The far right and conservative Catholics claimed credit for the outcome but so have progressive disability rights and carers’ activists. So who is right? Was this a victory for reactionary or progressive ideas, or is the truth more complicated?
On International Women’s Day, Friday 8th of March, voters in the Republic of Ireland delivered two of the largest defeats in history for referendums put forward by the government. The Family referendum, which proposed extending the constitutional definition of the family to include families based on other “durable relationships” as well as marriage, was rejected by a margin of 68% to 32%. The Care referendum, which proposed replacing a sexist clause in the Constitution about women’s “duties in the home” with a gender-neutral clause pledging the state to “strive” to support family care, was defeated by a record 74% to 26%. Both referendums had been backed by the ruling Fine Gael-Fianna Fáil- Green Party coalition and supported, to varying degrees, by all the major opposition parties. The far right and conservative Catholics claimed credit for the outcome but so have progressive disability rights and carers’ activists. So who is right? Was this a victory for reactionary or progressive ideas, or is the truth more complicated?
Polling data shows that the Family Referendum was rejected by a significantly higher margin in rural areas, ranging from 80% in Donegal to 61% across Dublin. There was less of a clear urban-rural pattern with the Care Referendum but in Dublin, No votes were higher in working class than middle class constituencies for both referendums. An exit poll found that the majority of Fianna Fáil, Sinn Féin and (mostly right wing) Independent voters voted no to both referendums; Fine Gael, Green Party and Labour voters voted Yes-Yes and most People Before Profit and Social Democrat voters voted Yes to the Family referendum but No to the Care referendum. The 6% difference between the No votes in the two referendums suggests that around 6% of voters voted Yes to the Family Referendum and No to the Care Referendum. This compares to 68% of voters who voted No-No and 26% who voted Yes-Yes.
Let’s keep it very simple. These 2 constitutional provisions are symbolic.
The basic information is provided here : Electoral Commission Explanation of Care and Family Referendums in Ireland. We are concentrating on the Care Referendum, as some people on the Irish left are advocating a No vote, meaning that the existing reactionary sexist wording in DeValera’s 1937 Constitution will remain in place.
In any referendum you are only voting on the question you are asked – not on the question you would like to be asked.
Voters should ask themselves : Is the existing wording worse than the proposed changes?
Yes or No?
Any objective left-wing and feminist reading of the relevant texts can only come to one conclusion : The proposed changes are better.
It is published on the ISJ site, a British website :
“International Socialism is associated with the [British] Socialist Workers Party, but articles express the opinions of individual authors unless otherwise stated. We welcome proposals for articles and reviews for International Socialism..”
This article comes with a strong recommendation from Joan McKiernan :
“This terrific article should be widely circulated….
“I must say that with all the classes I had long ago in the IS (International Socialists) on the Russian Revolution, I have no recollection of discussions of Ukraine. So the author’s discussion of that history is important for all of us involved in supporting Ukraine now.”
Paul Le Blanc is launching a new book in Dublin on Tuesday November 7 (the anniversary of the October revolution) in the New Theatre, behind Connolly Books in Temple Bar. Doors open at 7pm, with Paul Le Blanc giving a short talk on Lenin’s politics and theories starting at 7:30. This will be followed by an interview including opportunity for some questions from the crowd.
Paul Le Blanc reviews a critical thread of Marxist theory and history on the right of national self-determination, and the question of Ukraine, concluding that revolutionaries today need to defend the current resistance to the Russian invasion including its rights to seek arms.
In his critique of ultra-left sectarianism, Lenin denounced a tendency to present quotes from Marx as the basis for settling on a tactical orientation to guide us through the complexities of our own time. He insisted that “what is most important, that which constitutes the very gist, the living soul, of Marxism” is “a concrete analysis of a concrete situation.” That is certainly the case when we are considering realities so complex as the Russian-Ukrainian War.
I have attempted such a “concrete analysis of a concrete situation” in an 8900-word article entitled “Making Sense of the Russian Invasion of Ukraine” for the online publication Links: International Journal of Socialist Renewal. In the final 2400 words of the article, I seek to relate the larger analysis of the invasion to previous Marxist theory and lessons from revolutionary history. I urge readers to consult the first 6500 words of the larger article. At the same time, I am hopeful that my review here of some of the relevant history and theory will be useful for those working to sort things out regarding these momentous developments.
For many decades, some terrible examples of far left crazy polemics have emerged from the British State. In general, this happens when organisations are not capable of accurately reporting the views of people they disagree with. It looks like the British “Socialist Worker” is sinking into a bog of irrationality over its deeply mistaken policy concerning Russia’s genocidal invasion of Ukraine.
