Claiming Our Future
Something interesting happened in Dublin on Saturday October 30th 2010. It is not yet clear whether what happened was important. But it was interesting nonetheless.
More than one thousand people from all over Ireland gathered in the Industries Hall at the RDS to participate in an event called Claiming Our Future.
There were community and voluntary sector workers, trade unionists, environmentalists, party political activists, campaigners, the self-employed, the unemployed and individual citizens.
There were people from all across the country, of different ages and nationalities, with different political and ideological orientations.
What united those in attendance was dissatisfaction with the status quo, a desire for change, and a determination to play some part in bringing that change about.
Claiming Our Future was the brainchild of a loose collection of individuals operating under the banner of Is Feidir Linn. The aim of the event was to create a space for civic society to deliberate and agree the values, policies and actions required to help bring about an equal, sustainable and thriving Ireland.
Established in 2008 following the publication the Community Platform’s A Better Ireland Is Possible report, Is Feidir Linn describe themselves as ‘concerned with community development, social inclusion, anti-poverty and equality issues’ and want to ‘exploring what an alternative economic and social development model for Ireland would look like’.
Is Feidir Linn launched a mini manifesto in June 2009 at the ‘Shaping Our Future: developing a vision for an inclusive, equal and sustainable Ireland‘ conference.
Following the conference Is Feidir Linn embarked on a much more innovative and ambitious project. They sought to provide a space within which a diverse range of civic interests could meet, discuss and if possible agree actions aimed at building a movement for social and economic change.
Is Feidir Linn joined forces with The Community Platform, The Irish Congress of Trade Unions, Social Justice Ireland and TASC and launched Claiming Our Future, A Progressive Movement for an Equal, Sustainable and Thriving Ireland.
The event itself was both highly innovative and incredibly simple. One hundred tables of ten people discussing the values, policies and actions needed to realise the events title. The discussions on values and policies were framed with ideas and proposals developed by the organisers. The discussion on actions was left open. Attendees were also given the possibility of proposing alternative values and ideas.
Each table discussed and attempted to reach a consensus on key values, preferred policy options and suggested actions. These were then entered into an on-line voting system via a laptop on each of the tables. The results from all the tables were collated and announced after each session.
My own table comprised of four men and four women. The age profile ranged from the mid 30s to mid 60s. All but one, from Co Cork, were resident in Dublin. All but one, from the Netherlands, were born in Ireland.
There was a self-employed businesswoman formerly involved with the Progressive Democrats, angry at the state of the country. There was a veteran left wing trade unionist and campaigner calling for rebellion. There was a mother from farming stock concerned about the state of rural Ireland and deeply frustrated at the political system. There was a young service sector trade union organiser concerned with jobs and indigenous economic development. There was a men’s development worker whose work life brings him into contact with many of the city’s most marginalised men. There was a Jesuit campaigner for justice working with communities and families living in poverty. There was a care worker active in the Green Party and disillusioned with their performance in government.
And there was me, a Sinn Féin activists committed to social, economic and political change.
We agreed that the values of participation, solidarity, environmental sustainability, justice and enterprise were most important to us as a group.
We wanted a new development model that balanced economic security with social and environmental sustainability. We wanted a Nordic level of taxation. We wanted our political institutions to be more accountable, equal and efficient. We wanted universal access to healthcare, childcare and services for older people.
To promote these values and ideas we suggested holding local Claiming Our Future events engaging people door to door and in town hall meetings. We suggested a youth Claiming Our Future organised by and for 15 to 25 year olds. We wanted to engage the political system to secure influence over a future progressive Programme for Government. We wanted civic society to pick specific tangible goals and mobilise in support of these. And we wanted to promote our new economic and social model through the media.
The day was long and tiring, but also positive. The discussions were interspersed with songs by Mary Coughlan, rap from Ballymun’s Miracles Happen and ballads by Shaz Oye.
As the dulcet tones of the Gloria lesbian and gay men’s choir sang Labi Saffri’s Something Inside So Strong at the events conclusion, we could hear other tables asking themselves the same question we were asking; ‘Will anything actually come from today’s discussions and decisions?’
Of course the answer lies with us. If we want to see a broad based civic movement for a more equal, sustainable and thriving Ireland then we will have to build that movement ourselves. When we return to our community and voluntary organisations, trade unions and political parties, campaign groups, workplaces and families we will have to spread the word that alternatives are available, that change is possible, and that the status quo doesn’t have to remain.
