(Irish) Socialism & Marxism versus the (Irish) Catholic Church & Jack Murphy TD

CDfm

This is a subject that I know very little about but it has raised its head here recently with posts on Jack Murphy TD & Archbishop McQuaid.

Anyway, I did a little googling and came up with this and came up with a piece posted on the Comely Maidens blog and written by a guy called Peader Kelly who was a work colleague of Jack Murphy's at Cadbury's and who spoke to him about the infamous meeting between Murphy & McQuaid..

Friday, 28 January 2011

Jack Murphy TD and Archbishop McQuaid


Many years ago I was asked to write an article about Jack Murphy, the TD for the Unemployed Protest Committee. Not knowing very much about the man other than that he had been elected to Dail Eireann in 1957, but had resigned a year later taken his family to Canada, I asked around among people who were of the same political family as Mr Murphy (republican socialist), but since they belonged to a later generation and knew as little as I did, I drew a blank.

Until, that is, I spoke to a man named Sean Doyle who had, as it transpired, worked for Jack Murphy during his time in Dail Eireann. Sean Doyle was only a young lad at the time but he recalled Jack Murphy with affection and admiration, and he told me that the man could not leave his house in the morning without some poor woman asking him for the price of a loaf or a bottle of milk. And Jack Murphy never refused.


If memory serves me right the weekly wage of a TD at the time was fifteen pounds (those were the days of noblesse oblige) and that wage would only be pocket money to most TDs. But when you were trying to support a family and a multitude of truly deserving neighbours in Ballyfermot, it didn’t go far.


Years later—by one of those quirks that fate sometimes throws up—I found myself working alongside the man himself. He had returned from Canada and was working as a self-employed carpenter in Cadbury’s, and I can say without any hint of exaggeration that Jack Murphy was one of the most highly principled men it has ever been my good fortune to meet. He was quiet and well-read, an autodidact with more learning, I suspect, than most of the TDs who occupied the Dail during his time there.


He told me that his brother had at that time won a house in a Canadian lottery and had prevailed upon him to take his family there. Being the man he was he never complained about the financial pressure he was being put under by his unfortunate neighbours, and I would never have learned of that had it not been for my conversation with Sean Doyle. He did, however, tell me about his meeting with the Archbishop of Dublin, John Charles McQuaid.


I recalled those conversations when I heard the name of Jack Murphy being mentioned on the Live Line of January 26th. The impression given on that radio programme, it seemed to me, was that John Charles had summoned Jack to Archbishop’s House in Drumcondra to persuade Jack to give up his seat in the Dail. Whether that was mentioned openly or not, that was the impression created in my mind. I can unequivocally say that not even the Pope himself could have expected obedient attendance had he summoned Jack to a meeting in the Vatican. Jack Murphy told me the story of what actually happened.


A meeting had been arranged between a delegation from the Unemployed Protest Committee and the Archbishop (at whose instigation I do not recall), and a delegation had been selected with John Charle. The delegation was to consist of Pronsias MacAonghusa, Seamus Sorohan, a Dublin barrister, and Jack himself. The other two failed to show up and Jack Murphy alone ended up meeting with the Archbishop. He told me that the meeting had been cordial and at no time during the course of it had John Charles attempted to exert pressure on him.


I suspect that, though Jack did not say it, that it was the non-attendance of the other two that may have tipped the balance in favour of his going to Canada.


During the course of the Liveline programme, Anthony Cronin, the writer, phoned in to say that it was his impression that Jack Murphy had been “confused” at the time. The following day a contributor phoned up to give it as his opinion that, having met him in the Dail, he thought that Jack Murphy was “swamped” and “out of his depth”. I can assure Jack’s family that their father would never been either of those things. He was a cool, lucid thinker, modest but certain in his beliefs.


I have long suspected that Joe Duffy has a pronounced animus against the Catholic Church. During the course of the programme he mentioned John Cooney’s biography of the Archbishop. I have read it, and the book is filled with supposition and rumour. I suspected that even now Joe Duffy and John Cooney collaborating on the theory that John Charles McQuaid was responsible for bringing bubonic plague to Ireland.

http://thecomelymaidens.blogspot.com/2011/01/jack-murphy-td-and-archbishop-mcquaid.html

This piece challenges the orthodox version that Jack Murphy TD was intimidated by McQuaid and suggests he is being "dissed" and portrayed as confused, out of his depth etc at that time.

http://www.theirishstory.com/2010/07/09/the-election-of-jack-murphy-in-1957/


Both versions cannot be correct.

What I remember is that Marx borrowed the phrase in part from the philosopher Hegel and the phrase "(religion) is the opiate of the masses" is attributed to him.

The Triad "thesis, antithesis & synthesis" is also Hegelian.

AFAIR , socialist/marxist docterine equates religion with oppression. So from the getgo conflict with the Church has been central to socialism/marxism.

I have never understood myself why but in my opinion there is a bit of competition involved for the people and the concept of state.

Nationalisation and "coveting thy neighbours goods" was never going to be an easy sell. Private ownership of "things" is a bit fundamental to christianity.

Now when socialist/marxist beliefs were being developed the catholic church in Ireland was dealing with the penal law aftermath, famine & its aftermath etc and the provision of welfare, schools and hospitals.

For some socialists , anti-religion seems to be a central tenet of their philosophy and belief.

So, with all this in mind, I would like to find out how this developed in Ireland from the begining of socialist politics in Ireland , the organisations and leaders and what their individual and political stances were towards the Catholic Church.

Dr.Nightdub

Probably worth pointing out that the socialist attitude to religion differs to the socialist attitude to religious organisations.

That famous quote of Marx begins: "Religion is the sigh of the oppressed creature, the heart of a heartless world, and the soul of soulless conditions. It is the opium of the people." The bit in bold indicates an understanding of why people turn to religion, though obviously not approval of religion as the best response to oppression.

CDfm

Connollys ISRP was probably the first of many

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irish_Socialist_Republican_Party

This was essentially communist and here is its programme

http://www.marxists.org/archive/connolly/1896/xx/isrp.htm

Here is a Wiki Links to defunct Irish Political Parties and will give youa taste of parties forming and closing etc

Defunct political parties in Ireland
To 1918 All-for-Ireland League · Catholic Union · Home Government Association · Home Rule League · Independent Irish Party · Irish Conservative Party · Irish Liberal Party · Irish Metropolitan Conservative Society · Irish National Federation · Irish National League · Irish Parliamentary Party · Irish Patriot Party · Irish Reform Association · Irish Socialist Republican Party · Irish Unionist Alliance · National Association · Repeal Association · United Irish League



Post 1918 Ailtirí na hAiséirghe · Aontacht Éireann · British and Irish Communist Organisation · Business and Professional Group · Christian Centrist Party · Clann Éireann · Clann na Poblachta · Clann na Talmhan · Córas na Poblachta · Cork Socialist Party · Cumann na nGaedheal · Cumann na Poblachta · Cumann Poblachta na hÉireann · Democratic Left · Democratic Socialist Party · Donegal Progressive Party · Farmers' Party · Fathers Rights-Responsibility Party · Independent Fianna Fáil · Independent Health Alliance · Irish Anti-Partition League · Irish Independence Party · Irish Workers' Group · Irish Worker League · League for a Workers Republic · Libertas · Monetary Reform Party · Muintir na hÉireann · National Centre Party · National Corporate Party · National Labour Party · National League Party · National Party (1924) · National Party (1995) · National Progressive Democrats · Poblacht Chríostúil · Progressive Democrats · Republican Congress · Saor Éire · Socialist Labour Party · Socialist Party of Ireland · Workers League


I normally don't use Wiki but for a general category it is ok

CDfm

Dr.Nightdub wrote: »

Probably worth pointing out that the socialist attitude to religion differs to the socialist attitude to religious organisations.

Do you have any detail on how irish socialists tackled this issue.

Jack Murphy was Catholic.

That famous quote of Marx begins: "Religion is the sigh of the oppressed creature, the heart of a heartless world, and the soul of soulless conditions. It is the opium of the people." The bit in bold indicates an understanding of why people turn to religion, though obviously not approval of religion as the best response to oppression.

In Ireland the Catholic Church was not part of the pre 1922 establishment. It provided schools and hospitals and welfare.

What did/does socialist ideology/policy teach about religion and churches.

CDfm

Here are interesting links on James Connolly.

Like Murphy , Connolly was an autodidact and he seemed to deviate somewhat from Engels and Marx on religion.

A little bio by the Communist Party in 1926

First published in the 'Communist International' (London), Journal of the Comintern, 1926.
First published as a pamphlet by the Workers'(Communist) Party, Chicago, U.S.A., 1926. The introduction to that edition by T.J. O'Flaherty, brother of the novelist Liam O'Flaherty, is included in this reprint.
Reprinted Cork, March 1974
This reprint Cork, June 1986
THE CORK WORKERS' CLUB
9 St Nicholas Church Place
Cove St., Cork, Ireland


http://irsm.org/history/jc&irishfreedom.html

http://www.socialismtoday.org/103/connolly.html

Connolly believed his Irish Socialist Republican Party (ISRP) conformed to the practice of socialist parties internationally, following the German socialists’ Erfurt Programme (1891), when he declared his party should not be concerned with questions of religious belief. Connolly went further and "prohibited discussion of theological or anti-theological questions at its meetings, public or private". (Workers’ Republic, 17 June 1899)
Under the Erfurt Programme slogan, ‘Religion is a private matter’, the German social democrats correctly opposed persecution of Catholics. But from this correct position a distortion of Marxism emerged; that religion is a ‘private matter’ for the party, as a whole. In the 1890s, Frederick Engels opposed this view. He insisted that social democrats regard religion as a private matter in relation to the individual and the state, but the revolutionary party had to defend Marxism against ideological attacks, including those from the Church Establishment. Of course, the revolutionary party must be very sensitive to those who hold religious views, especially in countries where religion has mass influence, and people with religious views can join and participate fully in the party.
In contrast, the ISRP’s position on religion meant the party was ultra-cautious and defensive towards the Catholic Church. Attempts to ban religion from discussion proved impossible. At the same time, the ISRP’s prohibitive policy hindered the development of a core of Marxist cadres.
The Catholic Church, as an institution, would inevitably side with reaction, as was shown in Ireland in the years of revolution and counter-revolution after Connolly’s death. Workers needed a socialist programme to break them from the political hold of the Church leaders.

