Anarchic update news all over the world - Part 1 - 23/5

Today's Topics:

   
1.  US, black rose fed: JOEL OLSON: WHAT IS WHITE SUPREMACY?
      (a-infos-en@ainfos.ca)
   
2.  France, Alternative Libertaire AL #283 - Sandra Iriarte
      (Spanish CGT): " 2018 is marked by the return of mass
      mobilizations " (fr, it, pt) [machine translation]
      (a-infos-en@ainfos.ca)
   
3.  Britain, anarchist communist group: Left-Nationalism: A
      History of the Disease, May 19, 2018ACG (a-infos-en@ainfos.ca)
   
4.  Greece, Total information from notary meetings against
      electronic auctions Posted by dwarf horse APO (gr) [machine
      translation] (a-infos-en@ainfos.ca)
   
5.  wsm.ie: All Polls shows Yes lead for Repeal but it could
      still be close if previous patterns hold (a-infos-en@ainfos.ca)


----------------------------------------------------------------------

Message: 1






This piece outlining the history and practice of white supremacy in the United States was 
published as part of the Lexicon pamphlet series created by the Institute for Anarchist 
Studies which "aims to convert words into politically helpful tools." Author Joel Olson 
was a committed organizer, thinker and active within US anarchist politics for many years. 
He authored The Abolition of White Democracy and you can find more of his writings here. 
---- By Joel Olson ---- Biologically speaking,there's no such thing as race. As hard as 
they've tried, scientists have never been able to come up with an adequate definition of 
it. Yet the social and political effects of race are very real. Race is like a dollar 
bill-a human creation rather than a fact of nature that has value only because people say 
it does. And like money, people give race "value" because it serves a function in society. 
That function in the United States is to suppress class conflict.

In the United States, the system of race (what we now call "white supremacy") emerged in 
the late 1600s to preserve the land and power of the wealthy. Rich planters in Virginia 
feared what might happen if indigenous tribes, slaves, and indentured servants united and 
overthrew them. Through a series of laws, they granted the English poor certain rights and 
privileges denied to all persons of African and Native American descent: the right to be 
excluded from enslavement, move about freely without a pass, acquire property, bear arms, 
enjoy free speech and assembly, change jobs, and vote. For their part, they respected the 
property of the rich, helped seize indigenous lands, and enforced slavery. In accepting 
this arrangement, the English poor (now called "whites") went against their class 
interests to serve their "racial" ones, and thereby reinforced the power of the rich.

This cross-class alliance between the ruling class and a section of the working class is 
the genesis of white supremacy in the United States. It continues to this day. In this 
system, members of the cross-class alliance get defined as white, while those excluded 
from it are relegated to a "not-white" status. By accepting preferential treatment in an 
economic system that exploits their labor, too, working-class members of the white group 
or "race" have historically tied their interests to those of the elite rather than the 
rest of the working class. This devil's bargain has undermined freedom and democracy ever 
since.

As this white alliance grew to include other ethnicities, the result was a curious form of 
democracy: the white democracy. In the white democracy, all whites were considered equal 
(even as the poor were subordinated to the rich and women were subordinated to men). At 
the same time, every single white person was considered superior to every single person of 
color. It was a system in which whites had an interest in and expectation of favored 
treatment, in a society that claimed to be democratic. It was democracy for white folks, 
but tyranny for everyone else.

In the white democracy, whites praised freedom, equality, democracy, hard work, and equal 
opportunity, while simultaneously insisting on higher wages, preferential access to the 
best jobs, informal unemployment insurance (first hired, last fired), full enjoyment of 
civil rights, and the right to send their kids to the best schools, live in the nicest 
neighborhoods, and receive decent treatment by the police. Even white women, who were 
otherwise denied full citizenship, enjoyed the benefits of white democracy, such as the 
right to legal representation, favored access to certain occupations (teaching, nursing, 
and clerical work), easier access to better housing (including indoor plumbing, heat, 
electricity, and time-saving household appliances), and/or the all-important guarantee 
that their children would never be enslaved.

In exchange for these "public and psychological wages," as W.E.B. Du Bois called them, 
whites agreed to enforce slavery, segregation, genocide, reservation, and other forms of 
racial oppression. The result was that working-class whites and people of color were 
oppressed because the working class was divided. The tragic irony is that many poor whites 
often did not get to make use of these advantages, yet despite this, they defended them 
bitterly.

The white democracy continues to exist, even after the end of slavery and legal 
segregation. Take any social indicator-graduation rates, homeownership rates, median 
family wealth, prison incarceration rates, life expectancy rates, infant mortality rates, 
cancer rates, unemployment rates, or median family debt-and you'll find the same thing: in 
each category, whites are significantly better off than any other racial group. As a 
group, whites enjoy more wealth, less debt, more education, less imprisonment, more health 
care, less illness, more safety, less crime, better treatment by the police, and less 
police brutality than any other group. Some whisper that this is because whites have a 
better work ethic. But U.S. history tells us that the white democracy, born over four 
hundred years ago, lives on.

The white race, then, does not describe people from Europe. It is a social system that 
works to maintain capitalist rule and prevent full democracy through a system of 
(relatively minor) privileges for whites along with the subordination of those who are 
defined as not white. The cross-class alliance thus represents one of the most significant 
obstacles to creating a truly democratic society in the United States.

This is not to say that white supremacy is the "worst" form of oppression. All oppression 
is equally morally wrong. Nor is it to imply that if white supremacy disappears, then all 
other forms of oppression will magically melt away. It is simply to say that one of the 
most significant obstacles to organizing freedom movements throughout U.S. history has 
been the white democracy, and that it remains a major obstacle today.

In a global economy (and a global recession), corporate elites no longer want to pay white 
workers the privileges they have historically enjoyed. Instead, they want to pay everyone 
the same low wages and have them work under the same terrible conditions.

Generally speaking, whites have responded to this attempt to treat them like regular 
workers in two ways. One is through "multiculturalism." This approach, popular in 
universities and large corporations, seeks to recognize the equality of all cultural 
identities. This would be fine, except multiculturalism regards white as one culture among 
others. In this way, it hides how it functions as an unjust form of power. 
Multiculturalism therefore fails to attack the white democracy. It leaves it standing.

The other response is color-blindness, or the belief that we should "get beyond" race. But 
this approach also perpetuates the white democracy, because by pretending that race 
doesn't exist socially just because it doesn't exist biologically, one ends up pretending 
that white advantage doesn't exist either. Once again, this reproduces white democracy 
rather than abolishes it.

There are right- and left-wing versions of color-blindness. On the Right, many whites 
sincerely insist they aren't racist but nonetheless support every measure they can to 
perpetuate their white advantages, including slashing welfare, strengthening the prison 
system, undermining indigenous sovereignty, defending the "war on drugs," and opposing 
"illegal immigration." On the Left, many whites assert that race is a "divisive" issue and 
that we should instead focus on problems that "everyone" shares. This argument sounds 
inclusive, but it really maintains the white democracy because it lets whites decide which 
issues are everyone's and which ones are "too narrow." It is another way for whites to 
expect and insist on favored treatment.

Multiculturalism and color-blindness (on the Right or Left) are no solution to white 
supremacy. The only real option is for whites to reject the white democracy and side with 
the rest of humanity. Fighting prisons, redlining, anti-immigrant laws, police brutality, 
attacks on welfare (which are usually thinly disguised attacks on African Americans), and 
any other form of racial discrimination are valuable ways to undermine the cross-class 
alliance. So are struggles to defend indigenous sovereignty, affirmative action, embattled 
ethnic studies programs in high schools and colleges, and the right for people of color to 
caucus in organizations or movements. All of these struggles-which people of color engage 
in daily, but whites only occasionally do, if at all-seek to undermine whites' interest in 
and expectation of favored treatment. They point out the way toward a new society.

We can see this in U.S. history, when fights to abolish the cross-class alliance have 
opened up radical possibilities for all people. Feminism in the 1840s and the movement for 
the eight-hour day in the 1860s came out of abolitionism. Radical Reconstruction (1868-76) 
very nearly built socialism in the South as it sought to give political and economic power 
to the freedmen and women. The civil rights struggle in the 1960s not only overthrew legal 
segregation, it also kicked off the women's rights, free speech, student, queer, peace, 
Chicano, Puerto Rican, and American Indian movements. When the pillars of the white 
democracy tremble, everything is possible. An attack on white supremacy raises the level 
of struggle against oppression in general.

