Showing posts with label Socialism. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Socialism. Show all posts
Tommy McKearney ☭ Silicon Valley Bank (SVB) collapsed last month, causing major turbulence across the world’s financial sector. 


Within a week of its closure, the Financial Times was reporting that the value of global bank stocks had fallen $460 billion. Fearing meltdown from contagion, state-controlled treasuries across the capitalist order made huge sums available to bail out troubled institutions. Devotees of lightly regulated free-market capitalism, paradoxically, expressed no qualms about demanding unlimited state intervention to save their fortunes. So, what on earth happened?


On the surface the answer appears straightforward. SVB had invested (or gambled) too much of its depositors’ capital in assets that couldn’t be quickly realised and made negotiable without incurring severe loss. Since a majority of the bank’s clients were from the currently struggling high-tech sector, this caused a crisis. Many of these companies sought to withdraw their savings to cover immediate shortfalls in income. As word spread that SVB was having difficulty meeting its obligations, panic spread, customers withdrew their deposits causing the bank to collapse.

The real question, though, is how or why did the failure of one bank cause such turmoil across the financial sector and on a worldwide scale? In reality, the reason for the crisis runs deeper than a localised liquidity problem leading to a widespread stampede. The problem is fundamentally one relating to contemporary capitalism or more accurately, finance capitalism.

Over the past four decades, the implementation of neoliberal economic policies in the US, EU and Britain has accelerated the outsourcing of manufacturing overseas. A consequence of this has been increased importance of and growth of the financial services industry in the aforementioned regions. This has resulted in two distinct yet ultimately related phenomena.

First, due to the decline of an indigenous manufacturing sector, financial institutions in the above-mentioned areas need to export finance in order to gain and maintain profit. This syndrome was identified over 100 years ago by Lenin in his classic, Imperialism, the Highest Stage of Capitalism. Ominously, he underlined the determination of early 20th century finance-exporting imperialist powers to access and dominate global markets and to do so with military force. Little imagination is required to see parallels with the present day.

Second, because of the dominance of the financial sector in these economies, additional profits are also sought through a variety of inherently risky investment vehicles. Hedge funds, PFIs, venture capital institutions, crypto currency agencies, corporate bond markets, debt trading are just some of these instruments. All of these revolve around speculation rather than material production.

Invariably, greed and the impulse to maintain competitive rates of profit lead to greater risk-taking, amounting to gambling and leading to the inevitable bust. This financial matrix always involves the banking sector at one level or another. Consequently, failings within the former can quickly become a crisis for the latter and thus occasionally, a threat to the entire free market system.

It is at that stage the capitalist state intervenes directly in order to forestall widespread meltdown (with the underlying threat of social revolt). For example the US treasury moved rapidly to guarantee SVB depositors and provide the banking sector with access to emergency funding. The Swiss government made over $50 billion available to crippled Credit Suisse bank before forcing it accept a takeover by its rival UBS. Elsewhere, ECB and Bank of England were buying dollars to ensure market liquidity. As James Connolly said, “governments in capitalist society are but committees of the rich to manage the affairs of the capitalist class…”

How this turmoil will impact on Ireland is still unclear. Nevertheless, it’s unlikely that we shall escape unscathed since this country is embedded in the market-driven part of the world economy. And on that global level there exists the almost insoluble conundrum of reconciling the need to curb inflation on one hand and to print money to bail out banks on the other.

The fallout from such practices, at best, will be a difficult economic environment which will be impossible for us to avoid. Should this cause a reduction in the tax-take from the now challenged high-tech companies on which the Dublin exchequer depends so heavily, the implication for Ireland’s working class is bleak. Yet again, austerity will impact harshly on the poorest.

There is only one remedy capable of ending these frequent rounds of economic turmoil with attendant hardship and misery for working class communities. The solution is an economy planned and designed solely to answer people’s needs rather than a system catering for enrichment of the few: it’s called socialism.

Tommy McKearney is a left wing and trade union activist. 
Follow on Twitter @Tommymckearney 

Global Banking ✑ A House of Cards

Gowain McKenna ✒ Genuine intentions are superseded by a want for garnering attention and votes. Under such circumstances is helping those in need an act of genuine kindness from a position of concern, or is it a manipulative act designed to trick the electorate?

There can be no question that the working class continues to suffer immensely with those who are unemployed or on minimum wage often being denied adequate benefits, basic opportunities in education, housing, health care and an overall quality of life. It is also fair to say that this is a result of a deeply flawed system that is designed to complement and reward the few as opposed to the many. But does the working class (and socialist movements within) have anything to answer for in regard to this disparity; has their activism and actions been inert as opposed to being purposefully impactful? 

Unfortunately it is in the nature of politics for parties and other entities to blame social problems on the ‘other’, and in the process forgetting or ignoring the need to engage in a critical self analysis. For it is only through such an analysis that social movements can improve, adapt and implement lasting change. We will use the paradigm of the ‘ineffective socialist’ activist (and characteristics thereof) as a basis to address this.

The ineffective socialist has little desire to improve his or herself or to make their own way in the world through sustained individual effort and self-determination. This may be because they feel oppressed and so assume they do not have the ‘self worth’ or ‘self belief’ required to act in such a way, or it may be due to laziness. In any event, they tend to shy away from any form of 'self-actualisation' and instead prefer to engage in a herd mentality characterised by 'group think'. Yet it is precisely this herd mentality that underpins the problems inherent to socialist movements and collectives for it always amounts to an ‘us versus them’ praxis (in this essay praxis is defined as ones way of being and interacting with the world around them).

By solely wanting to belong to a group and become one of the herd, often the very definition of socialism and the required praxis is altogether lost on the ineffective socialist. He or she will instead see themselves as belonging to a separate, privileged and distinct grouping that is cut-off from the rest of society and humanity. In this way, the ineffective socialist believes he or she cannot be understood by the rest of society, and by believing that they can never be understood the ineffective socialist is wholly incapable of communicating and expressing themselves and their ideas to the masses. For to communicate and express ones ideas effectively, a degree of individuality and self-actualisation is required.

While it is true that unconstrained individuality and liberal capitalism is the enemy of a healthy socialist society, the ineffective socialist fails to grasp that social revolutions are not possible without individual participants first engaging in a 'revolution of the self.' The individual liberty and self-actualisation of individual members is not just best for the individual, but it is also best for the group, 'party or 'state'. Rather than living in submission to the state the socialist should strive to live in accordance to the ideals of the state. But what are these ideals and what does this entail? This brings us onto the ineffective socialists refusal to embrace nationalism and the national question.

The ineffective socialist will reject nationalism and the national question. Yet the pending realisation that the 'state' or 'party', and the culture, language and heritage of the nation are one and the same is of absolute importance. Therefore, the effective socialist should always strive to live in accordance to the ideals, language, culture and heritage of the home nation, and be willing to fight in defence of the freedom of that home nation. And by understanding that the language, culture and heritage of the nation can only ever be sacrosanct, effective socialism strives to unite the masses by living in accordance to such an ideal.

In this regard, let us look at the type of socialist who forsakes the unique strain of socialism inherent to his or her native country and instead prefers to fight for an admixture of internationalist socialist ideals. In this case the ineffective socialist wastes time, effort and resources in an effort to unify and identify with international strains of socialism at the detriment of socialist politics at home. This is because focusing on an international dimension brings with it no tangible basis or ‘foothold’ for progression.

Such an approach assumes that socialism in other nations is the same as the home nation when in reality it is not. This is because no two governments, cultures, political upheavals and environments can be the same. Indeed, certain strains of socialist analysis on the current situation in Ukraine has demonstrated this point perfectly. Such ineffective socialists can only isolate the oppressed at home and bolster their oppressor through such actions. They will refuse to adopt the flag, colours and language of the home nation, preferring instead to fly flags and adopt promotional colours that harks back to a past ideal that is both foreign and irrelevant. They cannot accept the fact that the state, the nation and it's culture are one and the same. In doing so they isolate themselves from potential supporters at home (electorate) and sacrifice any chance of political power. Such socialists will prefer to adopt a soviet communist outlook as opposed to focusing solely on the primary task of creating a socialist republic at home that is inclusive to all. In short, while international morale and support to other socialist entities is necessary, the belief that international socialism can be amalgamated and merged must be abandoned.

While good socialists will identify and stand-up for the downtrodden and oppressed, the ineffective socialist will not rejoice when some of the oppressed escape from poverty and oppression through self-determination and hard work. No, for when that happens they can only become a traitor who belongs to the ‘oppressor class’ as opposed to a success and inspiration worthy of admiration and respect.

Therefore, the ineffective socialist will always reject any form of class collaboration, even if such collaboration has been shown to help the oppressed. Indeed, the ineffective socialist fails to grasp that class disparity and oppression can only be abolished through some form of class collaboration, and that the concept of class warfare is in fact nonsensical and deeply damaging. In this way, while there is a genuine desire for improvement and fairness, the ineffective socialist will always strive to reduce society down to a level of ‘sameness’ and equity such that individual members can pose no threat to a perceived status-quo. 

