Was the Republic of 1919....

pO1Neil

Supposed to be a socialist state or a more conservative one like the 1949 Republic. I know revolutionary thinking & ideas died out of the mainstream after the Civil War. I always wonder had the original Republic stayed intact what relations between Ireland & Britain and internal politics be like.

jonniebgood1

pO1Neil wrote: »

Supposed to be a socialist state or a more conservative one like the 1949 Republic. I know revolutionary thinking & ideas died out of the mainstream after the Civil War. I always wonder had the original Republic stayed intact what relations between Ireland & Britain and internal politics be like.

Revolutionary ideals of a Socialist nature died out earlier than the civil war. Sinn Fein of 1918 onwards had moved away significantly from the stronger Socialism that had been seen in the leaders (particularly Connolly) of the 1916 rising. Despite several incidents of workers setting up protests against employers through the years of the Anglo Irish war the overwhelming strength of the war came from nationalist sentiment rather than Socialist. People wanted change and they got that through the Independence from Britain as achieved (or semi independence if one prefers). Any ideals of Socialism were gone by this stage with a quite conservative and Church dominated Free state being a more accurate description of the following decades. I don't see any change between the situation before and after the current constitution was written and thus the Anglo-Irish relationship in terms of internal politics was not clearly changed by this.

Manach

My understanding, taking a wider context in line with books like '1919' by Read, was that post WWI was a time of vast social upheaval, with revolutionary states over-throwing older regimes. It was not recognised how close Great Britain came to major civil disturbances in that period. Ireland was one of few successes that from then than managed to stabilize (having a balancing factor such as the Catholic Church helped) and coalescence into a working democracy; one of longest lasting in the world.

Santa Cruz

jonniebgood1 wrote: »

Revolutionary ideals of a Socialist nature died out earlier than the civil war. Sinn Fein of 1918 onwards had moved away significantly from the stronger Socialism that had been seen in the leaders (particularly Connolly) of the 1916 rising. Despite several incidents of workers setting up protests against employers through the years of the Anglo Irish war the overwhelming strength of the war came from nationalist sentiment rather than Socialist. People wanted change and they got that through the Independence from Britain as achieved (or semi independence if one prefers). Any ideals of Socialism were gone by this stage with a quite conservative and Church dominated Free state being a more accurate description of the following decades. I don't see any change between the situation before and after the current constitution was written and thus the Anglo-Irish relationship in terms of internal politics was not clearly changed by this.

The Civil War finished any chance of a Left Right political system. Execution of men like Mellows removed influential Left wing thinkers.

jonniebgood1

Santa Cruz wrote: »

The Civil War finished any chance of a Left Right political system. Execution of men like Mellows removed influential Left wing thinkers.

But which was more important to Mellows- Independence from Britain, or Socialism?

I would suggest that by the time the civil war came Mellows wanted independence more, at the detriment of socialist aims (not that the 2 could not be combined but history shows that they weren't in this case).

In response to his correspondent’s concerns regarding the role of religion and the struggle for independence, Mellows makes clear his rigid personal convictions:

‘. . . although we live in amity with our countrymen and women who are not co-religionists, and desire the utmost freedom for all creeds in Ireland, nevertheless we cannot so divorce God and Ireland, and God in Ireland can only mean one thing. I have myself experienced so often the help of His protecting and guiding Hand during the last few years, when every step I walked was trod in danger . . . neither will He refuse His protection in the days of trial yet to come.’
http://www.historyireland.com/20th-century-contemporary-history/liam-mellows-and-the-irish-revolution/

Jolly Red Giant

jonniebgood1 wrote: »

Revolutionary ideals of a Socialist nature died out earlier than the civil war.

As I have demonstrated on several occasions on here - not true.

jonniebgood1 wrote: »

Sinn Fein of 1918 onwards had moved away significantly from the stronger Socialism that had been seen in the leaders (particularly Connolly) of the 1916 rising.

Sinn Fein was never socialist - it was led by Griffith who was a monacharist and supported the bosses in 1913.

jonniebgood1 wrote: »

Despite several incidents of workers setting up protests against employers through the years of the Anglo Irish war the overwhelming strength of the war came from nationalist sentiment rather than Socialist.

'Labour will surplant Sinn Fein' (Constance Markievicz - and that was not advocating such an eventuality but a warning to her comrades in SF)
In 1920 'the war was being diverted into a class war' (Dail Ministry of Jusitce report)
'Labour threatened to replace Sinn Fein' (Foster , Modern Ireland)
There are a lot more about what were called 'The Red Flag Years' - and rather than several incidents of workers setting up protests against employers there were countless strikes and (at my latest count) over 180 workplace soviets (soviets that actually controlled entire towns and villages).