Even today, the white democracy stands at the path to a free society like
a troll at the bridge. The task is to chase the troll away, not to pretend it doesn't 
exist or invite it to the multicultural table. Of course, this doesn't mean that people 
currently defined as white would
have no role or influence in such a society. It only means that they would participate as 
individuals equal to everyone else, not as a favored group.

Political movements in the United States must make the fight against any
expression of white democracy an essential part of their strategies. The expansion of 
freedom for people of color has always expanded freedom for whites as well. Abolishing 
white interests is not "divisive," "narrow," or "reverse racism." It's the key to a free 
society.

http://blackrosefed.org/white-supremacy-olson/

------------------------------

Message: 2





The Spanish CGT, with its 80,000 members, is the only example, at the international level, 
of mass organization claiming libertarian communism. The anarcho-syndicalist center, with 
which AL has long had privileged ties, held its confederal congress in February in 
Valencia. We spoke with Sandra Iriarte, 39, the Confederation's new Secretary for 
International Relations. ---- Libertarian alternative: What general assessment do you make 
of this congress ? ---- Sandra: This was the first convention I attended and it was a 
rewarding, very intense experience, with the surprise of being proposed as the new 
Secretary for International Relations. ---- In recent years, the CGT has grown above all 
in number of members and activists, more than by the creation of new sectors of 
implantation. This growth is notable in some sectors: telemarketing, private sector SMEs, 
and public administration.

Decisions partly reinforce already existing campaigns: defense of public services, 
struggle for dignified employment, guaranteed social income and against looting 
perpetrated by multinationals.

We have also validated campaigns of a social nature: the defense of the right to abortion 
in the public hospital service, eco-feminism, the development of our establishment among 
the youth and the fight against the precariousness that affects it.

We have, sometimes in France, the impression that the intensity of the class struggle in 
the Spanish State has decreased in recent years, especially since the emergence of the 
movement of Indigné.es. You confirm it ?

It is possible that the context of precariousness, a direct consequence of the various 
reforms of the Labor Code, and the new laws repressing the social resistance (among others 
the " gag law " mordaza said ) did not help the development of combativeness .

At the same time, it is clear that mass criticism of corruption, and more generally 
against the political class and the monarchy, has been maintained.

Since 2018, we can even note a return of social struggles with mass mobilizations: the 
success of the March 8 women's strike is a proof of this, just like the huge 
demonstrations that took place on the whole territory in defense of the rights retirees, 
not to mention the events that have followed in recent months in Catalonia with streets 
full of people.

The Spanish CGT has always been very present in international solidarity. What will your 
priorities be in this regard in the years to come ?

In the first place, as the International Relations team has just been renewed, we are 
aware of the necessary adaptation time to put us in order. We will try to respond to all 
the requests for active support from our international partners. Our priority is to 
strengthen our work towards certain specific areas: Democratic Kurdistan, Moroccan Rif, 
Sahara, Chiapas and more generally the Mexican social movement, as well as Mapuche 
territory in Chile.

Of course, the Red and Black Coordination (which brings together various European 
anarcho-syndicalist organizations) remains one of our privileged axes, and especially as 
the Spanish CNT intends to get involved, which is very good news. Similarly, the 
International Union Network of Solidarity and Struggle (RSISL) [1]is another very 
important area for us. We saw him again in Madrid last January, during the 3 rdMeeting the 
RSISL, the Network is a central framework to develop real bonds of mutual support between 
organizations claiming the same anti-capitalist and anti-imperialist struggle. It is not 
intended to be hegemonic or to be a fixed international structure. On the contrary, it is 
part of a dynamic against the dominant system, both economically and at the level of the 
various oppressions, in particular the fight against patriarchy and gender discrimination.

Interviewed and translated by Jérémie (AL Gard)

[1] The RSISL was created in March 2013 at the initiative of the CGT (Spanish State), the 
CSP-Conlutas (Brazil) and the Union Syndicale Solidaires (France) to allow trade union 
organizations of different cultures but inscribing all into a struggle, anti-capitalist, 
feminist, anticolonialist and environmentalist syndicalism to build and sustain struggles 
on a global scale. Today, 75 trade union organizations from 5 continents are members (for 
France CNT-SO, CNT-f, the union movement Emancipation and Solidaires): Laboursolidarity.org

http://www.alternativelibertaire.org/?Interview-de-Sandra-Iriarte-CGT-espagnole-2018-est-marque-par-le-retour-des

------------------------------

Message: 3





We are republishing the following article, written by the Croatian communist group Kontra 
Klasa, which gives a solid revolutionary internationalist insight into leftist support for 
nationalist causes. ---- The question of nationalism on the left is rarely asked in 
socialist circles and even when it is asked, it's mostly, unfortunately, answered by old 
dogmatic phrases or populist rhetoric lacking any serious analysis. Although it should be 
clear from the start that socialism - as the ideology of the international working class - 
is inherently incompatible with any kind of nationalism, a good part of nominally 
socialist and communist organizations actively propagates that sort of reactionary, 
anti-worker rhetoric. Whether they do so consciously or not is another question 
altogether. For that reason, we must once again explain the roots and class foundations of 
nationalism and point out its harmful influence on the contemporary socialist movement, 
however small the latter might be.

I

The Croatian Encyclopedia defines nationalism as: "an idea and political movement in the 
modern epoch which stresses the unity of the nation, its interests, rights or political 
goals, understanding of a common national history and the relationship towards other 
nations or states; that is, its collective identity."[1]It's clear from the above-stated 
definition that the concept of nationalism is inseparably linked with the concept of the 
nation, so we should start our discussion there.

Nations are a construct of the modern era. This claim might sound counterintuitive at 
first, but its validity becomes clear after delving just a bit deeper into the topic at 
hand. It is generally considered in historiography that nations (in the modern sense of 
the word) started coming into existence at the end of the 18th century, or rather with the 
French Revolution. Although it's possible that some sort of feeling of national identity 
existed earlier in economically developed countries like England[2]or the Netherlands 
(especially in the period of mercantilism), it remains a fact that the human race has 
spent most of its history without any knowledge of the concept of nation. Let us look once 
again in the Encyclopedia, for its definition of "nation": "a community based on: a) the 
belief of its members in a common origin and destiny in the past; b) the particularity of 
language, religion, customs and an array of symbolic means of presenting affiliation to a 
collective (anthems, flags, coats of arms, monuments, celebrations); c) the feeling of 
mutual solidarity, pride and social equality; d) political organization spanning from 
movements for the protection of cultural particularities to those struggling for state 
independence."[3]None of the above existed before the modern epoch on any scale larger 
than that of the family or tribe. In the past (at least until the end of the Middle Ages) 
the only forms of social belonging on a scale higher than that of the tribe were religious 
affiliation and loyalty to a certain nobleman or king. If we could even speak of "national 
identity" in that period, it was strictly limited to the nobility; both well-known Marxist 
historians like Hobsbawm and early nationalist ideologues, for instance the 19th century 
Croatian "pater patriae" Ante Starcevic[4], agree on that matter. Relations between the 
common folk and the nobility were full of contempt - they often didn't speak the same 
language, they (obviously) didn't have the same customs and sometimes they even belonged 
to different religions. If there were such a thing as "Croatian people" during the Middle 
Ages, it was confined to the nobility which happened to be born in, or rule over some part 
of Croatia.

If it used to be like that, what happened in the meantime? Nations and nationalities are 
an undeniable part of our reality. How and why did millions of poor commoners accept 
nationality as their main source of social identity? The answer lies in the great changes 
of the late 18th and 19th centuries, that is, in bourgeois revolutions of that time, by 
means of which feudalism gave way to capitalism.[5]Citizenry - or rather, the bourgeoisie 
- of western and central Europe couldn't take any more autocratic rule, high taxes and 
other problems which the rotten feudal system imposed on their constantly growing 
businesses and the market on which they made money. However, getting rid of the nobility 
was impossible without support from the common masses, and support had to be obtained some 
way or other. Rulers placed by god's will were counterposed to - the will of the people. 
In a sense which best fitted the bourgeoisie, of course. In short, the nation served the 
purpose of uniting European citizenry with peasants and the industrial proletariat in the 
making against a common enemy - the nobility. In other words, it blurred the differences 
in their respective class interests just enough for that sort of union to even be 
possible. And so, carried by the winds of change and industrial progress, the concept of 
nation spread around most of the world by the 20th century, closely followed by the dark 
shadow of nationalism.

