Originally published in Solidarity:
for workers’ power. (London,
UK) Vol.7, No.11 July 1974, pp.9-14, under the title “Connollism”.
James Connolly, Selected Writings (P Berresford Ellis, ed.) Pelican Books, 1973.
“The great only appear great because we are on our
knees: let us rise!” This statement, attributed Connolly (although [French
revolutionary] Camille Desmoulins apparently said it first) used to appear
among the banners on Civil rights marches in [Northern] Ireland. It is perhaps
ironic that Connolly himself should be so much the “great man” among Irish
political thinkers, something like Marx among leftists as a whole. At least
this new selection of his writings provides, in the absence of a complete
Collected Works, a useful guide to the sort of things he actually said.
RELIGION
The longest single item in the book is ‘Labour,
Nationality and Religion’ pp.57-117, written in 1910 to refute a clerical
attack on socialism. Here Connolly is strongly critical of priests’ attitudes
and the record of the Catholic Church as an institution, and applies
materialist analytical methods to religious history. His personal position on
religion, however, remained at best ambivalent. (1) He maintained that
“Socialism is neither Protestant nor Catholic, Christian nor Freethinker,
Buddhist, Mahometan or Jew; it is only HUMAN” (p. 117) and that personal
religious beliefs were not relevant to politics.
This is to ignore the function of religious
ideology, as a reactionary social force and a factor in the individual’s
repression and authoritarian conditioning. Anyone who denies, either from a
mechanistic materialist outlook or from [exclusive] concentration on “politics”
as such, that such psychological influences are highly significant, runs the
risk of perpetuating all sorts of ruling class assumptions. Connolly was not
alone in falling into this trap. The results are apparent throughout his
writings. (2)
WOMEN
A good illustration of how received ideas can
operate simultaneously with revolutionary intentions is provided by Connolly’s
attitude to the emancipation of women. In the section on ‘Women’s Rights’ the
editor presents us with (pp.189-195) an excerpt from The Reconquest of Ireland, 1915. In it Connolly follows Engels’
explanation of the “Origin of the Family”, describes the specific economic
oppression of women in society, and in Ireland in particular – not without
perception and sympathy – and expresses support for the women’s movement.
“But,” he concludes, “whosoever carries the outworks of the citadel of
oppression, the working class alone can raze it to the ground”, which assumes a
separation between women and the working class, and accords only marginal
status to women’s struggles. A similar attitude was apparent in the controversy
with De Leon over August Bebel’s book Woman:
Connolly was not under the illusion that economic revolution would bring the
solution to all women’s problems, but neither did he see sexual and
psychological questions as having a direct bearing on the revolution itself.(3)
It would be a mistake to think that nothing better
could be expected, even from conscious socialists, in the first decade of [the
20th] century. Already the long tradition of sexual repression was
meeting fundamental challenges, not only in theoretical works Bebel’s but in
the lifestyle of women and men. (4) Even in Ireland we have an example of a
more genuinely radical approach in the life and writings of Francis
Sheehy-Skeffington.(5) Connolly,
however, continued to make assumptions about “morality”, “duty” and the
desirability of monogamy which have quite counter-liberatory implications.(6)
“…
this is what Father Kane said: ‘Divorce in the socialist sense means that women
would be willing to stoop to be the mistress of one man after another’. A more
unscrupulous slander upon womanhood was never uttered or penned. Remember that
this was said in Ireland, and do you not wonder that some Irish women – some
persons of the same sex as the slanderer’s mother – did not get up and hurl the
lie back in his teeth, and tell him that it was not law that kept them
virtuous, that if all marriage laws were abolished tomorrow, it would not make
women ‘willing to stoop to be the mistress of one man after another’. Aye,
verily, the uncleanness lies not in this alleged socialist proposal, but in the
minds of those who so interpret it…”
James Connolly, Labour,
Nationality and Religion, 1910
SYNDICALISM
What Connolly
did regard as vital to the struggle for socialism was industrial organisation.
He ascribed the weakness of the existing trades unions, as weapons of defence
and as means of raising class consciousness, to their organisation on a craft
basis, and became a strong advocate of industrial unionism (pp.147-185). For this
reason he is often described as a syndicalist, especially by syndicalists. But
his ideas were in many respects different from those of anarcho-syndicalism.
For example, although he saw the conquest of
economic power, through industrial unionism, as primary, even considering that “the
Socialism which is not an outgrowth and expression of that economic struggle is
not worth a moment’s serious consideration” (p.165), he also considered it “ABSOLUTELY INDISPENSIBLE FOR THE EFFICIENT TRAINING OF THE WORKING
CLASS ALONG CORRECT LINES THAT ACTION AT THE BALLOT BOX SHOULD ACCOMPANY ACTION IN THE WORKSHOP”
(p.159; his emphasis). Later, of course, he chose to make the bid for political
power by means of insurrection instead, on the grounds that revolutionary
action was appropriate to extraordinary times.
