|
One
of Connolly’s major theoretical contributions
was his discussion of the relations between socialism
and religion. Connolly’s views on that matter
are fairly original and atypical. The reason why Connolly
engaged with the subject is that a great proportion
of the Irish working class was influenced by the Roman
Catholic religion. The Catholic hierarchy was trying
to keep workers away from socialism by saying that
socialism and the Christian religion were incompatible
and antagonistic. The priests pointed out that socialism,
especially in its Marxist form, was intrinsically
bound with materialism and atheism; so it is impossible
for workers to be socialist and Christian at the same
time. Connolly struggled ideologically against this
position, and tried to demonstrate to the workers
that they could be socialists and good Catholics at
the same time. Connolly’s position was a version
of the old adage “render to Caesar what is Caesar’s
and to God what is God’s”. For Connolly,
socialism is concerned solely with political, social
and economic issues, all other matters are beyond
its scope:
Socialists
are bound as socialists only to the acceptance of
one great principle - the ownership and control
of wealth-producing power by the state, and that
therefore, totally antagonistic interpretations
of the Bible, or of prophecy and revelation, theories
of marriage and of history may be held by socialists
without in the slightest degree interfering with
their activities as such or with their proper classification
as supporters of the socialist doctrine. (CW2,
383-384)
Socialism
deals with facts explainable by reason, religion has
to do with theological matters and faith. Religion
is totally outside the realm of socialist discussion,
it is a private affair:
Socialism,
as a party, bases itself upon its knowledge of facts,
of economic truths, and leaves the building up of
religious ideals or faiths to the outside public,
or to its individual members if they so will. It
is neither Freethinker, nor Christian, Turk nor
Jew, Buddhist nor Idolater, Mohammedan nor Parsee
- it is only human. (CW 2, 238)
There
is an absolute separation between socialist and religious
issues, so there should be no necessary conflict between
Socialism and religion. Although Connolly would often
attack particular representatives of religion for
their political stance (see for example CW2, pp.371-382)
he never attacked religion as such. He attacked the
clergy for speaking on non-theological matters which
were beyond their competence, but also criticised
some socialists (such as Daniel De Leon) for their
polemics in favour of atheism.
Did
Connolly make too many concessions to religion? Connolly’s
views on religion have some relative justifications,
but also relative limits. They have some justification
as one can be a socialist and at the same time believe
in God (think of Liberation Theology for example).
And the attitude of some sectarian socialists that
atheism should be a central article of faith would
alienate many people who would otherwise be in agreement
with socialism. As Connolly puts it, many Christians
have been 'repelled from socialism by the blatant
and rude atheism of some of its irresponsible advocates'
(CW2, 234). However, Connolly’s assertion that
religion is totally outside the scope of socialist
discussion is also relatively wrong. For example,
it would be unthinkable for Socialists to remain neutral
- on the basis that religion is beyond the scope of
socialism - on issues such as excision or forced marriages
in the Muslim religion, the refusal by Jehova’s
Witnesses to give blood transfusion to children on
the verge of dying, or the efforts of the religious
right to put creationism on par with evolution in
the school curriculum. No one can imagine a Socialist
society coexisting with the religious practices of
the Talibans. On that basis, Connolly was relatively
mistaken.
Some have claimed that Connolly was a “left-wing
Catholic” or was trying to conciliate Marxism
and religion. Nothing could be further from the truth.
Connolly wrote:
For
myself, though I have usually posed as a Catholic,
I have not gone to my duty for 15 years, and have
not the slightest tincture of faith left. I only
assumed the Catholic pose in order to quize the
raw freethinkers, whose ridiculous dogmatism did
and does dismay me, as much as the dogmatism of
the Archbishop. In fact I respect the good Catholic
more than the average free-thinker. (Letter
to John Matheson, 30 January 1908)
If
Connolly’s analysis of religion was that of orthodox
Marxism (see CW pp.236-237), his “pose”
was very atypical for a Marxist leader.
Connolly’s
views on religion parallel his analysis of women,
marriage and sexual morality. He had a clear awareness
of women’s oppression: 'The worker is the
slave of the capitalist society, the female worker
is the slave of that slave' (CW1, 239). Connolly
had an absolutely consistent and unequivocal record
of co-operation with the militant feminist movements
of the time and fully supported the women’s liberation
movement.
In
its march towards freedom, the working class must
cheer on the efforts of those women who, feeling
on their souls and bodies the fetters of the ages,
have arisen to strike them off, and cheer all the
louder if in its hatred of thraldom and passion
for freedom, the women’s army forges ahead
of the militant army of labour. But whosoever carries
the outworks of the citadel of oppression, the working
class alone can raze it to the ground. (CW1,
244)
The
task of women’s liberation had close ties with
the liberation of the working class and national liberation.
However, Connolly also argued that sexual relations
were not to become an issue within the movement, it
would only concentrate on social, economic and political
issues. Certain socialist attitudes towards conventional
views of monogamy and marital morality seemed shocking
in those days were criticisms of marriage sounded
like encouraging sexual libertarianism. So sexual
problems/ issues, like religion, were declared by
Connolly to be beyond the scope of socialist discussion.
Here again, Connolly was relatively mistaken. This
limited the theoretical understanding of women’s
oppression (something that can be seen from Connolly’s
reaction to August Bebel’s book on the woman
question). More importantly, Republican socialists
must take a clear stance in favour of a woman’s
right to chose, the availability of things like contraception
and for the rights of homosexual/lesbian people. These
are issues that are far too important than to be beyond
the scope of socialism.
The
IRSP cannot argue today like Connolly a century ago
that issues relating to sex or religion 'ought
to have no place in our programme or in our party'
(CW2, 238). Those are important issues that affect
the working class. Connolly was wrong to put 'sex,
religion, vaccination, vegetarianism' (CW2, 238)
on the same level. The availability of contraception,
an end to the oppression of homosexuals, or fighting
religious cults that prey on the working class are
issues that are far more significant than vegetarianism.
But it can be said in Connolly’s defence that
those were issues that were not as important as they
are today. However, there are no excuses for Republican
socialists for not taking a principled stance on them
now.
Index: Current Articles + Latest News and Views + Book Reviews +
Letters + Archives
|