If, then, nationalism is the ideology of the international bourgeoisie, socialism is the 
ideology of the international working class. Coming to existence during the French 
Revolution, socialism had its roots in the experiences of the young working class in the 
deadly factories and filthy streets of European cities. Socialism evolved with time, and 
so its most progressive communist branches - Marxism and some strains of anarchism - 
started to break the confines of bourgeois ideology and their supporters understood the 
need for the transboundary cooperation of the working class; in one word, the need for - 
internationalism.

Despite that, a lively discussion on the relation towards nationalism arose in the 
historic socialist movement; more precisely, a discussion about the relation towards 
struggles of oppressed nations for their national liberation. The earliest Marxist 
thinkers - including Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels themselves - supported the struggles 
of some nations (the Poles, for instance) because they considered their independence 
necessary for spreading capitalism, which was still in its "progressive" phase at the 
time, to the backward eastern regions of Europe. On the other hand, nationalist movements 
of some other peoples (like the Czechs or south Slavs) were considered reactionary 
adventures, only serving the purpose of preserving the status quo. Such a materialist 
analysis, as Rosa Luxemburg explained decades later in her National Question, was correct 
in principle, even though some of its practical applications were quite problematic and 
later proven to be wrong.[6]But with the development of social democracy in the ethnically 
diverse Russian Empire, the political line of the international workers' movement slipped 
from analyzing every specific national movement (and its influence on socialism) on its 
own to declaring general support for all struggles of national liberation.

That sort of approach was later, under Lenin's influence, canonized in the "right of 
nations to self-determination", which was used as an alibi for forming opportunist 
alliances with all sorts of nationalist forces during the Comintern period and afterwards. 
Lenin's (and the official Bolshevik) argument was at least two-pronged: on the one hand, 
it was considered that the independence of some nations (stress is once more on the Poles) 
could bring the Russian tsarist regime's downfall closer; the second argument was much 
more drowned in idealism - it was expected that solving the national question by means of 
national independence would help weaken the influence of nationalism on the oppressed 
nation's working class. While the first argument (though substituting the tsarist regime 
with modern imperialist powers) has experienced reincarnation in the form of various 
Maoist and/or Trotskyist grouplets offering "critical support" to nationalist and often 
chauvinist or fundamentalist organizations - let us remember the support which groups like 
the PFLP, ETA or IRA, but also extremist Islamist organizations like Hamas still enjoy on 
the left - the other argument is still used by many "moderate" groups in their calls for 
independence of new (mostly European) countries.

The first to vocally oppose that kind of argumentation was Rosa Luxemburg, a Pole who has 
clearly seen the influence of nationalist rhetoric on the development of Socialism in her 
homeland, and a similar stance was kept by members of the so-called "Communist left" after 
the Comintern was founded. Luxemburg chiefly claimed than nations, as homogenous 
communities with clearly defined demands, do not exist in reality and that national 
autonomy or independence only serve the interests of the national bourgeoisie[7], while 
not helping the local working class any more than simple linguistic and cultural equality 
inside the framework of the old state would (but she clearly understood the threat of 
chauvinism and racism, which is often overlooked by modern left-communists). History 
proved Rosa Luxemburg right in that regard; Poland, the Baltics, countries of the Balkans 
- all achieved independence but we're no closer to overthrowing capitalist relations than 
we were a hundred years ago, when the "right of nations to self-determination" became Holy 
Scripture of the ‘official' communist movement. However, she was wrong in one respect: 
nations didn't begin to disappear with the development of a global market, as she once 
predicted[8], but instead the complete opposite happened - "balkanization" is the order of 
the day as seemingly independent states play their role of spreading nationalist 
propaganda very well. The region of what used to be Yugoslavia experienced its 
consequences more than most.

II

It shouldn't be necessary to waste a lot of time explaining the destructive influence of 
nationalism on everyday life and the worker's movement. No matter if we're discussing 
"traditional" Balkan nationalism or modern anti-immigrant racism, those phenomena serve 
one basic purpose - dividing the working class and making its fight for improving living 
conditions harder; or to put it more simply, making capitalist exploitation of workers 
easier. The state apparatus is constantly spreading national division among the populace, 
either by way of active media propaganda (especially in times of war) or "passively", 
through the system of education in which history is mostly presented as black-and-white, 
with special focus on national conflicts.[9]

National differences are constantly used for creating strife in the working class in order 
to obstruct organizing, both on the workplace and on the class level. This is done in 
several ways. First of all, by spreading "traditional" hatred - a very common kind in the 
Balkans, where it's so ingrained in collective consciousness that it's only necessary to 
maintain it through regular celebrations (mostly of 20th century events) and galvanize it 
during periods of friction with neighboring states, when "flexing muscles" seems like a 
good scare tactic. Apart from the Balkans, traditional ethnic hatred often (almost 
constantly, in fact) appears in the Middle East, especially in Israel/Palestine where 
discrimination against the Arabic population is rampant, as well as in Turkey in the 
endless Turkish-Kurdish conflicts. This sort of strife is strongest in wartime, as we have 
witnessed in the 1990s and earlier, and the advantage it creates for the bourgeoisie over 
the working class is commonly expressed by one maxim in ex-Yugoslavia: "while we slaughter 
each other, they become richer."

Another form of nationalism is much younger - though not any less dangerous - and has only 
appeared recently in Southeast Europe: xenophobia, or rather, nativism. It is increasingly 
presented as a "workers'" form of nationalism because of its supposed opposition to ruling 
liberal ideology. Nativism mostly presents itself through anti-immigrant rhetoric, which 
is based on the idea that employers are using the influx of immigrant workforce for 
lowering or at least hindering growth of real wages, while middle class nativist 
ideologues add additional layers of racist pseudoscience in order to create as much 
hysteria as possible in the general populace. There are several issues with nativist 
rhetoric; first off, there's the fact that a constant flow of young workers is necessary 
for the normal functioning of western economies. Young workforce is ever more scarce in 
Europe in recent years due to expected demographic reasons, i.e., the process of 
demographic transition, and its lack will soon be felt even in a country as economically 
devastated as Croatia. This problem can only be realistically solved by allowing further 
immigration, although conservative political groupings - with the help of traditionally 
strong religious institutions and anti-immigrant hysteria - are trying to "encourage" 
demographic growth through restrictive laws such as abortion bans, stricter divorce 
legislation and legal discrimination of the LGBT community. The fact that labor is a 
sought-after commodity in Europe and North America, especially in times of economic growth 
such as today, should play into the hands of the working class, regardless of its ethnic 
or geographical origin. However, anti-immigrant rhetoric is being spread in an attempt to 
inhibit cooperation between the immigrant and indigenous working class, creating strife 
within the proletariat during which the capitalist class and the system itself will remain 
intact.

Since replenishing the workforce is of vital importance for the (modern) economy, 
immigration to the West could only be stopped by creating a net positive natural 
population growth rate by using aforementioned restrictive laws (which would probably 
yield no results) or by a huge increase in work hours coupled with no increase in wages, 
i.e., by militarization of labor last seen in the period preceding and during World War 
Two. The impact of such policies on the living standard of the working class should be 
easy to imagine. It is thus unrealistic - and absolutely undesirable - to wish for a 
complete ban on immigration, but it's quite likely that conservative political options 
will come to power in Europe in the following years on the platform of implementing racist 
legislation which will cause further ghettoization and harassment of immigrant 
minorities.[10]Ironically for the workers who placed their hopes in the hands of 
nationalist politicians, such policies will result in decreasing wages (first for the 
immigrant workers, then for the working class as a whole) and will only benefit employers. 
The European Union is already implementing anti-immigrant policy by maintaining "fortress 
Europe", a militarized outer frontier of the Union, with the goal of hindering movement of 
migrants mostly coming from war-torn parts of the world. As our Greek comrades have 
recently shown[11], the point of creating a militarized border lies partly in morbid 
separation of physically strong, high-quality and better-educated workforce from the rest, 
which is left to live in precarious conditions in refugee camps or die in the waves of the 
Mediterranean. Later on, the media creates a fuss over the number of "young, able-bodied 
men" entering Europe, in order to cause even greater panic.

Turning immigrant workers into second-grade citizens suits employers in another, more 
direct way - by denying access to welfare and membership in unions or any other kind of 
legal working-class organization, which results in lowering the price of immigrant labor 
and the general living standard of migrant workers. Lack of legal protection is a good way 
of turning immigrant workers away from active participation in workers' struggles, and 
this reactionary tactic can only be defeated by a working class united over all sorts of 
national, religious or racial barriers.

