The failure of socialist republicanism in the Irish revolution and its aftermath - Part 3
'Big Jim' Larkin in 1913. From www.theirishstory.com. |
Continued from previous post.
The third interpretation
The third
interpretation is that socialist republicanism might have succeeded in its aims
had it not been for errors of judgement, or personal failings, on the part of
its leadership. Typical of historians who adopt this interpretation is Emmet O’Connor. In a 2005 article
entitled The age of the red republic: the Irish left and nationalism,
1909—36,[1] O’Connor
argued that poor leadership and bad decision-making were the reasons for the
failure of socialist republicanism to capitalise on the strength it had during
the period before the Anglo-Irish treaty. This manifested itself in Labour's
decision not to stand in the 1918 general election and its decision to
participate in the political life of the newly formed Irish Free State, thus
tacitly accepting the provisions of the Anglo-Irish treaty. Poor leadership was
also behind the failure of the continuing socialist republican fringe groups to
unite into a coherent movement. Indeed, in his 2002
biography of James Larkin, O’ Connor had blamed the latter's personality for the
failings of socialist republicanism as a movement in the years after 1923.
Larkin's split from the ITGWU, and the failure of groups like Larkin's Irish
Worker League and Roddy Connolly’s Socialist Party of Ireland (later renamed the Communist
Party of Ireland) to come together and form a single socialist republican
front, were, in O'Connor's view, largely due to Larkin's “self-destructive
egomania”.[2]
Each of the pivotal moments mentioned by O’Connor is an
important aspect of the third interpretation of the failure of socialist
republicanism. Had the Labour Party participated, for
example, in the 1918 general election it could have gained a greater level of
influence over subsequent events. Had it thrown its weight behind the
anti-treaty faction in 1922, the result might have been the emergence of a more
powerful republican socialist counter-force to the conservative government that
emerged from the civil war period. Had the leaders of the various socialist
republican organisations that existed in the Irish Free State during and after
the civil war been able to put aside their differences and present a united
front, they could, perhaps, have been more successful in opposing the
conservatism of the Free State establishment.
O’Connor’s
influence is present in the work of Adrian Grant and, indeed, Grant’s 2012 book
Irish Socialist Republicanism, 1909-36 is based on the latter's PhD
thesis which was written under O'Connor's supervision. For Grant, it was the
poor judgement and, in particular, the conservatism and over-cautiousness of
the Labour leadership which prevented socialist republicanism from gaining more
influence over the developing conflict situation with the British and over the
polity of the Irish Free State that emerged from that conflict.[3] Like O’Connor, Grant
regarded Labour's abstention from standing in the 1918 general election as a
costly decision in terms of the fortunes of republican socialism. He saw this
decision as stemming from Labour's view that the basis of the election had
changed as a result of the recent ending (only a month earlier) of the First
World War. The issue of conscription, for example, the struggle against which
had seen the Labour movement play a leading role, was no longer of any
relevance. Grant believed that Labour saw the election as now being chiefly
about the issue of independence, and was not willing to jeopardise the unity of
its support base by becoming embroiled in that struggle.[4] However, in Grant's view,
the consequence of Labour's withdrawal from the election was to make it easier
for Sinn Féin and the nationalist movement to take the leading role in
subsequent events, and for a purely nationalistic – rather than socialist –
form of republicanism to go largely unchallenged as the dominant ideological
basis of the independence movement.
Grant, too, sees the decision of the Irish Labour Party
and Trade Union Congress to operate, after 1922, through the constitutional
structures of the Irish Free State as alienating it from those who opposed the
treaty and who saw themselves as the true defenders of the republic that had
been declared by the leaders of the 1916 rising and reaffirmed by the first
Dáil in 1919. By so doing, it forced the socialist republican movement to
operate outside of the mainstream Labour movement, and Grant – again like O’Connor
- sees the disunity amongst the various continuing socialist republican groups
as being another reason for their lack of political success.
For Donal Ó Drisceoil, it was in this
post-revolutionary era, when the possibility existed for political action
within an independent Ireland (at least in the 26 counties of the Free State),
that the socialist republican movement failed to take the opportunity available
to achieve its long-held aim of establishing a 'workers' republic'. In his biography of Peadar O'Donnell, written in 2001, Ó Drisceoil, attributed much of this failure to “the egotism of Jim Larkin” who, having
returned to Ireland from the United States in 1923, became involved in bitter
rivalries with some of his former ITGWU and Labour Party comrades. Ó Drisceoil also cites the "shifting priorities" of the
Comintern (Communist International) as a factor. Comintern had originally
backed Larkin's new organisation, the Irish Worker League, as its
representative in Ireland but later became disillusioned with the League's lack
of political progress.
In their 2017 anthology about the Dublin lockout of 1913,
Conor McNamara and Pádraig Yeates argued that
the social conservatism of Ireland in the early part of the twentieth century
has been exaggerated and that, contra Tom Garvin, there was indeed an appetite
for radical socialist ideas, as evidenced by the popularity of, and willingness
to follow, radical socialist republican leaders such as James Larkin. They also
disagreed with the idea, put forward by historians such as Michael Laffan, that
the agricultural reforms of the late nineteenth and early twentieth century had
ended the potential for social unrest in the countryside, pointing out that
thousands of agricultural labourers joined the ITGWU during the 1920s.[5] In the view of these historians, the opportunity was there for a
radical socialist republicanism to succeed in the Ireland of the revolutionary
period, and it was only the failure of the Labour leadership to grasp that
opportunity that prevented it from doing so.
TO BE CONTINUED IN NEXT POST
[1] E. O’Connor, ‘The age of the red republic: the Irish left
and nationalism, 1909—36’, Saothar,
30 (2005), pp. 73-82.
[2] E. O’Connor, James Larkin (Cork, 2002), p. 116.
[3] A. Grant, Irish Socialist Republicanism 1909-36
(Dublin, 2012), pp. 225-226.
[5] C. McNamara and Padraig Yeates, The Dublin Lockout, 1913: New Perspectives
on Class War & its Legacy (Newbridge, 2017), p. 152.
Comments
Post a Comment