Technically you are correct when you state the overwhelming strength of the war came from nationalist sentiment but the primary reason for that is that the labour movement did not participate in 'the war' - it was engaged in a class war against all exploiters, British and Irish Nationalist.

jonniebgood1 wrote: »

People wanted change and they got that through the Independence from Britain as achieved (or semi independence if one prefers).

Again - not true - there was a massive strike wave during the truce in 1921 and that carried on into the civil war period with the Munster Soviets and the nationwide farm labourers strikes - the Free State government set up a fascist corps within the police to smash the strikes. The majority supported the Treaty because they wanted an end to the war - but that does not mean that they 'achieved' what they wanted.

jonniebgood1 wrote: »

Any ideals of Socialism were gone by this stage with a quite conservative and Church dominated Free state being a more accurate description of the following decades.

Again not true - the 1920s saw a rash of large scale strikes - the biggest being a nine month long and very bitter strike during the building of the Ardnacrusha power station. The largest revolutionary socialist group ever established on the island happened in the 1930s with the Republican Congress which was estimated to have a membership of several thousand (including a large membership on the Shankill Road) and the affiliation of a significant number of trade union branches (the Stalinist RWG sabotaged the RC). Similarly in the 1940s you had the emergence and rapid growth of the radical left republican Clann na Poblachta. The Free State government and subsequently DeV attempted to ram Catholic conservatism down peoples throats but that does not mean that socialist ideas were wiped out. Incidentally - the first accusations of clerical sexual abuse emerged in the 1930s when the Communist Party published accounts of the sexual abuse of boys in their newspaper.

There is an assumption that because FF and FG dominated with an arch-conservative political and religious outlook that socialist ideas were non-existant - this is not the case. While socialism was not a mainstream political outlook, it was far more prevalent and far more influential that most historical accounts relate.

Jolly Red Giant

Santa Cruz wrote: »

The Civil War finished any chance of a Left Right political system. Execution of men like Mellows removed influential Left wing thinkers.

Just to be clear - the anti-treaty forces were just as active in suppressing the workers soviets as the free state forces

tac foley

Manach wrote: »

My understanding, taking a wider context in line with books like '1919' by Read, was that post WWI was a time of vast social upheaval, with revolutionary states over-throwing older regimes. It was not recognised how close Great Britain came to major civil disturbances in that period. Ireland was one of few successes that from then than managed to stabilize (having a balancing factor such as the Catholic Church helped) and coalescence into a working democracy; one of longest lasting in the world.

Here in the United Kingdom the draconian firearms laws of today are a direct result of the fear of the government immediately post WW1 of an armed revolution carried out by the millions of disaffected returning soldiery, who were promised a land flowing with milk and honey, and instead, got royally sh*t on.

There was a genuine fear in Whitehall that the events of October 1917 in Russia would be repeated on the streets on Great Britain if firearms were made as freely available as hitherto was the case.

I've read that the increasing level of violence on both sides of the Irish War of Independence was seen in this light. It does nothing to excuse the attitude of the British at the time, but the occupants of Dublin Castle might have seen itself as the likely location of a massacre from both sides of the fighting.

tac

jonniebgood1

I am aware that we have disagreed on this in the past but I can only reply to 2 of your points to start with:

Jolly Red Giant wrote: »

As I have demonstrated on several occasions on here - not true.

Thats your opinion and I think your opinion is very much biased.

Jolly Red Giant wrote: »

Sinn Fein was never socialist - it was led by Griffith who was a monacharist and supported the bosses in 1913.

You did not read my point correctly or carefully enough before responding- I did not say Sinn Fein was socialist.

On your other points in brief- You massively over value the instances of worker type 'rebellions' that occured in various industries. They had no long term impact on political leadership at the time (this is why I state you over value them). The dominant issue by quite a distance was independence of whatever form it would take. Feel free to point to any overview of the era that gives creedance to Irish Socialism in that era over Irish Nationalism to the same extent that you seem to believe. Any links/ sources would be welcomed.

Jolly Red Giant

jonniebgood1 wrote: »

Thats your opinion and I think your opinion is very much biased.

I have consistently produced evidence for my assertions - evidence that is not refuted.

jonniebgood1 wrote: »

You did not read my point correctly or carefully enough before responding- I did not say Sinn Fein was socialist.

Maybe then you can clarify what you meant by Sinn Fein of 1918 onwards had moved away significantly from the stronger Socialism that had been seen in the leaders (particularly Connolly) of the 1916 rising.