III

Since by this point we have passed through the history of nationalism and taken into 
consideration the impact of nationalist ideologies on the workers' movement in the past 
and present, we can finally raise the question: how should we fight their negative 
influence? Or rather, how to achieve a unity of the contemporary working class around 
internationalist positions? Answering this question is very hard for obvious reasons - the 
socialist workers' movement still hasn't recovered from the blows it took in the late 20th 
century and who knows when (or if it ever will) succeed in overcoming them. Despite that, 
almost all socialist organizations have an official position regarding the national 
question, with most of them following the traditional Leninist dogma of "the right of 
nations to self-determination". We mentioned earlier what sort of reasoning historically 
stood behind advocating that "right" and have shown its negative role in history so that 
we could finally start with a critique of its use in the present day.

Some basic reasons for supporting struggles of "national liberation" have partly stayed 
the same - solving the national question supposedly clears the way for "pure" class 
struggle - and partly they got a new dimension, that of anti-imperialism. It doesn't take 
much to challenge the first argument, as anyone with a grain of knowledge of contemporary 
history can clearly see that the creation of new nation-states doesn't contribute to the 
extinction of nationalism among the working class of a certain nation. This 
(counterproductive) tactic is widely popular within the "soft", more or less reformist 
European and American left; as was best shown during the campaign for Scottish secession 
from the United Kingdom, when large parts of the left supported Scottish independence 
using arguments, or rather wishful thinking which could be summed up as "Scottish workers 
will understand that the SNP is no different than the old Labor or Conservative parties 
after independence is achieved, so they will start denouncing nationalism." Sure they will.

Another guiding principle of national liberation supporters is anti-imperialism. It comes 
in at least two versions: first of all, related to the paragraph above, a certain number 
of socialists believes that national independence predetermines a "left" economic policy 
of the newly established state which can, finally free of the bondage imposed upon it by 
the old exploiting ("imperial") seat of power, start implementing progressive economic 
reforms for the good of the people. In this case, not only national liberation movements 
are supported but also all kinds of nationalist and isolationist parties intent on pushing 
their state's economies away from the western sphere of influence. It should be mentioned, 
though, that in some cases such movements fulfilled their promises and had, for instance, 
nationalized important segments of the economy; but this raises another question - is 
nationalization really a measure socialists should support in and of itself?[12]

In an even worse form this tactic includes supporting parties and movements with a 
protectionist political platform, i.e., those in favor of larger subsidies to domestic 
entrepreneurs (in order for them to be more competitive on the global market) or 
state-sponsored rejection of foreign investment in the economy, usually under the mask of 
patriotism. Some good examples of this would include the national-nepotist regimes of 
Franjo Tudman and Slobodan Miloševic in Croatia and Serbia respectively[13], which are 
still being praised by local leftists using similar rhetoric. Looking closer in time, this 
line of argumentation was used by the right-wing, but also by parts of the "soft left", 
during the Brexit campaign. Still, the question of why socialists should care more about 
"home-grown" capitalists than about "foreign" ones (that is, why should we care about them 
at all) remains unanswered.

Another, more ideologically burdened version of anti-imperialism, can easily be explained 
by the childish maxim "the enemy of my enemy is my friend", which is then used as basis 
for giving out support to all sorts of nationalist and fundamentalist movements. This 
tactic is mainly justified by the idea that "a blow to imperialism is a blow to 
capitalism", while only western (European and American) imperialism tends to be considered 
the enemy and Russian and Chinese neo-imperialism are given a free pass or even considered 
to be a positive process. So nominally internationalist political organizations end up 
supporting, for example, all three or four sides in the Yugoslav Wars[14], Russian 
neo-fascists in Ukraine and even Hamas, Hezbollah and, believe it or not, groups as 
reactionary as the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria.[15]

A silver lining is that groups upholding these positions are small sects whose only 
purpose is preserving the "correct line", made up and fossilized in the 1970s at the 
latest, without any real-life impact on the working class. Is it even worth talking about 
"critical support" for some African Islamist militia when that support is being given by a 
grouplet of half a dozen American students with internet access? A somewhat bigger problem 
arises when the entire Left starts begging their own respective states for military 
intervention in support of a certain nationalist gang, thus putting aside the interests of 
workers in a given country in exchange for vague promises of democracy and 
decentralization.[16]Their states are more than willing to appease them - after all, it's 
not often that the left shares a common interest with imperialism coming from their own 
country. Still, a sad fact remains that most socialist organizations keep taking sides in 
ethnic conflicts, mostly just for the sake of conducting pathetic internet fights with 
other useless sects with a different stance regarding the given bloodbath.

At this moment, we should present an alternative. Most leftists will by this point start 
making reflexive reactions to the text above: "you are supporting imperialism", "should 
people facing death just accept their fate?", "[insert ethnic militia]is the lesser evil", 
"you're a small group and you talk down to us?" etc. We can just laugh off the accusation 
for supporting imperialism. If it is capable to do so, the working class should fight 
against their own state's imperialism (to quote German communist Karl Liebknecht - "the 
main enemy is at home"): historically, and even recently[17], that was a common 
occurrence, but foiling the plans of your "domestic" capitalists is not the same as 
supporting the invaded nation's ruling class. The task of communists is to encourage such 
workplace struggles instead of vainly rallying to support foreign, often autocratic 
regimes. When it comes to other common critiques, the size of our group(s) is precisely 
reason why we understand that our support for any nationalist movement is of no value 
either for them or for the working class as a whole. In short, while we are small in 
numbers, our support is meaningless; if, as communists, we become somewhat influential in 
the workers' movement, then our support for nationalist gangs becomes equal to treason 
both of socialism and of the interests of workers themselves. Syrian Kurds will defeat 
ISIS with or without our nominal support; equally so, they will - or maybe they will not - 
establish another generic ethnically cleansed (quasi-)state forced to operate by the laws 
of market and capital.

In conclusion, what are we socialists meant to do in this hostile nationalist environment? 
Let's go back to the basics - the struggle against nationalism on the workplace is one of 
the most important and achievable tasks we can do, even as dispersed and few in numbers as 
we currently are. On a higher level, the political independence of the working class 
remains a distant but desirable goal. How important our influence is in achieving it and 
how much it is a result of the more or less spontaneous flashes of class struggle, remains 
open for debate. Regardless, the principle of internationalism must remain strong at least 
in currently existing political groups and the slogan of the socialist workers' movement 
must forever be "no war between nations, no peace between classes!"

Kontra Klasa (Croatia) Original article HERE

[1]http://www.enciklopedija.hr/natuknica.aspx?id=42695

[2]http://weeklyworker.co.uk/worker/1067/nation-state-and-nationalism/

[3]http://www.enciklopedija.hr/natuknica.aspx?id=42693

[4]"Do you think that, for example, count Toulouse, the duke of Burgundy and other great 
French noblemen knew and cared more for the kingdom of France than, say, for India? Not at 
all. They knew only for the king of France, they held on to him and defended him, so that 
he may defend them from their neighbors and vassals if need be. It was like that in all 
feudal lands. Nobles and priests were considered the people, for the nation in the modern 
sense was unknown at the time." (See: Iztocno pitanje, Inacica, 1995, p. 34)

[5]Although the process of transformation of feudal Europe into a capitalist powerhouse 
lasted for a longer period of time, it was marked by sparks of clear class struggle in the 
shape of revolutions. "Stalling" with the abolition of feudal relationships took its toll 
on the development of nations in Eastern Europe.

[6]For instance, the claim that south Slavic peoples are "ahistorical" and doomed to ruin 
and assimilation into larger surrounding nations. But such stances were mostly remnants of 
Marx' and Engels' Hegelian Slavophobic approach, which disappeared with time (the change 
of approach is clearly visible in Engels' foreword to the Russian edition of the Communist 
Manifesto from 1882, in which he praises Russian revolutionaries - 
https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1848/communist-manifesto/preface.htm#preface-1882)

[7]Or even worse - Luxemburg claimed that earliest Polish nationalism was used mostly as a 
rallying cry of the endangered nobility and a similar pattern can be noticed in other 
parts of eastern and southern Europe as well. This phenomenon requires a deeper analysis 
in an essay of its own.

