Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Hi all,
Vanilla are planning an update to the site on April 24th (next Wednesday). It is a major PHP8 update which is expected to boost performance across the site. The site will be down from 7pm and it is expected to take about an hour to complete. We appreciate your patience during the update.
Thanks all.

Revising the 1913 Lockout

2»

Comments

  • #32
    Santa Cruz
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 3,126 ✭✭✭Santa Cruz


    pedroeibar1 wrote: »
    You continue to interpret social data in a biased manner, ignoring that which is not in accord with your perspective. Whelan said Do you not understand what the word ‘absolute’ means in that sentence?
    The simple fact remains - there were/are opportunities, they were/are open to all, some took/take them, others chose not to. A painter does not need capital to set up a business, nor does a carpenter. Education is needed for more 'tech' jobs but the Irish Ed system is free - consider what it was like in the 60's and 70's and college students actually worked in the summer to earn their fees. Back-to-work schemes also provide an income cushion for present-day start-ups. Even during the Celtic Tiger it was impossible to shift some of the proletariat off their arses/dole and we had to import thousands of migrants who were prepared to seize an opportunity.

    What is needed is drive, ambition and hard work. Those are the elements that are lacking in many of the poorer segments of society, and they are kept in that condition by the cant of ultra-left wing idiots waffling on about ‘privileged classes’ and 'ruling elites are attempting to usurp the struggle of the Irish working class'.


    You are 100% correct here. The privileged "useful idiots" of the Left will spend their time spouting rubbish and trying to back it up with "research" published by their "useful idiot" friends who have never created a job in their life because profit is a dirty word. At the same time instead of equality they will portray themselves as the intelligentsia of the left while employing Filipino au pairs and East Europeans as their cut price cleaners and looking down at the great unwashed proletariat.
    Thankfully the Irish people are not fooled by this class struggle rhetoric and we have the minority of clowns who actually believe this rubbish


  • #33
    Jolly Red Giant
    Registered Users Posts: 3,434 ✭✭✭Jolly Red Giant


    jonniebgood1 wrote: »
    I mean the workers went back to work. It did not expose anything in the manner you describe.
    And your evidence for this assertion?

    From 1800-1912 Irish nationalism had a relatively unifying force of demanding the repeal of the union. This did not mean that class conflict didn't exist - it did and was on occasion vicious and violent - but it generally was subservient to nationalism. In 1912 the Irish capitalist class had Home Rule within their grasp and moved to assert their dominance in Irish society by crushing the emerging radical trade unions of unskilled and semi-skilled workers. This was the background of the lockout. For the first time the Irish capitalist class exposed their naked class interests and it was a lesson well learned by the Irish working class.
    jonniebgood1 wrote: »
    This sounds like fantasy and you are forgetting later strikes which happened despite the overwhelming nationalistic nature of post WWI Ireland.
    As I have argued on here is the past (and produced evidence to back it up) - the situation was far more complex - a major class struggle took place from 1917-1922 - and the nationalist leadership themselves recognised the fact that class warfare in 1920 was threatening to tear the nationalist movement asunder.
    jonniebgood1 wrote: »
    I think you may have forgotten another significant event over 'by 1918' WWI was a far more significant event in terms of improving working conditions in Ireland and wider afield.
    There was zero improvement in working conditions during WW1. In fact Irish workers suffered a significant drop in living standards during the war as a result of wartime inflation. A major strike wave began in the second half of 1917 that led to major growth in the ITGWU (120,000 members by June 1920). the winning of major pay increases for workers and leading to major class conflict over the following years.