The reality is that Sinn Fein never had any socialism to move away from

jonniebgood1 wrote: »

On your other points in brief- You massively over value the instances of worker type 'rebellions' that occured in various industries. They had no long term impact on political leadership at the time (this is why I state you over value them).

Europe was engulfed in social upheaval and class war in the aftermath of WW1 - yet in most instances there was little or no long-term impact on the political leadership in most countries not just Ireland. The revolutionary upheaval was defeated and the workers movement eventually smashed in many European countries by fascism.

jonniebgood1 wrote: »

The dominant issue by quite a distance was independence of whatever form it would take.

There is a mistaken assumption that you had to be either 'nationalist' or 'socialist' and that nationalism was dominant. The reality is that the advocates of socialism were the foremost proponents of national self-determination. Socialists however, wanted to move further than simple national self-determination - they wanted political, social and economic emancipation. The reality is that nationalism was inevitably going to compromise with Imperialism and the sole basis on which national self-determination could have been achieved was as part of a social revolution that completed the pre-existing tasks of the bourgeois revolutuion.

jonniebgood1 wrote: »

Feel free to point to any overview of the era that gives creedance to Irish Socialism in that era over Irish Nationalism to the same extent that you seem to believe. Any links/ sources would be welcomed.

I have done so more than once and provided links to numerous sources (including referring to three in my previous post). In fact the most compelling sources are actually the nationalist leadership of the period including the Dail records and documents of the period.

pedroeibar1

And there I was, after three months, thinking we were safe from agitprop.:rolleyes:

walrusgumble

pO1Neil wrote: »

Supposed to be a socialist state or a more conservative one like the 1949 Republic. I know revolutionary thinking & ideas died out of the mainstream after the Civil War. I always wonder had the original Republic stayed intact what relations between Ireland & Britain and internal politics be like.

Notions of socialism were a sop to people like Connolly to ensure that he came on board in 1916. No more and no less.

People like Sean Casey (artist) should be looked at, he was cynical (ie association with the Church)

Sure, despite Connolly's heroics, Socialism was deemed dirty when Cuman na nGaedheal branded the New Fianna Fail Government as a bunch of red commies (I know, Commies are different to socialists)

From a rural point of view:

People had got legal ownership of land , for the very first time in their life, where their ancestors had been unsecure tenants. They were not prepared to let socialism in any way (whether through fear or fact), affect their land rights

Santa Cruz

Jolly Red Giant wrote: »

Just to be clear - the anti-treaty forces were just as active in suppressing the workers soviets as the free state forces

I agree with you 100% on that point. There were numerous examples of so called Republicans siding with local landowners and gombeen men against agricultural workers who dared seek a decent wage by withdrawing labour.
Some of the most active Anti Treatyites were extreme Catholics

jonniebgood1

Jolly Red Giant wrote: »

Maybe then you can clarify what you meant by Sinn Fein of 1918 onwards had moved away significantly from the stronger Socialism that had been seen in the leaders (particularly Connolly) of the 1916 rising.

The reality is that Sinn Fein never had any socialism to move away from

I thought you would have got the link without having to explain it > The growth of Sinn Fein came as a result of the 1916 rising. The leaders of 1916 included James Connolly. Its meant just as it appears. As I went on to say Nationalism became the dominant sentiment in the era, not Socialism.

Jolly Red Giant wrote: »

I have done so more than once and provided links to numerous sources (including referring to three in my previous post). In fact the most compelling sources are actually the nationalist leadership of the period including the Dail records and documents of the period.

I asked for "Any links/ sources would be welcomed. "
I got exactly none... Your previous sources were to isolated incidents of workers Unions acting for their own interests- certainly not anything that could be claimed to be more dominant than nationalism in the era.

How do you answer the OP question?

Jolly Red Giant

jonniebgood1 wrote: »

As I went on to say Nationalism became the dominant sentiment in the era, not Socialism.

And I dispute that assertion. Certainly nationalism won the class war of the period - but that does not automatically mean it was dominant.

jonniebgood1 wrote: »

I asked for "Any links/ sources would be welcomed. "
I got exactly none...

I have provided significant sources in similar debates in the past.

jonniebgood1 wrote: »

Your previous sources were to isolated incidents of workers Unions acting for their own interests- certainly not anything that could be claimed to be more dominant than nationalism in the era.