[8]"The form that best serves the interests of exploitation in the contemporary world is 
not the "national" state, as Kautsky thinks, but a state bent on conquest." - The National 
Question, R. Luxemburg (https://www.marxists.org/archive/luxemburg/1909/national-question/)

[9]An obvious example would be the Yugoslav wars of the 90s; schoolbooks in Croatia, 
Serbia and Bosnia-Herzegovina often contain completely different accounts of the conflict, 
depending on the target audience's nationality. However, a similar policy was established 
in socialist Yugoslavia with regard to the German minority, which was usually equated with 
Nazis in order to justify its expulsion in the late 1940s.

[10]A good example would be the German AfD (Alternative für Deutschland) party which 
threatens to send the army to guard state borders and introduce discriminatory laws 
towards the German Muslim community, such as bans on building minarets.

[11]"Despite the spectacle of the dysfunction and inadequacy of the borders when they are 
violated, the borders actually function as filters for the selection of labor power 
because they put obstacles (which sometimes are lethal) that sort out the younger, more 
vigorous and more physically and mentally healthy immigrants, that favor men much more 
than women and children, that give preferentiality to those who have some money and 
personal or family resources. For the immigrants who seek a better life in Europe the 
severe hardships they experience when they cross the borders constitute a harsh endurance 
test, a preparation for a longer or shorter period of precarious labor and "illegality"." 
(See: Vogelvrei. Migration, deportations, capital and its state http://antithesi.gr/?p=44)

[12]Salvador Allende's government in Chile is often mentioned in this context, especially 
because it was toppled by a CIA orchestrated coup d'état in 1973. But it is all too common 
to forget the passivizing influence Allende's rule had on the Chilean working class, which 
ultimately resulted in a lack of resistance to the coup itself. (See: Strange defeat: The 
Chilean revolution, 1973; 
https://libcom.org/library/strange-defeat-chilean-revolution-1973-pointblank )

[13]Franjo Tudman (1922 - 1999), president of Croatia from 1990 until his death, and 
Slobodan Miloševic (1941 - 2006), president of Serbia (1991 - 1997) and of the Federal 
Republic of Yugoslavia (a union of Serbia and Montenegro, 1997 - 2000). Together with 
Bosnian president Izetbegovic, they represent the most important nationalist figures 
during the dissolution of Yugoslavia.

[14]Compare: Are the Bosnian Muslims a Nation?, RCIT, 1994 
(http://www.thecommunists.net/theory/bosnian-muslim-nation/) and Chickens come home to 
roost over Balkans betrayal, Workers' Hammer, 1995 
(https://www.marxists.org/history/etol/newspape/workershammer-uk/148_1995_11-12_workers-hammer.pdf)

[15]See for instance: Down With U.S. War Against ISIS!, ICL-FI, 2014 
(http://www.icl-fi.org/english/wv/1055/isis.html) or Let us support the Islamic State 
against the imperialist holy alliance, PMLI, 2015 
(http://pmli.it/articoli/2015/20151015_scuderiletussupporttheislamicstate.html)

[16]We're mostly referring to the Syrian Kurdish rebels led by the PYD party which enjoys 
almost uniform support from the western leftist scene and also, unsurprisingly, from NATO 
air forces responsible for thousands of civilian deaths in Iraq and Syria. (See more: The 
Bloodbath in Syria: class war or ethnic war?, D. Valerian, 2014 - 
https://libcom.org/blog/bloodbath-syria-class-war-or-ethnic-war-03112014)

[17]One of the better and yet mostly unknown recent examples of internationalism would be 
the British railroad workers strike during preparations for the 2003 invasion of Iraq. 
(See here: 
http://www.vice.com/en_uk/read/the-untold-story-of-how-scottish-train-drivers-tried-to-derail-the-iraq-war)

https://www.anarchistcommunism.org/2018/05/19/left-nationalism-a-history-of-the-disease/

------------------------------

Message: 4





Photos of the gathering outside the notary of Ravazoula on Thursday 17/5 ---- At midday on 
Wednesday, 16 May, we held a concentration against the auctions in Pl. Georgiou. Then, 
20-25 comrades and comrades went to the notary office of Athena Rabazoula, on Votsi 52, 
which once again had (amongst other notaries) to carry out electronic auctions. ---- 
There, while there were some captains at the door, we attempted to enter the notary, with 
the result that a platoon intervened and stood right in front of us. Then, we made another 
attempt to enter the apartment building where the office is housed, and we accept the 
police attack. ---- The next day, Thursday 17 May, a gathering of about 70 people was held 
in front of the Notary. Without being fully verified, the night before, under the pressure 
of the movement and the successive gatherings and attacks in her office, the well-known 
crow was found to have the need either to cancel the auction or to implement it from an 
unknown hole outside her office ...

Towards the end of the gathering there was a symbolic attack in red colors to the cops who 
guard their bosses (the bankers and the state) and to the entrance of the offices.

In both days we have made controversial motions of resistance, showing that there is 
another way out of conciliation, factoring and television chatter. This combat-collective 
resistance, practical class and social solidarity, self-organized kinematic action on the 
road.

We call the world of the struggle vigilant for the upcoming mobilizations, wherever the 
exploitation of the social wealth in our region is attempted and we declare that we will 
stand in every way against the state and its mechanisms in the attempt to loot the 
people's dwelling. Housing, as well as access to basic social goods (electricity, water, 
health, education) are non-negotiable rights and we will defend them against the state, 
which once again strikes the lower and poorer social strata confirms its timeless 
antisocial roll. Any notary attempts to contribute to the realization of the most 
anti-social plans of the state and the capital must know that he should also bear the cost 
of his choices. This is the moment when organized,

The only way to be able to respond to the attack launched by the state, banks and bosses 
is the road of social and class struggles. Employees themselves, the unemployed, the 
youth, the locals and the immigrants, knowing their real needs, must live in their own 
hands, organize themselves and fight, collectively, self-organized and out of all sorts of 
mediation and factories. In every social and workplace, in schools and schools, 
workplaces, neighborhoods and streets, away from any party and syndicalist manipulation 
that inevitably leads to the weakening and degeneration of the social and class movement. 
It is now perceived that people from the bottom of society, they can no longer have any 
confidence and can not wait for anything from the various aspiring managers and mediators 
of social anger. The only way to abolish exploitation and oppression is the 
self-organized, unconditional social and class struggles of the base, the total rupture 
with the rotten system and the overthrow of the state and capitalism.

We emphasize that the insidious approaches of the state, the bosses, the bankers and their 
notaries will fall into the gap. No attempt to evict will be tolerated. Safeguard our 
neighborhoods, apply social solidarity and class self-organization in practice.

To link the few and demanding struggles for permanent and stable work, access to the 
social goods of housing, care, education, for the defense of labor and social rights, with 
the comprehensive and timely social and political demand to overthrow the world power and 
the libertarian transformation of society. For the society of equality and solidarity. Of 
justice and freedom.

Against state repression, state plans, bosses and their notaries, but also against all 
those who attempt to use the struggle for their own benefits, disorienting it from its 
real disputes, oppose the ongoing and organized struggle by down. Organize social 
self-defense and class counter-attack.

Photos from the 16/5 gathering here .

We continue. Self-organized-class-fighter!

Block in auctions. No man without a house!

https://ipposd.wordpress.com/2018/05/18

------------------------------

Message: 5





Two new opinions polls were out Sunday morning on next Fridays referendum to remove the 
hated 8th amendment to the constitution that equates the life of a woman with that of a 
foetus. Both this mornings polls are good news for the Yes to Repeal campaign with an 
increased Yes vote since the same companies' previous polls. ---- The Red C poll shows a 
3% increase for Yes, 1% increase for No since their last poll. ---- The B&A poll shows a 
5% increase for Yes to 52% with 5% fall for No to 24%. With Don't Knows excluded, this is 
63% Yes 32% No. ---- The MRBI poll published by the Irish Times on Thursday wasn't so 
good, it had a 5% drop for Yes in comparison with their previous polls, suggesting a very 
much tighter 58% Yes, 42% No vote. ---- What is important when looking at these polls if 
not the date they were published but rather the dates data was collected over. All 3 polls 
have collecting periods overlap (see graphic). The MRBI was collected over a short 2-day 
period 14/15 May and has the worst result for Together for Yes . The B&A poll was 
collected over a long 12 day period and appears to have the best result for Yes. The Red C 
poll was collected over 6 days and with don't knows excluded has the same result at the 
B&A one.