Therefore, we can say that there is a great difference between wanting to improve the lives of the oppressed and in only having hatred and bitterness for those who are assumed not to be oppressed. For such an approach can only isolate the movement from a much wider strata of society and support, thereby rendering the attainment of political power practically impossible.

Let us now analyse the unhelpful need for the state (and/or party) to exercise control over the autonomy, personal boundaries and individual freedoms of it's members. The state can have no right to interfere in such matters and in doing so serves to stunt the social cohesion, growth and progression of a healthy socialist society. More importantly, who exactly exercises direct influence over ‘the state’ or ‘the party’? Because it is almost always just a small body of men and women who believe that they know what is best for the state; when in reality the nation, culture and language can only ever be sacrosanct. Such an approach is nothing more than a deeply flawed power matrix that is more than willing to sacrifice the needs of the people to achieve increasing state militarisation and power. 

Yet, in reality the sacrifices of society does not equate to the progression of the state or party. An effective socialist state or party will always put the health of its members (and public institutions) first so that a rigorous ‘bottom-up’ democracy is possible thereby ensuring the health of the state and the proletariat. Without this mechanism an environment of autocracy, cult of personality, cliques and control can only flourish which can bring nothing but suffering to the nation. In this regard socialism grounded in such autocracy can only devour itself in the fast-changing pace of modern society.

The role of religion and spirituality in a healthy socialist society must also be addressed. The type of socialist who rejects all forms of religion, spirituality and God and replaces the idea of 'God' with the party or the state sets a dangerous precedent. For by doing so the party or the state becomes omniscient and omnipotent (all-seeing and all-knowing) and therefore is beyond reproach. Such a secular society creates the very real risk of autocracy and cult of personality, and also negates the possibility of a 'bottom up' socialist democratic mechanism. An effective socialist society will always permit it's members the freedom to exercise their individual faith as they see fit, and by doing so their loyalty to the state can only be strengthened and consolidated.

Finally, the ineffective socialist fails to appreciate the fast changing pace and flux of modern society, and the ramifications thereof on implementing an effective political strategy. Instead he or she has a praxis firmly grounded in the past and is unwilling to consider or adapt to any form of political and democratic change. Indeed, the ineffective socialist will consider such changes to be ‘revisionist’ or ‘Trotskyist’ and therefore no careful consideration or thought can ever be permitted to take place. Therefore, the ineffective socialist is one dimensional in thinking and fails to recognise that historically speaking ‘effective social movements’ have always been ‘thinking social movements’ who are open to new possibilities and opportunities.

⏩ Gowain McKenna is a writer, structural engineer (marine), musician, political theorist (and sometimes poet). His political compass is far-left moderate libertarian and identifies himself as an Irish Republican first and foremost and Connolly socialist second. He runs a blog The Road To No Town and he has three degrees in the field of aerospace engineering: - M.Phil M.Sc B.Eng (Hons)

The Ineffective Socialist

TribuneMark Fisher passed away five years ago today. In bleak times, his writing showed a new generation that another world was possible – and paved the way for socialist revival.

Alex Niven

“Dear Mark,” began an email I wrote to a man I had never met in the first days of 2010:

I read your book Capitalist Realism last week and it felt like coming up for air after a long time spent underwater. I would like to thank you from the bottom of my heart for giving such eloquent expression to pretty much everything that needed to be said, and for providing a reason to hope, when I for one was just about ready to despair.

To those unacquainted with the work of theorist, music writer, journalist, film critic, philosopher, editor, and lecturer Mark Fisher, who sadly took his own life four years ago today, the above might seem hyperbolic or sycophantic. It is neither. Like so many other members of my generation, encountering Capitalist Realism at the age of twenty-five transformed my life.

... Capitalist Realism made a series of simple points that bypassed years of postmodern hedging to offer a foundation for action.

Continue reading @ Tribune.

Our Debt To Mark Fisher

Caoimhin O’Muraile 
✒ with a new addition to his series on Early 20th Century Socialists ➖ 
Captain William Partridge  ICA, ITGWU, Labour Party and Town Councillor.

One of the lesser known or spoke of veterans of the early socialist movement is William Partridge.

Partridge was born in Sligo 1874, the son of an Englishman, a train driver Benjamin Partridge, and Irish mother, Ellen Hall, first living at West Gardens moving to 6 Chapel Street. His older brother, Felix Partridge, was a noted playwright, and the family moved after a short time to Ballaghaderreen, County Roscommon also in the West of Ireland. 

At the age of 17 Partridge was apprenticed as a mechanical fitter with the Midland and Great Western Railway in Sligo. At the age of 22 he was transferred to Dublin, the railways workshops at Broadstone, Inchicore and it was here he became involved in the trade union movement. He joined the Amalgamated Society of Engineers (ASE) and was active in the strikes of 1887 and 1902 making Partridge one of the pioneers of the developing trade union movement in Ireland. He also worked tirelessly for improved housing, education and civic amenities for the working-class of Inchicore.

Partridge was, like Richard O’Carroll elected to Dublin City Council where he served as a Sinn Fein councillor but his employer forced him to resign his seat in 1906. This was the year Richard O’Carroll fell out with the Sinn Fein leader, Arthur Griffith, and it must be wondered whether that Gentleman’s inability to defend one of his own councillors from employer aggression may have played a part in this falling out and parting of the ways? The Sinn Fein leader of the day was very much pro-employer and had little time for trade unions or union activists. Despite this naked aggression forcing him to resign his seat, although being elected by the populace [then as now this democracy we are supposed to believe in was paper thin], Partridge received little or no support from his party chief. 

He continued to organise in the trade union. In 1912 he was dismissed from his employment for highlighting discrimination in the appointment of supervisors at the Inchicore works, perhaps today what would be termed “nepotism,” the practice of those with power or influence favouring relatives or friends for higher positions within a company or organisation. Could this have been what Partridge was uncovering leading to his dismissal? Could Partridge have been the “turbulent Priest” management wished to be free of?

William Partridge worked with Big Jim Larkin, becoming an organiser in the Irish Transport and General Workers Union (ITGWU) which Larkin had formed in 1909 having being dismissed from the National Union of Dock Labourers (NUDL). Partridge was instrumental in setting up ITGWU branches outside the Dublin area, and was again elected to Dublin City Council in 1913 this time as a Labour Party councillor. He had been instrumental in the formation of the Irish Labour Party in 1912 along with Larkin and James Connolly and this was perhaps a more appropriate home than was Griffith's Sinn Fein for William Partridge. 

Along with Larkin and Connolly, Partridge was heavily involved in the 1913/14 Dublin Lockout, the mammoth struggle by the working-class of Dublin against the tyrannical employer, William Martin Murphy and his cronies in the Employers Federation. Like Jim Larkin he toured Britain seeking support for the locked out and striking workers of the Irish capital and he addressed the British Trades Union Congress (TUC). Many British unions contributed greatly towards the Dublin workers hardship fund none more than the Miners Federation of Great Britain (MFGB) the forerunner of the NUM [seventy years later this support was returned by the workers of Dublin, indeed Ireland as a whole, during the year-long British Coal Miner’s Strike of 1984/85]. Partridge addressed numerous unions and the Railway workers took strike action in support as Dockers blacked goods destined for Dublin port. Like Jim Larkin, the efforts of William Partridge during the lockout were tireless.

Partridge attacked the hierarchy of the Roman Catholic church for their attacks on the ITGWU and Jim Larkin in particular. He attacked the hypocrisy of the clergy who sided with the bosses over the locked out and striking workers. The church condemned the trade unions and the ITGWU, who came in for special condemnation from the pulpit, while at the same time these heavenly souls were doing nothing themselves to combat the causes of poverty in the city. Why should they? The Catholic Church benefitted from the poverty and ignorance of the dispossessed masses, and, like the employers, were extremely wealthy. The Catholic church was a huge tool in the employer’s armoury during the lockout, playing on people’s superstitions and fear of the Priesthood. It would be unfair perhaps to castigate all priests for this hypocritical crime, there were those who sympathised with the working-class but in many instances they too were afraid of the hierarchy and, therefore, perhaps future promotion within the church. Those few priests who were privately sympathetic to the workers tended to confine their attacks not against the employers but the poverty which existed, and not the causes of such poverty.

At a public meeting in Tralee, 1915, which was called in protest at the dismissal of Michael J. O’Connor from his employment with a firm of solicitors for taking part in an anti-war demonstration, he was in attendance. Partridge addressed the protest with an opening speech:

As the chairman very properly remarked, when an employer engaged a man’s services the money he was paid was for them (sic), and by no means to purchase his principles, the convictions or opinions of his employees, and any attempt on the part of any employer to control the opinions of the men he employed was a condition of slavery!’

Put simply, a person is employed to sell their labour power and services to an employer for a monetary wage. This employment did/does not give the employers, even in times of war, the right to dictate how an employee thinks or what opinions he should hold even if those views differ from those of the employing class. Just because the employers supported the slaughter which was going on in Europe does not automatically follow the employees share these opinions.