  • #34
    Jolly Red Giant
    Registered Users Posts: 3,434 ✭✭✭Jolly Red Giant


    jonniebgood1 wrote: »
    We are going off topic here but would working classes not seek to retain their relative gains as opportunity gives.
    Of course - however when the economy crashes the ruling elites don't put their hands in their own pockets to carry the can for the crisis - they take back the relative gains made during preceeding years. That is what is happening today. Furthermore - advances and retreats are made not on the basis of what economic situation exists (although there is a direct correlation) - but on the balance of class forces in society. During 1917-1921 the balance of class forces were firmly on the side of the working class - post 1921 (really from Jan. 1922 onwards) the balance swung back to the ruling elites as strike movements were defeated and the leadership of the ILPTUC abandoned workers.
    pedroeibar1 wrote: »
    You continue to interpret social data in a biased manner, ignoring that which is not in accord with your perspective.
    I didn't interpret the data - Whelan did - it was his conclusion.
    pedroeibar1 wrote: »
    Whelan said Do you not understand what the word ‘absolute’ means in that sentence?
    The simple fact remains - there were/are opportunities, they were/are open to all, some took/take them, others chose not to. A painter does not need capital to set up a business, nor does a carpenter.
    No one is denying that from the 1990s onwards opportunities for social mobility increased - however - again - Whelan concluded that while these opportunities existed, but the rich elites used their position in society to limit social mobility so that their position would not be threatened. If you have a problem with this conclusion then take it up with him.

    Furthermore - just because a worker sets up a 'business' does not mean he is not a worker. It simply means that instead of receiving a wage for his job he has to compete as a manufacturing/service provider. If you brought your argument to its logical conclusion then (because of C45 sub-contracting) nearly every trademan employed in the construction industry in the 1990s would have been engaged in social mobility - they weren't
    pedroeibar1 wrote: »
    Education is needed for more 'tech' jobs but the Irish Ed system is free - consider what it was like in the 60's and 70's and college students actually worked in the summer to earn their fees. Back-to-work schemes also provide an income cushion for present-day start-ups. Even during the Celtic Tiger it was impossible to shift some of the proletariat off their arses/dole and we had to import thousands of migrants who were prepared to seize an opportunity.
    This is nothing more than a right-wing rant against the unemployed - devoid of any evidence.
    pedroeibar1 wrote: »
    What is needed is drive, ambition and hard work. Those are the elements that are lacking in many of the poorer segments of society, and they are kept in that condition by the cant of ultra-left wing idiots waffling on about ‘privileged classes’ and 'ruling elites are attempting to usurp the struggle of the Irish working class'.
    I hope you got some badly needed relief from this -

    Back to the point at hand -

    WM Murphy's social mobility was not from working class or rural poor background. Your assessment of Murphy's upbringing is inaccurate. Murphy's father was not just a 'stonemason' - he was a building contractor who also had retail businesses as a provider of building materials. I like the dig about Clongowes - but how many Irish Catholic boys do you think went to Belvedere for their education in the early 1860s? The Murphy and O'Connor building contracting business ended up as one of the largest in the Cork/Kerry region (in part because of the involvement of WMM). Murphy married into a very wealthy family - the Lombards - and his father-in-law bankrolled his business expansion. Your implied assertion that Murphy was of 'poor stonemason' stock who built himself up by his bootstraps is utter nonsense.


  • #35
    Gee Bag
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,541 ✭✭✭Gee Bag


    First off, I'm not in agreement with Jolly Red giant at all, but I do have issues with this post
    pedroeibar1 wrote: »
    Education is needed for more 'tech' jobs but the Irish Ed system is free - consider what it was like in the 60's and 70's and college students actually worked in the summer to earn their fees.

    Education in Ireland is not free, at primary and secondary school level books are very expensive, same goes for uniforms. Many schools also seek voluntary contributions from parents.

    At third level registration fees now average €2,250 and are set to rise to €3000 by 2016. If a student has to live away from home during the college year then there is additional expense.

    That 'back in my day' comment is pure guff. Many students work during the summer and during the college term. I'm pointing out the obvious here, but there is a distinct lack of part-time jobs for students to support themselves.

    These are enormous barriers of entry to potential third level students from low income families.
    Back-to-work schemes also provide an income cushion for present-day start-ups.

    I don't get this at all. SMEs are the backbone fo the economy, schemes to support SMEs are vital for getting such enterprises off the ground.
    Even during the Celtic Tiger it was impossible to shift some of the proletriat off their arses/dole and we had to import thousands of migrants who were prepared to seize an opportunity.

    Long term unemployment is not caused solely by laziness. The relativley high levels of social welfare payments in Ireland obviously lead to a lack of ambition on the part of some, but it is grossly unfair to tar everyone with the same brush.

