For Lefties too Stubborn to Quit
Excellent overview by Budapestkick of John Borgonovo’s recent lecture and Q&A in Solidarity Books Cork – who are hosting a series of such events (and all credit to them). This is well worth reading.
 | CL on The increasingly impressive Pr… |
 | WorldbyStorm on The increasingly impressive Pr… |
 | John Meehan on The increasingly impressive Pr… |
| CL on The increasingly impressive Pr… |
 | Laurence Ginnell on The President used the ‘… |
| Who Fears to Speak o… on This Weekend I’ll Mostly… | |
 | Michael Carley on 30 years collecting |
 | Jack Jameson on The increasingly impressive Pr… |
 | Crocodile on What you want to say? Open Thr… |
 | rockroots on 30 years collecting |
 | tomasoflatharta on “We are here to hel… |
 | EamonnCork on What you want to say? Open Thr… |
| WorldbyStorm on What you want to say? Open Thr… |
 | Dr.Nightdub on What you want to say? Open Thr… |
 | irishelectionliterat… on What you want to say? Open Thr… |
Sounds like a great talk. Agree absolutely that the Irish revolution has to be seen in the context of both the Great War and the revolutionary wave from 1917 onwards. The British were certainly aware of this. Looking forward to more of John’s stuff on Cork.
Fascinating stuff and great note-taking on the part of Budapestkick.
It confirms a number of opinions I have always had.
I think it is true, although ignored in much Labour history that the Labour decision not to contest the 1918 election was not a sell-out by the Labour leadership but rather the result of pressure from a rank-and-file that correctly felt that the Labour leadership would betray the views of the workers on the national question. Borgonovo confirms this for Cork but I think it was also true o the rest of the country (apart from the NE).
Another important point was the sheer power to intimidate opposition possessed by the Redmondites. The revisionists love to ascribe the 1918 victory to Republican intimidation. There may have been Republican intimidation but quite apart from the Brits, Redmondite intimidation could be fiece even as against the IRA. This was clear in some of theby-elections contested by Sinn Féin before 1918.
There was,BTW, a more progrssive wing of the AOH,the Hibernian Rifles who played a significant, if largely forgotten, role in the 1916 rising. They appear to have been largely working class and apparently had good relations with the ICA. They were linked to the more militant American AOH.
Another important point is regards the politics of the Labour movement at the time. The differences were not, at least until 1917-8, between Socialism and Nationalism but rather between Fenians and various shades of Home Rule.Fenians were actively involved in the Trade Unions (and in every other progressive movement) from the beginnings of mass trade unionism. In fact they were a lot better at this than at the military stuff.
All in all, great food for thought!!
This is an interesting report about the Labour Movement in Cork during this period. There are most certainly similarities between Cork and Limerick (which I am significantly more familiar with) but it appears that there were also some differences.
A couple of specific issues – firstly in relation to the Catholic hierarchy – the Catholic hierarchy in Limerick were virulently anti-socialist from the first emergence of a radicalised labour movement in the middle of 1917. Regular sermons and public lectures condemned atheistic European socialism and the working class were warned not to engage with communists and socialists.
Secondly – in relation to the leftward leanings of Alfred O’Rahilly – O’Rahilly wrote a vicious anti-worker rant ridiculing the idea that workers could take over and run a city just a week before the Limerick Soviet was established. A week after the Soviet ended O’Rahilly condemned it as a British importation.
In relation to the 1918 General Election, I think that John is over-emphasising the influence of the rank-and-file of the Labour Movement on ‘unity of republicans and labour’. Certainly in Limerick the leaders of the ‘old’ craft unions backed Sinn Fein, but there is little evidence to suggest that the far more radical rank-and-file of the ITGWU (who were by far and away to most dominant force in the Limerick Labour Movement) adopted a similar attitude. In my opinion a far more important factor was the fact that the main industrial organisers and activists were syndicalists in approach and placed little or no emphasis on electoral politics. This was the case in 1918 and again in the local elections in January of 1920.
In Limerick there was very little cross-over between labour and republican activists. The only individual that appears as both a labour and republican activists was Michael Reddan who was an ITGWU rep on Limerick Trades Council and a local SF councillor. Robbie Byrne, whose death sparked the Limerick Soviet, has consistently been touted as a trade union activist and a member of the Trades Council (primarily because this idea was promoted by Cahill in his book on the Limerick Soviet) – yet there is no evidence that Byrne played any real role in the Labour Movement and the only Trades Council meeting he attended between 1917 and his death in April 1919 was the meeting that discussed his sacking from the Post Office.