At a public demonstration James Connolly condemned the horrors of the war raging in Europe as millions of working-class people whom had never met went out to blow each other to bits on behalf of their ruling classes. The platform was shared by leading members of the Trades Union Congress, including the dismissed man, Michael J. O’Connor. As a result of O’Connor’s sacking, Connolly sent William Partridge to Tralee to give assistance in opposing the dismissal and with permission to offer O’Connor a job with the ITGWU as an organiser. Then as now it is these less publicised tasks within the trade unions which allow them to function.

During a study in 1903 prepared for Dublin Corporation it was established that sixty percent of Dublin families, averaging four to five persons per family lived in one or two rooms. Dublin had a population of 292,000 in 1901 with thirty six percent living in one room. These people were living in abject poverty, even by the low standards of the day with many having to use the same room for living in as their privy causing many problems with people’s health. William Partridge was the secretary to this committee which prepared the study highlighting these problems for the Dublin Corporation. These conditions were in sharp contrast to those enjoyed by the idle class, people like William Martin Murphy described as an “Ogre” by Jim Larkin during the 1913/14 Dublin Lockout. 

Just as housing and homelessness are a problem today in Dublin, indeed Ireland as a whole, it appears to be an ongoing problem within the capitalist system dedicated to private property and not something which appeared overnight. Back in the early twentieth century diseases related to poor living conditions, sanitation and sleeping arrangements, was a major cause of mortality among the working-class. These were exposed by William Partridge and his committee.

William Partridge was a Captain in the workers armed wing, the Irish Citizen Army, described as perhaps the first red army in Western Europe of the twentieth century. From the organisation’s formation in November 1913 at the rooms of the Reverend R.M. Gwynn at 40 Trinity College Dublin he worked closely with James Connolly [though Connolly was not on the first Army Council] particularly when Connolly succeeded Larkin [after his departure for the USA] as General Secretary of the ITGWU and Commandant of the army in late 1914. 

Partridge was a member of the ICA first Army Council along with Jim Larkin, Constance Markievicz, P.T. Daly, Thomas Foran, Sean O’Casey and Francis Sheehy Skeffington, a pacifist but all the same a brilliant socialist. He was close to James Connolly during the preparations for the Easter Rising 1916 as the two worked tirelessly to prepare the army of the working-class for insurrection. Prior to the Rising Partridge was dispatched by Connolly to Fenit, County Kerry, to supervise and organise union labour for the offloading of arms being brought in on board the Aud to be landed off the Kerry coast. Unfortunately, due to bouts of bad luck and, to be honest poor preparation [the ship had no radio for example] the skipper of the Aud Captain Karl Spindler, had to scupper the ship and its cargo of around 20,000 rifles to prevent the weapons falling into the hands of the Royal Navy. The loss of these weapons was a huge loss to the Irish insurrectionists in the Easter Rising.

On his return to Dublin Partridge was the officer of the guard at Liberty Hall while the Proclamation of 1916 was printed. The printers and Compositors involved in the printing work were Michael Molloy, Christopher Joseph Brady and Liam O’Brien and the reason for the armed ICA guard was nothing to do with the men escaping, all were union men and generally sympathetic to the cause. It was there to protect the men should the British raid Liberty Hall it could be claimed the tradesmen were doing the work under duress! Anybody who has read the constitution of the ICA will see the similarities between that constitution and the 1916 proclamation, perhaps emphasising Connolly’s input.

William Partridge fought for the national liberation/independence of Ireland and the emancipation of the working class, to which he saw no difference. The two causes were interlinked, Ireland could not be truly free unless the working-class were liberated from the chains which bind them. Perhaps in more recent times Seamus Costello viewed the situation through similar lenses. Costello was the founder of the Irish Republican Socialist Party and Irish National Liberation Army and, like William Partridge, viewed the two struggles as one of the same.

Captain William Partridge fought under the overall command of the ICAs second in command, Michael Mallin. He was stationed at the College of surgeons while Mallin himself was at St. Stephens Green with Constance Markievicz, Christopher Poole and other officers and men. Like Joseph Mary Plunket William Partridge was not a well man even before the Rising, and when the fighting was over and the surrender accepted, he was taken to England and imprisoned in Dartmoor and Lewes Prisons. While he was incarcerated his health deteriorated badly, so badly the British authorities had to release him on the grounds of ill health in 1917. 

On his release William retired to stay with his family in County Roscommon to hopefully recover from his illness. Unfortunately, he died within three months of his release. At his grave fellow ICA officer, Constance Markievicz, wearing his, Partridges, Citizen Army uniform, delivered the oration in Ballaghaderreen, County Roscommon. She described him as “the purest souled and noblest patriot Ireland ever had.” She then fired a salute over his grave with her own pistol. William Partridge died on 26th July 1917.

Caoimhin O’Muraile is a Dublin 
based Marxist and author. 

Early 20th Century Socialists ➖ Captain William Partridge

Caoimhin O’Muraile ☭ with a new addition to his series on Early 20th Century SocialistsWilliam Walker: Reformer.

William Walker was born at 35 McCluny Street Belfast on the 9th January 1871. His father Francis Walker was a boilermaker at Harland and Wolff Shipyards and a trade union organiser, his mother was called Sarah (nee McLaughlin). Like his father Walker was destined for the shipyards, a backbone of Protestant employment at the time, as a joiner and he too became a shop steward in the Amalgamated Society of Carpenters and Joiners.

This was one of the elitist craft unions which, back in the mid-nineteenth century when Britain was often referred to as “the workshop of the world,” along with the Amalgamated Society of Engineers (ASE) had a motto “Defence Not Defiance” meaning defend what we have and work with, not against the employers. Both these groups of workers saw themselves as an “aristocracy of labour” and were very anti-unskilled workers, refusing such people entry into their unions.

However, after the Bryant and May Match Workers strike of 1888, exclusively women, and the Dockers strike the following year a concept which became known as “New Unionism” began to emerge. This was the organisation of the unskilled workers into trade unions of their own. William Walker, to his credit, was involved in the movement in the shipyard promoting “New Unionism” among the unskilled workers, despite being an activist in a craft union. At the time this was a bold step for a representative of a craft union to take, and very much frowned upon by that trade union’s leadership and employers alike! Walker was elected as the ASCJ delegate to the Belfast Trades Council in 1893, when he stood up for the rights of the unskilled, leading this move towards “New Unionism” and a different approach from the craft unions.

William Walker was a founding member of the Independent Labour Party in Belfast and was vehemently opposed to an independent Irish Labour Party, claiming Irish workers interests were better served by being an integral part of the British labour movement. This was in direct opposition to the ideas of Jim Larkin, James Connolly, Richard O’Carroll and William O’Brien, all of whom eventually went on to form an independent Irish Labour Party in 1912. This could be seen as a flaw in Walker’s socialism, supporting the imperialist power, a bit like a Roman Gladiator supporting Caesar expecting the emperor to mind their interests as he sent them out to fight to the death! The imperialist power, Britain, exploited Irish labour and gave Irish employers, like Harland and Wolff, the power to do the same. It is a clear contradiction and one, it would have been thought, would have been questioned by his own members. Unfortunately, this seldom if ever occurred probably due in no small part to the employers “playing the orange card” a concept introduced by Randolph Churchill in 1886.

Walker often spoke in favour of his brand of socialism from the steps of the Customs House in Belfast. Despite what could be perceived as an Imperialist position constitutionally, Walker had good socialist credentials. In 1904 he served as President of the Irish Trades Union Congress and he stood as an Independent Labour candidate in the 1905 by election in Belfast North. The future British Prime Minister, later denounced as a traitor by the British Labour Party, Ramsay McDonald was his election agent. In 1906 Walker stood as a Labour Representation Committee candidate, on an anti-Catholic platform revealing another major flaw in his socialism. On both occasions he lost by less than 500 votes. He claimed Roman Catholics were disloyal and should not be allowed to hold any high public office, such was the man’s sectarianism. Despite being an Independent Labour Party founder William Walker was an Orangeman and a member of the Loyal Orange Order. He always maintained that the “interests of Protestantism came before the interests of the Independent Labour Party!” This was a huge contradiction, putting the interests of his religious denomination before those of the class he claimed to represent. Again, this was in sharp contrast to other socialists of the day, like Connolly and Larkin or in more recent times people like Seamus Costello who, to quote stated; ‘I owe my allegiance to the working-class.’ William Walker, by his own tongue, would appear to owe his loyalties to the Protestant faith then, and only then, to the working-class!!

Walker saw himself as a true Protestant and opposed any form of Irish Home Rule, claiming as an internationalist maintaining Irish labour must be an organic part of the British labour movement. He argued Protestant means to protest against superstition, as practiced by the church of Rome in his view, and therefore Protestantism is synonymous with labour.