Having a quick look thru articles on Connolly there is reference to a "dirty little secret" and I am confused as to whether that refers to his nationality ,Scottish, or his religion ,Catholic.

So there is an indication that the socialist/marxist anti-catholic docterine is a competition for a political power base.

And, at his execution in 1916 he was attended to by a priest Fr Aloysius and here were his recollections for Connolly's family.

Scott Herbert, however, called him a "devout Catholic".


Father Aloysius in conversation to his daughter Nora:
“
It was a terrible shock to me, I'd been with him that evening and I promised to come to him this afternoon. I felt sure there would be no more executions. Your father was much easier than he had been. I was sure that he would get his first real night's rest. The ambulance that brought you home came for me. I was astonished. I had felt so sure that I would not be needed. For the first time since the Rising, I had locked the doors. And some time after two I was knocked up. The ambulance brought me to your father. Such a wonderful man - such a concentration of mind. They carried him from his bed in an ambulance stretcher down to a waiting ambulance and drove him to Kilmainham Jail. They carried him from the ambulance to the jail yard and put him in a chair. He was very brave and cool. I said to him, "Will you pray for the men who are about to shoot you" and he said: "I will say a prayer for all brave men who do their duty." His prayer was "Forgive them for they know not what they do" and then they shot him.”
Selected extracts from the personal recollections of Father Aloysius OFM Cap.
“
Monday 1 May
Early in the morning the son of Superintendent Dunne (DMP) a subdeacon, called to me and said that Father Murphy, the military chaplain, had sent him to ask if I could call to the Castle during the afternoon. James Connolly, who was a prisoner and a patient there, had expressed a wish to see me. I called, and saw Father Murphy. He told me that he had arranged for the necessary permissions. With Captain Stanley, RAMC, I went to the ward. At the door the sentry challenged Captain Stanley and informed him he had orders to allow no one to see the prisoner without special instructions. Captain Stanley was obliged to return for his permit. The sentry asked me if I were Father Aloysius and, on my replying in the affirmative said: 'You can go in.' However, as the nurses were engaged with Connolly, I delayed outside until they had finished and Captain Stanley had returned.
I entered with Captain Stanley, but I remarked that two soldiers with rifles and bayonets were on guard and showed no intention of leaving. I point out this to Captain Stanley, but he said it was necessary that they should remain; that he had no power to remove them. Then I said: 'If that is so I cannot do my work as a priest. I have never before, to my knowledge spoken to James Connolly. I cannot say if he may not be hard of hearing. Confession is an important and sacred duty that demands privacy and I cannot go on with it in the presence of these men.' I had given my word that I would not utilise the opportunity for carrying political information or as a cover for political designs, and if my word was not sufficient or reliable they had better get some other priest. But I felt quite confident I would have my way.
”
“
Tuesday 2nd
In the morning I gave Holy Communion to James Connolly. Later in the day I went with Father Augustine to Headquarters, Infirmary Road and met General (Sir John) Maxwell....
When I reached Kilmainham Gaol I was informed that Thomas MacDonagh also wished for my ministrations. I was taken to the prisoners' cells and spent some hours between the two. "You will be glad to know that I gave Holy Communion to James Connolly this morning," I said to Pearse when I met him. "Thank God," he replied, "it is the one thing I was anxious about."
”
“
Thursday afternoon
Called to the Castle to see Connolly. Connolly had not slept and seemed feverish. I said that I would let him rest and would called in morning to give him Holy Communion. Uneasy about him I tried to get contact with Captain Stanley, but he could not be found. Reached Castle gates, and, still uneasy, decided to return and make another attempt to see Stanley. Saw him and was assured that there was no danger of any steps being taken; he reminded me that Asquith had given to understand that no executions would take place pending debate which was on that night. Got back to Church Street some time near 7 pm. About 9 pm Captain Stanley called and told me that my services would be required about 2 am. He was not at liberty to say more but I could understand.
”
“
Friday Morning, 12th
About 1 am car called and Father Sebastian accompanied me to Castle. Heard Connolly's confession and gave him Holy Communion. Waited in Castle Yard while he was being given a meal. He was brought down and laid on stretcher in ambulance. Father Sebastian and myself drove with him to Kilmainham. Stood behind firing party during the execution. Father Eugene McCarthy, who had attended Sean MacDermott before we arrived, remained and anointed Connolly immediately after the shooting.
”
Three months after James Connolly's execution his wife Lillie (née Lillie Reynolds, a domestic servant from Co Wicklow) was received into the Catholic Church, at Church St. on 15 August.


http://thoughtactioneire.blogspot.com/2009/04/james-connolly.html

CDfm

There was no real emnity between the left and the Catholic Church until 1930

During the 1920s the Catholic church said very little on communism. But in late 1929, Stalin imposed severe limits on the toleration of religion in Russia. Pope Pius XI retaliated in 1930, by virtually excommunicating communists, and the Catholic press and the hierarchy in Ireland became openly hostile to any sympathy with communism or Russia.
This was bad timing for Moscow's Irish policy. The ECCI had had to wait until Larkin broke with the CI in 1929 before sending a commission to Ireland to re-build a cp. As membership of the communist organization - the RWGs - increased, so too did clerical reaction. IRA-communist relations remained friendly and An Phoblacht opposed church policy until 1933, when an intense anti-communist campaign caused the IRA to decide that the communists were more trouble than they were worth. From February 1933 onwards, the army council attempted to neutralise communist influences within the IRA. When the RWG proceeded to form the second CPI in June 1933, and the Daily Express alleged that 20% of CPI members were IRA volunteers, the army council formally condemned communism for its 'denial of God and active hostility to religion'. The IRA leadership did not see this as a shift to the right. An Phoblacht subsequently devoted more attention to the social question and made a stronger appeal to the Labour movement. But it was the communists that the IRA left wanted to work with.


http://www.iol.ie/~rjtechne/century130703/addons/repcon34.htm

CDfm

The first time I can see the argument playing out is here.

Its a cracker from 1930'S Belfast

Harry Midgley and the Spanish Civil War

Assorted articles

Midgley, the Irish News and Spain

Extract from ...

A History of the Northern Ireland Labour Party, 1891-1949

By John Fitzsimons Harbinson, B.Com.Sc.

Pages 88-94.

A Thesis at Queens University Belfast, 1966.

Shortly after the start of the July rebellion of that year [1936] in Spain, the Irish News which had a circulation of about 50,000 among the Roman Catholic and Nationalist community, published attacks on the Spanish Government.
It must be said that the Irish News adopted, at least in the beginning, a reasonable attitude on the question of atrocities, and attempted to access the situation with as much impartiality as is shown by any newspaper on an issue about which it has very strong views. Thus it wrote, "Reports of the progress of the war in Spain and of the atrocities committed by the contending parties should be accepted with reserve, especially when they come from holiday makers, interviewed, after they have left Spain, by Press reporters." (Irish News, August 1st 1936) The editorial then proceeds to give some guidance on how to judge these stories, and commends The Times, and Daily Telegraph among English papers, the New York Times and L’Echo de Paris, as having a reputation for accuracy.
They continued, "Photographs are also a fairly reliable source of information as to what is happening. One of the most gruesome was published in L’Echo de Paris on Thursday. It shows 12 human skeletons propped up against a church door, four of them in coffins from which the lids have been torn, all with their hands folded as they had been arranged at death." The letter-press underneath says: "We believe that we ought, in spite of its horrible nature, to place this record before the eyes of our readers to give them an idea of the ferocious anti-clericalism which rules the mobs of fanatics armed by the Government. The photograph represents the skeletons of Carmelite monks torn form the peace of the tomb and exhibited on the porch of a church in Barcelona." (Irish News, August 1st 1936)
This is in keeping with the caution counseled by the editor to his readers. But later his comments did not appear to have the same balance or restraint. On the question of foreign intervention in Spain he wrote, "Russia is forcing her work people to pay a 'Spanish levy' for the purpose of making Communism supreme in Spain. Soviet Russia's interference in European affairs has always been for evil. A few months ago she turned up at Geneva in the role of defender of international law and as a protector of primitive Abyssinians. Today she is helping a Government to overthrow Christianity, in the hope that Spain will speedily become the Russia of Western Europe." (Irish News, August 6th 1936)
Or again, on the same question, "The real danger point at present is the attitude of Russia. That country is said to have agreed to non-intervention 'in principle', but at the same time money is dispatched from Moscow to help the Spanish Government. The argument that these are 'private collections' is ridiculous. If Russia were a free country, such an argument might be put forward; but unfortunately it is not. The raising of funds is therefore essentially a State affair, and in the present circumstances becomes an international affair." (Irish News, August 10th 1936)
This selection will suffice to show the editorial attitude of the Irish News. The Popular front Government was being classified as anti-clerical, which meant anti-Catholic, and pro-Communist. Anyone, therefore, who spoke in support of the Spanish Government was given the same label.
Harry Midgley, the Member of Parliament for Dock, took it upon himself to reply to these charges, first by letters to the Irish News, and later by publication of a pamphlet. (H Midgley, Spain: The Press, The Pulpit and the Truth, Belfast, September 1936) By doing so he left himself open to the same charges as had been brought against the Spanish Government. In a prologue to his pamphlet he wrote, "...many persons have written informing me that I have been denounced all over the country as a bigot, a bolshevist, a representative of the Spanish of the Soviet Government..."
"As Chairman of the Labour Party, Northern Ireland, Alderman of the City of Belfast, and Member of Parliament, I am determined that the workers of Northern Ireland shall be warned off the fate which may befall them and the workers of Great Britain if the forces of Democracy and Representative Government are overthrown in Spain by the cruel and arrogant forces of Fascism. A Fascist victory in Spain means new life, hope and inspiration to Mussolini and Hitler; a new menace to Democratic Government in Britain and France, and the inevitability of world war."
The core of the argument, therefore, was the extent to which atrocity stories published by the Irish News were a true reflection of the situation in Spain. While Midgley did admit that atrocities had taken place, simply because they were inseparable from war, he strongly attacked the editorial attitude of the Irish News in suggesting that the atrocities were all on one side, and that the Government of Spain was composed of desperadoes whose only function and purpose was to destroy churches, and murder clergymen or other representatives of the Church. He also claimed that many of the stories noted by the Irish News had been exposed as untrue by a number of English national papers, including The Times and the Manchester Guardian, and he quoted examples of atrocity reports from various newspapers, and refuted each with a contradictory report from a different paper.
He then turned to the other side of the question; the stories of atrocities being committed by the rebel army. The Irish News had presented these forces as 'Christian patriots', but reports from Harold Pancherton[?] (Daily Express, August 27, 1936) and other correspondents (Daily telegraph, August 17 1936) revealed that they too were guilty of such grievous activity.
Midgley then posed the question, "....why is this (situation) so? It is not sufficient to condemn the whole Spanish Government and the workers as an army of Godless rascals. The explanation lies deeper than that, and we must face up to the facts no matter how unpleasant they may be, and tell the truth, even if we lose friends in so doing." (Midgley, Spain.., p9) As events were to prove before very long, Midgley was to lose more than friends.
The controversy might not have had such serious repercussions had it not been for the intervention of the Rev. J.P. Burke, C.C. In a sermon preached in Newry Cathedral and comprehensively reported in the Irish News (September 10 1936), he made the following statement:

