No CrossRef data available.
Article contents
Jim Larkin and the Communist Internationals, 1923–9
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 21 March 2016
Extract
In 1924 James Larkin agreed with British and Soviet communists to undertake the leadership of communism in Ireland. The triangular relationship soon became poisoned with dissension, insubordination and deceit. Not only did Larkin refuse to form a communist party, he went to great lengths to ensure that no one else did either. By 1925 British communists, contrary to Moscow’s directives, were attempting to work in Ireland independently of Larkin, and by 1927 Moscow too was plotting to clip his wings.
Larkin’s communist career is treated in some detail in two publications. Emmet Larkin’s biography offers the kindest interpetation, taking his subject’s politics at face value, and concluding that Ireland, and the weak and divided condition of its labour movement after 1923, were simply too hostile an environment for communism. Mike Milotte’s Communism in modern Ireland deals more directly with organisational politics and cites repeated examples of Larkin’s failure. Both studies are based on sources available in the west, which offer a superficial picture of events, and the story still holds obvious puzzles. Why did Larkin accept the leadership of the communist movement and then deliberately prevent its development? Why did Moscow tolerate his leadership for so long? Did Larkin have a political strategy, or were his political thinking and actions purely impulsive and reactive? And how do we explain his eccentric behaviour during these years, when he seemed to quarrel with everyone?
With the liberalisation of access to the former Central Party Archive of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union in the Institute for Marxism-Leninism, Moscow, now the Russian Centre for the Conservation and Study of Documents of Modern History (Rossijskij Tsentr Khraneniya i Izutshenija Dokumentov Novejshej Istorij, cited as R.Ts.Kh.I.D.N.I. throughout this article), it is possible to answer these questions.
- Type
- Research Article
- Information
- Copyright
- Copyright © Irish Historical Studies Publications Ltd 1999
References
1 Larkin, Emmet, James Larkin: Irish labour leader, 1876–1947 (London, 1965), pp 275-93Google Scholar.
2 Milotte, Mike, Communism in modern Ireland: the pursuit of the workers’ republic since 1916 (Dublin, 1984), pp 70–95Google Scholar.
3 See Larkin, Larkin, pp 3–249; Greaves, C. Desmond, The Irish Transport and General Workers’ Union: the formative years, 1909–1923 (Dublin, 1982), pp 9–138Google Scholar.
4 Comintern to Larkin, 3 Feb. 1923 (R.Ts.Kh.I.D.N.I., 495/89/12-1). For the Comintern see McDermott, Kevin and Agnew, Jeremy, The Comintern: a history of international communism from Lenin to Stalin (London, 1996)CrossRefGoogle Scholar.
5 Comintern to Larkin, 3 Feb. 1923 (R.Ts.Kh.I.D.N.I., 495/89/12-1); letter from the Comintern presidium, offering to fly Larkin from any point in Germany to Moscow, 6 Aug. 1923 (ibid., 495/89/20-5).
6 Milotte, Communism in modern Ireland, p. 70.
7 McLay to Luise, 22 Aug. 1923 (R.Ts.Kh.I.D.N.I., 495/89/22-64). Sources sometimes refer to McLay by his real name, Pollock. He had come to Ireland from Scotland in 1914 to avoid conscription.
8 McLay to E.C.C.I., 26 June 1924 (ibid., 495/89/27-10/14).
9 MacManus to Comintern secretariat, 11 Oct. 1923 (ibid., 495/18/210-52/55); MacManus to Kuusinen, 2 Feb. 1924 (ibid., 495/38/7-243/44).
10 MacManus to Workers’ Party of America, 2 Feb. 1924 (ibid., 495/38/7-245/48).
11 MacManus to Kuusinen, 2 Feb. 1924 (ibid., 495/38/7-243/44).
12 Report on the situation in Ireland, 17 Apr. 1924 (ibid., 495/100/168-70).
13 The C.P.I.’s disbandment is dated in McLay’s report on the situation in Ireland to the E.C.C.I., 26 June 1924 (ibid., 495/89/27-13).
14 Larkin’s case was that I.T.G.W.U. rules adopted in 1918, and therefore the then executive committee, were invalid (Larkin, Larkin, pp 279–81).
15 A letter from the E.C.C.I., 2 June 1924, invited him ‘as [a] representative of the Irish working class’ (R.Ts.Kh.I.D.N.I., 495/89/27-5). Larkin had already left for Moscow on 27 May.