Walker may have a point, but for entirely different reasons to what he intended. All socialism and socialist theories, certainly in the early days, derived from the writings and teachings of Karl Marx. William Walker was one of the first reformers, a concept which gathered momentum during the First World War which saw the Second International split between the anti-war and pro-war factions. The likes of V.I. Lenin, James Connolly [though the two never met] Leon Trotsky and many other socialists opposed the war, whereas the German Eduard Bernstein, Arthur Henderson from Britain [who replaced Ramsay MacDonald who resigned over the First World War, as leader of the British Labour Party], and others backed their indigenous bourgeoisie and monarchs in going to war. Some of those opposed to war went on, with the exception of Connolly who was murdered after the Easter Rising, to form the Third International, as Lenin shouted; ‘down with the Second International, forward with the Third.’ Walker reformed Marxism to fit his own agenda, a left-wing narrative to fit a right-wing agenda so to speak, in much the same way as Martin Luther reformed Christianity in 1517 [hitherto Roman Catholic], giving birth to the Protestant denomination, this was the Protestant Reformation.

This is where the similarities between Protestantism and “Walkerism”, Walker’s brand of socialism, come in: they were both reformed versions of the original, both synthetic, not the genuine article. Today many of the world's labour parties are reformers, revisionists - remember the backstabbing of Jeremy Corbyn in the British General Election of 2019 by reformers and revisionists in his own Labour Party, despite their founders all taking Marx as their starting point. It could well be argued labour lost the 2019 British General Election, not because the Conservative and Unionist Party were attractive, but because right-wing labour MPs stabbed their leader in the back! Neither is the Irish Labour Party the organisation its founders had in mind. It is my guess if James Connolly, a founder of the Irish Labour Party, was around today, he would not cross the road for those who consider themselves his inheritors!

Though Walker took on board much of Marx’s teachings In 1911 he wrote; “though I admire Karl Marx, he is not a deity to me.” He should have admired Marx, it was he who put socialism on the political map, not only through his writings but also the International Working Men’s Association, often termed the First International which, incidentally, supported Irish independence! This concept, be it Marx’s position or not, could not possibly be followed by William Walker. He was a Unionist, an Orangeman first and foremost and an Independent Labour Party activist very much secondary. He was perhaps not alone in the labour movement at the time [indeed even today there are those in the modern British Labour Party, like Jeremy Corbyn and the late Tony Benn, who support openly Irish unification, and those who rabidly oppose it, like Baroness Kate Hoey] but was perhaps one of the most vociferous.

William Walker may have championed the cause of the unskilled workers at Harland and Wolff, that is undeniable. William Walker was the champion of the unskilled in the shipyards and often spoke for women workers in his capacity as an Independent Labour Party founder and activist in Belfast. The problem with his belief that Irish labour was better served within the larger British labour movement is that this served the interests of imperialism. Socialism, in its true form is an antithesis to Imperialism, as Lenin said, “Imperialism is the highest form of capitalism” once again highlighting the split in the Second International. 

Had the Labour Party been in governmental power, as they now have on many occasions in Britain, since the first minority administration in 1924 to the Clement Attlee landslide of 1945 and many times since, they have had to manage the imperialist cause of British capitalism. 

The Trades Union Congress (TUC) once had a place at the Foreign Office. This was to control, or pacify, any nationalist aspirations among the working-class of the colonies. Indeed, the late Vic Feather, later Baron Feather, former TUC General Secretary from 1969 to 1973, was reportedly paid by the Information Research Department, a secret branch of the UK Foreign Office to write anti-communist and pro-colonial propaganda. When Margaret Thatcher came to power in 1979, she decided the services of the TUC were no longer required and terminated the arrangement. Perhaps Len Murray, General Secretary of the TUC at the time who succeeded Vic Feather, should have heeded this early warning as a sign of things to come! The TUC would claim, on behalf of the Foreign Office, as did William Walker, the interests of the workers of the colonies were better served by the British labour movement, not national independence and their own labour associations and parties.

William Walker once wrote in support of his philosophy:

I am an Internationalist because the same grievances which affect the German and the Englishman affect me. I speak the same tongue as the Englishman: I study the same literature: I am opposed by the same financial power: and, to me, only a combined and united attack with out (sic) geographical consideration, can assure to Ireland an equal measure of social advancement as that which the larger and more advanced democracy of Great Britain are pressing for.

A reasonable argument on the surface except the British establishment has never treated Irish labour [in the case of the six counties still doesn’t, workers there are still trying for parity in pay with their British counterparts] as equals. Ireland was never part of Britain [in the case of the six counties still isn’t] it was a western outpost of the so-called United Kingdom where workers were never going to be paid the same or receive the same treatment as those in Britain, despite Walker’s delusions. 

If he believed, as do many modern Unionists and loyalists, that by serving Britain loyally they would be rewarded the same as English, Scottish and Welsh workers they were/are kidding themselves. London had never considered Ireland – pre-treaty – as an equal part of the UK. British workers, as seen during the Dublin Lockout, did consider the Irish as equals, but the establishment never did, and still do not rate workers in [Northern] Ireland as being worth the same. William Walker by hanging onto this fantasy was doing the Irish working-class a great disservice and the British ruling-classes a huge favour. Unfortunately, among many – though not all – labour leaders in the occupied six counties this Walkerite mentality still prevails, although there are small signs [post-Brexit] this train of thought is shifting.

Historically there are many Irishmen who would agree with Walker, men like Edmund Burke who called the United Irishmen of 1798 “that unwise body” also commenting that:

I cannot conceive that a man can be a genuine Englishman without being a true Irishman…… I think the same sentiments ought to be reciprocal on the part of Ireland, and, if possible, much stronger reason.

Another quote of Burke which William Walker would most certainly agree with was:

The closest connection between Great Britain and Ireland is essential to the well-being, I had almost said to the very being of the two kingdoms.

No doubt William Walker took the convenient bits of Marx and produced a political hybrid with the writings of Burke!

In 1911 Walker undertook a debate with James Connolly [see the Connolly Walker controversy} Walker arguing Irish socialists should focus their activities on the British labour movement, Connolly taking a different approach and, in my view the correct one, that the Irish working-class should have their own political voice separate from that of Britain or, more essentially England. This argument of Walkers for me does not hold water because what he is suggesting is the Irish should throw their lot in with their tormentors, the British establishment, and if the Labour Party were the government, then the Irish working-class should support such a government despite all the wrongs that same establishment have committed against the Irish, and in particular, the same Irish Working-Class! 

Connolly argued for a separate Irish Labour Party to work as brothers, comrades with their British counterparts in areas of common interest, but not “bedfellows”. Connolly believed in the model of friendship and camaraderie in true internationalist tradition with workers of all countries, including Britain, but Irish workers in areas affecting them must make their own decisions unilaterally without having to consult the British or any other larger country. This does not mean mutual assistance should not be given: internationalism is built on that concept as the events in the Dublin Lockout of 1913/14 proved. Seventy years later that mutual assistance was repaid by the Irish labour and trade union movement during the twelve month long British Coal Miners Strike.

James Keir Hardie was flawed to a certain extent by his anti-Lithuanian racism which even by the standards of the day were extreme, claiming they were carriers of the Black Death. Both Jim Larkin and Richard O’Carroll were stained by anti-Semitism possibly influenced by the odium of the times, and William Walker carried the stigma of anti-Catholic sectarianism. All not good attributes for anybody, but for trade unionists and labour men such baggage is unacceptable, certainly in modern times. Again, we must look at these prejudices through the prism of the times and language used in all walks of life which, though certainly not justifying such prejudices may make them a little more understandable? 

The difference between the likes of Larkin, O’Carroll and Keir Hardie speaking their racist and anti-Semitic rubbish was they could be described as victims of their time. Unfortunately, the kind of sectarianism preached by William Walker has lost none of its bitterness and has survived the passage of time. On 21st July 1920 workers returned to the shipyards after the twelfth of July holidays. Sinn Fein, during the 1918 General Election had scored enormous successes around most of Ireland but not so much in the Protestant dominated six counties. On the day of 21st July workers at Harland and Wolff Shipyard, majority Protestant though far from exclusively, were joined by men from the Workman/Clarke yard at a meeting to discuss expelling Catholics [Sinn Feiners as they were seen] from their employment. Around seven thousand five hundred, including about one thousand eight hundred Protestant shop stewards, considered “Rotten Prods,” were expelled in what could only be described as ethnic cleansing of the yards. The question may be asked; had William Walker still been active as a trade unionist in the yards, would he have been a “Rotten Prod” or an ethnic cleanser? His union record would suggest the former, however his political speeches against Roman Catholics may give credence that Walker could have forgot his duties to his class and become one of the mob!