The present war in Spain is not an attack by rebels on a legitimate government, but a defence of their lives by Catholics of every shade of political opinion against a Government which has ceased to govern and the mobs which it has armed. The attack on the Church is not made for any reason whatever other than the hatred of religion which Communism inspires.
The Amalgamated transport Union has decided to send a thousand pounds to support the Reds in Spain, and some of your Labour leaders are openly advocating support for the Communist movement. Catholics in Omagh have left the Transport Union in protest. Catholic workmen in Armagh have publicly asked for prayers and Masses for the Catholic cause in Spain. What of Newry?
I make no suggestion, it's up to yourselves. But I do ask you to pray fervently and earnestly for the success of the Catholic cause in Spain, and pray that your own beloved country may be spared the horror of this evil.

Midgley, in the epilogue to his pamphlet referred Father Burke to certain statements made by Miss Monica Whately, a Catholic and former Labour candidate in England, who had been in Spain during the trouble, and which refuted the claims made against the Government. And then he wrote, "Does Father Burke think he is doing a good day's work by introducing sectarianism into the Trade Union Movement ? Knowing Belfast and Northern Ireland as I do, I am convinced that he has made a profound mistake?" (Midgley; Spain, p14)
But as events were to prove, it was Midgley who made the mistake: his judgement of the effects of international politics was more accurate than his judgement of the local scene. He either failed, or refused, to recognise that religion was an overriding consideration in Northern Ireland politics. However much it was to be deplored, it was a fact of life, and any politician who ignored it did so at his peril. When the election of 1938 came to be fought on the constitutional (religious) issue, Harry Midgley found that the events of 1936 were too close for comfort.
[Moving along the thesis to the reports of the election in 1938]
Page 97-99
The Labour party fared badly. This can be attributed in part to...organisational deficiencies.., partly to the Midgley - Irish News controversy of 1936, and partly to a rather poor electoral policy. …As the campaign went into its full swing, it became clear that the seat in dock was in danger of being lost. When the Labour Party tried to hold meetings in Nationalist areas of the constituency they meet great difficulties. Whenever Midgley appeared he was greeted by hostile crowds of young people whose constant shouting caused at least two meetings to be abandoned. (Belfast News Letter, Feb. 2nd 1938) On occasions there were possibilities of ugly demonstrations. "Young people, especially girls from 10-16 years, kept up a continuous interruption at one meeting by singing 'The Soldiers Song' and chanting the words 'We want Franco'… The lorry, in which Alderman Midgley and other Labour speakers, was followed by two tenders containing about two dozen police." (Northern Whig, Feb 2nd 1938)
[Midgley lost this election.]



Midgley, Roman Catholicism and Spain, 1936

Paul Abraham
This piece is reprinted from New Ulster, the journal of the Ulster Society, a unionist history magazine in Northern Ireland. Issue 2, Winter 1986

Civil War
Bedevilled for five years by political instability, Spain finally plunged into civil war in July 1936. On one side stood General Franco and the Fascists, enjoying strong clericalist and Army support. Opposing them was the elected Leftist Government in Madrid, the champion of a constitution which had established a democratic republic, curbed the power and influence of the Roman Catholic Church and granted such civil rights as that of divorce.Both sides received foreign support. Roman Catholics and conservatives generally favoured Franco's Insurgents, seeing them as battling against the Red menace; Nazi Germany and Fascist Italy provided material assistance. Socialists, communists and Liberals saw Madrid as beleaguered by the forces of reaction. Soviet Russia backed Madrid. In the ideological battle truth was an early casualty as the warring forces and their foreign sympathisers spread propaganda exaggerating every atrocity. Incensed by the horror stories or motivated by political commitment, young volunteers set out from the United Kingdom and from Ireland to fight In Spain for their idea of civilisation or of democracy. Others contented themselves with a war of words, and that was a war, which broke out in Ulster in 1936.
Midgley Speaks Out
The Irish News took up the cudgels on behalf of the Insurgents in its editorial of 23 July: 'The Communist Bid In Spain'. A weak Madrid Government was the puppet of Communists intent on controlling Spain and continuing the "campaign of outrage against religion". Ireland was urged to pray that Spain would not "go down in defeat before the enemies of God and nationhood". In the following days, reports appeared of burning and looting of churches and of gross acts of sacrilege. The Irish News glorified the Fascists as those "prepared to fight and die for the ideals of Catholic Spain", believing that Soviet Russia wanted Spain to become "the Russia of Western Europe."
Harry Midgley, the pugnacious Labour MP for Dock at Stormont, was stung into replying. A democratically elected Republican Government was under attack from an alliance of Fascists, Monarchists and aristocrats backed by Nazi Germany and Fascist Italy. Far from being the champions of Christianity and civilisation, the Insurgents cynically used churches as forts - leaving the Government forces with no alternative but to attack them - and employed coloured colonial (Moslem) troops to set up a Fascist "white terror". The Spanish masses were fighting to defend "the republic which was established by the blood sacrifice and sorrow of the workers of Spain", and workers in democratic countries should assist them "financially, materially and morally".
There followed a spate of angry letters to the Irish News rebutting Midgley s arguments A Ballycastle correspondent alleged that the majority of Spaniards were hostile to a Madrid Government propped up by Communists and financed by Moscow. Under the guise of defending civil and religious liberty Madrid was at war with religion: "The present Government in Spain believes no more in democracy than does Lord Craigavon, and if force is being used to destroy it, it is because the anti-Government forces have no other remedy." Another reader asserted that Freemasonry, the bitter enemy of the Church, was at work. But that insidious force had, in his view, been checked in Germany and Italy and faced the same fate in Spain. He was full of praise for Mussolini's regime but, nonetheless, rejected Midgley's charge that the Church had compromised with the Italian dictator: "Let me remind him the Church compromises with no one, and what Rome says is final."
Midgley hit back. For equality in every land, he saw the issue in Spain as one of "Liberty or Death". The Moscow subsidy for Madrid was a smear. Instead he pointed readers to the moral worth of Franco's Spanish and foreign supporters: at home backed by men who butchered the workers; in Italy, Austria and Germany, backed by regimes which threw thousands into prisons and concentration camps; while in Abyssinia, Mussolini used poison gas against Christians. In defiant mood, Midgley not only refused to give way to threats of loss of electoral support, but aimed a calculated insult at those who talked of a Red menace: far from being a menace, Communism if honesty applied was the very 'Gospel of Jesus".
Roman Catholic Disapproval
Midgley's stance could not but receive strong Roman Catholic disapproval. The Archbishop of Armagh, Cardinal MacRory, in a Lenten pastoral, warned darkly that "a disguised Communist movement is actually in existence in more than one place here in the Six Counties". The bishop of Down and Connor directed that 6 September should be a Day of Atonement and expiation for the sacrileges in Spain", a call answered by crowds of "fervent worshippers", in diocesan churches where there was a "Solemn Exposition of the Most Blessed Sacrament". The national secretary of the Ancient Order of Hibernians warned Ulster's Roman Catholics not to allow Communists and others to divert them from the great issue of a united Ireland. At 15 August demonstrations the AOH passed a resolution denouncing the "campaign of Anti-Christ, which, under the Satanic flag of Communism - "waged war" - "against God, His Church. and Christian civilisation". One speaker at a demonstration warned that the organisation persecuting the Spanish Church had "crept into Ireland" another saw the AOH as existing to "checkmate Communism" or any other society condemned by the Church.
In this atmosphere of bitterness and suspicion there came to the fore the amiable figure of the Rev Dr Arthur Ryan of Queen's University. In a public lecture on 19 October, he attacked as local bigots those rejoicing at the discomfiture of Spanish Catholicism while ignoring the attack on all religion by the Communist regime in Madrid. The victims of persecution, the Spanish Catholics had accepted the Republican Government only to have their newspapers suspended and religious buildings attacked by Red mobs. It was these outrages which provoked the rightists to rebel. Ryan exhorted local Roman Catholics to support religion generously, and "with the Pope to lead us rally round the standards of the Church, the standards of Christ, whether in Spain or Ireland".
Midgley- Ryan Debate
On the 26th Midgley delivered a lecture in the Labour Hall entitled: "A Reply to Dr Ryan". Three hundred people crowded in, among them Ryan who exchanged friendly greeting with his protagonist. Midgley was sharp in his criticism of a Church which for nearly 450 years had dominated Spain, enjoying "dominion over the spiritual lives of the people" and control of "education, politics, industry, commerce, land policy, and finance". Obstructing any attempt at reform in Spain the Church had earned the hatred of a people which, in their anger, turned on Church properly. There was talk of persecution in present day Spain, but had Ryan protested when a Government including Fascists slaughtered thousands of workers and imprisoned some 30,000? As for the Church in Ireland, it blundered in supporting tyranny in Spain: the Irish 'people would turn and tell it to leave them "to work out their own economic and industrial destiny". His words were blunt and Midgley knew well the likely consequence: "I will probably lose my position in public life as the result of the stand I have taken, but I deny the right of any Church to dictate how I should think on political wilderness and be ostracised by the men whose friendship I cherish.".
Allowed to reply, Ryan employed a narrow definition of democracy and a conveniently wide definition for the right to rebel. For him democracy was not a matter of majorities. of popular support, but of the principle of absolute equality regardless of affiliation. Using his own definition, Ryan excused the support given Fascism by Spanish bishops and priests on the ground that the 1931 Constitution was "completely unfair to them", adding that the Government's seizure of Church land and legal restrictions on religions gave people a right to rebel. On a personal note, Ryan observed that he and Midgley were both Socialists often on the same side; if they now parted company it was because of Midgley's allowing himself to be misled by slogans about democracy and the voice of the people.
In 1938, Midgley was to hear the voice of some of the people: Nationalist Intervention in Dock cost him the seat, his vote slumping from the near 5,000 of three years before to under 2,000. At the declaration of the result, Midgley stood unbowed and proudly proclaimed, "I have preserved my soul, my independence and my character and I will never bow to any dictatorship, theological or otherwise." In those words Midgley expressed the essence of his philosophy the dream he wanted others to share, the dream of a land where intellectual freedom would reign supreme

http://irelandscw.com/docs-Midgley.htm

jonniebgood1

CDfm wrote: »

"In defiant mood, Midgley not only refused to give way to threats of loss of electoral support, but aimed a calculated insult at those who talked of a Red menace: far from being a menace, Communism if honesty applied was the very 'Gospel of Jesus"."