However, there is numerous examples of open hostility between republicans and the Labour Movement during this period. Numerous strikes were organised by the ITGWU in workplaces owned by prominent republicans. The tannery owned by Michael O’Callaghan, the SF mayor murdered by British forces in 1921, saw numerous strikes organised by the ITGWU. The Castleconnell Soviet of 1921 took place in the fisheries owned by a local SF councillor Anthony Mackey and the Sf leader of Limerick County Council, Laffin, was also the leader of the local Farmers Freedom Force (an embryonic fascist paramilitary force established to break farm labourers strikes and attack occupations and soviets). Nationally SF recognised the difficulties it faced as a result of the class struggle that was unfolding by outlining the fact that most of its officer corps comprised of farmers sons and the labourers involved in the IRA were increasingly unwilling to follow orders. Another example of the different approaches of republicans and the Labour Movement can be demonstrated by the fact that the largest ITGWU branch in the city (the No.1 branch) opposed the Belfast boycott, much to the annoyance of both SF and the Catholic hierarchy.
Opposition to conscription in Limerick was led first and foremost by the Labour Movement. The Trades Council protest against conscription was significantly bigger than the one organised by the Church and SF. Furthermore the industrial organisers of the ITGWU drew up blueprints for the organisation of regional soviets in the event that the British Government implemented conscription on a county or regional basis. It was these blueprints that formed the basis of the organisational structures of the Limerick Soviet.
I would disagree with the assertion that “The economic collapse of 1921 and 1922 put Labour on the defensive and the workers movement would never again reach the heights it had achieved in 1918”. The height of the class struggle in North Kerry, Limerick, North Cork, Tipperary and Waterford (and in many other parts of the country) was the period from the beginning of November 1921 – July 1922. This was an intense period of calls struggle involving widespread farm labourers strikes involving tens of thousands of workers (strikes that were consciously sabotaged by the leadership of the ILPTUC and the ITGWU) and then the Munster Soviets that sprang up in April 1922 and which involved the occupation of well over 120 workplaces right across Munster and the organisation of numerous soviets of towns and villages many lasting several weeks. The movement of 1918, while substantial, lacked both the intensity and the class consciousness of the later period.
Similarly, I would argue a different perspective to this comment “The civil war broke the labour movement”. To all intents and purposes the Labour Movement had been broken before the civil war started. The defeat of the farm labourers strikes in Nov 1921-Feb 1922 and the Soviets from Apr 1922-June 1922 was the key factor in breaking the Labour Movement. These strikes and soviets had revolutionary intent. The main responsibility for these defeats can be placed squarely at the feet of William O’Brien, Thomas Foran, Thomas Fallon, Thomas Johnson and Cathal O’Shannon who undermine and then sabotaged the strikes.
A couple of other important points –
From my research I have formed the view that Constance Markevicz played a reactionary role during this period. She regularly pushed the ITGWU leadership to abandon strikes and force local organisers to call off strikes or threatened industrial action. She threatened on numerous occasions to order republican troops to break strikes and in fact ordered the IRA to break the Castleconnel Soviet. The only reason that it didn’t happen was because local SF councillor Mackey, who owned the Castleconnell Fisheries that were occupied, realised that to do so would have provoke a potentially uncontrollable (from a republican perspective) response from the local Labour Movement.
Sinn Fein felt so threatened by the ‘class war’ that they consciously attempted to split the trade union movement along sectarian lines – establishing ‘Irish unions for Irish workers’ and planning attacks against members of British based unions if efforts were made to prevent workers joining the ‘Irish’ unions. The plan met with only minor success – the only union that attracted any real numbers was the Irish Engineering Union that had about 800 members. As a result many republicans began to argue that the defeat of the Bolsheviks and Socialists was more important than winning independence from Britain.
1918 was most certainly a lost opportunity – however the defeats of the strike movement and Munster Soviets were, in my opinion, a more important factor in the failure of the Labour Movement to achieve emancipation for the Irish working class. This period was the culmination of a growing radicalisation and developing class consciousness that occurred from 1917 onwards.
Now we should also be careful in not assuming that the aftermath of the civil war was a period devoid of class conflict. A major post office strike broke out in the Autumn of 1922, another strike wave emerged in 1923 in response to government cutbacks and in 1925-1926 there was a nine month long strike at the building of the Ardnacrusha power station in Limerick which actually prompted the government to conduct a public inquiry into the ‘red-flag years’ of 1919-1922 in order to ensure that they would not see a repeat of the threat posed to nationalism during that period.