William Walker was an Orangeman and as was mentioned above placed the interests of Protestantism “above the interests of the ILP”. Traditionally the Orange Order was/is politically Conservative and Unionist which suggests an antithesis to socialism. This may not be exclusively correct, as many working-class Orangemen at the time of Walker were trade unionists and socialists. Perhaps if Walker had thought out his position a little more scientifically, he may have come to a slightly different conclusion. He opposed the Home Rule Bill, claiming with many Orangemen that “Home Rule would equal Rome Rule”, a position which given the power and influence of the Catholic Church at the time may not have been unreasonable. If he had thought this through, he may have realised that an independent Ireland, with a built in million Protestants the power of the Catholic Church would have been somewhat diluted. The conditions would have been more friendly towards the building of socialism with this sizable Protestant minority built in an independent Ireland, free from British interference and church influence diluted, Walker may have found he had much more in common with James Connolly, Jim Larkin and many other socialists than he had opposites. 

An example of such unity, rare as such instances were, could be exemplified by the marriage of Winifred Carney, one time secretary, friend and confide of James Connolly, and veteran of the Easter Rising, socialist and feminist, to George McBride, a Protestant Orangeman. He was, however, a fellow socialist, which was what attracted the couple to each other, he opposed sectarianism and Winifred Carney alienated anyone in her life who did not support her marriage to McBride, while she still worked tirelessly for the ITGWU. The point is no matter if person comes from a traditional orange or green background socialism can be a bridging instrument if used and thought out correctly. Walker argued he would rather be part of a liberal United Kingdom than a conservative Ireland. With this million Protestants built in there was no reason why Ireland could not have thrown off the yolk of the conservative Catholic Church. In fact, given time the yolk of both dominant religious denominations could have been given the elbow!

In 1912, the same year the Irish Labour Party came into being, which Walker opposed so vehemently, William Walker left politics and took up a local government position related to health insurance, but he remains one of Irelands historical socialist titans whether you agree with him or not. He died in 1918, ironically the same year as the British Labour Party adopted Clause IV to their constitution. What William Walker would have made of that we shall never know. 

William Walker was what could be described as a conundrum. His views ranged from militant socialism to hard-line conservatism, a contradiction to say the least. What Walker would have made of Clause IV we shall never know neither, without holding a séance, will we know what position William Walker would have taken over the 1920 expulsion of Catholic workers from the shipyards. All of us can only offer unsubstantiated guesses!

Caoimhin O’Muraile is a Dublin 
based Marxist and author. 

Early 20th Century Socialists ➖ William Walker

Caoimhin O’Muraile ☭ Richard O’CarrollTown Councillor, Trade Unionist, Labour Activist And Volunteer.

Richard O’Carroll was born in 1876 into a working-class family in Dublin. He married Annie Esther (nee Power) and between them the couple produced seven children. 

Like his contemporary James Connolly Richard was active in the labour and trade union movement and later in 1916 was active in the Easter Rising. 

In 1906 he was elected to the position of General Secretary of his union; the Ancient Guild of Incorporated Brick and Stonelayers. Richard O’Carroll despite his elevation to a fulltime position in the union never neglected his rank-and-file duties, as he saw them. Many activists once they reached fulltime status considered the everyday work of trade unionism below them, something which local shop stewards and activists should be sorting out. This was not the case with Richard O’Carroll who, if needed was never afraid to return to his roots and the everyday work of trade union organisation, rank-and-file union business. 

On one occasion, not long before his death, in March 1916 O’Carroll received a letter from one of his unions local representatives who may have thought the problem was out of their depth. The letter explained the problem which was about men who worked a week on nights, and did not receive the correct rate for nocturnal hours of labour. The union official who the men spoke to passed the case up to Richard who rectified the problem successfully, securing the night rate of pay for the work. Another case of Richard involving himself at rank-and-file level was an instance in which building work was contracted to be done in brick. Suddenly the client decided, for cost cutting reasons, that the building would be done in concrete instead claiming a shortage of bricks as the reason for their change of heart. This change, and technically breach of contract, threatened the jobs of the Bricklayers on the job. Richard O’Carroll knew the reason given, a shortage of bricks, was untrue so he scoured the brickyards where he found an abundance of the correct bricks for the specification of the work in question. This could not pass unchallenged, which O’Carroll did not allow to happen, and again the situation was resolved successfully, the terms of the building specification kept to, thus securing the men’s employment. 

This hands-on approach should act as a guideline for many modern fulltime officials within the trade union movement who, in many cases, every day union work is considered below them. The conducting of everyday trade union issues and keeping good contact with the members was not a labour for Richard, it was second nature.

Richard was a member of the Sinn Fein organisation and in 1906 he fell out with the organisation's President, Arthur Griffith. This would not have been difficult for a socialist, as Griffith opposed strikes and any form of militant working-class action which may have affected the so-called “natural order” of capitalism. This was and is a problem with broad church membership organisations: they cover too many class interests which often fall into conflict with each other. It must be stressed that Sinn Fein of the early twentieth century bore little political resemblance to either of today’s parties of the same name. The fact was Arthur Griffith was not even a republican let alone a socialist: he believed in the dual monarchist approach for Ireland based very much on the Austro/Hungary model. One monarch over two countries: each country, in this case Britain and Ireland, having separate parliaments as was the case with Austria and Hungary, sometimes referred to as “The Hungarian Way”.

Richard was also a member of the oath bound secretive organisation, the Irish Republican Brotherhood (IRB) and later in 1913 the Irish Volunteers. Just before the Irish Volunteers (IVF) were formed another military organisation, the Irish Citizen Army were in existence. This was effectively the military arm of the trade unions and, in particular the Irish Transport and General Workers Union (ITGWU). Many people have asked why Richard was a member of the IVF and not the ICA? A fair point, politically the ICA would have been the obvious choice, if he had a choice! A possible reason for his involvement with the IVF and not the ICA was the IRB had infiltrated the Volunteers for revolutionary purposes and Richard, like all other IRB members was bound by his oath of allegiance, irrespective of personal preferences, to the IRB. He could not, even if he had wanted to, join an alternative movement because it was not IRB policy and strategy. 

The IRB strategy at the time was to infiltrate the larger and wealthier, because of its bourgeois nature and make up, Irish Volunteers and not the Irish Citizen Army. For Richard to exercise his preference, if indeed it was his preference, and join the ICA may well have been in breach of his IRB oath. Had the Easter Rising resulted in an Irish victory it may have been probable Richard O’Carroll would have moved across to the trade union militia, the ICA. Class interests may have forced the pace here, and having kept his oath to the IRB for the insurrection, the Irish Citizen Army would, in my opinion, have been his natural choice and progression. The interests of the working-class would have come to the fore, something James Connolly had made provisions for in the ICA, as the right-wing of within the volunteers would have come further to the surface and in all probability become the policy makers for that movement and the IRB. Something which did happen after the treaty with Britain was signed in December 1921.

Richard also served on the Board of Poor Law Guardians, though as a socialist and trade unionist he did not accept such institutions as these should exist, there should have been no need for them. In a socialist Ireland they would not have existed, because the poverty which deemed them necessary would not have been there, but as things stood it was better to be in, monitoring the situation and ensuring poor people were not neglected any further than outside unable to influence anything. If people like Richard had not, albeit reluctantly, involved themselves on these bodies the affairs of the destitute would have been left to the bourgeoisie to control, unopposed, who gave little consideration to the needs of the poor, except how to keep them in a position of destitution to be used as slaves to bourgeois interests. Richard and other socialist minded people’s role in this organisation was to ensure this did not happen or at least minimise bourgeois exploitation.

In 1911 Richard O’Carroll was instrumental in the formation of the Dublin Labour Representation Committee. The following year along with James Connolly and Jim Larkin he was a founder of the Irish Labour Party in 1912. The formation of the Irish Labour Party would come about at the Irish Trade Union Congress conference at Clonmel Town Hall, County Tipperary, on the 27th-28th May 1912. A motion proposed by James Connolly calling for the establishment of a political wing was carried by 49 votes in favour to 18 against. Earlier in the year, January, Richard was elected as a labour candidate to Dublin Corporation. He was to lead the labour group, not yet a party as such until the dates outlined above on the corporation. The Irish Labour Party was independent of its British counterpart, though on areas of common interest and in the spirit of comradeship the two would work in conjunction with each other. The Irish Labour Party was as separate from the British variant as was the SPD in Germany, but still considered each other sister parties of the still united second international. The party stood for an independent socialist Ireland with fraternal links to the British model or, as Connolly once put it; ‘friends and comrades yes, “bedfellows” no’! The party like all other socialist groups of the day based their ideologies on the teachings and writings of Karl Marx.

By 1913 Richard had established fourteen branches of his union throughout Ireland, no small achievement at a time of anti-trade union feelings throughout Britain and Ireland as Victorian attitudes among the ruling-class still prevailed. Craft unions tended to be tolerated by the social elite, so-called, but unskilled workers organising was resisted with ferocity. Many of the skilled workers unions still held the mid-nineteenth century attitudes, then promoted by the Engineers Union, the Amalgamated Society of Engineers (ASE) who had a motto; ‘defence not defiance’ and they considered themselves almost on a par with the employers. 