16 Milotte, Communism in modern Ireland, p. 74.
17 Larkin to Profintern, 1929 (R.Ts.Kh.I.D.N.I., 495/89/104-137). Also known as the Red International of Labour Unions (R.I.L.U.), the Profintern was the trade union counterpart to the Comintern.
18 Larkin, Larkin, pp 282–3.
19 Larkin jr to Gallacher, 16 June 1924, and reply, 18 June 1924 (R.Ts.Kh.I.D.N.I., 495/89/27-6/9); report on Ireland, p. 10 (ibid., 495/89/104-98).
20 For unrest between 1917 and 1923 see O’Connor, Emmet, Syndicalism in Ireland, 1917–23 (Cork, 1988)Google Scholar.
21 Cody, Séamus, O’Dowd, John and Rigney, Peter, The parliament of labour: 100 years of the Dublin Council of Trade Unions (Dublin, 1986), p. 143Google Scholar.
22 Milotte, Communism in modern Ireland, p. 74; Larkin, Larkin, p. 282.
23 On Dublin Trades Council see Cody, O’Dowd & Rigney, Parliament of labour, pp 139–47. The term ‘Larkinites’ was applied broadly to those who took Larkin’s side in the rift with the I.T.G.W.U. Not all were on good terms with Larkin.
24 On I.R.A. membership and attitudes see Patterson, Henry, The politics of illusion: republicanism and socialism in modern Ireland (London, 1989), p. 46Google Scholar.
25 ’Notes on communism in Saorstát Éireann’, Nov. 1936, p. 36 (University College, Dublin, Archives Department (U.C.D.A.), Seán MacEntee MSS, P67/523(5)).
26 Reports to the German representation, Moscow, 21, 26 Nov. 1924 (R.Ts.Kh.I.D.N.I.,495/89/26-1/6).
27 Reports from Peter Larkin, 1924 (ibid., 495/89/26-25/38; 495/89/104-88/101).
28 Report from Larkin, 1926 (ibid., 495/89/110-136/42).
29 John Pepper, ‘Der Konflikt der Irish Workers League mit der Communist Party Gross-Britanniens’, 27 Dec. 1924 (ibid., 495/89/26-22/24). Pepper accepted Peter Larkin’s figures on I.W.L. and W.U.I. membership.
30 Resolution on the Irish question of the presidium of the E.C.C.I., 7 Jan. 1925 (ibid., 495/89/28-22/24); ‘The immediate tasks of the Profintern in Ireland’ (ibid., 534/6/77-20/22); minutes of Executive Bureau, R.I.L.U., 7 Jan. 1925 (ibid., 534/3/107-34.
31 Pepper to Comintern secretariat, 14 Sept. 1925 (ibid., 495/89/30-6).
32 ’Résumé of Comrade Stewart’s letter’, 9 June 1925 (ibid., 495/89/30-9/10). Larkin received £100 from the Profintern through the C.P.G.B. in 1925 (Inkpin to Bennett, 10 July 1925 (ibid., 495/100/242-3); Larkin to Zinoviev, 1926 (ibid., 495/89/32-13/26)).
33 Milotte, Communism in modern Ireland, pp 79–80. The quote is from Stewart, Robert, Breaking the fetters: the memoirs of Bob Stewart (London, 1967), p. 154Google Scholar.
34 ’Notes on communism,’ pp 22–4 (U.C.D.A., Seán MacEntee MSS, P67/523(5)); Brown to English section, Comintern, 9 June 1925 (R.Ts.Kh.I.D.N.I., 495/89/30-11/13).
35 Brown to Comintern secretariat, 20 June 1925, (R.Ts.Kh.I.D.N.I., 495/89/30-5).
36 Inkpin to Bennett, 10 July 1925 (ibid., 495/100/242-3).
37 ‘Notes on communism,’ pp 24–6 (U.C.D.A., Seán MacEntee MSS, P67/523(5)); ‘Remarks on report of Comrade Larkin’ (R.Ts.Kh.I.D.N.I., 495/89/32-40/44). In fact the British had wanted the money to go to Larkin; it was the Russian Red Cross who insisted on Lansbury (Inkpin to Bennett, 10 July 1925 (ibid., 495/100/242-3)).
38 See Gerry Boland’s recollections of the visit in Irish Times, 11 Oct. 1968.
39 Recommendations of Irish commission (R.Ts.Kh.I.D.N.I., 495/89/28-27/28).
40 Report (ibid., 495/89/104-153/61).
41 Report on Ireland (ibid., 495/89/104-162/183).
42 Minutes of Executive Bureau, R.I.L.U., 28 Jan. 1926 (ibid., 534/3/150-255/65). Lozovsky emerges as the most sceptical of the Soviet communists on Larkin. The two disagreed on Profintern strike policy in 1924 and ‘nearly came to blows’ in 1928 (Larkin, Larkin, p. 297).