Interesting points JRG. It’s excellent that this research is happening side by side and it’ll be interesting to compare your stuff on Limerick with John’s on Cork, especially since, despite differences of interpretation, you both seem to be coming from a broadly similar angle with regards to the revolution. Just to make on point. As for O’Rahilly’s leftward leanings, I think that might have been a mistake on my part. Looking at my notes, I think I used the world in a very vague sense to cover a number of things John was talking about. He mentioned that O’Rahilly had some philanthropic, progressive tendencies in terms of bringing in workers to UCC for night-classes and so on and wasn’t as reactionary a figure at this time as he would later become. ‘Left-leaning’ is my own choice of words to cover a number of things I didn’t have time to jot down so it may not reflect John’s actual opinions.
He was very involved with teh Labour movement. In fact was used a lot as an arbitrator. He was “Catholic Labour” before the term was invented. If Labour had been left he would have split it on Australian lines. He was a withhunter on the Catholic Standard. He was very well informed on who was who on the Irish Left in the 30s and 40s.When his wife died he became a priest.I would guess that he felt bad at being married in the first place. Lucky for McQuaid he did not make bishop. There could only be one and O’Rs figured he was the brightest and the best. He spent his life worried about “godless” Trinity and then looked back at UCD and saw the same.Also, a cousin of the 1916 hero. Gaughan wrote a rather rambling bio. Still useful as a source.
I sometimes feel we on the left do not pay enough attention to people like O’R who was more significant in the Labour movement (for bad obviously) than many of our lefties.
Anything in the pipeline (publishing wise) about Limerick?
(The communist Workers Republic was also very critical of Markevicz during early 1922)
Unfortunately I haven’t got close to the end of the pipeline yet Brian.
John Cunningham is currently attempting to secure the publication of a series of articles from the ‘Socialist Lives’ seminar in Galway last year. If this goes ahead it will probably include a chapter on Sean Dowling (ITGWU organiser in Limerick 1917-1922).
Congradulations to John Borgonovo’s , to Budapestkick and the conributers above for the fascinationg local history of the dynamics within the struggle for Independence between the diffenent class forces. Its only recently that the social dimenstions within the national struggle are been acknowledged. Where better to analyse this than at the local level where the influences were more intense and contested.
Connor McCabe in a recent article in Saothar 35 has also shed a lot of light on the 1920 Local Elections. As elections tend to focus the mind he ashows the contraditions, around the country, between Labour Party, Trade Council candidates and their relationship with Sinn Fein. Sometimes there were alliances, some joint tickets and some antagonisms between all three.
And it is the pecularities of the local
which constitute the mosiac.
Some interesting points from Jolly Red Giant above
“From my research I have formed the view that Constance Markevicz played a reactionary role during this period.
Sinn Fein felt so threatened by the ‘class war’ that they consciously attempted to split the trade union movement along sectarian lines – establishing ‘Irish unions for Irish workers’ and planning attacks against members of British based unions if efforts were made to prevent workers joining the ‘Irish’ unions.”
Some of this may be true but I’m not so sure “sectarian ” is the right description. There were important issues at play which validated the process of forming Irish unions ( remember Larkin and the need for the ITGWU.) In the case of the electricans which you mention dissatisfaction among members of British based craft unions revolved around the refusals of HQs to support what they called “political strikes” by Irish members. Further at an industrial level HQs were issuing cards to “diluted” members arising from the demands of a war economy in Britain. So there was plenty of justification for Irish craft workers wanting to take more contol of domestic circumstances. My grandfather John Redmond was Irish District secretry of the ASE the largest craft union and he, with others, took the initiative of forming what is now TEEU. He was its first President and negociated the purchase of the building which is now the regenerated HQ at 6 Gardiner Place Dublin
As if to dramatise all that is written above the original building also housed the HQ of the First Battalion of the Dublin Brigade of the IRA ! And to further point to all the contadictions it was to the Countess that the fledging committee of the new union went to get a load of £200 to kickstart the proceedings and a further £2,000 for devlopment. So, withour disagreeing with Budapest re the Countess’s role in strike breaking, here she (and Dail Eireann) were encourging the ten craft UK unions into One Big Union for skilled workers ! Whoever said that the clas struggle was just an easy straight road!
Many of the first committee of the new union were ICA and 1916 veterans , IRB and Sinn Fein activists.
The present TEEU, one of the Republics few fighting unions, has a room named the Markievicz room.
For more paradox. Tom Mann the veteran leader, with Left credential, of the ASE came over to speak to his members not to join the new union. While Willie Gallagher the leader of the legendary Clyde Shop Steward Committee come over to the inaugural meeting in the Abbey to support the new union. Gallagher was persisent in his support for Irish Independence and was the first Communist M,P.
To end, for all keep up the good work in rescuing for the younger generation the neglected history by our class in shaping modern Ireland. It will help them in achieving Connolly’s dictum ” We cannot concieve of a Free Ireland with a subject working class “.