    During the boom there was a massive skills shortage in Ireland especially in the construction industry. This shortfall could never have been made up solely by the Irish unemployed.
    What is needed is drive, ambition and hard work. Those are the elements that are lacking in many of the poorer segments of society, and they are kept in that condition by the cant of ultra-left wing idiots waffling on about ‘privileged classes’ and 'ruling elites are attempting to usurp the struggle of the Irish working class'.

    Deluded as they are, the Irish hard left are a tiny minority with little influence. I think the blame rests more with the big parties. Fianna Fail's 'win elections at any cost' budgetary policy in relation to the unemployed was unhelpful to say the least. This is being perpetuated by Joan Burton, whose goal of not wanting to see any reductions in the social welfare budget seems to have more to do with bouying up the Labour Party than the interests of the country.


  • #36
    pedroeibar1
    Closed Accounts Posts: 5,108 ✭✭✭pedroeibar1


    Jolly Red Giant wrote: »
    Back to the point at hand -

    WM Murphy's social mobility was not from working class or rural poor background. Your assessment of Murphy's upbringing is inaccurate. Murphy's father was not just a 'stonemason' - he was a building contractor who also had retail businesses as a provider of building materials. I like the dig about Clongowes - but how many Irish Catholic boys do you think went to Belvedere for their education in the early 1860s? The Murphy and O'Connor building contracting business ended up as one of the largest in the Cork/Kerry region (in part because of the involvement of WMM). Murphy married into a very wealthy family - the Lombards - and his father-in-law bankrolled his business expansion. Your implied assertion that Murphy was of 'poor stonemason' stock who built himself up by his bootstraps is utter nonsense.

    I’m not sure if your continuous attempts to misquote me, to infer ridiculous interpretations from what I wrote and thus introduce daft assertions are derived from your petty bias, your inability to read a calendar of events or something else.

    Murphy senior started as a stonemason, he died as a small builder/building yard owner. (At the time he was building a small summer home for Lord Dunraven on the Kenmare River.) At 17 WMM took over the business, finished Dunraven's house and got another contract - to build the church at Sneem - as a result of Dunraven's influence , being the main benefactor. WMM was a highly successful businessman at the age of 25 when he married and mature beyond his years - even at school his friends were considerably older then he, one being Sullivan who ran the Nation after Gavin Duffy. Murphy worked there while in school, hence his interest that later grew into the Freemans Journal acquisition. There is no doubt that the Lombard connection was a help, but Murphy was very secure financially long before that, illustrated by the fact that the marriage was permitted.


  • Advertisement
  • #37
    who the fug
    Registered Users Posts: 4,041 ✭✭✭who the fug


    Jolly Red Giant wrote: »
    .



    WM Murphy's social mobility was not from working class or rural poor background. Your assessment of Murphy's upbringing is inaccurate. Murphy's father was not just a 'stonemason' - he was a building contractor who also had retail businesses as a provider of building materials. I like the dig about Clongowes - but how many Irish Catholic boys do you think went to Belvedere for their education in the early 1860s? The Murphy and O'Connor building contracting business ended up as one of the largest in the Cork/Kerry region (in part because of the involvement of WMM). Murphy married into a very wealthy family - the Lombards - and his father-in-law bankrolled his business expansion. Your implied assertion that Murphy was of 'poor stonemason' stock who built himself up by his bootstraps is utter nonsense.

    That name carried on until quiet recently as a Builders Merchants, growing up never associated it with that Murphy nor did any History teachers point it out to us


  • #38
    Jolly Red Giant
    Registered Users Posts: 3,434 ✭✭✭Jolly Red Giant


    pedroeibar1 wrote: »
    Murphy senior started as a stonemason, he died as a small builder/building yard owner.
    Then we disagree over the scale of Murphy Sr's wealth.