This snobbery did not apply to Richard O’Carroll and his union. In August of that year the turbulent events of the Dublin Lockout began. This was as struggle between the trade unions, primarily the ITGWU bringing into the dispute another thirty-six trade unions against the hitherto moribund Employer’s Federation consisting of 400 employers led by William Martin Murphy. Murphy had resurrected the Employers Federation, the forerunner of today’s IBEC, and used it as a kind of bosses union! He adopted the very same tactics he was trying to prevent his workers using, class solidarity.

Like many other trade unionists Richard O’Carroll gave speeches in support of the locked out and striking workers. What made Richard’s speeches a little more relevant was the fact he represented a craft union, most of whom gave little if any consideration to their unskilled locked out and striking colleagues. He threw the full weight of the AGIBS behind the suffering thousands of unskilled workers, such an oration was perhaps unique among the skilled workers unions. In those days and, to perhaps a lesser extent today, a certain snobbery existed(s) within the craft unions feeling they must stay aloof of their unskilled working-class brethren - this did not apply to the AGIBS and Richard O’Carroll. 

When the lockout came to an end in 1914 Richard O’Carroll was a trade union delegate on the Board of Enquiry set up by the British Government to look into the causes of the dispute. The Board of Enquiry was to be chaired by Sir George Askwith [not to be mistaken with Herbert Asquith the Prime Minister] and frankly, if to look into the causes of the lockout was its aims should not have been necessary. The causes of the dispute were plain for all who wished to see. William Martin Murphy was denying his employees the right to join a trade union of their choice, threatening to dismiss any employee who joined the ITGWU. Murphy planned and executed the lockout and no Board of Enquiry worthy of the name could possibly dispute that fact.

Murphy had come to a decision back in 1911 after the events of Wexford had resulted in the employers there being duped, in Murphy’s opinion, into accepting a settlement which in all but name recognised the ITGWU. After a lockout in Wexford, initiated by several employers, against the transport union designed to force their employees to renounce this organisation the employers settled for a compromise initiated by James Connolly. It did not recognise the ITGWU but did allow for the foundry workers, skilled and unskilled, to organise in the Irish Foundry workers Union which would be an affiliate of the ITGWU. It was the final piece of the deal which Murphy did not like, this “affiliate” bit. He saw it for what it was, a transport union Trojan Horse. The events of Wexford were a pre-cursor to what would happen in Dublin two years later.

Despite all the great and progressive work Richard O’Carroll had done he, like his contemporary Jim Larkin had one stain on his character, anti-Semitism. The language of the time did not restrict anti-Semitic remarks to ultra-nationalists like Arthur Griffith. Trade unionists and socialists were, alas, equally as guilty. Jim Larkin often made derogatory remarks against Jewish people and cartoons in the Irish Worker, edited by Larkin, often depicted capitalists as having large hooked noses, images often used to depict Jewish people. Richard O’Carroll attacked a Jewish builder called Ellion, not because he was an employer but because he was a Jew. Both Larkin and O’Carroll could claim they were simply lapsing into the odium of the day which was generally anti-Semitic, and today most certainly would not be tolerated. The language of the late nineteenth and early twentieth century accepted such vehemently racist and anti-Semitic remarks as part of the everyday narratives. This in no way is an attempt at excusing this language but maybe as it was not out of the ordinary these people did not consider they were saying anything wrong. To add credence to this claim not one person, all trade unionists, in the meeting spoke out against the use of such language. The words Jew and moneylender, capitalist and exploiter went synonymous in those days. It never appeared to cross anybody’s mind [with the exception of James Connolly] that there were just as many working-class Jewish people per capita as in any other ethnic group. No, the Jew was an exploiter and thief and thirty years later in Germany such unwarranted ideas were taken to their extreme. However, these events and narratives were before the Nazi Holocaust and nobody had a crystal ball to see where such comments could, and did lead. But persecution and discrimination against Jewish people had gone on for centuries [in 1190 local Jews were killed in a local pogrom at Cliffords Tower, York. Most committed suicide so as not to fall into the hands of the mob], so perhaps there was no excuse, had people read their history, and there would certainly be no accommodation for such comments today. As with Jim Larkin, this anti-Semitism was perhaps the only stain on Richard O’Carroll’s character, though at the time it would perhaps not have been seen as a stain.

Richard O’Carroll, as we know was a member of the IRB and therefore the Irish Volunteers and it was through his participation in the Easter Rising of 1916 which would cost him his life. The popular consensus as to how Richard met his demise appears to be that he was shot in Campden Street, having led his unit into action against the Crown Forces. Richard held the rank of Lieutenant and was under the overall command of Thomas McDonagh. He was one of the few working-class officers in the Volunteers, and all those were tradesmen unlike the Irish Citizen Army where all officers were elected and the majority came from the working-class, skilled and unskilled alike. The fall of Richard O’Carroll is not as simple as being shot, killed in action. There are two, perhaps three very different accounts of his death, the first being he was captured in Delahunt’s Bakery [or Byrnes grocery shop in the same area], having taken it as a mini-HQ for his engagement against the enemy. According to the popular version of his death he was arrested, taken out of the building by a certain Captain John Bowen-Colthurst, who had led the British raid on the rebel holdout, and shot in cold blood either by or on the orders of Bowen Colthurst. This is certainly believable as this particular British officer, later found conveniently insane and shipped off to Broadmoor, went on to shoot civilians in cold blood. One of his victims was the socialist and pacifist, Francis Sheehy Skeffington and two reporters who he gunned down in the yard of Portobello Barracks. When a soldier asked Bowen-Colthurst of O’Carroll; ‘Is he dead yet’ the Captain reportedly answered; ‘never mind he’ll die later.’ Richard O’Carroll was not dead and may have been able to be saved had he received immediate medical treatment. He was left by the less than noble British officer, loony or otherwise, and was picked up by a bread lorry and taken to hospital. He died of his injuries on 5th May 1916 nine days after he received his wounds.

Another account explaining Richard’s death, and much less consensual, suggests he was travelling along Camden Street on his motorcycle, pulled from his machine and shot in Wexford Street. This version does not tally with the popular concept that he was shot by a British officer in Camden Street having been captured first!

Another possibility is that he was indeed shot in Camden Street under circumstances broadly as laid out above but perhaps not by or on the orders of Bowen-Colthurst who was safely under lock and key in Broadmoor when the major enquiries started. However there was an internal enquiry into Bowen Colthurst’s actions, including the shootings of Sheehy Skeffington and Richard O’Carroll. The local investigation, if that is what it was, held at Portobello orderly room was perhaps less than thorough. Bowen Colthurst, who had led the British raid, may have been a convenient scapegoat, already suspected of being unstable. He may have been shot by British agents of the recently formed MI5 [established in 1909], even though he could have been taken prisoner, because he was an elected councillor, a socialist and a trade union official. 

What better guise to use than he was active in the Easter Rising to get a socialist out of the way, killing two birds with one stone so to speak. Either way it was claimed by the British O’Carroll was shot while trying to escape. The British Imperialist Power and their agents may well have seen in Richard O’Carroll, as was the case with James Connolly and perhaps Michael Mallin, both members of the ICA, an economic as well as a political threat. Could this have been the reason O’Carroll was shot and not taken prisoner? 

Either way the fact remains that Richard O’Carroll, Town Councillor, trade union official, Labour Party activist and socialist died on 5th May 1916 under circumstances not as clear cut as we are supposed to believe. For example, around the same time in Abbey Street, a group of Irish Volunteers were taken prisoner and they too could have been shot, as was Richard. Maybe these rebels were not known socialists so killing in cold blood did not give the same appetite to their would-be killers! The British military authorities attempted to erase O’Carroll’s name from the historical record!! 

Just a worthy thought because the sixteen men who were executed after the rising were all from what today we would call left of centre politically. From the Marxist James Connolly to Padraig Pearse, who gave some rousing anti-landlord speeches a left-wing current threaded through all these men. Notable to see those who were spared, from Michael Collins to Kevin O’Higgins, Michael J. Staines and a man who would become future President of the Executive Council of the Irish Free State, W.T. Cosgrave were of a centre to far right-wing political opinion. A point of observation which, for me holds more than a drop of water! Was it political [ethnic in one respect] cleansing of those considered socialist in their ideologies? The ruling-classes of the day were having difficulties recognising the formation of various labour parties entering the political field. Now, some of these would be socialists were taking up arms, Richard O’Carroll being one. Socialist entering the electoral process was one thing, taking up arms, perhaps hiding behind the nationalist aspirations as they saw it, was something totally different and unacceptable to the ruling classes of the day.

Richard O’Carroll, Town Councillor, trade unionist, Labour Party founder and activist, IRB member and Irish Volunteers died a very painful death, which could and should have been avoided, ten days after his injuries were sustained in Portobello infirmary on 5th May 1916. He should not have died and could – should – have been saved had medical treatment being administered earlier. Whether it was the madman, Bowen Colthurst, or other agents of the crown who shot him his death was avoidable, unless an ulterior motive lay beneath the surface for not getting him the treatment he required!