The extent of Irish involvelment in the Spanish civil war shows that midgley was not believed. Many more fought for Franco that for the left in the information I have looked at. The reason for doing so is mentioned here

Many people mistakenly believe that everyone who joined Eoin O'Duffy was a fascist, some may have been, but the vast majority of those who did fight for Franco had no interest in fascism and were more traditional Catholics. This book (Spanish Civil War: The Untold Misery) will show that many of the men who joined Eoin O'Duffy, especially from Belfast, did so because of the fact that they were devout Catholics and as a consequence did what the church told them to do, but also they went to fight because of the unique relationship they had with O'Duffy himself. http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/SPirish.htm

Some did fight with the 'international brigades' against Franco, there was a program on BBC last week which had several irish contributors. One joined the international brigade as he was sick of the 'no irish need apply' signs in england at the time.

CDfm

This book (Spanish Civil War: The Untold Misery) will show that many of the men who joined Eoin O'Duffy, especially from Belfast, did so because of the fact that they were devout Catholics and as a consequence did what the church told them to do,

This bit made me smile , what do they teach in school these days, it takes a lot of socialising to get someone to believe in a cause and to kill for it even more.

Everything around -even a law was passed by the Dail forbiding recruiting for Spain- said do not go.

Did the church actually say go and fight in Spain or was it a bit more complex than that.

Didn't Frank Ryan of the IRA and Roddy Connolly (Son of James) recruit for the Republican side from the IRA and Socialist groups.

No disrespect to anyone, but were these guys "1916 wannabe's" or particularily gullible. ???

But it still does not explain the shift towards anti-catholicism which occured c 1930 as this seems to be driven by Stalins mob.

CDfm

Here is a nice article from the New York Times in 1919



[Embedded Image Removed]

The full article is here and it is interesting

http://query.nytimes.com/mem/archive-free/pdf?res=F40613FB3C5E157A93CAA8178DD85F4D8185F9

A couple of years later Hanna Sheehy Skeffington turns up in Moscow

She now drew closer to republicans like Frank Ryan and Peadar O’Donnell, becoming Assistant Editor of An Phoblacht, the newspaper of the IRA.In 1930, in her capacity as secretary of the 'Friends of Soviet Russia', she travelled to Russia. On her return to Ireland she became Editor of the Republican File, a Republican Socialist journal, following the suppression of An Phoblacht and jailing of Frank Ryan. She became involved in the First National Aid Association which supported the dependents of Republican prisoners and gave continuous support to the Women’s Prisoners' Defence League. In January 1933 Hanna was jailed when she travelled to Newry, County Downspeaking on behalf of republican prisoners. She was arrested and held for 15 days in Armagh Jail as she defied an order banning from entering the Northern counties.



http://www.hannashouse.ie/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=3&Itemid=2

It is interesting to see how the friendships Hanna made on her US trips were kept up by her.

DeValera's US connection was his half brother Thomas Wheelright a Catholic Priest.

DeV's background could not have been more different to Hanna's with her growing up the daughter of an MP and him the son of an emigrant woman brought home from New York by his Uncle

http://homepage.eircom.net/~seanjmurphy/irhismys/devalera.html

Ostrom

Just a quick addition and apologies for the pedantry (which I seem to have lost all perspective on).

In a letter to the New York tribune, Marx wrote;

"The Repeal agitation was a mere political movement, and therefore, it was possible for the Catholic clergy to make use of it. The Tenant-Right agitation is a deep-rooted social movement which, in its course, will produce a downright scission between the Church and the Irish Revolutionary party, and thus emancipate the people from that mental thralldom which has frustrated all their exertions, sacrifices, and struggles for centuries past" (February 23, 1853)

Ten years later (three days after the Clerkenwell bombing), he gave a talk on Ireland to the German workers education society in London;

"[Fenianism] took root (and is still really rooted) only in the mass of the people, the lower orders...all earlier Irish movements were led by the “aristocracy or middle-class men, and always the Catholic churchmen" (December 16th, 1867)

I dont think Marx opposed 'religion' as such, more its organisational form - he later endorsed Galdstone's proposal to disestablish the Anglican Church on the grounds that it might lead to solidarity between Irish catholics and protestants. His opposition to the repeal movement was more to do with the fact that it wasn't a 'bottom-up' class initiative.

The initial comments on religion I think have more to do with Marx's opposition to explanations based on non-materialist accounts - this includes theology as much as the other staples of Marxism such as 'market imperatives' as opposed to class conflict. The work in which that comment appears (1843) is relatively early in his studies in political economy, and the early critiques of Hegel are more concerned with overcoming his notion that ideas were the main determinant of social change (i.e. it is highly abstract and doesn't refer to specific institutions).

jonniebgood1

The church in Ireland was not against communism from the start. Was this related to the battle for independence being also seen as a battle for better rights for the poorest workers? When the Free state was established the expected improvements were slow to come for workers which led to an increase in trade union membership and activity.

In relation to communism the Bishop of Killaloe Michael Fogarty said that the church had nothing to fear from communism, and that 'that communism is to be christianised' ! (whats the matter with Ireland, pg.89 by Ruth Russell*) This was when Ruth Russell was trying to clarify if the bishop was supporting the stance of his clergy who had preached from the pulpit that the people should stick together.

* This book is availiable to download in full at http://www.manybooks.net/titles/russellr1203312033-8.html

jonniebgood1

Just a quick quote from Ruth Russells obeservations at the start of her book linked in previous post

there are, of
course, those who say that a republic is not enough. In the
cities where poverty is blackest, there are those who state
that the new republic must be a workers' republic. In the
villages and country places where the co-operative
movement is growing strong, there are those who believe
that the new republic must be a co-operative
commonwealth.

This was written in 1920 and suggests that some Sinn fein support was left leaning, not just with the Limerick Soviet that the Bishop of Killaloe indicated support for.

CDfm

jonniebgood1 wrote: »

The church in Ireland was not against communism from the start.

But it wasn't the church that came out against comminism, but, communism came out against the church.

Until I looked it up I always thought being anti-religion was a tenet of marxism. That does not seem to match up with Marx or Connolly and now it seems that the anti Catholicism dates from 1930 and Stalin.

Was this related to the battle for independence being also seen as a battle for better rights for the poorest workers? When the Free state was established the expected improvements were slow to come for workers which led to an increase in trade union membership and activity.

And how does this tie the catholic church in.

Lest we forget, Ireland post 1922 had independence . By Marxist definitions it had a primitive capital base and you had emigration. And independence did not bring economic growth and prosperity.

AS IRISH POPULATION figures crashed in the second half of the 19th century, endemic and pervasive emigration became the black hole at the centre of Irish culture. The Irish family was buffeted in a treacherous sea of breakdown and dispersal; the Irish sense of place was shadowed by an all too prevalent displacement.
By the 20th century, emigration had eaten its way into the heart of the Irish experience. It had become a commonplace of Irish nationalist discourse to blame Irish emigration on perfidious British policies, therefore the continuation of Irish emigration at high levels under native government was traumatic. Even more distressingly, much of it was now heading to Britain. The humiliating demographics, economic stagnation and cultural introversion reached its nadir in the 1950s.
By then, the collapse of the population was triggering a despairing sense of the failure of the entire independence project, that the revolution had created a failed state and a dismal economy, not the transformation of the country. The radical measures then taken did create a welcome demographic respite in the 1960s, only for a relapse to occur in the 1970s and the 1980s, a decade almost as bad as the horrible 1950s. Government minister Brian Lenihan said bluntly: "We can't all live on a small island."


http://www.irishtimes.com/timeseye/whoweare/p2top.htm

jonniebgood1

CDfm wrote: »

But it wasn't the church that came out against comminism, but, communism came out against the church.

This is what makes the Bishops comments interesting IMO. In fairness though his comments were 1919 approx so developments in Russia were still only in progress. I think the Marx views can be open to interpretation.

CDfm wrote: »

And how does this tie the catholic church in.

Lest we forget, Ireland post 1922 had independence . By Marxist definitions it had a primitive capital base and you had emigration. And independence did not bring economic growth and prosperity.

The catholic church is tied to all this as they were so influential with the ordinary people. If they denounced an act from the pulpit it had a huge influence on what the people thought about it. What I mean is that the church may have seen a type of mass movement towards a workers republic (Limerick Soviet, Cleeves factory strike, Belfast strikes, rise in trade unions) .

Self-declared 'Soviet' occupations occurred at Cork Harbour, North Cork railways, the quarry and the fishing fleet at Castleconnell, the gasworks and a coachbuilders in Tipperary, a clothing factory in Dublin's York Street, sawmills in Ballinacourty and Killarney, the Drogheda Iron foundry, Waterford Gas, mines at Arigna and Ballinderry, two flour mills in Cork, Sir John Kean's farm in Cappoquin, the Monaghan asylum. Undoubtably there were others.

Most were successful as ways of forcing the bosses to pay wage claims, but they were about a lot more than just pay rises. They reflected the growing confidence of newly unionised workers and a political idealism that looked to an Ireland free not only of the British army but also free of native bosses. They called their occupations soviets because they were impressed by the example of the Russian workers who had established their own elected councils, called soviets, to run that country. http://www.struggle.ws/ws/ws51_munster.html

Rather than challenging this they chose to support the people involved in it. This is then reflected by what Fogarty said about this. The war of independence followed soon after and republicanism overtook workers power for many reasons.

CDfm

jonniebgood1 wrote: »

This is what makes the Bishops comments interesting IMO. In fairness though his comments were 1919 approx so developments in Russia were still only in progress. I think the Marx views can be open to interpretation.