Claiming Our Future was a good event. It was democratic, inclusive, diverse and progressive. If it is to become anything more than an interesting Saturday spent in the RDS then those of us who see its potential will have to take the initiative and join in. If we do that then maybe, just maybe, it could become something truly important.
Video Vox Pop from the Claiming Our Future conference:
Discussion
We welcome and encourage lively discussion from the public about articles on Irish Left Review. You can leave a comment using the form at the bottom of the page. Please read through the existing comments before posting your own.
Leave a Comment
Sins of the Father
Subscribe by Email
Best of the Web
EU Should Admit Greece is Bankrupt | Christian Rickens
The unvarnished truth - the second Greek Bailout should not have happened.
The mistake isn’t the size, but the construction of the bailout package. It isn’t geared to the requirements of the people of Greece but to the needs of the international financial markets, meaning the banks.
How else can one explain the fact that around a quarter of the package won’t even arrive in Athens but will flow directly to the country’s international creditors? The holders of Greek government bonds are to get some €30 billion as an incentive to convert their old paper into new bonds. The aim is to keep alive the illusion that Greece isn’t bankrupt — after all, the creditors are voluntarily forgiving part of the debt. The financial sector is cleverly manipulating the fear that a Greek bankruptcy would trigger a fatal chain reaction.
That leaves €100 billion. But that too isn’t geared to what Greece needs in order to get back on its feet. It’s linked to an estimate of how much debt the Greek economy can bear without collapsing. International technocrats agree that with debts amounting to 120 percent of gross domestic product, the country can just about go on servicing its debt. That’s the level at which the cow can go on supplying milk without dying of exhaustion. So 120 percent became the goal.
Collaboration, with our European partners | Cunning Hired Knaves
The European project was supposed to be a bulwark against the dangers of fascist ambition, but now it is the instrument used to dismantle European democracy in the interest of the risk adverse looking for a steady income stream from the provision of the social net by those who cite the words and actions of old fascists while doing so.
The post Collaboration, with our European partners by Richard of Cunning Hired Knaves summed up in one sentence. For much better sentences and many more urgent points read the post.
On Sunday there were massive demonstrations throughout the Spanish state, with half a million people on the streets of Madrid and 450,000 in Barcelona, protesting against the labour ‘reform’ planned by the Partido Popular, the right-wing party that most closely represents the interests of the power elites that conserved their position when the transition from dictatorship to democracy was undertaken.
S.P.A.R.K. protest at cuts to lone parents, Dublin 18th February 2012
Many families were cut in the last budget but lone parent families were particularly hit by the Fine Gael/Labour Party government.
The key elements are that single parents can’t take advantage of training such as Community Employment (CE) Schemes and when the youngest child turns 7 years old, the parent is declassed as a lone parent but treated as an ordinary worker even though there are few affordable creche places. There is a bill coming up in March which will copper fasten some of the worst elements of government plans.
There is particular anger directed at the Labour Party because they are associated with women’s rights and a more progressive society.
Please share the link to this video
Exiting the euro | Michael Roberts
Michael Roberts argues that those in Greece who cite the example of Argentina when suggesting that Greece should leave the Euro are not necessarily looking at the whole picture. The situations are not the same, Roberts points out, citing Argentina’s former central bank governor at the time, Mario Blejer and his recent piece in the Financial Times. He also points to research based on the the experience of five recent devaluations of economies in crisis (including that of Argentina) which “shows that they lead to a 10-20% fall in real GDP and take five to ten years to recover to previous real GDP levels. But that is not to say that there is no alternative to “lowering wages, privatising the state sector, reducing taxes for the corporate sector (especially big business) and ‘deregulating’ labour markets i.e. the super-exploitation of the Greek people to raise profitability.”
But the left could also find an alternative policy to exiting the euro where Greece negotiates a full default on its debt to private and foreign bondholders; takes over the banks; and uses the savings from bond and interest repayments (€17-20bn a year) to start state directed investment in jobs, technology and funding small businesses, while staying in the euro to protect the savings of the people from destruction, keeping down inflation and avoiding a rise in foreign debt. The question of exiting the euro then becomes an issue for the Euro leaders to impose (and to be resisted by a campaign within Europe), not as the main policy plank of the left.
Corporate tax avoidance: where are the worst offenders?
This table comes via the Tax Justice Network (and Richard Murphy). It’s from a table produced by U.S. researcher Kimberly Clausing and as TJN notes “demonstrates which countries are working hardest to wage economic warfare on the United States (and, by extension, on other countries,) via the global tax system”.
