From Fourth International, vol.4 No.3, March 1943, pp.90-92.
Transcribed, Edited & Formatted by Ted Crawford, David Walters & Einde O’Callaghan for the ETOL.
The following is from a letter from Dublin, dated January 1943:
There is an interesting article about the cost of living, based on the latest issues of the official Statistical Abstract, in the Irish Times of December 29th. I would send you a copy but one is not allowed to send newspapers through the post now. So I shall simply quote the chief parts of the article, to which I am sure there will be no objection.
By the official index figure, the goods which could have been bought for £100 in 1914, cost £176 in ’38, £237 in ’41, and £273 in ’42 (November of each year).
To complete the picture of the depreciation of purchasing power, it is important to know that while many of the principal items which constitute the official cost of living figures have been the subjects of controlled prices (kept down by means of subsidies which are met by taxes paid by the consumers), a wide variety of commodities not taken into account in computing the cost of living figures have risen to double or treble their pre-war prices. While many of such items may fairly be regarded as luxuries, others – such as certain types of household equipment and food – come within the category of domestic necessities. When all such allowances have teen made it can be assumed that today’s average purchasing power of the 1938 pound note is somewhere between ten and twelve shillings in the twenty-six counties. 
“Confirmation of that estimate of depreciated money values is given by the fact that issues of legal tender notes by the Currency Commission have more than doubled since 1939, while external trade has diminished, and there has been no Increase in the volume of trade in the twenty-six counties. A further index to the increased cost of commodities is that the average price of imported goods had more than doubled between December ’38 and December ’41 – since when the upward trend of prices has continued to operate. During the three years during which the import prices rose by more than 100%, the prices of twenty-six county exports only increased by slightly over 80%.”
I have not seen a similar analysis of the price rises in England and don’t know if they are comparable, but I do know that wages have risen in England, while here they are stabilised at a low level. It is even illegal for an employer to give a raise when he wishes to do so without permission from the government. And such permission is often refused. Many of our workers are living on pre-war wages. If we take the wage levels into account alongside of the price levels, we should find that the picture in Ireland is far worse than that in actually belligerent countries.
No one is optimistic enough to suggest that under post-war conditions this state of things will alter appreciably for the better. In fact the official government policy is a warning that we must expect things to be just as bad after the war. In my opinion when the post-war world situation develops, so that the workers at present in England have to return, while Irish agriculture is faced with normal importations from America, and with the competition of mechanised English agriculture (itself in competition with America), then the whole situation will be aggravated.
Another point which throws light on the economic relations between Eire and the outer world is the reaction here to the Beveridge Plan. It is assumed that something of the sort will be adopted in England and the North. In the General Election atmosphere all parties would like to promise similar reforms to the country to gain support and this holds good whether the election is really about to come off as required by the Constitution, or whether some way will be found of forming a government without resorting to it. Election promises are being made. But no parliamentary party dares to suggest that anything resembling the Beveridge Plan will be operated here.
To show the reason why, I refer again to the Irish Times. On December 31, quoting from the Economist, it says
“The scale of benefits and family allowances may be much higher north of the border than in the south. The possibility of attractions of this sort will lead to emigration on an even greater scale unless restrictive measures are taken, either in Eire or in the United Kingdom ... The solution of the acute problem of partition will not be rendered any easier toy the emergence of different standards of social and welfare services north and south of the border.”
The Irish Times goes on to say that the Beveridge Plan assumes a steadily increasing national income in England, while in this country in the years before the war the national income “obstinately failed to expand” and there is no reason to think that it will expand much during the post-war period. I should think that is an understatement. However, the main point is clear, and is an interesting illustration of our relation to economic imperialism.
Obviously there is no solution under capitalism and the position of a reformist labour movement is therefore obviously hopeless.