Many economists study Marx as an economist.

It does seem though that his hypotheses were not cast in stone and may not have been intended to be rigidly applied.

An economist will adjust a model.

The catholic church is tied to all this as they were so influential with the ordinary people. If they denounced an act from the pulpit it had a huge influence on what the people thought about it. What I mean is that the church may have seen a type of mass movement towards a workers republic (Limerick Soviet, Cleeves factory strike, Belfast strikes, rise in trade unions) . Rather than challenging this they chose to support the people involved in it. This is then reflected by what Fogarty said about this. The war of independence followed soon after and republicanism overtook workers power for many reasons.

I can't see how the church fits in here.

The Society we are talking about is a peasant society, mud huts and the like. The Ireland of Patrick Kavanagh.


Stony Grey Soil
O stony grey soil of Monaghan
The laugh from my love you thieved;
You took the gay child of my passion
And gave me your clod-conceived.

You clogged the feet of my boyhood
And I believed that my stumble
Had the poise and stride of Apollo
And his voice my thick tongued mumble.

You told me the plough was immortal!
O green-life conquering plough!
The mandril stained, your coulter blunted
In the smooth lea-field of my brow.

You sang on steaming dunghills
A song of cowards' brood,
You perfumed my clothes with weasel itch,
You fed me on swinish food

You flung a ditch on my vision
Of beauty, love and truth.
O stony grey soil of Monaghan
You burgled my bank of youth!

Lost the long hours of pleasure
All the women that love young men.
O can I stilll stroke the monster's back
Or write with unpoisoned pen.

His name in these lonely verses
Or mention the dark fields where
The first gay flight of my lyric
Got caught in a peasant's prayer.

Mullahinsa, Drummeril, Black Shanco-
Wherever I turn I see
In the stony grey soil of Monaghan
Dead loves that were born for me.

This was Ireland.

I can't see the church initiating any issue's with the communists in Ireland.


The landlords and moneyed classes were gone bought out by the Land Acts and Land Annuities were paid to the British Government -so the money was gone and under DeValera the moneys went into to public purse.

Irelands railways were nationalised in the mid 1940's close to the end of WWII.

jonniebgood1

CDfm wrote: »

I can't see how the church fits in here.

....

I can't see the church initiating any issue's with the communists in Ireland.

I don't think they needed to. The war of independence and then the civil war took precedence over any movement for a workers republic or any form of syndicalism. The incidents mentioned in earlier post show that there was an increase in workers seeking to follow other nations in gaining power. Yet after the civil war that had almost completely disappeared. Dispite some support for spains left any real communists in Ireland were negligible as shown in 1949 statement by minister for justice

As far as I am aware there is no organisation in the State which proclaims itself communist or is associated with the Cominform. http://debates.oireachtas.ie/dail/1949/06/15/00011.asp

So back to the church and the OP. Their job was done for them in the 1920's. In the 1930's the church in Ireland encouraged irishmen to join with O'Duffy to fight for Franco after reports of the Republicans(communists) attacking Catholic clergy.

CDfm

jonniebgood1 wrote: »

I don't think they needed to. The war of independence and then the civil war took precedence over any movement for a workers republic or any form of syndicalism. The incidents mentioned in earlier post show that there was an increase in workers seeking to follow other nations in gaining power. Yet after the civil war that had almost completely disappeared. Dispite some support for spains left any real communists in Ireland were negligible as shown in 1949 statement by minister for justice

I dunno what you are saying here.

AFAIK, Connolly himself was a democrat and suffragist. Is that correct ?

So back to the church and the OP. Their job was done for them in the 1920's. In the 1930's the church in Ireland encouraged irishmen to join with O'Duffy to fight for Franco after reports of the Republicans(communists) attacking Catholic clergy.

The million dollar question therefore is in the 1930's were the Communists anti-catholic and were the reports truthful.

What actually happened.

jonniebgood1

CDfm wrote: »

I dunno what you are saying here.

Apologies if I am unclear.

What I meant was the church did not need to initiate any problem with communism or syndicalism in Ireland (at that time) because the syndicalist movement had dissipated between 1921-1923 with support for a Republic replacing support for a workers Republic.

To look at the 1930's would be interesting but we need to look to Russia, Spain and other european countries to get the answer IMO.

CDfm

jonniebgood1 wrote: »

Apologies if I am unclear.

I am not clear on whether you are saying that Connolly was a democrat or not.

[/QUOTE]

Everything seemed to be ticketty boo until 1929

During the 1920s the Catholic church said very little on communism. But in late 1929, Stalin imposed severe limits on the toleration of religion in Russia. Pope Pius XI retaliated in 1930, by virtually excommunicating communists, and the Catholic press and the hierarchy in Ireland became openly hostile to any sympathy with communism or Russia.

This paper was delivered at the Desmond Greaves Summer School, in the ATGWU Hall, Abbey Street, Dublin, on August 25, 2007.

Century of Endeavour

Additional Related Papers (post-millennium)

The Republican Congress: the View from Moscow

(c)Emmett O'Connor, 2007



http://www.iol.ie/~rjtechne/century130703/addons/repcon34.htm

What was the level of support.

Up to 1929, the ECCI had chronic problems with its efforts to build a party in Ireland. Making Big Jim Larkin the leader of Irish communism in 1924 turned out to be a colossal blunder as he proved to be impossible to collaborate with. From 1925 the ECCI tried to work around Larkin by creating Irish sections of communist fronts: notably International Class War Prisoners' Aid, Workers' International Relief, the League Against Imperialism, Friends of Soviet Russia, and the the Labour Defence League. Subsequent fronts included the Irish Working Farmers' Committee, and the Labour League Against Fascism. Republicans would provide most of the cadres for all of these organization

For support to disippate.There would have to be support

jonniebgood1

CDfm wrote: »

I am not clear on whether you are saying that Connolly was a democrat or not.

What was the level of support.

......................

For support to disippate.There would have to be support

I had not really refered to Connolly. I think however that it is possible to show that there was support for syndicalist type agenda in 1919 -1920 in line with similar type movements in other countries. The number of incidents of strikes and even the trade union membership numbers show this. The Limerick Soviet was in 1919 as was the Mayday protests in Belfast. 1919 also brought the engineering strikes in Belfast. http://thegreatunrest.net/2010/09/03/forgotten-history-the-belfast-engineering-strike-1919/
. These indicate support. I linked to an interesting socialist perspective/ article on a different thread about this era http://www.anarkismo.net/newswire.php?story_id=5557

CDfm

jonniebgood1 wrote: »

I had not really refered to Connolly.

I am intrigued why not.

Were Connolly and Larkin democrats.?

And, the communist hostility to the catholic church, when did it start. ?

It does seem that Jack Murphy was off message and why are the version of events given by his friends so different to that of the Communist Party of Ireland.

I think however that it is possible to show that there was support for syndicalist type agenda in 1919 -1920 in line with similar type movements in other countries.

Does Sydicalist means transfering the ownership to the trade union leadership.

The number of incidents of strikes and even the trade union membership numbers show this. The Limerick Soviet was in 1919 as was the Mayday protests in Belfast. 1919 also brought the engineering strikes in Belfast. http://thegreatunrest.net/2010/09/03/forgotten-history-the-belfast-engineering-strike-1919/
. These indicate support. I linked to an interesting socialist perspective/ article on a different thread about this era http://www.anarkismo.net/newswire.php?story_id=5557

In the 1920's and 30's you had mass unemployment in Belfast in shipbuilding for instance. So there was no demand for the industrial output and there was also mass emigration from Ireland .

Even when it revived it depended on British Navy orders and was part of the empire economy.

CDfm

I came accross this article and while its a bit off topic it gives an idea of how things turned out and how Larkins views may have changed somewhat

Irish victims of Stalin uncovered
By Diarmaid Fleming
BBC NI's Dublin correspondent
Vienna-based historian Dr Barry McLoughlin never expected to find an Irish name while researching the fate of Austrians who died in Stalin's purges in the Soviet Union of the 1930s.





But when the name Patrick Breslin appeared in a Moscow News newspaper article in 1989, it was to begin a journey of discovery which would tell the tragic stories of three of Stalin's victims.
Millions died in the purges, but few realised that among them were a number of Irish who had travelled to the Soviet Union as communist idealists in the early years of the Soviet Union.
Patrick Breslin was hand-picked in 1928 by Irish trade union leader Jim Larkin to study at the International Lenin School in Moscow, the training ground for a future cadre or elite of world communist leaders.
But Breslin's free-thinking landed him in trouble, his views on spirituality not in keeping with his hard-line communist teachers who expelled him for his views.
He began working as a journalist in Moscow, married a Russian woman and had two children before the marriage foundered.
But he found love again in Moscow, this time to an Irish woman from Belfast, Margaret "Daisy" McMackin.
Their marriage in 1936 was at the height of Stalin's purges. When Daisy became pregnant, she returned to Ireland to have her child, the couple planning to reunite shortly afterwards in their homeland.
But Patrick had been forced to take out Soviet citizenship during his earlier marriage, and was prevented from leaving.
He was never to see his child, and repeated requests to leave brought arrest in 1940.
He died of ill-health in the appalling conditions of a Soviet camp in Kazan in 1942.
Gentry
Brian Goold-Verschoyle was born in County Donegal in 1912 into Anglo-Irish gentry.
Educated at Portora Royal and Marlborough public schools, he, like two of his brothers, came from an unlikely background for a communist.
"The family would have been minor gentry in comfortable circumstances but they would have seen a lot of poverty around them so they would have been conscious of what they would have perceived as the injustices around them.
"There was also a neighbour, a retired British naval Captain (Thomas) Fforde who was a communist and he probably introduced them to communist ideas," said Brian's nephew, David Simms, retired professor of mathematics at Trinity College Dublin.
Brian began working as an engineer in England, but after visiting his brother Neil in Moscow, became a Soviet spy.


“ When you look at it properly it's tragic because his eyes are looking into the eyes of his executioners ”
Victim's daughter
He fell in love in England with a German Jewish refugee, Lotte Moos, but when he took his lover to Moscow against orders, he fell foul of his Soviet masters.
He was sent to fight in the Spanish Civil War, on condition he broke off all contact with Lotte - who lives in England today.
But he disobeyed, and was tricked onto a Soviet ship in Spain, which took him back to imprisonment in the USSR where he died in 1942.
Sean McAteer was born into an Irish family in Liverpool in 1892 of a republican outlook.
He was active in James Connolly's Irish Citizen Army in pre-rebellion Ireland, causing him to flee to the US in 1915 where he was jailed for trade union activities.
He returned to fight in the Irish Civil War, but afterwards fled for the USSR when he killed a man in a botched robbery in Liverpool.


