|
Today
Republican Socialists are faced with the question
of the war in Afghanistan. More than 85 years ago,
with the outbreak of the first world war, James Connolly
was faced with similar problems. And a century ago,
he already had been involved in an opposition campaign
to the Boer War in South Africa. What parallels and
lessons can we learn from his experience? It is true
that the current war in Afghanistan is not comparable
to the first world war. But the political strategy
Connolly devised to oppose an imperialist war is still
relevant at the beginning of the 21st century. In
the summer of 1914, Connolly witnessed the betrayal
both of the Second International and of the bourgeois
nationalism of John Redmond: both joined the war cabinets.
James Connolly organised against this betrayal. Today,
we have the political parties in Leinster House throwing
neutrality away, and many on the left (for example
Clare Short and Christopher Hitchens) back the war
in Afghanistan. Republican Socialists after September
11th also oppose the generalised drift towards and
capitulation to militarism. A look at Connolly’s
writings on the topic show how preoccupied he was
by the introduction of new repressive laws, censorship
etc after the outbreak of the war. The present “war
against terrorism” has provided an excuse for
a whole array of repressive legislation. But beyond
the parallels between Connolly’s times and ours,
it is above all from Connolly’s correct political
strategy that there are things to be learned.
Conflict
is the paradigm of the political, and one of its basic
axioms is the necessity to distinguish between “friends”
and “enemies”. As G. Bush said some time
ago, “either you are for us or you are against
us”. Republican Socialists have no sympathy whatsoever
for reactionary feudal warlords like Bin Laden, and
have clearly shown their opposition to US imperialism.
But we must see who the main enemy is. In his times,
Connolly put the blame of the first world war solely
on the shoulders of the British Empire, whereas at
the time Germany was perceived as being the “bad
one”. In so doing, he might be accused to have
underestimated considerably the role of German imperialism.
Connolly has even been accused by some of having been
pro-German. But Connolly’s comments were propagandistic
in nature, aimed at combating jingoism and anti-German
feelings. Connolly constantly reminds us to look at
the main enemy. Hence, his insistence that British
imperialism was the main enemy of the Irish people,
not Germany. Similarly, Republican Socialists concentrate
their anti-war propaganda on the US offensive in Afghanistan,
whereas many in the public perceive that the “bad
ones” are the Muslims. It would be absurd to
accuse us of being sympathetic to the Talibans; the
point Republican Socialists are trying to make is
that the real terrorists are not the poor Afghans
being bombed day and night, or the “suspect community”
of poor Muslims in Britain and other Western countries
- the real terrorists are sitting in Downing Street
and the White House. Concentrating criticising Bin
Laden or the Talibans would only reinforce the latent
racism and jingoism.
For
Connolly, war is barbaric - it is difficult to disagree
with him when we see the effects of things like “cluster
bombs” in Afghanistan. “We have held
and do hold that war is a relic of barbarism only
possible because we are governed by a ruling class
with barbaric ideas; we have held and do hold that
the working class of all countries cannot hope to
escape the horrors of war until in all countries the
barbarous ruling class is thrown from power.”
(CW2, 50) Thus Connolly understood that war is linked
to a specific form of social organisation, and that
today any consistent anti-war activity should simultaneously
be anti-capitalist. Without abolishing capitalism,
it is impossible to abolish war. This is something
Republican Socialists should explain to people hostile
to the war in Afghanistan who are not yet Socialists.
But
Connolly also recognised the qualitative differences
between different type of wars: it is necessary to
distinguish between reactionary imperialist wars in
the interests of the ruling classes and the progressive
wars for national and social liberation.
The
war of a subject nation for independence, for the
right to live out its own life in its own way may
and can be justified as holy and righteous; the
war of a subject class to free itself from the debasing
conditions of economic and political slavery should
at all time choose its won weapons, and hold and
esteem all as sacred instrument of righteousness.
But the war of nation against nation in the interest
of royal freebooters and cosmopolitan thieves is
a thing accursed.” (CW2, 46).
Like
Connolly who judged wars on their class content, Republican
Socialists must distinguish between reactionary type
of wars (for example US attacks on Iraq and Afghanistan,
war in Chechenya, the former Yougoslavia, etc) and
progressive wars (liberation struggles over the world).
When the first world war erupted, Connolly was faced
by an imperialist war, a war socialists had to oppose
at any price. On what had to be done, he arrived at
the same strategic conclusions than Lenin: the task
of Republican Socialists is to transform the imperialist
war into a civil war against the imperialist ruling
classes. When the war started, this:
should
have been taken as the tocsin for social revolution
... (CW2, 55) ... Holding such views we have at
all times combated the idea of war; held that we
have no foreign enemies outside of our own ruling
class; held that if we are compelled to go to war
we had much rather fight that ruling class than
any other, and taught in season and out of season
that it is the duty of the working class in self-protection
to organise its own force to resist the force of
the master class.(CW2, 50)
It
is not the Talibans or Bin Laden who are causing problems
in Ireland today, but the British and Irish ruling
classes -this is what Republican Socialists should
make the working class aware of. Republican Socialists
should aim to transform the “war against terrorism”
into a war against the terrorists sitting in Westminster,
Stormont, Leinster House and the White House. It is
not worth sending men dying in far away place such
as Afghanistan:
If
these men must die, would it not be better to die
in their own country fighting for freedom for their
class and for the abolition of war, than to go forth
to strange countries and die slaughtering and slaughtered
by their brothers that tyrants and profiteers might
live? (CW2, 40)
Connolly
hoped that the working class in the different European
countries would revolt against the war:
Should
the working class of Europe, rather than slaughter
each other for the benefit of kings and financiers,
proceed tomorrow to erect barricades all over Europe,
to break up bridges and destroy the transport service
that war might be abolished, we should be perfectly
justified in following such a glorious example and
contributing our aid to the final dethronement of
the vulture classes that rule and rob the world.(CW1,
415)
Unfortunately,
this did not happen. But this did not discourage James
Connolly to prepare for the insurrection against those
“vulture classes” in Ireland, hoping that
this might inspire and help a similar process in other
countries: “Starting this, Ireland may yet
set a torch to a European conflagration that will
not burn out until the last throne and the last capitalist
bond and debenture will be shrivelled on the funeral
pyre of the last warlord.” (CW1, 416) Objective
and subjective conditions are not yet ripe for such
a “civil war” in Ireland, and the war in
Afghanistan certainly does not have the same impact
and importance in Ireland today as the first world
war had. But Republican Socialists will nevertheless
work very hard in pursuing Connolly’s strategy
in the 21st century.
Index: Current Articles + Latest News and Views + Book Reviews +
Letters + Archives
|
