 
historical role reformist parties have played in other 
countries.  Reformism has had it's test and failed one 
hundred times.    Leave it, find out more about anarchism 
and join the fight for working class self-emancipation.

Andrew Flood

******* When the unemployed elected their own TD *******
    from Workers Solidarity No 33

A SURVEY carried out by the Connolly 
Unemployed Centre at three labour exchanges 
in Dublin's South Inner City during the recent 
local elections showed that 90% of respondents 
would vote for an unemployed party if there 
was one running.  Is this a way forward in the 
fight for decent jobs for all who want them?  It 
is worth taking a look at what happened in 
1957 when an unemployed  candidate made it 
into the D<>il.

Ireland saw a massive rise in unemployment in the 
1950s, ironically at a time when the rest of the 
'western world' was booming.  Emigration was to be 
the safety valve.  However not all those out of work 
were prepared to uproot themselves and take the 
boat.  Some stayed to fight.

Unemployment meant poverty.  A couple with two 
children on Unemployment Assistance were entitled 
to just <20>1.90 a week.  This bought very little, e.g. a 
pound of butter cost 21p.  People often lived on little 
more than bread, margarine and tea.  

The Unemployed Protest Committee was launched 
on January 12th 1957 when a chair was borrowed 
from a local shop and a public meeting held outside 
Dublin's Werburgh Street labour exchange.  A 
committee of about 16 men (no women were 
involved nor does it appear that any serious attempt 
was made to involve them) began to meet.  Among 
their number were Sam Nolan (today an official of 
the builders' union UCATT and a member of the 
Labour Party), Johnny Mooney, Jack Murphy and 
William McGuinness.

Almost immediately McGuinness pulled out saying 
that the committee was dominated by the 
Communist Party (then named the Irish Workers 
League)  and set up a rival Catholic Unemployed 
Association.  With the seemingly obligatory split out 
of the way the UPC got down to business.  

Use of a room was provided by the Dublin Trades 
Council and a march was arranged for January 
16th.  About one hundred men and a solitary woman 
marched through the city under a banner inscribed 
with "support us in our demand for work".  It was a 
tame beginning.  Even the Catholic grouping was 
looking for a 50% increase in social welfare 
payments.

Agitation was stepped up and more joined the ranks 
of the UPC.  Up to this point most had looked to the 
Labour TDs to fight on behalf of the unemployed.  
Sam Nolan summed it up at a UPC meeting at the 
end of January, "surely it was the responsibility of the 
Labour leaders and deputies to work out some 
organised plan.  After all they were supposed to 
represent the working class".  

Most members quickly saw that the Labour Party 
would contribute little more than empty platitudes.  
When the government fell in February after S<>an 
McBride's Clann na Poblachta withdrew their 
support Jack Murphy proposed that the UPC run a 
candidate in the coming general election.  This was 
seen as a way of putting the need for jobs onto the 
political agenda.

Two names were put forward, Nolan and Murphy.  
Both were unemployed building workers.  Nolan was 
a leading Communist.  The Communists were divided 
on running him.  Some, including Nolan himself, were 
unwilling to allow the UPC to be seen as a front for 
their party.  

Murphy was a left republican who had been interned 
in the 1940s and had been a militant shop steward.  
He was selected to contest the election in Dublin 
South Central.  The <20>100 deposit was raised from 
unlikely sources.  <20>25 each came from Toddy 
O'Sullivan, manager of the Gresham Hotel; Fr. 
Counihane, a Jesuit priest; a Fianna F<>il senator 
called Mooney and Mr Digby, the owner of Pye Radio.

After a vigorous campaign Murphy gathered 3,036 
votes and was elected.  His seat was gained at the 
expense of the Labour Party who had run James 
Connolly's son Roddy.  Murphy's success was 
encouraging to unemployed activists and new 
organisations were set up in Waterford and Cork.  

If the unemployed thought that having one of their 
own in the D<>il would force the government to take 
their concerns more seriously they were in for a 
shock.  Murphy could not even get an answer to a 
question about how much unemployment relief 
money would be spent in Dublin. 

There was no problem, however, in providing an 
answer to Fine Gael's Belton when he asked about 
the "hardship imposed on cricket clubs because of the 
cost of cricket balls".  

The new Fianna F<>il government's budget provided 
for the ending of food subsidies.  This was going to hit 
the unemployed and low paid workers very hard.  
The response of the trade union leaders was 
pathetic.  The Provisional United Trade Union 
Organisation (forerunner to the ICTU) had a lot in 
common with today's leaders - an overwhelming 
concern for industrial peace and the bosses' profits.  

It pointed out "that the removal of food subsidies was 
neither necessary nor wise.  While creating terrible 
hardships for the unemployed it also created a 
situation where claims for higher wages would be 
made with the threat of widespread instability or 
industrial strife".  

Jack Murphy and two other UPC members, Tommy 
Kavanagh and Jimmy Byrne, went on hunger strike.  
This was not a UPC stunt, in fact they learned of the 
hunger strike through the newspapers.  Murphy, as 
'the elected representative of the unemployed', didn't 
see why he should have to consult with the 
committee.

The hunger strike lasted for four days.  Each evening 
several thousand turned up to protest meetings at 
the corner of Abbey Street and O'Connell Street.  
Over 1,000 marched to Leinster House seeking a 
meeting with the Minister for Industry and 
Commerce, S<>an Lemass - who sneaked out the 
back gate.

Resolutions began to come from trades councils and 
union branches calling for a one day strike.  There 
was now a possibility of building the sort of 
campaign that could force the government to back 
down.

This possibility quickly evaporated when Murphy fell 
sick and with Byrne and Kavanagh called off the 
hunger strike on day four.  To save face the UPC 
arranged for trade union leaders to appeal for its end 
in order to save lives.  It was wrong to rush into a 
hunger strike, and the way it was called off caused 
much confusion and demoralisation among the 
unemployed.

All that followed was a few delegations to plead with 
Fianna F<>il TDs and a meeting between Murphy and 
Catholic Archbishop McQuaid.  McQuaid made it 
clear he would not interfere in political decisions 
(which had not stopped him dictating to the previous 
government over the Mother and Child Scheme).  He 
further warned Murphy of the danger of associating 
with Communists.

The last big demonstration was a 2,000 strong 
march from S<>an McDermott Street to the D<>il.  
Jack Murphy opposed the demonstration saying it 
conflicted with his D<>il work.  In August he broke 
with the UPC and the next year he resigned his D<>il 
seat.  

The unemployed movement was dead. The biggest 
mistake they made was getting involved in 
parliamentary politics.  Far from building active 
support for the UPC it made its supporters passive. 
Why bother marching, going to meetings and seeking 
trade union action if you have a TD to 'represent' 
you?  The election of Murphy was seen by most as 
an end in itself.  

The key to winning on issues like extra jobs, higher 
payments and lower food prices is a mass, active 
movement.  A movement that can and will fight 
alongside those in work.  This is incompatible with 
electing figureheads to speak for us, to argue for us, 
to make decisions for us.  

Real democracy is necessary.  This means those 
affected by decisions having the power to make 
them.  It does not mean handing that power over to 
a few individuals, that only makes people passive.  
No boss or government feels under pressure to make 
concessions to the passive. 

Joe King