Contemplating the future society, Connolly
envisaged “social democracy” proceeding from the bottom upwards, but “administered
by a committee of experts elected from the industries and professions of the
land” (p.151). This was intended to avoid bureaucracy, and extend the freedom
of the individual, blending “the fullest democratic control with the most
absolute expert supervision” (p152). In fact, as subsequent history has shown,
reserving a special role for “experts” invites a new bureaucracy to create and
perpetuate itself.
The same idea – that certain people, whether
called leadership, vanguard or experts, have a special function – is present Connolly’s
strategy for struggle. He endorsed (p.167) the statement of the Communist Manifesto
that “the Socialists are not apart from the Labour movement, are not a sect,
but simply that part of the working class which pushes all others, which most
clearly understands the line of march.” In the industrial organisation he
eventually suggested a form of Cabinet, with “the power to call out members of
any union when such action is desirable, and explain the reasons for it
afterwards.” (p.184)
Admittedly this is not the whole picture. Connolly
also wrote in favour of the retention of officials “only as long as they can
show results in the amelioration of the conditions of their members and the
development of their union as a weapon of class warfare.” (p.180) He contended
that “the fighting spirit of comradeship in the rank and file” was more
important than the creation of the most theoretically perfect organisation –
which could indeed be the greatest possible danger to the revolutionary
movement if tending to curb this fighting spirit. (p. 176) He was aware that
the “Greater Unionism” might serve to load the working class with greater fetters
if infused with the spirit of the old type of officialism. (p.180)
All the same there are enough signs that his ideas
on organisation left the way open for the domination of a minority group of
leaders. (7) And the record of a “great Industrial Union” such as the American
U.A.W. (8) shows that the creation of “One Big Union” only gives such a group
more scope for exercising bureaucratic power.
NATIONALISM
Perhaps the aspect of Connolly’s thought most
relevant to the present time is his concern with Irish nationalism. He was
concerned with it despite socialist internationalism, despite the effort to
continue emphasising the class struggle, despite the ability to see through the
aims of straight Nationalists.
It has been observed that the sense of Connolly’s
writings is the sense of the sense of revolutionary movements in the
underdeveloped world today (9); certainly they have a lot in common with the
ideology of “national liberation” as supported by so much of the left. We can
find most of it here: emphasis on the “main” – imperialist – enemy and his
foreignness, on the specific oppression of the natives and their assumed common
interest in liberation, on the importance of this conflict along with the claim
to be engaged in class politics.
Even the well-known statement “If you remove the
English army tomorrow and hoist the green flag over Dublin Castle, unless you
set about the organisation of the Socialist Republic your efforts would be in
vain” continues: “England would still rule you…” (p.124) The text in which this
is contained, from Shan Van Vocht,
January 1897, is all the same a more convincing attempt to get to grips with socialism
and nationalism than many of Connolly’s later efforts. It is a long way from the
emotive nationalist rhetoric with which he celebrated his own hoisting of the
green flag over Liberty Hall in April 1916 (pp.143-145), but the progression is
not accidental. The supposedly saving clause about the cause of labour being
the cause of Ireland is still present.
The point is not whether Connolly continued to believe
in class struggle and had some sort of vision of a socialist future, but whether
the tendency of his thought and action was consistent with this. In fact the Irish
dimension led him into tortuous paths which are now familiar. Although in an ideal
society states were to be mere geographical expressions (p.152), the validity of
the concept of a nation is assumed to be self-evident, and “peoples” are entities
capable of autonomy. The notion that “the enemy of my enemy must be my friend”
is made explicit in Connolly’s pro-German stance during the First World War – p.259,
“the instinct of the slave to take sides with whoever is the enemy of his own
particular slave-driver is a healthy instinct and makes for freedom”. The
German empire is also represented as being more “progressive”. (10)
But socialist ideas about progressive development
were not followed uncritically. “North East Ulster” (p.263) is described as
being contrary to all Socialist theories, “the home of the least rebellious slaves
in the industrial world” while “Dublin, on the other hand, has more strongly
developed working class feeling than any city of its size in the globe.” In
practice, the “least rebellious slaves” were to be denied the right to opt out
of Connolly’s “United Ireland – an Ireland broad based upon the union of Labour
and Nationality” (p.279); the project of having them vote on the question of
partition was denounced (p.283).
“… The frontiers of Ireland, the ineffaceable marks of the separate
existence of Ireland, are as old as Europe itself, the handiwork of the
Almighty, not of politicians. And as the marks of Ireland’ separate nationality
were not made by he politicians so they cannot be unmade by them.