As the polls overlap we have to consider that all three are correct even though the 
numbers differ. B&A and RedC are similar when Don't Knows are excluded but MRBI is 
radically worse for Yes. As MRBI collected towards the end of the period it MIGHT be 
showing a sudden No swing although we consider this unlikely. Its more likely that the 
difference reflects long standing differences in polling methodology.

When we adjust each polling companies results by how far out that company was on the 2015 
Marriage Equality referendum vote its the Red C poll that gives Yes a clear win, the other 
two would be too close to call. Why?

With their weekend before Marriage Equality poll B&A had
Yes 63
No 26
Don't Know 11

BUT result was
Yes 62
No 38

So ALL B&A Don't Know went to No in that Marriage Equality referendum and so did some yes 
votes. If the same happened on May 25th the Yes would only have 51%, way too close to call.
https://www.wsm.ie/c/repeal-8th-warning-marriage-equality-poll-comparison

This isn't intended as a prediction, just an illustration that Don't Knows might break 
very heavily for NO and in that case 2 of these 3 polls say its still too close to call 
while just one is a Yes win.

In other words while the polls are good news for Yes its all still to play for in the 
final few days. At this stage getting out the Yes vote is going to be central as in a 
close result who votes could decide it. eg Over 65s are most likely to vote and are 
heavily No, this age group was key to Brexit passing in the UK.

There remains a sharp urban rural divide so a sunny day in the west and heavy rain in 
Dublin could have a big impact. If your a Yes vote make sure you actually vote and spend 
the week talking to other Yes voters encouraging them out too. We can win this but its not 
yet won.

Here are our 8 reasons we are voting Yes to Repeal the hated 8th 
https://www.wsm.ie/c/8-reasons-vote-yes-to-repeal

17 May - Its just over a week before Ireland will have a referendum to remove the clause 
in the constitution the equates the life of a women with that of a foetus. The Irish 
Times/MRBI have published a poll showing Yes has a 16 point lead over No with one week to 
go to the referendum. The detail of the poll also reveals a surprisingly large soft No 
vote still exists. 22-35% of No voters should be voting Yes according to their opinions on 
wanting more abortion access for women.

But we also continue to warn that if a similar last minute drop in support fort Yes 
happened as occurred with the Marriage Equality referendum the strong lead in this poll 
would reduce so that the vote was too close to call. In other words there should be no 
room for complacency, its likely every vote will count as happened with the 1995 divorce 
referendum which pass with a tiny margin of 50.28% Yes, equivalent to a couple of votes 
per ballot box.

No still has a significant soft vote with;
A. 35% of No voters feel access to abortion up to 12 weeks on request is a reasonable 
compromise. Presumably because they know proving rape cannot be made conditional on 
accessing abortion - trial take weeks, not months and conviction rates are low. The recent 
Belfast trial is probably in many peoples minds. But 12 weeks on request can't happen 
without a Yes vote to Repeal, its completely impossible with the 8th in place.
B. 22% of No voters say the law needs to change to recognise a women's right to choose to 
have an abortion. This is a VERY soft No indeed as clearly Repeal the 8th has to happen to 
make this possible, there is no way this 22% should, be voting No while holding this opinion.

These detailed figures are available here https://www.irishtimes.com/news/politics/poll

Both these large soft No blocs suggest that if people fully understood the referendum and 
the implications of a No vote as a continuation of cruel regime of the 8th then there 
should be at least a 10% switch from No to Yes with the referendum then passing 63% Yes to 
39% No. This may explain why No has fallen back on distrust, fear and confusion messaging 
along with trying to make referendum campaign as toxic as possible. They need not to allow 
the 22% to 35% soft No voters to consider the implications of a No victory.

Overall the Irish Times / MRBI poll has responses as follows
44 Yes
32 No
17 Don't Know
5 Won't Vote
2 Refused to say

The poll was collected Monday & Tuesday of this week, the controversial Clare Burns Live 
shows which has a strong No bias in speaker section and time was broadcast Monday night so 
No might have expected a much stronger showing in this poll as they were very loudly 
declaring a victory after than broadcast. This poll however shows no significant change in 
comparison with the KMB poll taken a couple of weeks beforehand.

Dublin remains strongly Repeal with Ulster/Connacht which has seen large scale suppression 
(tearing down) of Yes posters being the weakest, close to 50:50. It's also the smallest 
regional bloc of voters.

The detail of the poll also reveals that the Urban V Rural divide has close a lot during 
the campaign, according to this poll
Rural V Urban
Yes 39% V 46%
No 36% V 30%

Age remains the biggest dividing line, over 65s are the only group strongly intending to 
vote No
18 to 24 V 65+
Yes 52% V 30%
No 27% V 47%

Older voters won it for both Trump & Brexit, will the same happen here and the same sense 
of a betrayal of grand children's futures by their own grand parents - in this case where 
ether consequences don't even directly effect them? Talk kindly to your grandparents about 
this.

With this question its interesting that with the 65+ and 18-24 age groups the Don't Knows 
lean towards No strongly but all the in between age groups lean towards Yes. With the 65+ 
we can say this is the influence of clerical ideology over a life time. With the 18-24 
this is the group most likely to see the enormous No spend on misleading online adverts 
and which doesn't necessarily have the life experience to measure this against. In terms 
of voter mobilisation it may be that No's early contempt towards younger (student) voters 
may hurt them here.

The IT/MRBI last polled in April, this is the shift between their April poll and this one
April->This poll
Yes 47->44
No 28 ->32
DK 20->17
Won't vote 3->5
Won't say 1->2

It's unusual for Won't vote and Won't say figures to rise in the course of a referendum. 
This very much reflects the hate and fear messaging of the No campaign along with the 
widespread attempts to sow confusion and doubt. It's clearly scared some intending voters 
from voting and made others fearful of speaking. This also happened in 1983 leading to a 
tiny turnout of 53% on the day. No have been busy in the last few days setting the ground 
for declaring the referendum to be a fix, a low turnout would also help them in that 
respect so its useful to be aware that they are trying to engineer a low turnout. At times 
this has been blatant, as with releasing press releases saying colleges should not close 
on the 25th to allow students to vote.

A lot of people are very sure of how they will vote, this is obviously good for Yes and 
bad for No as it suggests the pool of voters who can be shifted is not large. Yes has very 
much larger canvass teams so they are much more likely to be able to sway this pool in the 
final week.
65% never change
22% extremely unlikely
9% unlikely but open
4% possibly

We presume there will be at least another 2 polls out in next few days if all major 
polling companies are polling. The MRBI 'weekend before' poll was closest to being correct 
for the Marriage Equality Referendum result, more on this important comparison for the 
previous polls and how we do this calculation

That said in bad news for No and going somewhat against our Marriage Equality ref 
comparison more Don't Knows are leaning to Yes than No

Lean Yes 31%
Lean No 24%
Not leaning 44%

But if we assume all No leaning Don't Knows become No votes this poll becomes one very 
close to what happened with MRBI and their Marriage Equality referendum polling, bringing 
us back towards a too close to call result. Again we say this is a warning and not as a 
prediction of actual outcome, there is far more for the No campaign to sweat over in this 
poll which is why they are preparing the ground for their defeat and claims of a rigged 
referendum.

Canvassing and leafletting for Yes is going to have a massive impact in the remaining week 
of campaigning. So too will talking to your friends, workmates and relatives. Divorce 
passed in 1995 by a tiny fraction and its looking like it could be very close for Repeal 
so do have those conversations. No want a low turnout, we want a high one so vote early on 
the 25th, and post to social media that you have done so to encourage others to do likewise.

20th April - Three additional opinion polls this April have shown that the anti-choice 
campaign has failed to reduce the number of people intending to repeal the 8th referendum 
at all, despite 3 months of frantic campaigning that has involved an enormous spend on 
misleading billboards, posters, online ads and glossy colour leaflets. With the Together 
for Yes campaign only gearing up last week this means the No may may well decrease between 
now and the referendum. However as our reports and analysis of these poles show the 
pro-choice Yes campaign cannot be complacent.

Two of these polls appeared on 28th and 29th April, the Daily Mail one had a very loaded 
to the No side question, the Red C seems to continue to over estimate the Yes relative to 
other polls.

The Red C poll in Sunday Business Post 29th April confirms little change against their 
previous poll since campaigns started in February.