Solidarity campaign to support the people of Greece
Mikis Theodorakis, famous Greek composer of Zorba’s Dance, and Manolis Glezos, veteran resistance fighter against the Nazi occupation, have issued a call for a European Front to defend the people of Greece and all those facing austerity. We have decided to support this call and work with trade unions, campaigns and parties across Europe to establish a European Solidarity Campaign to defend the people of Greece. We will organise solidarity and raise practical support for the people of Greece; they cannot be made to pay for a crisis for which they are not responsible.
Chris Dillow | Capitalism against freedom
[...]
During the Cold War, opponents of communism routinely, and not entirely wrongly, claimed to be champions of liberty. Freedom for capitalists and freedom of speech and thought go together, it was claimed. “Freedom is indivisible” wrote Bruce Winton Knight in 1952. “Economic freedom is…an indispensable means toward the achievement of political freedom“ wrote Milton Friedman in Capitalism and Freedom. And back in 1944 Friedrich Hayek complained that “We have progressively abandoned that freedom in economic affairs without which personal and political freedom has never existed in the past.”
Today, though, this seems wrong. Many threats to freedom come from capitalists. The story is no longer capitalism and freedom, but capitalism against freedom.
Ian Stewart | The mathematical equation that caused the banks to crash
In The Observer, Sunday 12 February 2012
Anyone who has followed the crisis will understand that the real economy of businesses and commodities is being upstaged by complicated financial instruments known as derivatives. These are not money or goods. They are investments in investments, bets about bets. Derivatives created a booming global economy, but they also led to turbulent markets, the credit crunch, the near collapse of the banking system and the economic slump. And it was the Black-Scholes equation that opened up the world of derivatives.
The equation itself wasn’t the real problem. It was useful, it was precise, and its limitations were clearly stated. It provided an industry-standard method to assess the likely value of a financial derivative. So derivatives could be traded before they matured. The formula was fine if you used it sensibly and abandoned it when market conditions weren’t appropriate. The trouble was its potential for abuse. It allowed derivatives to become commodities that could be traded in their own right. The financial sector called it the Midas Formula and saw it as a recipe for making everything turn to gold. But the markets forgot how the story of King Midas ended.
Greece: a Sisyphean task | Michael Roberts
In a Eurozone that is unwilling to share its surplus with weaker, hardest hit economies there is no other option for those economies but default. Despite the agreement of Greek politicians to shorten their political life and accept the deal all that they have done is simply postpone this eventuality once again. However, even that postponement might be shortened by the Greek elections in April where the smaller leftist parties outside the coalition currently have 40% of the vote. Or so says Michael Roberts:
Whatever the Greek coalition leaders agree to and try to implement, such is the weakness of Greek capitalism, it will not be able to meet its fiscal targets or get its debt down to reasonable levels. Before the end of the year, the Troika will have to report that Greece is not delivering. Then the EU leaders will have to decide whether they ‘let Greece go’ or not. The EU leaders have agreed to more money for Greece (or more accurately its bondholders and banks) in return for draconian cuts in living standards in order to provide more time to try and ‘ring-fence’ other vulnerable Eurozone states like Portugal and Ireland (where they are preparing extra funding). So when Greece goes down, it will not affect the rest (or so the EU leaders hope). Of course, the Greek people may force the issue earlier if they vote in an anti-Troika government in April.
As Greece stares into the abyss, Europe must choose | Maria Margaronis
Do we really want to live in an economic union that must destroy the future of millions in order to just tick along? Maria Margaronis points out that the situation in Greece today says little about Greece and everything about the EU.
The trouble with historical metaphors is that they can obscure the present: what’s really at stake here is not Greece’s identity but Europe’s. All eyes are fixed on Athens, but the way out of the crisis requires a choice about what kind of Europe we want. The one we have now, with its deep structural inequalities and its rigid adherence to a failed economic ideology, protects neither democracy nor human rights. Stiff-necked and punitive, it prefers to eat its children.
Comment by: Roisin de Rossa
Nov 1st 2010 at 15:11
The problem with this pseudo-Keynesian stuff is that the authors seem to want to just apply nice little sticky plaster solutions to a problem without really examining it in its full complexity.
First, Ireland is an export-based economy. That means our economy’s expansion relates primarily on the growth in demand in our main export partners such as the USA or UK. Of far greater importance to the Irish economy would be if the US or UK applied a stimulus package than the inane suggestion of a similar package in Ireland.