The Labour election promise is £3 a week to every farm hand, as in England. The reaction among the farm hands is that it’s only right, a man can’t live decently on less, and this business of keeping the farm hands alive on the charity of the farmers by supplying free vegetables, etc., should be done away with ... but of course, they add, it can’t be done. They know it can’t be done, because they know that the small farmers, who themselves make less than £3 a week, could not employ any labour at that rate, while the large farmers would not do so, would let the farms go to rack and ruin instead, except as grazing land, unless they could get prices twice or nearly twice what they are now. And such prices could not be paid. However, the Labour Party is afraid to suggest a radical reorganization of the country.
Its program includes the following points: nationalisation of the whole transport system under workers’ control, nationalisation of basic industries and control of secondary ones, collective farming, etc. Certainly we have in this an approach to a solution of the problems of the country, especially as the program states specifically that it is only intended as a first draft and that it must be clarified. It can be clarified in a socialist sense. But this program is never referred to by the Labour leadership and is not used as the basis for the election campaign. The majority of party members even know nothing about the program.
It seems to me and others that the basis for a socialist education of the party is to be found by pushing forward that program, explaining its full implications, demanding that the party program should be the basis of the election campaign, that leaders and perspective candidates should publicly pledge themselves at least to their own program, and to attack the leadership for abandoning its program. This is a perfectly legitimate attitude within the party constitution and will have the effect of rallying the whole left wing on the basis of a discussion of political principles.
At the present moment the party is facing a serious situation owing to the rivalry between the Irish Transport and General Workers Union, headed by Bill O’Brien, and the Workers Union of Ireland, headed by Jim Larkin. The ITGWU is by far the most powerful union in the country and the most reactionary. Its recent record has been that it withdrew from the Trades Council of Dublin, in which all Dublin unions are combined, in order to sabotage the fight against the Trade Union Bill. It gave no assistance during the Municipal Election campaign which, in spite of this defection, resulted in a great gain for labour. The candidates returned as councillors included Larkin himself, while one of his union organisers headed the poll in his area.
When it came to the selection of Dail (Parliament) candidates for Dublin, the ITGWU, in control of the conference, filled the panel with personal followers of Bill O’Brien, and rejected outright all Larkinite candidates and all left wing candidates who would be acceptable to the Labour Party branches, with one exception.
Larkin has so far said nothing. But it is certain, or almost certain, that he at least, and probably one or two of his men, could get a seat in the Dail without assistance from the party.
The general feeling is therefore that we face the danger of an immediate split, and the daily press hostile to labour is making the most of this. The worst of the situation is that we are facing a split upon an unprincipled issue, and the more or less progressive Dublin section of the party has been maneuvered into taking the side of Larkin, for whom it has no particular brief.
Meanwhile the point which is being obscured and which one must try to make plain is that the real issue lies not between O’Brien and Larkin, but between party democracy and the leadership.
The following is an excerpt from a letter from our Australian friends, dated mid-December:
Australia is, of course, moving much closer to Washington these days. To understand the situation here, you must remember that there are three parliamentary parties of major dimensions. The Australian Labor Party has 175,000 members in the State of New South Wales alone. Prime Minister Curtin heads an Australian Labor Party government. The other two big parties are the United Australian Party and the United Country Party, and correspond to the American Republicans and Democrats. The great political issue in Australia now concerns conscription for overseas service, to which Labor is traditionally opposed, having defeated conscription in two famous referenda in 1916 and 1917.The leaders of the anti-conscriptionists are Labor Minister Ward and politicians named Calwell, Blackburn and Lang. Prime Minister Curtin is now sponsoring a move to revise the traditional Labor attitude.
A confused but significant split in the Socialist Party, the second largest party in Chile, occurred at its recent Ninth Congress at Rancagna.
The social composition of the Socialist Party is divided about equally between genuine workers and low-paid government functionaries, etc. on the one hand, and on the other hand bureaucrats, well-paid functionaries, and middle-class elements, with strong Freemason support. Until the 1942 Congress, the latter groupings supported the thoroughly rightist, Oscar Schnake Vergara; the former, for lack of one better, supported Marmaduke Grove Vallejo, who is leftish only by comparison with Schnake.