He worked as a propagandist and English teacher in Odessa, and as a Soviet spy in China, before he was shot by firing squad in 1937 during the height of the purges.
His Soviet wife Tamara and daughter Maria's persistence succeeded in having him rehabilitated posthumously in the 1950s.
After uncovering Breslin's name in the Moscow News, Barry McLoughlin's friend Shay Courtney tracked down Patrick's daughter Mairead in Dublin, who gave the required permission for him to view her father's file in the Moscow secret archives.
But he also tracked down her brother and sister Irina and Genrikh, enabling a deeply emotional meeting for the first time in 1993.
"They were waiting for me, my brother and sister and my grand-niece Katya and it was just amazing," said Mairead at her home in Dublin.
"On top of the fridge, there was the photo of papa.
"When you look at it properly, it's tragic, because his eyes are looking into the eyes of his executioners.
"But that was the beginning of some wonderful years, until Genrikh died in 2002 and Irina in 2004."
The stories of Brian and Sean were also uncovered by Dr McLoughlin's research, their families learning of their fate for the first time. He said the men's radical outlook which brought them to communism was to contribute to their doom.


“ To tell the truth I felt very sad. I was sad my father wasn't around to finally have the mystery unravelled for him ”
Nephew of purge victim
"Before they became communists, they were also influenced by Irish radical politics and their own backgrounds.
"They had minds of their own and I think that was part of the reason they got into trouble with the Stalinist authorities," he says, adding that there may well be other Irish victims of Stalinism whose stories remain untold.
For the families, the revelations are tinged with sadness at the deaths their relatives suffered in unthinkable loneliness, far from their homes and loved ones, in Stalinist horror.
For Mairead it was the end of a dream that perhaps she might one day find her father as an elderly man in Russia.
But Sean McEntee's nephew Eamon in Dublin says that his uncle was fortunate to have a quick death compared to Patrick and Brian.
"To tell the truth I felt very sad. I was sad my father wasn't around to finally have the mystery unravelled for him," he says.
Their stories, silent for so long, have finally been told.
Diarmaid Fleming tells the story of Barry McLoughlin's book Left to the Wolves - Irish Victims of Stalinist Terror on The Book Programme, BBC Radio Ulster at 1130 BST on Saturday 16 June, and at 1430 BST on Sunday 17 June www.bbc.co.uk/northernireland/radioulster/bookprogramme



http://newsvote.bbc.co.uk/mpapps/pagetools/print/news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/northern_ireland/6759483.stm

Now I am not saying it did but in the context of the time he moved towards the centre of the political spectrum

He returned to a different Ireland but nevertheless he got a hero’s welcome. He failed to regain control of the ITWGU. He later argued that it was not working hard enough for worker’s rights. The Union disagreed, and in 1924 they expelled Larkin. With his brother Peter, he founded the Workers’ Union of Ireland. He secured recognition from the Communist International in 1924. He visited Russia as representative of the Irish Section of the Fifth Congress of the Third International, or Comintern.
Larkin returned to the Labour Party again after securing amendments to the Trade Union Act of 1941. He served on the Dublin Trades Council and became a Dublin city councillor and a deputy in Dáil Éireann from 1927 to 1932 and again from 1943 to 1944. His last big success was to win a fortnight’s holiday for manual workers following a fourteen-week strike. Larkin, ‘friend of the workers’, died in Dublin on 30 January 1947 and was buried at Glasnevin. A statue of him by the sculptor Oisín Kelly now stands in College Green in Dublin.


http://multitext.ucc.ie/d/James_Larkin

I wonder if Larkin had any idea what happened his friends ???

Jolly Red Giant

Just spotted this thread tonight - so coming to it a bit late

jonniebgood1 wrote: »

This was written in 1920 and suggests that some Sinn fein support was left leaning, not just with the Limerick Soviet that the Bishop of Killaloe indicated support for.

Ruth Russell's book gives an interesting account of her observations during this period. I would argue that rather than 'Sinn fein support was left leaning' that there was significant support for left-wing political ideas and activists during this period, primarily manifest through support for the ITGWU. To demonstrate in Jan 1920 SF won approx 550 local council seats with about 36% of the vote, Labour won around 380 seats.

The Catholic hierarchy occasionally expressed luke warm verbal support for large-scale action by the workers movement but spent most of their time condemning the 'evils of socialism' and once the Limerick Soviet ended it was repeatedly condemned from the pulpit as being a foreign importation.

jonniebgood1 wrote: »

I don't think they needed to. The war of independence and then the civil war took precedence over any movement for a workers republic or any form of syndicalism. The incidents mentioned in earlier post show that there was an increase in workers seeking to follow other nations in gaining power. Yet after the civil war that had almost completely disappeared.

This is inaccurate - there was widespread strike action in the early years of the Free State culminating with a nine month long strike involving large sections of the Limerick working class during the construction of the Ardnacrusha power station in 1926. This strike was the final defeat of syndicalism in Ireland.

CDfm wrote: »

In Ireland the Catholic Church was not part of the pre 1922 establishment. It provided schools and hospitals and welfare.

This is rubbish to be frank - the Catholic Hierarchy were part and parcel of the establishment in the country before and after independence.

jonniebgood1 wrote: »

What I mean is that the church may have seen a type of mass movement towards a workers republic (Limerick Soviet, Cleeves factory strike, Belfast strikes, rise in trade unions) . Rather than challenging this they chose to support the people involved in it. This is then reflected by what Fogarty said about this. The war of independence followed soon after and republicanism overtook workers power for many reasons.

This is utterly inaccurate - the Church repeatedly attacked the workers movement and worked hand-in-hand with Sinn Fein in attempting to undermine the workers movement. Republicanism never 'overtook workers power' - indeed the potential for socialist revolution survived longer than the potential of anti-treaty republicans to defeat the Treaty - right up until mid-1922 with the Munster Soviets. When the Free State forces were advancing through Munster there first act in every town and village they entered was to arrest the strike leaders and forcibly remove workers occupying workplaces.

If you want to get something approaching an idea of what was happening within the workers movement then try this

http://www.c-s-p.org/Flyers/978-1-4438-3164-2-sample.pdf

Scroll down to the first chapter on page 7

CDfm

Jolly Red Giant wrote: »

This is rubbish to be frank - the Catholic Hierarchy were part and parcel of the establishment in the country before and after independence.

The catholic church was not the church of the ruling elite in the way the Church of Ireland was and was not the church of the ruling classes.That is what I mean by establishment.

Its position and influence pre & post inderpendence was radically different because of that.

It emerged over a period of time - like the nuns did

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2056297784

It exercised its infuience in some areas but not in others.

I often feel that marxist analysits make exaggerated claims about the power of the church in some areas.

So to put that forward as a proposition you need to define what you mean .

In this thread I challenged the idea that Jack Murphy was forced to resign by the church and that proposition is not supported by the facts.

The churches role in closing down Monto -well the army it served was gone ?

I do not always accept the marxist analysis and in some topics, such as Jack Murphy's, Irish marxist writers have been politically biased and unreliable.

Jolly Red Giant

CDfm wrote: »

In this thread I challenged the idea that Jack Murphy was forced to resign by the church and that proposition is not supported by the facts.

I was addressing the role of the catholic hierarchy dring the 1919-1923 period - I don't know enough about Murphy to comment.

CDfm wrote: »

I do not always accept the marxist analysis and in some topics, such as Jack Murphy's, Irish marxist writers have been politically biased and unreliable.

No more (in fact a lot less generally) than right-wing historians and analysts

CDfm

Jolly Red Giant wrote: »

I was addressing the role of the catholic hierarchy dring the 1919-1923 period - I don't know enough about Murphy to comment.

Thats allowed and I started the thread as an offshoot to another where Jack Murphy was mentioned.

So if you want to bring in 1919 to 1923 I would love to see it.

No more (in fact a lot less generally) than right-wing historians and analysts

That remains to be seen. :pac:


Welcome to the history forum Red-Giant - I assume it is hyphenated.


The late great Brian Faloon would be disappointed if the history did not speak for itself .

jonniebgood1

Jolly Red Giant wrote: »

Originally Posted by jonniebgood1 View Post
I don't think they needed to. The war of independence and then the civil war took precedence over any movement for a workers republic or any form of syndicalism. The incidents mentioned in earlier post show that there was an increase in workers seeking to follow other nations in gaining power. Yet after the civil war that had almost completely disappeared.

This is inaccurate - there was widespread strike action in the early years of the Free State culminating with a nine month long strike involving large sections of the Limerick working class during the construction of the Ardnacrusha power station in 1926. This strike was the final defeat of syndicalism in Ireland.

If it is inaccurate I would welcome information on widespread strikes or indeed any movement that was an alternative to capitalism. Indeed the link you gave and specifically the page 7 you refer to titled "Socialist Revolution in Ireland—A Lost Opportunity 1916-1922" repeat what I have suggested. The link you provided contradict your claim that socialist movements continued strongly after 1922. From your link

This chapter reviews the developments that took place in Ireland
during this period from the perspective of the working class. It will
consider the nature of the conflict that took place and outline some of the
hidden history of the working class of the period. It will argue that
socialist revolution in Ireland was a very real prospect and that while Irish
nationalism won a partial victory, the workers movement was defeated. It
will also outline the failure of the subjective factor, the failure of the leadership of the trade union and labour movement and the lack of a
revolutionary Marxist organisation to play a pivotal role during
developments. http://www.c-s-p.org/Flyers/978-1-4438-3164-2-sample.pdf (pg 7,8)

By the time of the Ardnacrusha strike the chance of any socialist revolution was well gone although it did prompt the government to review the causes of the earlier 1919-22 strikes with a public enquiry under the guise of protecting nationalism. There were always going to be threats of strikes (and land agitation in this period led by Peadar O'Donnell although this can be construed as republicanism also) just as there are nowadays but that does not mean taking over the country.

Jolly Red Giant wrote: »

Originally Posted by jonniebgood1 View Post
What I mean is that the church may have seen a type of mass movement towards a workers republic (Limerick Soviet, Cleeves factory strike, Belfast strikes, rise in trade unions) . Rather than challenging this they chose to support the people involved in it. This is then reflected by what Fogarty said about this. The war of independence followed soon after and republicanism overtook workers power for many reasons.