If Ireland applies a stimulus, the net effect is likely to sustain employment in non-productive sectors at the cost of borrowing. That is because the Irish economy is small and would rapidly leak benefit - our productive sectors would not respond to the stimulus; in economics terminology the multiplier is low due to leaked demand.
Now keeping people employed is a goal we all share but a stimulus as proposed here really achieves little aside from buying time on the pain to come.
The problem with this sort of analysis is it is blind to the realities of an export-driven economy. Ireland cannot simply live on credit and that’s precisely what this would amount to.
The only way to hope for the economy to generate returns for shareholders (under the current status quo) is to lower wage levels until Irish capitalists can compete with those in countries such as China (we cannot hope to compete on the high rungs of the ladder due to the technological acceleration being experienced in countries like China).
That means a global race to the bottom akin to that described by Engels in the Condition of the Working Class in England - when the destitute of Ireland lowered the living conditions of English workers in the 1840s.
The government parties understand this and due to their commitment to the ‘market’ choose lower living conditions as rapidly as possible in order to achieve that goal quickly. The question is whether Eoin realises that he is being intellectually dishonest and is doing this for short-term opportunism or whether perhaps his brain hurts thinking about real economics.
Irregardless, this is all the price of playing the capitalist game. Until you strike at the root relation in the global dynamic - that of profit - you cannot hope to redress the situation. Nothing short of radically applying limits to the market will get Ireland out of this without suffering a catastrophic collapse in the living conditions of workers.
Until radical political voices are brave enough to countenance this outcome, the initiative will remain with the bosses and their political representatives.
Comment by: Donagh
Nov 1st 2010 at 17:11
I don’t get it, are you a capitalist or an anti-capitalist. Before you go chucking phrases like intellectual dishonesty you have to figure out where you’re coming from.
With what, a specially adapted hadron collider with market limiting magnets?
You seem super smart, so I’m only asking.
What, are you suggesting that the stimulus should be given to exporting companies that import the majority of what they need to produce? I’m guessing you’re the type of shareholder who has never read ILR before.
Comment by: krupskaya
Nov 2nd 2010 at 10:11
Roisin
an elementary understanding of economics might be in order before committing to print. It is not the case that this economy is solely dependent on foreign demand. Despite a slump in all 3 areas, private consumption accounted for 51.3% of GDP in 2009, government spending was 16.8% and business investment was 16.5%. Taken together, these account for approx. 85% of GDP, and a much greater proportion of total employment.
Nor is it the case that important export competitiveness derives from wages. Otherwise, all capital would flow to the lowest wage jurisdiction (currently Bangladesh). China has been raising wages above the rate of inflation precisely because it wants to increase domestic consumption- and domestic-oriented industries.
The main determinant of competitiveness is relative productivity, which is itself mainly a function of investment. In this economy,the collapse in investment now exceeds the total decline in the economy as a whole. The reason they refuse to invest is precisely because they are not sure of making a profit. The State can direct much-needed investment and accrue this surplus to itself, to eradicate the deficit and to fund further investment. This would, as a side-effect,remove large sectors of the economy from the profit-making sphere for a prolonged period. An added bonus.
Comment by: Roisin de Rossa
Nov 2nd 2010 at 11:11
Krupskaya,
You obviously have no economics background yourself if you think that the proportion of GDP allocated to the various demand categories can be directly applied as a proxy for the economic multiplier!!
I don’t have time to explain the theory behind input-output tables and the various types of multipliers - try to get a book out and read up on it.
The question to ask is what is the net economic impact of an additional £1 in aggregate demand - there are a variety of multipliers but you have to be careful to discount for displacement. That is the key issue when you are talking about funded as opposed to financed demand stimulus. SF seem to ignore this point.
While you are correct to say export competitiveness does not simply stem from wage levels, this is increasingly the case as investment becomes ever more mobile. There are other key factors - notably infrastructural investment, business safeguards, but the trend is undeniably downwards. There is a global race to the bottom.
Whether Chinese wages will continue to rise is unclear - wage inflation fell to about 6% and overall cpi rose to just under 4% in the last month. There is the continual question of the reserve army of labour being created by rural-urban migration and the increased productivity levels mean that the industrial workforce is actually contracting.
We generally agree with each other in your last (strongest) paragraph but the key to this is that state investment must be predicated on nationalisation of the commanding heights; otherwise, you are back to square one.
Comment by: Roisin de Rossa
Nov 2nd 2010 at 11:11
Donagh,
When you talk about the current economy you must base your analysis on how it works not on some idealised qualities. A good place to start on that would be to read some Joan Robinson.