“As the separate individual is to the family, so the separate nation
is to humanity…”
James Connolly, Workers’
Republic, 12-2-1916
Connolly tended to get exasperated with British
and other socialists who called critical attention to his nationalism (11),
asserting the need for an indigenous Irish socialist party with its own
literature. Perhaps he would be better pleased with some of their present-day
counterparts on the left. At least he had the excuse of lacking the evidence we
now have of what “national liberation” regimes mean in practice, and how far
they are from leading to socialism.
INSURRECTION
In 1897 Connolly regarded “the unfortunate insurrectionism
of the early Socialists” (p.125) as having been abandoned by modern Socialism
in favour of the “slower, but surer method of the ballot-box”. He continued to
advocate the parliamentary road, although ideally the socialist vote was to be
directed by a revolutionary industrial organisation. But he believed that in
Ireland independence was a pre-requisite, so that the Irish Nationalist was
seen as “an active agent in social regeneration” (p.126) “even when he is from
the economic point of view intensely conservative”.
The method of physical force, while not to be
favoured for its own sake, was not excluded from the “party of progress”. There
were, however, certain conditions which should precede its adoption: first, perfect
agreement on the end to be attained, then presentation of the demand for
freedom through elected representatives. Discussing street fighting, Connolly
assumes a large-scale rising with the support of the populace (pp.228-230). The
implication is that success will justify the method.
In the event, the Easter Rising of 1916 was put
into effect by a group of leaders with differing political aims, united by
nationalism and the intention to turn the opportunity afforded by the First
World War to what they saw as Ireland’s advantage. Connolly was a prime mover
(12), committing the Irish Citizen Army despite his reported conviction in the
end that there was no chance of success and they were “going out to be
slaughtered” (Introduction, p.30).
“The Council of the Irish Citizen Army has resolved, after grave and
earnest deliberation, to hoist the green flag of Ireland over Liberty Hall, as
over a fortress held for Ireland by the arms of Irishmen.
“This is a momentous decision in the most serious crisis Ireland has
witnessed in our day and generation. It will, we are sure, send a thrill
through the hearts of every true Irish man and woman, and send the red blood
coursing fiercely along the veins of every lover of the race…”
James Connolly, Workers’ Republic, 8-4-1916
It was no monstrous aberration that he ended his
career as a martyr for old Ireland and is often remembered as such, however
unjust it would be to claim that he was no more than that. He has a place in
labour history as well as in the history of socialist thought. The Selected
Writings are divorced from the context of action and controversy in which they
were produced, but it is useful and legitimate to judge them on their own
merits and see where the ideas tend.
Perhaps, after all, it is to Connolly’s credit
that his writings are not fully and exclusively compatible with any one of the
theoretical traditions claiming affinities with him – less so, that they endorse
sentiments and ideas present in so many of them.
L. W.
[with a few slight typographical amendments]
Notes
1.
See Connolly in America, by M.
O’Riordan, Irish Communist Organisation, 1971, and Mind of an Activist, by O.D. Edwards, Gill & Macmillan, 1971.
2.
“As a rule the socialist men and women are… immensely cleaner in speech and
thought… devoted husbands and loyal wives… industrious workers..” from Workshop Talks, quoted in Voice of the People, vol.2, no.6.
3.
Connolly in America pp.16-17. For
Solidarity’s views on “The Irrational in Politics” see our pamphlet of that
title, price 15p [in 1974].
4.
See Hidden from History by Sheila Rowbotham,
Pluto Press, 1973.
5.
1916: The Easter Rising, O.D. Edwards and F.Pyle, eds., McGibbon &
Kee, 1968, includes ‘Francis Sheehy-Skeffington’ by O. Sheehy-Skeffington and
’An open letter to Thomas McDonagh’ by
Francis Sheehy-Skeffington who expresses the opinion that the exclusion of
women from the Volunteers was deeply significant.
6.
Connolly in America pp.16-17.
7.
e.g. Labour and Easter Week, ed. Desmond
Ryan, 1949, p.114: leaders have a right to confidence: “[L]et them know that
you will obey them… let them know what the rank and file are thinking and
saying.” They are to be challenged but not rashly.
8.
See Solidarity Motor Bulletin No.2, “U.A.W. Scab Union” (price 5p.)
9.
By Conor Cruise O’Brien in 1916: Easter
Rising.
10.
Solidarity has discussed this type of theory in ‘Whose right to
self-determination?’ and ‘Theses on Ireland’ in vol.7, no.1.
11.
Many British socialists may of course have been chauvinists. But Labour and Easter Week provides an
example of Connolly describing British draft-dodgers in Ireland as “cowardly
runaways” and “shirkers”, and defending this against criticism from a Glasgow
reader.
12.
The editor’s introduction to 1916: Easter
Rising p.19 states that the I.R.B. [Irish Republican Brotherhood] Military
Council was forced to establish an alliance with Connolly lest he should start
his own insurrection.
hedgehog reprints @ smothpubs