Caoimhin O’Muraile is a Dublin 
based Marxist and author. 

Early 20th Century Socialists ➖ Richard O’Carroll

Caoimhin O’MuraileJim Larkin, A Lion Among Early Socialists.

Jim Larkin will be remembered for his leadership, - with his first lieutenant James Connolly - of the Irish Transport and General Workers Union during the turbulent months of the 1913/14 Dublin Lockout. 

He will go down internationally with the great names within the working-class movement with the likes of Ben Tillet, Tom Mann, Big Bill Haywood, Joe Hill, Elizabeth Gurly Flynn and many others around the globe, including in more recent times Arthur Scargill, former President of the British National Union of Mineworkers during the year long strike of 1984/85. 

Like James Connolly, Larkin spent time in the USA and was involved with the Industrial Workers of the World (IWW) also known as the Wobblies. I shall attempt to sketch an outline of Larkins activities in the trade union and labour movement.

There appears to be differences of opinion as to the whereabouts of Jim Larkin's birthplace. The popular conception, though not necessarily the correct one, is that he was born in Liverpool, England at 41 Cobermere Street, Toxteth on the 4th February 1874. This opinion is supported by the fact that his baptismal papers were found there, but whether these papers contain the date of his birth is not clear. The late, usually reliable, C. Desmond Greaves claimed Liverpool as the place of Larkin's birth and given the information available at the time it was not an unreasonable assumption. The Liverpool venue as his place of birth is supported by Eric Taplin on page 17 of James Larkin, Lion of the Fold.

However, since Greaves made his assumption, using it in several of his works, more information about the future union chiefs place of birth have come to light, even though Liverpool remains the popular belief of Larkin's origin. There is, however another train of thought supported and quoted by Larkin’s grandson, also called Jim Larkin in his book, In The Footsteps Of Big Jim: A Family Biography. In this book, it is claimed, big Jim, as he was affectionately known, was born in Tamnaharry near Burren, County Down, Ireland in 1876. A copy of the family tree at the beginning of the book supports this version and the author quotes much evidence to support the claim including how the birth came about. Young Jim Larkin, the author, claims that when big Jim’s mother, Mary, was heavily pregnant she received a message from Ireland informing her that her father was dying. She set sail from Liverpool to Warrenpoint in a terrible storm. Young Jim Larkin then explains:

my relatives in South County Down have informed me that on her arrival there she was seriously ill and subsequently gave birth to Jim in a townland beside Burren called Tamnaharry, probably in a relative’s house or possibly in a convent there. (In The Footsteps Of Big Jim, Jim Larkin Jnr P6).

To further support this case Big Jim himself at his trial in the USA in 1920 gave his place of birth as Tamnaharry and, according to the Newry and Mourne Museum, stated County Down as his place of birth on the census return for 1911. To complement this theory of Irish birth further Big Jim’s son, also called Jim Larkin, at his presidential address to the 55th annual meeting of the Irish Trades Union Congress held in Belfast, 27-29th July 1949 stated in his first paragraph: 

Today, however, tradition is broken insofar that I, unlike the Presidents of previous congresses held in Belfast, am not a native of the city, but at least I am the son of an Ulsterman who had a strong association with the working people of Belfast. (Striking Similarities Kevin Morley 2017 P. 6).

 County Down is one of Ulster’s nine counties and Larkin’s son stated his father to be an “Ulsterman”.

Wherever Larkin was born he was raised in Liverpool, with a scouse accent, among some of the worst poverty imaginable. The conditions of working-class people in the city ranked among the worst along with Birmingham, Manchester, Glasgow, Belfast, Calcutta and Dublin to name a few in the British Empire. This was the world Jim Larkin was reared in, receiving very little in the way of formal education. He watched his father die slowly of tuberculosis and at an early age was thrown onto the brutal labour market, struggled to keep his family from sinking into more abject poverty before stowing away on a ship in search of employment and find adventure. He returned to Liverpool at the age of twenty to take his place among that huge army of the unemployed who prowled the docks in search of a day’s work. 

In 1903 Jim Larkin married Elizabeth Brown, the daughter of a lay preacher, Robert Brown, and the marriage yielded four children. He eventually found regular work, relative to the times, and was rapidly promoted to Dock Foreman. Despite his elevation in position Big Jim remained one of the men and in 1905 when they went out on strike, he went out with them. From here he was asked to become a fulltime organiser for the National Union of Dock Labourers (NUDL), a position which caused him to travel to places like Scotland and Ireland where union organisation was relatively weak. His role was to change that situation in both locations.

In January 1907 Big Jim arrived in Belfast and shortly after his arrival in Ireland he was involved in a series of strikes in Belfast, Cork and Dublin. The NUDL Executive appeared reluctant to support these strikes, a bit like today in the case of some union executives, causing Larkin much annoyance and distress. His antagonisms towards the union leadership and in particular James Sexton, the union's General Secretary, were so great that they became unbridgeable. In 1909 he founded the Irish Transport and General Workers Union (ITGWU), having been suspended from the NUDL in 1908. The ITGWU was to be the spearhead of working-class resistance during the 1913/14 Dublin Lockout.

Belfast in 1907 was then, as now, a divided city on the grounds of religious denomination of so-called Christianity. Of these divisions Larkin was to write in The Irish Worker: 

workers of Belfast, stop your damned nonsense…. Let not what masquerades as religion in this country divide you…. Not as Catholics and Protestants, as nationalists or unionists, but as Belfast men and workers. Stand together and don’t be misled by the employer’s game of dividing the Catholic and Protestant.  (Striking Similarities, Kevin Morley, 2017 P. 8). 

These religious divisions were cherished by the employers as a means of divide and rule and were maintained by the churches of both denominations on behalf of the employers. Larkin tried and tried to rid the workers of the religious yolk which divided them, and was pilloried from the pulpits of both so-called houses of God, as was later his Lieutenant, James Connolly. It would be the ITGWU which would bring Larkin the reputation as a union firebrand during the lockout of 1913/14. Jim Larkin and James Connolly were to introduce revolutionary syndicalism into Irish trade unionism, a form of union organisation based on the theory of One Big Union (OBU) for all workers, which was to cause the employers, led by William Martin Murphy, so much grief in 1913 and almost led the proletariat to victory in the lockout.

We know Larkin arrived in Belfast on 20th January 1907 thanks to a police report, as an obscure delegate to the British Labour Party conference. He was representing his trade union, the NUDL, and as part of this trip he intended to organise dockers and other unskilled workers in the city. At the time Belfast boasted around 3,100 unskilled workers all of whom were divorced from the unionised skilled artisans of the same city and often the same place of work. Most dockers were casual workers, something Jim Larkin was familiar with from his days in Liverpool, often earning as little as ten shillings per week. This was a situation Jim Larkin wished to rectify, a difficult task to say the least, and in the process managed to alienate himself from the NUDL leadership, including Sexton (later Sir James Sexton). 

On 26th April 1907 a coal importer, Samuel Kelly, dismissed union members among his coal heavers stating such a class of worker should not be members of a union, an opinion William Martin Murphy who caused the Dublin Lockout a few years later also held. Other employers proved equally inflexible on the issue of union membership and a certain Thomas Gallagher, owner of the Belfast Steamship Company, echoed Kelly’s sentiments. On 7th May 1907 union men stormed out of Kelly’s and Gallagher’s chasing blacklegs [scabs] away. These actions forced Kelly to reconsider but Gallagher was a tougher prospect. Kelly granted union recognition and a pay increase thanks to the Larkin orchestrated action. Gallagher held firm so Big Jim encouraged the women workers in Gallagher’s tobacco factory to join the union in solidarity with the men. Though Larkin scored some early victories, like the one at Kelly’s, he was sold out by the NUDL leadership, particularly James Sexton who denounced Larkin thus helping some of the employers who held firm to win through. Larkin was feared almost as much by the leadership of the NUDL as he was by the employers. As Sexton was to point out, regarding the tactics adopted by Larkin in 1907; ‘these were also the same tactics that had marked the original formative struggle of the NUDL in Liverpool in 1889’ (Morley 2017. P 10). Why then, it must be asked, were these tactics acceptable to Sexton in 1889 but not when used by Larkin in 1907?