No vote static at 26%,
Yes vote at 53% down 3% since last their poll but 3% is margin of error.
Don't Know up 3 to 19%
Won't vote static at 2%
The image above shows all 6 polls and demonstrate that despite Save the 8th & Love Both No 
campaigns spend of millions the No vote has not increase at all.

With Don't Know excluded that Sunday Business Post / Red C poll has

68% Yes
32% No
Note this is a higher Yes than that which other companies are finding but the Yes to No 
ratio has remained close to 2:1 in all polls, all variation appears to be down to the 
company polling with Red C polling yes the highest.

But please also read our we explanation of why Yes needs not to get complacent on the 
basis of our adjustment of polling figures on the basis of previous referendums and in 
particular Marriage Equality.

Sunday 22nd April saw the appearance of yet another opinion poll of the referendum to 
repeal the anti-choice amendment added to the constitution in 1983. As with all 5 opinion 
polls that have appeared during the campaign it showed little change at the national 
level, the strong lead for Yes remains. But when the full data was published Monday we had 
a look and discovered some interesting trends within it.

The Sunday Times teased everyone Saturday night with tweet pointing out the Dublin Yes had 
fallen 8%. They probably a sold a good few papers the next day off of it but in doing so 
they buried the lead that otherwise no significant change in voting intentions had 
occurred in comparison with their previous polls.

You can view this Behaviour & Attitudes poll reported in the Sunday Times. In this poll 
928 people were questioned meaning the margin of error is 3.3% error. Once that is taken 
into account we see the tiny changes in voting intentions are not significant despite what 
the Save 8th and Love Both spokes people initially tried to claim.

People were also asked if they supported unrestricted access to abortion in the first 12 
weeks of preganancy, the period in which the abortion pill can be used. Despite the No 
campaigns huge huge spend on misleading posters, billboards, online ads & leaflets there 
was no impact on voter attitudes on this question. There is certainly an argument that the 
Save the 8th campaign being caught multiple times with its dirty tricks campaign at the 
start of the campaign rightly did permanent credibility damage to the No side. There was 
also no change in attitudes to allowing abortion to protect womens health & where there is 
fatal foetal abnormality detected.

This 3rd B&A/ST poll was done from 15-17th April . This was right at the end of the period 
when only Vote No posters were up, and in considerable numbers. Since then the Together 
for Yes & other Repeal the 8th posters are appearing in increasing numbers. The failure of 
the anti-choice organisations to erode ‘soft Yes' votes when they were the most prominent 
voice by far is a serious setback for them. Now the question is whether the ‘soft No' vote 
will be eroded by arguments for compassion & protection of health as the referendum 
approaches in 5 weeks.

‘Soft No' votes can be understood as No voters who also want to protect womens health & 
allow abortion for fatal foetal abnormalities. Doing either however requires Repeal. The 
No campaign is in trouble here, this B&A poll on page 17 shows 33% of No voters want 
abortion in such cases & 11% don't know. In this context 44% of the No could be won to Yes 
by the Together for Yes campaign as it unfolds.

Pages 16+17 of this B&A poll shows that the ‘Soft Yes' is proportionately small, less than 
half as a proportion than the ‘Soft No' so even apart from their failure to date the 
anti-choice campaigns are in a weak position. To illustrate

For voters who intend to vote Yes to repeal some 12% are against unrestricted access to 12 
weeks and 8% don't know, so you could say 20% of the Yes vote was soft. On the allowing 
access to abortion in cases of fatal foetal abnormality and where the persons health is 
threatened some 9% of Yes voters are against and 5% don't know. This is a 13% ‘soft' vote

Here its worth noting that although the 3 months of (mostly No) campaign have not effected 
voting intentions on repeal pages 16 & 17 does show both Yes and No soft votes have 
reduced between February & April polling, presumably as people educate themselves on these 
topics.
Soft Yes i.e. against 12 weeks fell from 21% of Yes to 14%
Soft No i.e. for health & FFA fell from 49% of No to 44%

So as an exercise if we take soft votes into account the unrealistic worst cases, assuming 
all Don't Knows go against them as
Yes falls to 40% if all ‘soft yes' lost
No falls to 16% if all ‘soft no' lost

This sort of complete loss is very unlikely but this exercise demonstrates what a bad 
situation the anti-choice campaigns are in.

When you add the 2 other polls in the 3 month campaign period in (see image in 1st 
comment) and exclude Don't Knows we see some differences probably due to different MRBI 
and Red C methodology but confirmation across all these polls that there have been no 
major changes in voter intention at the national level. Including Don't Knows and Won't 
vote makes little difference, again there is very little change over the three months of 
campaigning.

But to warn against Yes complacency. The 1995 Divorce referendum was almost lost despite a 
strong showing at start when the Yes vote fell sharply in the last days of the campaign. 
That said the fall was between the polls before the campaign started with a big drop 
during the campaign itself. The three B&A polls above are all taken with the campaigns 
underway. There does seems to have been a small drop before the campaign started as 
recorded in the MRBI and Red C January polls. Divorce data from the Irish Political 
Ephemera page

We are going to move on to looking at the B&A/ST data on regional voting intentions & how 
much can be said about the data on voting intention by age, gender, 'social class' and 
political party support. This is complex so you may want to have a look at what we wrote 
comparing their previous two polls where we discuss the issues around doing this, in 
particular then increase in the margin of error.

The change in voting intentions by region from the 3 polls carried out by B&A/Sunday 
Times, February to April show the urban V rural divide collapsing. In other words the Yes 
falls in Dublin & other urban areas but this fall is balanced by a No fall in rural areas 
so that there is no overall change of significance.

Yes has shifted from being well ahead in Dublin & other urban areas to being well ahead 
everywhere
Even in Connacht/Ulster Yes is now 13% ahead
The reduced Dublin Yes lead is still 27% ahead
Overall the Rural Yes is now 14% ahead, it was 1% behind back in February

With all the sub group discussions its important to keep in mind that as group size 
decreases the margin of error increases substantially.

When to look at this poll by region, gender & social class we see strong variations here 
as with the previous two B&A polls but no significant movement between these polls. Repeal 
the 8th remains the choice of every group except the over 55s which are Save the 8th by 
4%, really with the margin of error included this makes them 50:50.

Another reminder that because these sub populations are small when looking at the raw B&A 
tables its important to keep an eye on sample size as what looks like a change may not be 
when margin of error for small sample is considered. For instance sequentially across the 
3 polls it looks like the under 35s No vote goes from 25 -> 18 -> 23 but a lot of this may 
be because the margin of error for that sub sample size would be plus/minus 6%. So the 
first month drop is real but the subsequent rise may not be. On the other hand the under 
35 Yes at 59% and No at 23% is a difference of 36%, many times the margin of error, so its 
real.

Keeping the margin of error in mind
-Yes does better than average with under 35s & ABC1s
- No does better than average with over 55s & C2DEs but pensioners are probably tilting 
that C2DE average towards No because of the over 55 effect. C2DEs are still voting Yes by 
a margin of 6%

A word of warning for Together 4 for Yes - when asked if they would vote in a general 
election (p31) 79% of the over 55s will definitely vote as against 60% of the under 34s. 
If the Yes vote falls and the referendum was close that higher over 55 turnout could 
defeat repeal the 8th. But of course intention to vote in an election isn't the same as 
intention to vote in a referendum - anarchists vote in referendum only rarely if at all in 
elections, see https://www.wsm.ie/elections for why

Finally we look at the ST/BA poll and the data on how the vote breaks down by political 
party. And here we see the reason for Fianna Fails self destructive opportunism of trying 
to ride both horses at once, their voters are split 50:50, 41:42 to be precise. Rural 
Fianna Fail will want to be visibly No but that could spell the doom for urban Fianna Fail 
who already face decimation from the growing urban Sinn Fein vote that is hovering up what 
used to be the Fianna Fail youth vote/

All the other parties have far more Yes voters, the lead of Yes over No for each of the 
major parties is
Fine Gael 24%
Labour 30%
Sinn Fein 30%

Of these Labour & Sinn Fein are both actively campaigning for Repeal while Fine Gael is 
halfhearted with little on the ground activity and an intended spend that is a fraction of 
Together for Yes. We may have forced the establishment to call a referendum but they 
certainly do not intend to win it for us, indeed a victory will be a defeat for the spot 
of politics of control they held for the last 90 years. And not too soon.