43 Irish resolution on trade union unity (R.Ts.Kh.I.D.N.I., 495/89/33-2/3).
44 Report on Ireland, 12 July 1926 and n.d. (ibid., 495/89/36-5/6; 495/89/104-18/45). Carney claimed the assistance was promised By A. J. Bennett, Anglo-American secretariat, and Zinoviev.
45 Report of session, 21 Dec. 1926 (ibid., 534/3/173-119/30).
46 Minutes of Executive Bureau, R.I.L.U., 21 Dec. 1926 (ibid., 534/3/173-113).
47 Reports from Larkin, 1926 (ibid., 495/89/110-136/47).
48 C.P.G.B. to Larkin, 9 Feb. 1926, (ibid., 495/89/42-1). A faction of the party rejected the Comintern’s decision and continued to operate, with C.P.G.B. encouragement (Milotte, Communism in modern Ireland, pp 85–8).
49 Anglo-American Workers’ International Relief secretariat, report on Ireland, 15 Nov. 1926 (R.Ts.Kh.I.D.N.I. 495/89/36-59/61). The secretariat dealt with anglophone countries.
50 Report of I.W.L. meeting, 29 July 1927 (ibid., 495/89/42-18/19).
51 Digest of communications received from representative [in] Ireland (ibid., 495/89/104-184/89).
52 This was 6.5 per cent of votes cast in Dublin. The Labour Party received 5.2 per cent of the Dublin vote (Gallagher, Michael, Political parties in the Republic of Ireland (Manchester, 1985), pp 158-9Google Scholar).
53 E.C.C.I. to I.W.L. (R.Ts.Kh.I.D.N.I., 495/3/46-207/11).
54 Digest of communications from representative in Ireland (ibid., 405/89/45-2).
55 Digest of communications from representative in Ireland (ibid., 495/89/45-40/44).
56 Digest of communications received from representative [in] Ireland (ibid., 495/89/104-189); digest of communications from representative in Ireland, 22 Sept. 1927 (ibid., 495/89/45-44); McLoughlin, Barry, ‘Proletarian academics or party functionaries? Irish communists at the International Lenin School, Moscow, 1927–37’, in Saothar, 22 (1997), pp 63–79Google Scholar. In Moscow, Larkin junior supplied details of the I.W.L. executive and convinced the E.C.C.I. that the executive would agree to the formation of a party (minutes of sub-committee on I.W.L., 22 Dec 1927 (R.Ts.Kh.I.D.N.I., 495/89/40-13/14)).
57 Larkin involved himself in the first of these, Friends of Soviet Russia, formed in 1928; when the Irish Labour Defence League was launched in June 1929, Larkin was out of the picture (Milotte, Communism in modern Ireland, p. 93; letter from Fitzpatrick (R.Ts.Kh.I.D.N.I., 495/89/52-24/25); Irish Labour Defence League annual report, 7 July 1929 (ibid., 539/3/644-2/5)).
58 Larkin, Larkin, p. 290.
59 Ninth E.C.C.I. plenum, fifth sitting, 13 Feb. 1928 (R.Ts.Kh.I.D.N.I., 495/167/75).
60 Minutes of Anglo-American secretariat, 20 Feb. 1928 (ibid., 495/72/34-1/28).
61 Report from Larkin, 1929 (ibid., 495/89/104-137).
62 I.W.L. questionnaire, 2 Feb. 1928 (ibid., 495/89/49-1/3). Larkin also wrote separately to Lozovsky on 13 Mar. 1928 asking him to settle ‘this long outstanding financial irritation’ (ibid., 534/7/286-86). On the accusation of dishonesty see ‘Notes on communism’, p. 11 (U.C.D.A., Seán MacEntee MSS, P67/523(5)).
63 Profintern congress, eighth session, 22 Mar. 1928 (R.Ts.Kh.I.D.N.I., 534/1/68-19/27). See also Larkin’s letter of disaffiliation (ibid., 495/89/104-137).