The article below, republished on the Europe Solidaire Sans Frontières Site (ESSF), is written by Dale Street. Comrades on the left in Ireland can observe, perhaps with a feeling of amazed disbelief.
John Meehan June 21 2023
Socialist Worker (SW), paper of the Socialist Worker Party (SWP), is ecstatic.
At last it has found a trade union (the UCU, which organises workers in post-school education) that has passed a motion at its annual congress backing the Stop the War Coalition (StW) line on Ukraine.
True, the motion was passed by just nine votes. True, the motion contained an antisemitic trope jumbling up Ukraine and Israel as imperialist outposts. True, Jewish UCU members critical of the motion have been targeted for antisemitic abuse. True, another, and far better, motion on Ukraine was passed by a much larger majority.
All that is true — but, with the exception of the antisemitic trope (which SW, of course, supports), all of it goes completely unmentioned in SW’s coverage of the UCU congress vote.
True also that the passing of the motion has triggered a wave of revulsion among broad swathes of the UCU membership, with many members taking to social media to condemn the motion and, in some cases, resigning from the UCU in protest.
This applies in particular to people who know what they are talking about. Such as Ukrainian members of the UCU and other academics who specialise in the study of Ukraine, Russia and Eastern Europe.
In the best traditions of Stalinist slander, however, SW portrays the backlash against the motion as a ruling-class conspiracy.
The backlash, says SW, was the work of “a vast army of pro-Nato trolls. No one should imagine that this was a spontaneous reaction.” NATO’s Strategic Communications Centre of Excellence in Latvia, explains SW, recommends “using pseudonyms to mislead social media users”.
SW and its readers should take a reality-check. A statement condemning the motion issued and signed by UCU members (some of them now former members) at the University College London School of Slavonic and East European Studies has attracted nearly 300,000 views.
That institution really does exist. Those signatories really do exist. No-one needs to “imagine” this was a spontaneous reaction — it simply was a spontaneous reaction.
Left-evasionist and tankie political activists everywhere are promoting a Seymour Hersh post claiming that the USA ruling class blew up the Nordstream 2 pipeline which is designed to allow Russia to supply Germany with Natural Gas, by-passing Ukraine.
In Ireland, Paul Murphy TD (People Before Profit [PBP], Dublin South-West) highlighted this story on the grounds that Seymour Hersh is “one of the world’s best journalists”. In December 2022 a pro-PBP publication, the Irish Marxist Review (a well-produced and often interesting journal published by the Socialist Workers’ Network) carried a Maurice Coakley article which stated “the US Navy were the only force likely to have carried out the attacks on the gas pipeline”. (Maurice Coakley’s article is here : https://irishmarxistreview.net/index.php/imr/article/view/479/464)
Seymour Hersh, decades ago, was a credible journalist. Today he is a conspiracy nut. One correspondent on Paul Murphy’s facebook page, James Doyle, observes “This is all nonsense. For example, Why would the US use a Norwegian aircraft rather than a fake fishing boat in a supposedly covert operation. For those who refer to Hersh as a “respected journalist”, you should know that he thinks the Osama Bin Laden operation was fake and Assad never used chemical weapons in Syria. A good journalist in his day, but sadly has gone off the rails into a rabbit warren of attention seeking conspiracy theories.”
Is this dispute important? It is. In the activist Revolutionary Marxist tradition, theory is needed as a guide to action.
John Meehan February 16 2023
“Left” organisations and personalities retail Hersh’s Nord Stream story uncritically, because it is what they want to hear. Dogma beats inquiry. Innuendo and false claims beat solidarity with the victims of Russia’s scorched-earth war on populations, in Syria in 2014 and 2017, and Ukraine in 2022-23.
Re-forming critical public spaces means challenging the “great men” of the “left” when they offer blinkered, one-sided and untruthful explanations for the dangerous, uncertain realities we face.
Simon Pirani, The Nord Stream Pipeline Explosions – Challenging False Narratives.
The claim that the Nord Stream gas pipeline was blown up by U.S. special forces, made last week by the investigative journalist Seymour Hersh, is being used to reinforce false narratives about Russia’s culpability for the war in Ukraine.
On 26 September last year, explosions damaged three of Nord Stream’s four pipelines, which run under the Baltic Sea from Russia to Germany, and sent a large cloud of methane into the atmosphere. Russia has blamed the United States; western media suspected Russia itself of sabotage.
Tomás Ó Flatharta 