Just because I managed to find these in a couple of minutes -

In 1920 The Dail Ministry for Home Affairs described the strike wave that existed and the emerging support for socialism as ‘a grave danger threatening the foundations of the Republic’
Ministry for Home Affairs, The Constructive Work of Dail Eireann, No.1, The National Police and Courts of Justice, (Dublin, 1921), p. 10.

The document went on -
'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…The republican police had been established just in time to grapple with the growing disorder and withstood the strain upon its own discipline’
Ministry for Home Affairs, The Constructive Work of Dail Eireann, No.1, The National Polica and Courts of Justice, p.12

Now I would contend that this is not addressing 'isolated incidents' - but a general upsurge of class struggle that threatened to push the nationalist movement to one side.

Furthermore, the Munster Soviets that lasted from April 1922 to mid-August 1922 involved more than 120 locations including towns like Tipperary and Carrick-on-Suir. The Tipperary Soviet which lasted over 4 months was eventually suppressed by Free State troops around 9th August. At the same time an estimated 100,000 farm labourers were engaged in a massive strikewave that involved occupations, demonstrations, riots with republican forces etc. At the height of these struggles a general election was held - Labour ran 18 candidates, got 17 elected (many of them rank-and-file strike leaders) and the defeated candidate lost by 11 votes. Labour had the potential to actually be the biggest party in that election if they had run enough candidates.

I would again contend that these developments were not 'isolated incidents' but again demonstrated a widespread trend of class struggle and the potential of a socialist movement during this period.

jonniebgood1 wrote: »

How do you answer the OP question?

the OP is a mish-mash of what-ifs -

No 'state' existed in 1919. The Democratic Programme of the first Dail was a left-wing programme that was adopted by Sinn Fein, not because it supported it, but because it echoed the prevailing political outlook of the working class at the time and Sinn Fein recognised that not to adopt the programme would have cut it off from the working class (they never had any intention of implementing it).

The OP is also inaccurate when it mentions 'revolutionary thinking and ideas' - the leadership of Sinn Fein was exceptionally conservative from the outset. It represented an underdeveloped and compromised capitalist class that was incapable of fulfilling the national task of self-determination. As with all nationalist movements in the colonial world, the nationalist leadership were inevitably going to compromise with imperialism - which is exactly what they did (this is said with hindsight as Ireland was one of the first colonial countries to achieve a limited form of independence - although the probability was discussed by Lenin and Trotsky).

Last point from the OP - what was the 'original Republic'? there was no such thing - there was a nationalist movement with a narrow and limited outlook that for periods during 1919-1922 was more concerned with defeating 'bolshevikism and the red flag' that achieving independence. In 1925 the nationalist leadership (then in the guise of the Cosgrave / Higgins conservatism) held a week long conference to discuss the threats posed by the 'red flag years' and what needed to be done to ensure such threats would not threaten nationalism in the future.

The reality is that as long as nationalism led the struggle for self-determination it was inevitable that nationalism would compromise with imperialism. The failure of the leadership of the workers movement was the failure to wrestle the struggle for self-determination from nationalism and link it with a wider campaign for social, political and economic emancipation for the working class.

Rockfish

Santa Cruz wrote: »

I agree with you 100% on that point. There were numerous examples of so called Republicans siding with local landowners and gombeen men against agricultural workers who dared seek a decent wage by withdrawing labour.

Any examples or links?

Jolly Red Giant

Rockfish wrote: »

Any examples or links?

I would have to dig out my notes to give the actual references (but I have provided on here in the past) - so I am going from memory with some of this -

Liam Lynch ordered the suppression of a strike at Mallow Sawmills at the end of February 1922. The owners of the Sawmills paid the IRA £50 for 'helping with their labour troubles' (Irish Independent approx 28/2/1922)

During farm labourers strikes in Waterford several attempts were made by Republicans to suppress the strike including at least one attempt by Dan Breen which was probably the reason why two of the strike leaders defeated Breen in the general election in July (newspaper articles).

Frank Ryan and the republicans under his control suppressed the Knocklong Soviet in July 1922. Ryan climbed on top of the creamery to ripped down the red flag (In Green and Red).

Local republican units attempted to suppress the soviet in Carrick-on-Suir in July 1922 (newspaper resports)

Several attempts were made by republicans to suppress the Tipperary Soviet in July. On one occasion the striking workers arrested the local creamery manager who was trying to get local shops to stop selling the produce of the creamery. Local republicans turned up and threatened to shoot the strikers unless they released the manager. The strikers threatened to shoot back and the republicans scurried off with their tail between their legs (newspaper reports). The soviet was eventually suppressed (after 4 months of existence) by the Free State forces on 9 or 10 August.