This is utterly inaccurate - the Church repeatedly attacked the workers movement and worked hand-in-hand with Sinn Fein in attempting to undermine the workers movement. Republicanism never 'overtook workers power' - indeed the potential for socialist revolution survived longer than the potential of anti-treaty republicans to defeat the Treaty - right up until mid-1922 with the Munster Soviets. When the Free State forces were advancing through Munster there first act in every town and village they entered was to arrest the strike leaders and forcibly remove workers occupying workplaces.

What then of the comments by Fogarty- he was very influential and at the time as explained in my earlier post he certainly indicated a less hard line attitude than was to emerge later. My point was that this was before church became an enemy of communism. Thus it was also before the free state so your reference to 'Free State forces' is irrelevant. I would however be interested in a source for the free state army arresting strike leaders if it were in any way widespread.

Jolly Red Giant

jonniebgood1 wrote: »

If it is inaccurate I would welcome information on widespread strikes or indeed any movement that was an alternative to capitalism. Indeed the link you gave and specifically the page 7 you refer to titled "Socialist Revolution in Ireland—A Lost Opportunity 1916-1922" repeat what I have suggested. The link you provided contradict your claim that socialist movements continued strongly after 1922. From your link

My comment specifically referred to the last sentence of yours - namely -

Yet after the civil war that had almost completely disappeared.

I was arguing that strike activity continued up to 1926 rather than that it 'had almost completely disappeared'.

jonniebgood1 wrote: »

By the time of the Ardnacrusha strike the chance of any socialist revolution was well gone although it did prompt the government to review the causes of the earlier 1919-22 strikes with a public enquiry under the guise of protecting nationalism. There were always going to be threats of strikes (and land agitation in this period led by Peadar O'Donnell although this can be construed as republicanism also) just as there are nowadays but that does not mean taking over the country.

You are correct about the Ardnacrusha strike - it was the final major defeat for the trade union movement during the austerity of the 1920's, a defeat that held sway until the victory of the OCI strike in 1930.

The investigation into the 'red flag' years demonstrated the fear of the establishment that a successful socialist revolution was on the cards.

I disagree with your suggestion that it "does not mean taking over the country" if you are referring to 1919-1922 - there is ample evidence that the potential existed for socialist revolution in Ireland during this period.

jonniebgood1 wrote: »

What then of the comments by Fogarty- he was very influential and at the time as explained in my earlier post he certainly indicated a less hard line attitude than was to emerge later. My point was that this was before church became an enemy of communism.

From my own research I can detail chapter and verse of the attacks by the catholic hierarchy in Limerick on the 'evil philosophy of socialism' dating from 1916 onwards. There is an article in Histories Studies from 2005 (I think) on the attitude of the Catholic hierarchy in Limerick towards the workers movement.

jonniebgood1 wrote: »

I would however be interested in a source for the free state army arresting strike leaders if it were in any way widespread.

There are a number of articles that refer to this -
1. David Lee in Made in Limerick Volume 1
2. Dominic Haugh on the ITGWU in Limerick from Saothar from 2006
3. O'Connor-Lysaght had a article on the Munster Soviets in Saothalann Staire Eireann, No.1

I can provide details of the Bulgaden/Kilmallock strike during Dec 1921-Jan 1922 when the IRA kidnapped a local strike leader prompting a general strike in the area that forced his release and the IRA imposing martial law to break the strike of farm labourers around Bulgaden. There are also numerous reports about pro-treaty IRA protecting strike breaking creameries during the Munster Soviets.

CDfm

Jolly Red Giant wrote: »

My comment specifically referred to the last sentence of yours - namely -

I was arguing that strike activity continued up to 1926 rather than that it 'had almost completely disappeared'.

Political strikes by whom and the support in numbers.

I am trying to gauge how popular or populist these movements were.

You are correct about the Ardnacrusha strike - it was the final major defeat for the trade union movement during the austerity of the 1920's, a defeat that held sway until the victory of the OCI strike in 1930.

The investigation into the 'red flag' years demonstrated the fear of the establishment that a successful socialist revolution was on the cards.

This revolution of which you speak, was the intended form of government to be democratic and if not what ?

And, in the 1930's you had the Great Depression.

I disagree with your suggestion that it "does not mean taking over the country" if you are referring to 1919-1922 - there is ample evidence that the potential existed for socialist revolution in Ireland during this period.

Potential for a revolt yes, chances of success debatable and the opposition would have been ?

From my own research I can detail chapter and verse of the attacks by the catholic hierarchy in Limerick on the 'evil philosophy of socialism' dating from 1916 onwards. There is an article in Histories Studies from 2005 (I think) on the attitude of the Catholic hierarchy in Limerick towards the workers movement.

Were the Catholic hierarchy on anyones side in 1916 ?

What was the workers movement attitude towards the catholic church.

Something tells me it cuts both ways .

I can provide details of the Bulgaden/Kilmallock strike during Dec 1921-Jan 1922 when the IRA kidnapped a local strike leader prompting a general strike in the area that forced his release and the IRA imposing martial law to break the strike of farm labourers around Bulgaden. There are also numerous reports about pro-treaty IRA protecting strike breaking creameries during the Munster Soviets.

So there was IRA opposition to them.

I would like to see the details - John Jinks organised a strike on the Gore-Booth estate in Sligo in 1920 -so who were the strikers striking against

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=69228948&postcount=60

jonniebgood1

Jolly Red Giant wrote: »

I disagree with your suggestion that it "does not mean taking over the country" if you are referring to 1919-1922 - there is ample evidence that the potential existed for socialist revolution in Ireland during this period.

The period I refer to is specifically after the civil war, after 1923. If I speculate I would say after 1916 until well into the war of independence there was a possibility of a workers revolution rather than a nationalist one or at least some type of combination. I base this on the number of strikes and actions by workers groups and also the movements in that direction in other countries in Europe and particularly Russia. Was'nt one of Sean O'Caseys plays based on the premise that the people backed the wrong revolution in the 1916 rising (i.e. nationalist instead of socialist). As the war of independence progressed for some reason nationalism did become more prevelent, possibly a choice by the leaders. After 1922 and particularly after the civil war the will of the people did not exist to achieve any type of socialist or syndicalist type of revolution. The Ardnacrusha strike was in this period.

In relation to Fogartys comments do you say they were out of context or was he out of touch? I would be interested if you could provide exact timing of the Catholic churches comments which you state were after 1916. The timing is important IMO.

CDfm

+1 on timing but thats my opinion and I am in to my lore.


JRG - whats your take on this.

CDfm wrote: »

There was no real emnity between the left and the Catholic Church until 1930

During the 1920s the Catholic church said very little on communism. But in late 1929, Stalin imposed severe limits on the toleration of religion in Russia. Pope Pius XI retaliated in 1930, by virtually excommunicating communists, and the Catholic press and the hierarchy in Ireland became openly hostile to any sympathy with communism or Russia.
This was bad timing for Moscow's Irish policy. The ECCI had had to wait until Larkin broke with the CI in 1929 before sending a commission to Ireland to re-build a cp. As membership of the communist organization - the RWGs - increased, so too did clerical reaction. IRA-communist relations remained friendly and An Phoblacht opposed church policy until 1933, when an intense anti-communist campaign caused the IRA to decide that the communists were more trouble than they were worth. From February 1933 onwards, the army council attempted to neutralise communist influences within the IRA. When the RWG proceeded to form the second CPI in June 1933, and the Daily Express alleged that 20% of CPI members were IRA volunteers, the army council formally condemned communism for its 'denial of God and active hostility to religion'. The IRA leadership did not see this as a shift to the right. An Phoblacht subsequently devoted more attention to the social question and made a stronger appeal to the Labour movement. But it was the communists that the IRA left wanted to work with.


http://www.iol.ie/~rjtechne/century1...s/repcon34.htm

The 1932 Eucharistic Congress had around 1 million people come to Dublin and democracy had asserted itself in the peoples minds over a decade.

Jolly Red Giant

jonniebgood1 wrote: »

The period I refer to is specifically after the civil war, after 1923. If I speculate I would say after 1916 until well into the war of independence there was a possibility of a workers revolution rather than a nationalist one or at least some type of combination. I base this on the number of strikes and actions by workers groups and also the movements in that direction in other countries in Europe and particularly Russia. Was'nt one of Sean O'Caseys plays based on the premise that the people backed the wrong revolution in the 1916 rising (i.e. nationalist instead of socialist). As the war of independence progressed for some reason nationalism did become more prevelent, possibly a choice by the leaders. After 1922 and particularly after the civil war the will of the people did not exist to achieve any type of socialist or syndicalist type of revolution. The Ardnacrusha strike was in this period.

I agree in general although I would argue nationalism did not become more prevelent during the war of independence and that the potential for socialist revolution existed right up until the defeat of the Munster Soviets in mid-1922. Certainly the leadership of the nationalist movement were very concerned about the potential of the nationalist movement being ripped apart as late as the end of 1921.

jonniebgood1 wrote: »

The timing is important IMO.

well this is what I have - they relate to Limerick

August 1916 Rev. Devane attended a Trades Council meeting to make sure that the Council promote a series of lectures that would argue that 'their (the workers) own greatest interests' lie in their religion and country and not foreign ideologies. (Limerick Leader 30 Aug 1916)

In October, of Rev. Fr. Laurence outlined their concerns when he commented that ‘although socialism was not yet generally assertive in Ireland, it was, nevertheless, one of the most vital dangers of our age’. Worried about the establishments attitude he went on to call for ‘determined and definite efforts…to make our public bodies and our wealthy Catholics realise and conscientiously discharge the duties of Christian Social Reform’ (Limerick Leader, 16 October 1916).

The series of lectures proposed by Fr. Devane and pushed throughout the city by the Catholic hierarchy took place in late January and February 1917. Professor Smiddy warned that ‘the spirit of syndicalism had lately crept into labour struggles…and that matter would have to be dealt with after the war’. Professor Rahilly ‘strongly advocated the organisation of Protestant and Catholic workers in two distinct bodies…and pleaded for the establishment of a Catholic Social League to investigate social conditions’ (Limerick Leader, 5 & 19 February 1917)

By May 1917 the Catholic hierarchy including Bishop O’Dwyer, were directly intervening in strikes in an effort to undermine the leftward trajectory of workers in the city. (Limerick Leader, 30 May 1917)

On 14 October 1917 at the Catholic Truth Society Conference, Rev. Devane stated that ‘ a cyclone of revolutionary ideas passing over the world shaking governments and thrones’. He asked ‘would the new Irish Labour Party’…be…’guided by sane Catholic principles or would they shape their programme from irreligious Social Democrats of the Continent’. Devane went on to argued for ‘the necessity to have such an organisation as the Catholic Social League recently established in Cork’. (Limerick Leader, 15 October 1917).