    Murphy Sr. started out as a farmer and building contractor in Castletownberre but moved to Bantry in 1846 (when WMM was 2 years old) and significantly expanded his business interests.
    pedroeibar1 wrote: »
    (At the time he was building a small summer home for Lord Dunraven on the Kenmare River.)
    At the time of his death Murphy Sr was involved in several building contracts including Skibbereen gasworks and the light-house at Galley Head. This would indicate that he was more than a 'small builder' - and was in fact a substantial builder if he was engaged in a number of contracts at the same time.
    pedroeibar1 wrote: »
    At 17 WMM took over the business,
    He was 19
    pedroeibar1 wrote: »
    WMM was a highly successful businessman at the age of 25
    He was also noted as a character who exacted revengge against those who he felt slighted him and who ate `... his vengence cold.' against those who slighted him (F. Callanan, T. M. Healy (Cork 1996).
    pedroeibar1 wrote: »
    There is no doubt that the Lombard connection was a help, but Murphy was very secure financially long before that, illustrated by the fact that the marriage was permitted.
    yes he was financially secure - including the wealth he inheritied from his father. However, the significant financial resources he secured from the Lombards facilitated a massive expansion of his business empire (including tramways and railways, Cleary's department store and housing development in Drumcondra). To portray WMM as someone from a humble background is utter nonsense.


  • #39
    pedroeibar1
    Closed Accounts Posts: 5,108 ✭✭✭pedroeibar1


    Jolly Red Giant wrote: »
    Then we disagree over the scale of Murphy Sr's wealth.

    Murphy Sr. started out as a farmer and building contractor in Castletownberre but moved to Bantry in 1846 (when WMM was 2 years old) and significantly expanded his business interests.


    At the time of his death Murphy Sr was involved in several building contracts including Skibbereen gasworks and the light-house at Galley Head. This would indicate that he was more than a 'small builder' - and was in fact a substantial builder if he was engaged in a number of contracts at the same time.


    He was 19


    He was also noted as a character who exacted revengge against those who he felt slighted him and who ate `... his vengence cold.' against those who slighted him (F. Callanan, T. M. Healy (Cork 1996).


    yes he was financially secure - including the wealth he inheritied from his father. However, the significant financial resources he secured from the Lombards facilitated a massive expansion of his business empire (including tramways and railways, Cleary's department store and housing development in Drumcondra). To portray WMM as someone from a humble background is utter nonsense.

    Nonsense - more inaccuracies. The issue really is that your hatred for WMM has got in the way of historical fact. (FWIW, I do not hold his version of capitalism in high regard and would place him in a similar position to my views on Michael O'Leary.)

    The Murphys started out poor; through hard work Murphy Snr. developed the business. After his death William M Murphy took it over and grew it substantially. Derrymihan, where Murphy Snr was a small farmer and stonemason was/is hardly the centre of the universe - that is why he moved to Bantry.

    You obviously have found Bielenberg's article on him - here - but sadly you have misinterpreted the info. and the content of your post is wrong. Galley Head, for example, was built by Murphy junior during 1873-75, as was the Skibereen Gasworks building. Most of Murphy Jnr's work was as a result of the post-Famine building boom, particularly of churches, much of the funding coming from emigrants sending money home.

    I've made my point often and clearly enough; others here can judge what is fact and what is humbug.


  • #40
    pedroeibar1
    Closed Accounts Posts: 5,108 ✭✭✭pedroeibar1


    Gee Bag wrote: »
    First off, I'm not in agreement with Jolly Red giant at all, but I do have issues with this post
    Education in Ireland is not free, at primary and secondary school level books are very expensive, same goes for uniforms. Many schools also seek voluntary contributions from parents.
    At third level registration fees now average €2,250 and are set to rise to €3000 by 2016. If a student has to live away from home during the college year then there is additional expense.
    That 'back in my day' comment is pure guff. Many students work during the summer and during the college term. I'm pointing out the obvious here, but there is a distinct lack of part-time jobs for students to support themselves.
    These are enormous barriers of entry to potential third level students from low income families.
    I accept many of your points to a certain extent, but books and uniforms always were expensive and the latter mainly affect fee-paying school parents. In about 1990 TCD fees were about £1,400 p.a. which, allowing for conversion and inflation, is Euro 4 - 5k in today’s values. (probably more if one factors in the new property & household taxes.) Even at the upper end of €5k that is less than half what all UK students have to pay and a fraction of what is payable in the US, Canada or Australia, where ‘student loans’ facilities are provided. (In France it is ‘free’ at just a few hundred euro.)