Just to address the issue of ‘Irish unions’. I would argue that it is incorrect to suggest that Irish workers were intent on forming ‘Irish’ unions because of the failure of the leadership of the British based unions to organise political action. The reality is that the British union leaderships had relatively little influence on the rank-and-file union membership. In many cases it was British based unions who were to the fore in organising political strike action, e.g. the refusal of the rank-and-file of the NUR to transport British troops and equipment.
In regards to the establishment of the Irish Engineering Union. The establishment of this union was an attempt to split the growing radicalisation of the workers movement and divert a section of it to supporting the nationalist cause. In 1920 the leadership of SF were absolutely petrified that they were losing control or the revolutionary movement stating that “The mind of the people was being diverted from the struggle for freedom by a class war, and there was every likelihood that this class war might be carried into the ranks of the republican army itself which was drawn in the main from the agricultural population and was largely officered by farmer’s sons”. The efforts to establish ‘Irish unions for Irish workers’ was a conscious act to split the trade union movement and undermine the growing leftward trajectory of the Irish working class and rural poor. There is documentary archival evidence in the National Archives to show that this was the strategy of SF – establish ‘Irish’ unions and fund them in order to split the trade union movement. Futhermore, the leadership of SF were willing and planned, if necessary, to engage in acts of terrorism against trade unionists in an attempt to force through the split of the trade unions.
Markevicz and Collins, among others, consciously arranged the infiltration of the ASE by republicans to agitate for the splitting of the union. Several of the leaders of the IEU were prominent republicans, e.g. McIntyre, Toomey and Slater. Many of the individuals involved in attempts to split the trade union movement were later appointed to the Dail arbitration panels that were used to undermine strikes and occupations. Indeed, in return for the £2,000 loan (more than double the budget of the SF Dept. of Labour) the IEU agreed to …use “every means in their power to induce their members and employers to accept … arbitration”. Indeed the arbitration courts intentionally gave compliant adjudications in favour of the IEU to try and promote it among union members.
The strategy of SF was to ensure a compliant and controlled trade union movement. The leadership of the ITGWU and Congress (in effect the same individuals) were willing to accept the dictates of SF, but by the beginning of 1921 they had little or no control over the industrial organisers and the rank-and-file. SF needed to ensure that the leftward trajectory didn’t split the nationalist movement and supplant it as the driving revolutionary force. The ASE had 30,000 members in Ireland and the hope was to split off about 1,000 of these. No attempt was made to recruit ASE member in Ulster.
Finally in relation to the nature of the new union. This is part of the speech of Toomey from the founding meeting of the IEU… The Irish and English were … “two separate and distinct peoples and could not always view matters from the same standpoint. Some people might say that the interests of all workers were common. That might be so but workers in different countries often saw things in a different light”. Your grandfather Jack Redmond (and I am not attempting to be personal here) argued that a new union needed to be established because less money was being spent in Ireland by the ASE than the value of the subscriptions of members and Paddy McIntyre (indicating the potential threat of the IRA to union members) stated ‘they would start fighting them here on Irish soil’ if the ASE refused to recognise the new union. Markevicz claimed that the leadership of the new union “were sincere republicans and capable of the work that they were undertaking’.
Following its establishment the IEU played a thoroughly reactionary and strike breaking role. Almost immediately the IEU refused to support a strike by cinema operators (members of the ETU).
During the engineering strike in 1921 the leadership of the IEU undermined workplace occupations and soviets organised by its own members (reflecting that even in a ‘nationalist’ union the rank-and-file weren’t immune from left-wing radicalism). At the same time the leadership attempted unsuccessfully to expel striking workers of the GSWR. The union withdrew strike pay from the striking workers at Inchicore and ordered all the strikers to return to work. The argument put forward was ‘reductions [in pay] at the present time were inevitable and therefore if the shop men go on strike they will be attempting the impossible, and in the process… ruin the future of the union.’
The IEU was also involved in scabbing on the ITGWU and ICWU strike at the Cleeves plant in Landsdowne in Limerick by 600 members of both unions in April 1922 and working with Free State troops to break the strike and prevent the occupation of the plant by the workers..
As for Willie Gallagher, it wasn’t the first time that he played a role in undermining workers unity. In 1934 he also played a prominent role in splitting the Republican Congress along sectarian lines.
Sound like SF were a bit like the ANC or the Indian Congress Party
Sounds like SF were a bit like the ANC or the Indian Congress Party
Nice to see people fighting about the Irish war of independence that arn’t killing each other over where scout z was at Kilmichael or the missing Protestants of Dunmanway.