On 22 March 1918, Rev. Devane attended the fortnightly meeting of the Trades Council to promote the establishment of a conciliation board with the Council leaders responding that the ‘scheme had already been sanctioned by the Council and was awaiting the sanction of the employers’…for…’fully six months’ (Limerick Leader, 23 March 1918). This move was specifically designed to undermine the growing influence of the Marxist ITGWU industrial organisers in Limerick.

By May 1918 the local hierarchy were in a panic. 15,000 people attended a Mayday demonstration in the Markets Field. Resolutions were passed paying tribute to ‘our Russian comrades who have waged a magnificent struggle for their social and political emancipation’. Rev. Dr. Fogarty, in his sermon, stated ‘it is not the capitalist with his often ill-gotten fortune, that is great in her (i.e. Limerick’s) eyes, but the man rich in what St. Paul calls “the excelling knowledge of Our Lord Jesus Christ”’. (Limerick Leader, 26 June 1918). Members of the clergy, in promoting Catholicism, had tried to tap into the developing attitudes of the Limerick working class.

Three weeks before the Limerick ‘Soviet’ Rev. Fr. Murphy gave the lenten lecture in the Augustinian Church on the ‘Legitimacy of Private Profit’ again attacking socialism. (Limerick Leader, 28 March 1919)

After the ‘Soviet', the clergy condemned the leadership and stated that ‘neither his Lordship nor the clergy were consulted before the strike was declared, and they were totally opposed to its continuance’. (Jim Kemmy, ‘The Limerick Soviet’, Saothar, No.2, 1976, p. 51).

By the end of December 1919 the Catholic Hierarchy, feeling the need to combat the impact of the ideas of socialism, initiated a series of lectures, given by Rev. Fr. Murphy and other clergy in the Augustinian Church. The Limerick Leader, describing the lectures as a ‘Searching Analysis of a Dangerous Theory’, transcribed them in their entirety (Limerick Leader, 5 December 1919).

CDfm wrote: »

JRG - whats your take on this.

I would have to fish out my notes from the attic but from recollection there was a constant stream of preaching from the pulpits in Limerick on the evils of socialism right throughout the 1920's - mainly linked to the Arch Confraternity. This may have been localised and a hang over from the major influence that the ITGWU Marxists had in the city up to 1922. There were times, like during the Ardnacrusha strike that the hierarchy had to thread carefully - but once the issue subsided they would lay into the labour movement for its actions.

CDfm

Jolly Red Giant wrote: »

I would have to fish out my notes from the attic but from recollection there was a constant stream of preaching from the pulpits in Limerick on the evils of socialism right throughout the 1920's - mainly linked to the Arch Confraternity. This may have been localised and a hang over from the major influence that the ITGWU Marxists had in the city up to 1922. There were times, like during the Ardnacrusha strike that the hierarchy had to thread carefully - but once the issue subsided they would lay into the labour movement for its actions.

Was there not an IRA/Marxist Alliance, as I recall some major issues were on the long finger until post independence ?

What were the proposals concerning things like private property and farm ownership ?

Russia was Marxist and had farm collectivisation and the Red Terror started there. ( I cant remember).

Limerick had the only Soviets outside Russia , so what type of news filtered thru would no doubt have influenced supporters and opponents.

I would love to hear lots more on the Limerick Soviet JRG - no doubt a cracking story.

Were their special conditions in Limerick that caused it to happen ?

Jolly Red Giant

Sorry for the dealy in getting back

CDfm wrote: »

Was there not an IRA/Marxist Alliance, as I recall some major issues were on the long finger until post independence ?

No IRA/Marxist Alliance - a small number of Marxists were involved with the IRA but there was relatively little cross-over between IRA and labour movement activists

CDfm wrote: »

What were the proposals concerning things like private property and farm ownership ?

Little was written down in programmatic format - but there was widespread occupation of estates during this period, opposed by the SF leadership, that caused massive problems for the republican movement.

CDfm wrote: »

Russia was Marxist and had farm collectivisation and the Red Terror started there. ( I cant remember).

Collectivisation started in Russia in 1929 by Stalin in response to his policies allowing the Kulaks to become too powwerful.

CDfm wrote: »

Limerick had the only Soviets outside Russia , so what type of news filtered thru would no doubt have influenced supporters and opponents.

Not true - there were dozens of soviets in Ireland during this period and many on a much larger scale than Limerick right around Europe

CDfm wrote: »

I would love to hear lots more on the Limerick Soviet JRG - no doubt a cracking story.

Cahill's book is here -
http://www.limericksoviet.com/
It gives a good narrative of the events but I would have significant disagreements with some of his analysis

CDfm wrote: »

Were their special conditions in Limerick that caused it to happen ?

Nope - like I said above, there were dozens of soviets in Ireland during this period. Right throughout 1918-1922 there was a significant potential for socialist revolution.

CDfm

Jolly Red Giant wrote: »

Sorry for the dealy in getting back


No IRA/Marxist Alliance - a small number of Marxists were involved with the IRA but there was relatively little cross-over between IRA and labour movement activists

You are fine. Its something I know little about and some of the CPI histories , just like autobiographies or party political histories can be a bit suspect.

I am interested in facts and lore of the era and have found plenty of instances where the popular history is just plain wrong so I am open minded.

Post Civil war didn't the "IRA" get cosy with the CPI ,
Peader O'Donnell ? and in the 1930's head off to Spain.

The idea is sometimes floated that the remnants tried to reivent itself politically .

Little was written down in programmatic format - but there was widespread occupation of estates during this period, opposed by the SF leadership, that caused massive problems for the republican movement.

Do you have any more on the occupation of estates.

I know there were strikes, the Gore-Booths estate had a strike c 1920 by farm workers

Collectivisation started in Russia in 1929 by Stalin in response to his policies allowing the Kulaks to become too powwerful.

OK

Not true - there were dozens of soviets in Ireland during this period and many on a much larger scale than Limerick right around Europe

Thats interesting, can you elaborate.

Cahill's book is here -
http://www.limericksoviet.com/
It gives a good narrative of the events but I would have significant disagreements with some of his analysis

I have seen this before and I do not know enough to be able to judge it.

Nope - like I said above, there were dozens of soviets in Ireland during this period. Right throughout 1918-1922 there was a significant potential for socialist revolution.

Names and locations would be great.

Jolly Red Giant

CDfm wrote: »

Post Civil war didn't the "IRA" get cosy with the CPI ,
Peader O'Donnell ? and in the 1930's head off to Spain.

Sections of it yes - it partly prompted the FF split in 1926. By the time O'Donnell and Gilmore split to establish the Republican Congress in 1934 the schism was complete. The CPI was founded in 1921 (really as nothing more than a republican split from the SPI) and dissolved in 1924. The CPI wasn't re-established again until 1933 (from the Revolutionary Workers Group)

CDfm wrote: »

Do you have any more on the occupation of estates.

The Dáil Ministry for Home Affairs described the situation as ‘a grave danger threatening the foundations of the Republic’ and went on to say:

‘1920 was no ordinary outbreak…an immense rise in the value of land and farm products threw into more vivid relief than ever before the high profits of ranchers, and the hopeless outlook of the landless men and uneconomic holders…All this was a grave menace to the Republic. 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… ’
(Ministry for Home Affairs, The Constructive Work of Dáil Eireann, No.1, The National Police and Courts of Justice, (Dublin, 1921), p. 10 & p.12.)

I have read that over 400 estates were occupied and in most cases the IRA stepped in to suppress the occupations. Something that requires extensive research.

CDfm wrote: »

Thats interesting, can you elaborate.

For Europe -
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/November_Revolution_of_1918
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1919_Hungarian_Revolution
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biennio_rosso

Again just scratching the surface.

CDfm wrote: »

Names and locations would be great.

Belfast Engineering Strike (effectively a soviet)
Limerick Soviet
Cork Harbour,
North Cork Railways
Knocklong
Bruree
Castleconnell
Tipperary
Rathmines
The Rotunda
Killarney
Ballinacourtie,
Drogheda Iron Foundry,
Waterford Gas,
Mines at Arigna and Ballingarry
Broadford
Munster Soviets in 1922 (in excess of 100 workplaces and in a large number of cases the surrounding towns and villages as well)
Flour mills in Cork,
Sir John Kean's farm in Cappoquin,
Monaghan asylum
Several in Co. Kildare in 1922


This is only scratching the surface. I do have a more extensive list saved somewhere but can't find it at the moment. A comprehensive list has never been compiled – it would require extensive research into local newspaper reports, local archives etc.

CDfm

OK, there was industrial unrest but was that sort of targeted at the departing British as opposed to the new State.

This Gilmore chap . Is he related to the Eamonn ?

jonniebgood1

CDfm wrote: »

OK, there was industrial unrest but was that sort of targeted at the departing British as opposed to the new State.

What makes you think that it was unrest at the British?
Conditions would have been grim and I don't see how someone in a tough working environment would be anti- British because of the conditions. Perhaps anti- ruling class would mean some association with anti- Britishness as they may have been seen as the establishment.

Jolly Red Giant

CDfm wrote: »

OK, there was industrial unrest but was that sort of targeted at the departing British as opposed to the new State.

Nope - in fact an awful lot of it was targeted at the business and farming sectors controlled by prominent SF members - with the odd unionist like the Cleeve brothers thrown in. Interestingly enough the unionists came crying to the IRA to break the strikes (which in many cases they duly did).

CDfm wrote: »

This Gilmore chap . Is he related to the Eamonn ?

Nope - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_Gilmore

jonniebgood1

Jolly Red Giant wrote: »

Interestingly enough the unionists came crying to the IRA to break the strikes (which in many cases they duly did).

It is hard to fathom where the break came, from the type of social rebellion that Connolly wanted to the nationalistic movement that succeeded. All the signatories of the 1916 proclamation had been involved in the strikers side during the 1913 lockout but less than 10 years later the IRA was breaking strikes.