I an a consistent anti-capitalist and precisely because of that I need to understand how the market works.
What I’m suggesting is rather than the opportunist politics of just talking about a stimulus blind to the facts, those who pertain to be left-wing should talk about nationalisation and socialism.
I don’t think that a stimulus for the Irish republic is realistic or will even work within the capitalist economic framework and I think that pseudo-lefts need to get real on the problems facing the Irish economy. There are no easy answers. We need to start thinking about socialism.
I wouldn’t make any demands for a stimulus except as an interim measure to sustain workers. What we need to focus on today is the need to nationalise key industrial sectors, democratise their management, invest in them and create a sustainable rational economy, recycle profits to social provision, internationalise the struggle. Back to Connolly.
Comment by: Conor McCabe
Nov 2nd 2010 at 12:11
roisin, there’s leaving comments, and then there’s self-delusion. your first comment showed that you know very little about the actual dynamics of the Irish economy, and now you’re talking about basing analysis on ‘how it works.’
Reality begins at home Roisin. Have a read of progressive economy, especially the work of Michael Burke. He deals with the actual Irish economy, its actual exports, and the actual relationship between those exports and the Irish economy. his writings are lucid, coherent, and are completely based on ‘how it works.’ They also have the added advantage of not sounding like they were produced by some internet left-wing-word generator.
I mean, the call you’re making there to nationalise Ireland’s pharmaceutical and chemical industry - the largest exporting sector on this island - as the first step to an Irish socialist government is delusional is it fails to take into account the actual role of those plants in the international assembly-line production system under which they operate. It’s kind of akin to saying that if we take over the Mcdonalds on Grafton Street we have ‘nationalised’ Mcdonalds, or if we take over the Opel car dealership down the road from me we have ‘nationalised’ Opel.
I mean, as far as employment goes, we’re talking about between seven and nine per cent of the working population employed in export businesses. Are the other ninety-two per cent just making up the numbers? We need to develop exports with geuine links with the wider economy. It is, and has been for decades, one of the primary faultlines in the Irish economy. That reality, that ‘how it works’, is completely lost on you.
when I was a kid in primary school, when I had to answer questions in Irish, I’d look for the part of the text which shared words with the question, copy out that passage, and hope for the best. your anti-stimulus, pro-socialist, let the market decide, don’t crowd out private investment,nationalise key industrial industries even though those industries, for the most part, are links in a multinational chain, seems to me to be the same process.
you already have all the answers, Roisin, so all of what I just wrote will mean nothing to you. You’ve already gone Twelve Monkeys on us so I don’t expect that to change after just one comment. I wrote a response just in case anyone reading your babble thinks that what you are saying in any way relates to coherent left-wing economics, or indeed, relates in any way to the realities of the Irish economy, the ‘how it works’ which people like Michael Burke, Michael Taft and tom O’Connor are able to analyse and explain with great insight and clarity.
Comment by: Roisin de Rossa
Nov 2nd 2010 at 12:11
All you have done to me is quote names of pseudo-Keynesian economists who say the same as you do. If you think that this constitutes a rational response then you are only deluding yourself. Readers will understand who is correct.
Your nonsensical approach lifting specific (falsely attributed) characteristics just reinforces the object lesson that you are a muppet.
The one issue you raise is that you can’t simply nationalise an industry such as pharmaceuticals due to its place in the capitalist global economy. I never said that you could do all of this nationally.
If capitalism is to be changed then it has to be done internationally. It’s just like the environment - if anything meaningful is to be done to save the planet it must be done internationally. No one bar the most old fashioned stalinists believes in ’socialism in one country’. Ireland cannot hope to advance to socialism on its own.
But your ideological collapse to the international market will lead you irrevocably to accommodation with neo-liberal demands. Just as you argue today against the nationalisation of pharmaceuticals, tomorrow it will be doing anything to scare the ‘markets’ due to disinvestment and the day after you will be for implementing the ‘cuts’ fairly and so on. That’s the logic of the system. Collapse to the markets on the top and the rest follows.
That’s why I said its time to go back to Connolly. Don’t work the system take it on.
Comment by: Conor McCabe
Nov 2nd 2010 at 12:11
“Your nonsensical approach lifting specific (falsely attributed) characteristics just reinforces the object lesson that you are a muppet.”
haha! Cheers Roisin. Fair play to yeah. I must still have those teeth implants which control my pseudo-Keynsian brain as well.