    Back in the sixties/early 70's there were no student jobs either (or ones that did not pay well) so everyone went to England – I worked in Birds Eye and also in several fish factories in Grimsby, where the overtime was great.
    Gee Bag wrote: »
    I don't get this at all. SMEs are the backbone for the economy, schemes to support SMEs are vital for getting such enterprises off the ground.
    You’ve misinterpreted me, I agree fully – the BTW schemes are a help to get people BTW but it is not sufficient. I believe that anyone who is trying to start a SME should get greater support. Most of the politicos have absolutely no idea of business and sadly now appear to be believing their own propaganda.[/QUOTE]
    Gee Bag wrote: »
    Long term unemployment is not caused solely by laziness. The relativley high levels of social welfare payments in Ireland obviously lead to a lack of ambition on the part of some, but it is grossly unfair to tar everyone with the same brush.
    During the boom there was a massive skills shortage in Ireland especially in the construction industry. This shortfall could never have been made up solely by the Irish unemployed.
    I did not tar all - I said ‘some’ - Most of the shortfall (particularly in construction) was in unskilled and to some extent in semi-skilled labour and supplied primarily by Poles (or, for example, Turks for the Gama Construction roads projects).In 2006, unskilled construction workers in Ireland earned an average of €756 per week, which was more than a month’s wage in the new EU- joiner countries, considerably more in some cases. I’m not putting it all down to laziness, or blaming all unemployed, but there was a considerable number of Irish who simply were not prepared to work.
    Gee Bag wrote: »
    Deluded as they are, the Irish hard left are a tiny minority with little influence. I think the blame rests more with the big parties. Fianna Fail's 'win elections at any cost' budgetary policy in relation to the unemployed was unhelpful to say the least. This is being perpetuated by Joan Burton, whose goal of not wanting to see any reductions in the social welfare budget seems to have more to do with bouying up the Labour Party than the interests of the country.
    I agree; but that is more for a political thread/discussion. Look at what the unions did (and were allowed to do) at Aer Lingus, most of the workers living in Bertie's parish. Had it not been for the wake-up call of competition from Ryanair it would have folded years ago.


  • #41
    Jolly Red Giant
    Registered Users Posts: 3,434 ✭✭✭Jolly Red Giant


    pedroeibar1 wrote: »
    Nonsense - more inaccuracies. The issue really is that your hatred for WMM has got in the way of historical fact.
    I don't have any particular hatred for WMM - the guy died long beforeIi was born. WMM was a representative of the capitalist class that provoke as major class conflict in 1913.
    pedroeibar1 wrote: »
    The Murphys started out poor; through hard work Murphy Snr. developed the business. After his death William M Murphy took it over and grew it substantially. Derrymihan, where Murphy Snr was a small farmer and stonemason was/is hardly the centre of the universe - that is why he moved to Bantry.
    I would dispute your implication of Murphy Sr being poor - I will again ask the question - how many 'poor' stonemasons sent their sons' to Belvedere for a private education?

    pedroeibar1 wrote: »
    You obviously have found Bielenberg's article on him - here - but sadly you have misinterpreted the info. and the content of your post is wrong. Galley Head, for example, was built by Murphy junior during 1873-75, as was the Skibereen Gasworks building. Most of Murphy Jnr's work was as a result of the post-Famine building boom, particularly of churches, much of the funding coming from emigrants sending money home.
    I did and you are correct - I misinterpreted the information contained in the article. I do not have any problem admitting an error when evidence is produced to demonstrate that I am wrong.
    pedroeibar1 wrote: »
    I've made my point often and clearly enough; others here can judge what is fact and what is humbug.
    Yes you have and yes they can - and maybe you can produce evidence of the the social composition of those who attended Belvedere in the 1860s.

    Your initial contention was that WMM was from a poor background who engage in social mobility by moving from a family of stonemason to owning a major business empire. My contention is that WMM was not from a poor background - his father had enough wealth in the 1860s to send him to a private school for education at a time when the overwhelming majority of the population still were not able to read or write. Furthermore, WMM married into money and then used the wealth of his in-laws to embark on a major expansion of his business interests.


  • Advertisement
Advertisement