Larkin suffered many character assassinations not least and certainly not unexpectedly from the right-wing media. However, the bosses and their media were not the only assailants of Jim’s character. A man who considered himself a socialist – which he certainly was not – P.J McIntyre editor of a small publication titled The Toiler also had a grudge against Jim Larkin. McIntyre was a former Dublin Branch Secretary of the British trade union, The Workers Union. He had hopes of bringing the membership of this union into the newly formed ITGWU. Once it became clear, this merger which McIntyre had in mind, was out of self-interest - both economic and political - Larkin gave McIntyre the short hard shift, and the merger never happened. McIntyre then set about his character assassination of the ITGWU chief and was supported, to a large extent, by the nationalist head of Sinn Fein, Arthur Griffith. Griffith supported and published many of McIntyre’s anti-strike [it was the time of the lockout] rantings in his journal, The United Irishman, which was not particularly a working-class publication (the policies of Sinn Fein at the time should not be confused with the policies of either of the modern Sinn Fein parties). One of McIntyre’s more outlandish fantasies was that Larkin was the son of an informer named James Carney. Carney was the man credited with the betrayal of the Invincibles, a Fenian breakaway group responsible for the killing of the Viceroy, Lord Edward Cavendish and his permanent Under Secretary Thomas Henry Burke in the Phoenix Park on 6th May 1882. McIntyre’s evidence, if that is what it was, to support this lie was Jim Larkin bore a strong resemblance to Carney. He challenged the union leader to produce his birth certificate, which McIntyre knew Larkin could not do - very few could in those days - boasting Larkin’s failure to produce the document as proof of his claim. This was, of course utter rubbish and even the right-wing media did not take the claims serious, though some of them pretended to.

Jim Larkin was also, along with James Connolly, Richard O’Carroll and William O’Brien instrumental in the formation of the Irish Labour Party in 1912. The party was separate from its sister organisation in Britain but its aims were very similar - to give the working-class a political voice. Despite all his progressive political positions Jim Larkin, similar to Keir Hardie in Britain had a serious flaw. Whereas Keir Hardie held what today would be considered racist views towards Lithuanian workers, Jim Larkin could reasonably be accused of anti-Semitism. He claimed the locked out and striking workers had been betrayed by a priest and a Jew:

who were in collusion with Freemasons. The priest was Father Monaghan; the Jew was probably a builder called Ellion, who had been involved in negotiations between the master builders and the construction unions’ (Lockout: Dublin 1913 Padraig Yeates P. 547). 

Larkin was attacking Ellion not as an employer but as a Jewish person, attacks echoed by another founding member of the Irish Labour Party, Richard O’Carroll, Secretary of the Ancient Guild of Incorporated Brick and Stonelayers Trade Union. Anti-Semitism was not restricted to ultra-nationalists like Arthur Griffith, cartoons depicting capitalists with large hooked noses – often seen as being representative of Jewish people – appeared in the Irish Worker edited by Jim Larkin! Comments like these were not dissimilar to Keir Hardie in Britain and his racist comments about Lithuanian people carrying the Black Death, peoples prejudice always just below the surface are ignited by such comments. 

Both these titans of labour and socialist policies were tainted by these racist and anti-Semitic remarks. Larkin and O’Carroll could argue, albeit tenuously, that they were lapsing into the idiom of the day in working-class Dublin in 1914; ‘and for many decades afterwards, the terms Jew-man and moneylender were synonymous’ (ibid). This may make such statements understandable but certainly not condonable in any way shape or form.

Jim Larkin was also a leading light in the formation of the Irish Citizen Army in 1913. The idea of a worker’s defence force was first discussed by the Industrial Peace Committee in the rooms of the Reverend R.M Gwynn at Trinity College, Dublin. The locked out and striking workers had come in for some brutal treatment from the Dublin Metropolitan Police (DMP) and the Royal Irish Constabulary (RIC) which had resulted in the deaths of two men, James Nolan and James Byrne after police baton charges. The ICA was formed initially to counter these brutal actions by the forces of so-called law and order. In essence Jim Larkin was the Citizen Army’s first Commandant with Captain Jack White its Drill Instructor. Larkin wanted every man to be able to trust the man in his front and to his rear. A military discipline would go a long way to establishing this, and no more would the workers face an organised enemy, the police, in a disorganised fashion. The ICA went on to take part, alongside the Irish Volunteers, in the Easter Rising 1916 under the command then of James Connolly.

On 8th November 1914 Jim Larkin arrived in the USA and in true Larkin character immediately involved himself with socialist politics. As a syndicalist he soon became involved with the revolutionary syndicalist trade union, the Industrial Workers of the World (IWW) often known as the Wobblies. He was unashamedly opposed to the imperialist slaughter which was taking place in Europe in the form of the First World War, then in its fourth month. He made many anti-war speeches condemning the murderous events happening on the European battlefields, workers killing workers on behalf of their national ruling classes.

He rapidly became involved in the wider struggles of United States labour. He soon made the acquaintance, through the IWW, of Irish American Elizabeth Gurley Flynn, Big Bill Haywood and Joseph Hillstrom (Joe Hill) all of whom were activists in the Wobblies. Joe Hill was popularised in the working-class resistance ballad titled The Ballad of Joe Hill which tells the story of the bosses trumped-up charges against him in 1915 and his execution. Larkin was the union's choice to replace Hill as the main English-speaking orator. It was Jim Larkin who gave the oration at Joe Hill’s funeral after he was murdered by firing squad on a charge of murder, having been stitched up by the Copper Bosses.

Larkin’s own activities did not go unnoticed by the authorities and he was eventually charged with Criminal Anarchy in April 1920. It was at his trial he gave his place of birth as Tamnaharry County Down Ireland. He was found guilty and sentenced to between five and ten years in Sing Sing Prison where he began to show signs of his old confident self and the fighting spirit which had earned him his reputation wherever he put his feet. On Saint-Patrick’s day, 1921, he related the story of St. Patrick to his fellow prisoners and the warders who had temporarily softened their stance against him. His oration was conventional enough until he reached the part where, as legend has it, St Patrick chased all the snakes into the bog. He rhetorically asked, where did they go? Answering his own question, he informed his audience; ‘they came to the USA to become Politicians, Policemen and Prison Guards.’ His fellow inmates found this version highly amusing but not so among the warders who had, after all, invited him to conduct this oration in the first place. 

On the outside the hostility of the right-wing media towards Jim Larkin, which was partially responsible for sending him to prison in the first place, did not recede until the election of Al Smith to the post of Governor of New York. Smith was inaugurated on 17th February 1923 and almost immediately issued a free pardon for Jim Larkin. Despite his pardon Big Jim was still deported, Smith’s benevolence apparently did not run as far as allowing the rabble rouser to remain in the US. Prior to boarding The Majestic Larkin shouted; ‘you’ll find me at Liberty Hall, Dublin’ (Morley 2017 P.13).

On his return to Dublin in 1923 Jim Larkin found many changes had occurred. The Irish Free State was in its infancy and Thomas Johnson, who would later be great friends with Jim Larkin’s son, also called Jim, was now leading the Irish Labour Party. The later friendship between Johnson and Jim Junior was not always the case. On 24th May 1924 Big Jim made an attack on Johnson in the Irish Worker:

The language used was outrageous even when allowance is made for the extremely slanderous language that at the time was the stock in the trade of post-civil war political rhetoric (James Larkin, Lion of the Fold P.79). 

Larkin accepted responsibility for the article, which Johnson was encouraged to sue for libel resulting in £500 damages against Larkin, claiming it had been written by his son, Jim junior. Big Jim claimed if he had written it the language would have been far more aggressive. On 14th March 1924 Jim Larkin was expelled from the ITGWU, the union he had founded, and his supporters led by Barney Conway occupied Liberty Hall for several days, eventually being ejected by the military and jailed. Big Jim was now in Moscow attending the Communist International (Comintern) leaving his brother, Peter, in charge. 

In mid-June 1924 Peter Larkin launched a new union, the Workers Union of Ireland stating ‘the union existed to organise the workers of Ireland for the attainment of full economic freedom’ (Lion of the Fold P.80). There were many inter-union conflicts between the ITGWU and the new WUI, both attacking each other. ‘The WUI struck against the employment of ITGWU members; and the transport union sought to oust WUI members from their jobs’ (ibid). Needless to say, such inter-union wrangling does the cause of labour and working-class emancipation no good whatsoever.

Jim Larkin was a colossus within the working-class labour and socialist movement. He left indelible prints on the movement so much so that the future leader of the Transport and General Workers Union and Spanish Civil War veteran, Jack Jones, was christened James Larkin Jones. So much high regard did the parents of Jones hold Jim Larkin.

Jim Larkin died in Meath Hospital on 30th January 1947 and his funeral left Haddington Road Dublin for Glasnevin Cemetery, which to anybody who knows Dublin is quite a distance. The roads along the way were heaving with people, veterans of the trade union movement from Ireland and Britain such was the popularity of Big Jim. Many veterans of the Irish Citizen Army were present marching as he had told them to march during those terrible days of the lockout.

Where the Dublin Metropolitan Police and Royal Irish Constabulary had once battered workers in extremely violent fashion during the Dublin lockout, An Garda Siochana [the Irish Police Force] were lining the way for Big Jim’s funeral. Wreaths on the coffin from trade unionists and socialist organisations, including those from Britain and the US, were conspicuous by their presence. Big Jim Larkin was crossing the city for the last time; this emotional scene, for those who were not there, can only be imagined’ (Striking Similarities, Kevin Morley 2017 P.13).

Caoimhin O’Muraile is a Dublin 
based Marxist and author. 

Early 20th Century Socialists ➖ Jim Larkin