But since last year’s Congress, a strong leftward surge has been sweeping through the ranks, in mounting revolt against the leadership’s policies, especially its participation in bourgeois cabinets which, the opposition correctly pointed out, made the party responsible for the Rios government’s measures against labor and civil liberties; furthermore, the opposition warned, the party’s total failure to fulfill its leftist election promises was bringing it into deepening disrepute among the popular masses who had hoped to find in it a solution for their increasingly unbearable conditions of life.
The prudent Schnake, his prestige diminished almost to zero by his sell-out action of retiring his presidential candidacy in favor of Juan Antonio Rios, left for the United States; and “left-winger” Marmaduke Grove, with a genuine leftwing revolt rising, found himself now the right-wing.
So uncheckable was the wave of revolt that a sector of the “grand dukes” (as the socialist rank and file call their top bureaucracy), led by Salvador Allende Goosens, tried to choke its militancy by the classic maneuver of putting itself at the head of it, issuing demagogic demands that the party quit the cabinet.
“Don Marma” Grove had hoped to save himself by postponing the 1943 Congress till after Chile’s rupture of diplomatic relations with the Axis, believing that – with the help of the example of the Stalinists who were demanding a “cabinet of national union” with participation of all anti-fascist parties – he could browbeat the ranks into becoming resigned to continuation of the Socialist Party in the government. But the Congress elected a presidium with an anti-Grovist majority, and refused to accept either Grove’s own organizational report or Senator Eleodoro Dominguez’s political report. This was a far cry from the Tacla Congress of 1936, which had voted: “Marmaduke Grove is appointed, for his lifetime, leader of the Socialist Party, and he will be the chairman ex officio of all Party meetings he attends; he will resolve, without subsequent appeal, every conflict arising in the internal life of the Party.” Angry at the present rebuff, Grove stalked out of the Rancagna Congress, taking with him 42 delegates out of a total of 126.
There followed a frantic running to-and-fro of negotiators, mediators, and conciliators, trying allegedly to “save the Party’s unity,” in actuality to save their own ministerial portfolios and cushy posts. The bureaucrats who had put themselves at the head of the revolt offered Don Marma a majority on the new Central Executive Committee, but negotiations finally failed. Grove, controlling the Socialist Militia, ordered them to raid the Congress headquarters, which they did, seizing all documents, the public-address system, office equipment, etc. The bureaucrats who seized the leadership of the opposition called on the government’s military police, the notorious carabineros, to resist the Grove pillage of the headquarters.
The Congress, however, confirmed its rejection of the Grovist reports, reaffirmed its demand that the Socialist ministers leave the cabinet, and elected a new executive committee headed by Allende, Jose Rodriguez Corces (former Socialist Militia chief), and Rolando Merino and Pedro Poblete Vera (both ex-Ministers of Land and Colonization.)
But, as might have been expected, the new bureaucracy promptly withdrew the main opposition slogans, and tried to reduce what was a crisis of political tendencies to a mere struggle for personal power between the Grovist and Allendist cliques. In place of the oppositions slogan “Withdraw from the government,” Allende coolly proposes now “full collaboration with the government, but without administrative demands.”
This bureaucratic cynicism precipitated a much clearer subdivision within the reconstituted party between the flatly “anti-collaborationist” proletarian base and the functionary layers fighting for collaboration with the Rios government. Wriggle though they may, the new camarilla of “grand dukes” is going to find it hard to continue bamboozling the proletarian ranks which are moving massively and steadily leftward.
1. There are twenty shillings in a pound note. The 26 counties are Free Ireland. The rest is Northern Ireland, under British rule. – Ed.
This work is in the Public Domain under the Creative Commons Common Deed. You can freely copy, distribute and display this work; as well as make derivative and commercial works. Please credit the Encyclopedia of Trotskism On-Line as your source, include the url to this work, and note any of the transcribers, editors & proofreaders above.
Last updated on 25.8.2008