The Irish Times with MRBI published an opinion poll on the Repeal the 8th referendum 20th 
April that once more showed a strong Yes lead and a static No. It is the 6th poll of the 
year so we thought it useful to generate a side by side comparison of the Yes & No votes 
for all 6. The polls were carried out by MRBI, Red C and Behaviour & Attitudes.

20/April IT/MRBI

  poll has

Yes 47%
No 28%
Don't Know 20%
Won't vote 3%

With undecided excluded that come down to
63% Yes
to
37% No

With the chart above we eliminated undecided from all 6 polls.

Other significant finds from this mornings poll included;

A narrow majority of Fianna Fail votes favour repeal
39% Yes
37% No

This is very bad news for No campaigns as it suggests there will be no further opportunism 
from Fianna Fail TDs who might otherwise think campaigning for a No would damage their 
Fine Gael or Sinn Fein rivals. This is now only the case in some rural areas and the 
advantage would be small but the Fianna Fail party nationally would have to be conferenced 
that any further prominent opportunism from rural Tis would further damage their chances 
of an urban recovery rather than the permanent loss of seats to Sinn Fein. Fianna Fail did 
a press stunt yesterday where several party members appeared with a Together for Yes 
banner, cynically we suspect this was because they were forwarned of todays poll showing 
No had failed to gain.

Most importantly the Yes vote appears to be very very solid with 80% of Repeal voters 
saying they would never change their mind. Its probable the sheer toxicity and 
disinformation of the No campaign as well as the saturation coverage in terms of 
billboards and online ads has backfired and solidified the Yes vote.

Also of great significance undecideds are leaning 2:1 towards Repeal - this is unusual in 
a referendum where the assumption is that a majority of undecided would opt for the status 
quo and vote no.

If the two findings above are accurate the No campaign has no chance of winning on polling 
day. This along with their failure to significantly increase their share of the vote since 
February suggests outside of some major Yes mishap it's over for them.

In this MRBI poll voters also reported a high degree of knowledge of post referendum 
legislation - only 15% said they were unaware - and Repeal voters showed the highest level 
of knowledge. This means the No strategy of fake claims and misleading posters has not 
only failed but probably backfired and instead is motivating Yes voters and alienating 
undecided's.

But while there are strong grounds for optimism it's not over yet. Dangers include the 
attempts by No to make the campaign bitter and nasty, particularly in Dublin, to try and 
drive down turnout, particularly of younger voters. They probably hoped to provoke a 
response in kind from the Yes campaign but it has stayed focused on compassion and women's 
health.

The Irish Times headlined this as a slippage in the Yes vote in comparison with their 
January poll, something that is present until undecided are excluded when the apparent 
shift is then smaller than the margin of error. RED C showed a similar slippage between 
their January and March polls which we discussed in depth at 
https://www.wsm.ie/c/repeal-8th-opinion-polls-analysis but at this point we'd acknowledge 
that its likely there was a loss of soft Yes votes back then before there was significant 
campaigning.

The weakest point for Yes remains the 12 week unrestricted access which is why No will 
continue to try and centre that discussion and avoid the discussions being centred on 
protecting womens health and fatal foetal abnormality. There the No vote is very soft 
indeed, half of No voters in the B&A poll actually wanted abortion access in those cases, 
meaning No could lose half their vote if protecting women health becomes the main issue 
under discussion. The other half are the core 15% ‘let women die' - a figure that has 
remained constant for the last few years.

 From their messaging its clear that the No campaign recognise that they are not likely to 
erode many Yes votes on the 12 week issue and the Irish Times poll confirms that. The 
percentage saying 12 weeks goes too far (41%) is almost identical with the percentage 
saying abortion is wrong and should not be more widely available. (40%). 56% said they had 
reservations on 12 weeks but it was a reasonable compromise. Presumably a recognition that 
there is no other way of providing abortion in the case of rape and that 12 weeks is the 
current reality in Ireland because its the end of the period where the abortion pill can 
be used. The abortion pill may be illegal right now but the reality is women are taking it 
every week and that usage is increasing. Unless the state starts prosecuting women for its 
use - and that would carry a 14 year jail sentence without repeal - women will continue to 
use it regardless of the outcome of the referendum. Most voters want these women to be 
able to access medical care with the risk of jail.

This mornings poll should have been the strongest by far figures for No campaign as they 
were organised to campaign earlier and are spending huge amounts on billboards & ads while 
#Together4Yes was still in the process of raising funds. Two weeks back No spokespeople on 
Twitter were crowing that the Yes campaign was nowhere to be seen - and this poll would 
have been collected in that period. Last week saw the enormous crowdfunding drive by 
Together for Yes with 550,000 being raised through over 10,000 small donations, many with 
names and indeed moving stories attached. Just who is funding the No campaign on the other 
hand is murky and unclear - its widely understood that huge quantities of dollars have 
flowed in over the last years because extreme US christian groups see Ireland as a key 
battleground in their ‘crusade'.

What has also been striking on Twitter is that the No canvass groups remain smaller and 
appear to have become less frequent, particularly in Dublin while the Together for Yes 
canvass groups have appeared everywhere, including rural areas that didn't see Marriage 
Equality canvassing and some of the groups are enormous. We've seen photos of canvass 
groups in individual Dublin constituencies that have had 50-70 people on them. We suspect 
the early start of the No campaign and the enormous amount of money they are spending on 
achieving saturation advertising everywhere from billboards to children's computer games 
has really motivated Repealers to donate and canvass. A massive rebellion against the 
hated 8th amendment is very much in full swing and the status quo looks like its going 
down to a major defeat, and not just in the cities.

These are the 4 polls carried out since Repeal 8th referendum was declared. They show the 
impact of campaigning, mostly of the No side as Together for Yes got underway later. So 
both anti-choice groups, Save the 8th and Love Both have had no real impact on voters 
despite the enormous spend on posters, billboards & online ads.

Incidentally we have seek the claim that todays MRBI poll was the first time the Yes vote 
when don't know are included fell below 50%. This claim is false, the yes vote was at 49% 
for both the B&A polls here, ie for the period of the campaign it has remained just under 
50% for all but one poll.

There was also a poll in the Daily Mail but because of the loaded way the question was 
phrased (opposite) to include unrestricted access to 12 weeksthis means its not comparable 
with these other polls.

That Daily Mail question is not standard. In fact its what reputable polling companies 
have been using to see how soft the Yes vote is.

Behaviour & Attitudes for instance ask how people intend to vote on the 8th as one 
question and what their attitude to 12 weeks as a follow on - in their April poll 47% are 
for Repeal but only 43% in favour of 12 weeks, the gap showing how important the question 
asked is.

To combine the two isn't just a loaded question, its most of the basis of the No campaign. 
It's why reputable polling companies also have a soft No question about protecting health 
& cases where foetus will not survive (FFA). So if you are paying for a poll and the 
question you pay for is set up as the Daily Mail poll was then in effect you are paying 
for a result. If NO canvassing teams are demoralised it might fool them to have some hope 
to keep going

In that context the Daily Mail reported

Yes 46%
No 31%
Don't Know 16%
Not Say 8%
Even in that context though when you account for margin of error and compare with their 
previous poll only this is the 7th poll to show the No campaign has had no significant impact

The polls to date

Pre-campaign

MRBI January - 
https://www.irishtimes.com/news/politics/clear-majority-backs-abortion-on-request-up-to-12-weeks-poll-shows-1.3368816
Red C January - 
https://www.redcresearch.ie/wp-content/uploads/2018/01/SBP-Jan-2018-Poll-Report-GE16.pdf
Polls during campaign

B&A February - http://banda.ie/wp-content/uploads/Sunday-Times-Report.pdf
B&A March - http://banda.ie/wp-content/uploads/J.8878-Sunday-Times-March-2018-Report.pdf

Red C March - 
http://www.redcresearch.ie/wp-content/uploads/2018/03/SBP-March-2018-Poll-Report-GE16.pdf
MRBI April - 
http://www.irishtimes.com/news/social-affairs/irish-times-poll-public-favour-repeal-of-eighth-despite-slip-in-support-1.3467503 
with a nice viewer of the data at https://www.irishtimes.com/news/politics/poll
B&A April - http://banda.ie/wp-content/uploads/J.9001-Sunday-Times-April-2018-Report.pdf
Red C April - 
http://www.redcresearch.ie/wp-content/uploads/2018/04/SBP-April-2018-Poll-Report-GE16.pdf

Author: Andrew N Flood

https://wsm.ie/c/polls-yes-repeal-referendum

------------------------------