|
Connolly’s
major achievement is to have grasped the relation
between nationalism and socialism, between the national
struggle and the class struggle. A lot of socialists
saw (and still see) the national struggle as a diversion
from class struggle and as being incompatible with
socialism. Many Republicans struggled against British
imperialism, but with no references to the struggle
for a Socialist Ireland. For them the class struggle
had no relevance or was a diversion from the national
struggle. Connolly set to explain to Republicans and
Socialists the intrinsic links between the two issues.
“I have spent a great portion of my life altering
between interpreting Socialism to the Irish and interpreting
the Irish to the Socialists.” (CW1, 349) wrote
Connolly. In the American edition of Erin’s
Hope, he stated that “the two currents of
revolutionary thought in Ireland -the socialist and
the national- were not antagonistic but complementary”.
To Republicans, he explained that they would only
realise their aims through a socialist revolution.
Imperialism is not about flags and emblems, it is
about a certain socio-economic organisation, and without
a radical social reorganisation of Irish society,
the national struggle would end up being mere national
recreancy. To Socialists who ignored the national
question, he pointed that it would be impossible to
build a socialist society in Ireland so long as the
country was entangled in relations of economic and
political subordination to the British Empire. Breaking
the chains of imperialism and national liberation
are a "first requisite" (CW2, 175) of socialism.
Connolly’s fundamental teaching is that the struggle
for national liberation is not opposed to the struggle
for socialism, but an integral and necessary part
of it. This is why “The cause of labour is the
cause of Ireland, the cause of Ireland is the cause
of labour. They cannot be dissevered.” (CW2,
175). Socialism is impossible in Ireland without national
liberation, and national liberation would be meaningless
for the working class without socialism.
Connolly
correctly grasped the relation between the national
democratic revolution and the socialist revolution.
It has been argued that Connolly viewed national liberation
and socialism as being two rigidly separated stages:
first the national liberation stage, where socialism
is not on the agenda until British withdrawal; and
once Ireland is free - and not until then, arrives
the second stage where the struggle for socialism
can begin. It is wrong to attribute such a view to
Connolly. He viewed the national democratic revolution
and the socialist revolution not as two separate stages,
but as two distinct aspects of the same process. The
national liberation struggle has to be fought on an
explicitly socialist basis.
It
is important to stress that Connolly was not some
“left-wing nationalist” who tried to do
some eclectic synthesis between nationalism and socialism.
For Connolly, nationalism and socialism were not identical,
but only complementary. He clearly knew that there
was nothing intrinsically progressive about Irish
nationalism, and was aware that there were areas of
tension between the two; he only supported it in so
far as it had a democratic content. Connolly addressed
himself not the broad "nationalist" constituency,
but the most advanced and progressive section of the
Irish independence movement - the Republican tradition.
National “freedom” is not above classes
and their struggles, Connolly gave a class content
to Irish Republicanism. Each social class has its
own definition of "freedom" and its own
view about the nature of "the Republic".
National freedom and the Republic would only have
a concrete content if it was for the freedom of the
working class and the Workers Republic.
We
are out for Ireland for the Irish. But who are the
Irish ? Not the rack-renting slum-owning landlord;
not the sweating profit-grinding capitalist; not
the sleek and oily lawyers; not the prostitute pressman
- the hired liars of the enemy. Not these are the
Irish upon whom the future depends. Not these, but
the Irish working class, the only secure foundation
upon which a free nation can be reared.” (CW
2, p.175)
Connolly rejected bourgeois nationalism, and rejects
any subordination of the working class to bourgeois
nationalism:
As
a socialist I am prepared to do all one man can
do to achieve our motherland her rightful heritage
-independence; but if you ask me to abate one jot
or title of the claims of social justice in order
to conciliate the privileged classes, then I must
decline. (CW1, 307-308)
On
the basis of a concrete analysis of social forces
in Ireland, Connolly concluded that “only the
Irish working class remain as the incorruptible inheritors
of the fight for freedom in Ireland.” (CW1, 25).
The working class, because it has "nothing to
loose but its chains" is the only class who will
be able to lead the national liberation struggle to
a successful conclusion. All the other social classes
will capitulate and sell out at some stage because
they are not prepared to risk their wealth and power.
The genuine motor of the national liberation struggle
is the working class. “Ireland cannot rise to
freedom except upon the shoulders of the working class
knowing its rights and daring to take them.”
(CW 1, 455) However, it is also true that Connolly
argued for a strategic alliance with other classes.
A successful revolution could in the specific conditions
of Ireland only come about through an alliance of
all anti imperialist forces: ''We are prepared to
co-operate with all … even should the aim they
set for such organisation be far less ambitious than
our own. We invite the co-operation of all who will
work with is toward that end.” (CW2, 248). But
such an alliance had to be under the leadership of
the working class. The place of any other class in
the alliance would have to be subordinated to the
working class (this is very clearly stated in his
articles on Sinn Fein). So it is incorrect to argue
that in 1916 Connolly had capitulated to Bourgeois
nationalism. On the evening of 16 April 1916, Connolly
informed members of the Irish Citizens Army: “In
the event of victory, hold onto your rifles, as those
with whom we are fighting may stop before our goal
is reached. We are for economic as well as political
liberty.” (CD Greaves, p.403).
How
relevant are Connolly 's teachings in this early 21st
century? Connolly's views on the relation between
national liberation and socialism have been subsequently
validated by the revolutionary struggles in China,
Vietnam, Cuba, Angola and so many other countries
in the world. Socialist revolutions there were the
outcome of national liberation struggles. However,
there have been a number of Marxist critics like Eric
Hobsbawm or Tom Nairn who dismiss on different grounds
the idea that national liberation is still a relevant
issue. But the "internationalism" of those
critics remains purely abstract, as their national
chauvinism renders them blind to national oppression.
With the war in the North over the last thirty years,
a current of the left in Ireland - represented by
the Workers Party or critics like Paul Bew and Henry
Patterson - has argued that socialists have to choose
between nation and class. For them, "national
liberation" is just a species of territorial
irredentism with no democratic content; what is at
stake is workers' unity versus Irish unity. The priority
is to unite the Protestant and Catholic working class,
not to solve the divisive national question. But they
are wrong to see national liberation as territorial
irredentism. Connolly had warned that partition “would
mean a carnival of reaction both North and South and
would set back the wheels of progress” (CW1,
393). The struggle against partition is not opposed
to the struggle for socialism, but an integral part
of it. It has a democratic content because, far from
being a question of territorial irredentism, it is
about opposing the "carnival of reaction".
Connolly also understood the futility of sloganising
around "workers unity" in the North given
the reactionary nature of Loyalism. Protestant workers
"are slaves in spirit because they have been
reared up among a people whose conditions of servitude
were more slavish than their own" . By contrast,
Catholic workers "are rebels in spirit and democratic
in feeling because for hundred of years they have
found no class as lowly paid or as hardly treated
as themselves" (CW1, 386). Sloganising abstractly
around "working class unity" in the Six
Counties is not progressive because it fails to confront
the reactionary nature of Loyalism, and practically
condemns the most oppressed sections of the working
class to subordinate their democratic revolt and interests
to the backwardness of the Loyalist labour aristocracy.
Republican
Socialists today are the most consistent followers
of James Connolly's teachings on national liberation
and socialism, the national democratic revolution
and the socialist revolution. But our challenge is
to take up the analysis where Connolly left. Circumstances
have changed since Connolly's times and our task is
to develop Connolly's teachings into the 21st century.
Index: Current Articles + Latest News and Views + Book Reviews +
Letters + Archives
|