64 Draft letter from E.C.C.I. to the comrades in Ireland, 4 July 1930 (ibid., 495/20/251-25/28).
65 Report to E.C.C.I. from Christian Hilt, 13 June 1928 (ibid., 495/89/50-39/42).
66 Report from Larkin, 8 Aug. 1928 (ibid., 495/89/50-43/50).
67 Carney to Jack [Bennett?], 16 Oct. 1928 (ibid., 539/3/643-1/6).
68 Carney wrote to Lozovsky on 19 Nov. 1928 saying it was up to the Profintern to sort out the dispute (ibid., 495/89/52-16/17). Carney also wrote to Larkin junior on 6 Nov. 1928 requesting the Irish at the Lenin School to make a formal protest about Russian Oil Products, which they did on 15 Nov. 1928 (ibid., 495/89/52-13/15; 495/89/49-4/6). The Anglo-American secretariat agreed that a Comintern representative would be sent to Ireland to investigate the matter and expressed the hope that there was no foundation to rumours that the I.W.L. was thinking of seceding from the Comintern, as the prospects for a party were ‘favourable’ (Anglo-American secretariat to I.W.L., 1 Dec. 1928 (ibid., 495/89/49-20)). Carney also wrote to Lozovsky on 19 Feb. 1929 re Profintern propaganda work (ibid., 534/7/266-93/94).
69 Letters from Larkin (ibid., 495/89/49-18; 495/89/104-137).
70 Seán Murray and Jim Larkin jr, joint report on W.U.I., 2 Aug. 1930 (ibid., 495/89/63-19/27).
71 Larkin was invited to a plenum of the Profintern in late 1929, despite opposition from the C.P.G.B. and Irish communists (Tom Bell, Dan Buckley and Bob Stewart to E.C.C.I. Politsecretariat (ibid., 495/89/54-76)). The W.U.I. declined an invitation to a communist trade union front conference in October 1929 (letter from Bell, 27 Oct. 1929 (ibid., 495/89/64-63/71)). In 1930 Dublin communists were asked to secure Larkin’s support for, or at least neutrality to, a new party. If Larkin opposed the party, it was to go ahead without him (draft letter from E.C.C.I. to the comrades in Ireland, 4 July 1930 (ibid., 495/20/251-25/28)). At the same time Seán Murray and Jim Larkin junior were asked to sound Larkin out about reviving W.U.I. affiliation to the Profintern (Seán Murray and Jim Larkin jr, joint report on W.U.I., 2 Aug. 1930 (ibid., 495/89/63-19/27)).
72 Report from Larkin, 8 Aug. 1928 (ibid., 495/89/50-43/50).
73 According to Arthur [MacManus?], Larkin junior wrote to Larkin in 1929, advising him of moves ahead and asking him to keep silent (Arthur to Frank, 17 Nov. 1929 (ibid., 495/89/54-60)).
74 Seán Murray and Jim Larkin jr, joint report on W.U.I., 2 Aug. 1930 (ibid., 495/89/63-19/27).
75 Letters from Larkin (ibid., 495/89/49-18; 495/89/104-137).
76 On socialist republicanism see Patterson, , Politics of illusion, and English, Richard, Radicals and the republic: socialist republicanism in the Irish Free State, 1925–1937 (Oxford, 1994)Google Scholar. Both address the question of whether republicanism was inherently radical, rather than engaging in any discussion of communist politics. ‘Class against class’, adopted by the Comintern in 1928, meant taking a hostile position towards the non-communist left and, in this context, forcing republicans to choose between the I.R.A. and communism. The Comintern did not feel its Irish section was strong enough to apply the line to the I.R.A. until 1930. See ‘Notes on communism’, p. 36 (U.C.D.A., Seán MacEntee MSS, P67/523(5)).
77 The Comintern took a serious view of the error and had its agent in Dublin, Tom Bell, recalled to Moscow (R.Ts.Kh.I.D.N.I., 495/89/80-1/18; 495/89/61-19/22).
78 Internal reports of the preparatory committee for the formation of a Workers’ Revolutionary Party, the I.W.L.’s successor, later reconstituted as the Revolutionary Workers’ Groups, put membership at 120 in March 1930, the ‘great majority’ of them ex-I.R.A. (ibid., 495/89/82-14/15). The I.R.A. muster had dwindled to under 5,000 at this point (Patterson, Politics of illusion, p. 46).
79 See Milotte, Communism in modern Ireland, pp 96–140.
80 Report of Revolutionary Workers’ Groups meeting, Dublin, 5–6 Nov. 1932 (R.Ts.Kh.I.D.N.I., 495/89/82-14/15).
81 I am grateful to the British Academy for a subvention for the research on which this article is based, and to Dr Barry McLoughlin for his guidance.