Connolly and the Revolutionary Party: Part Three, The Second International

25 . : ey CROLLY AND TEE RUVODITIONARY PARTY ; ITT THe SECOND INTERNATIONAL - In the first two articles of ‘the series (M.R. Nos 3 & 4), James Connolly's attitude to the concent of the revolutionary party - the Marxist system of political organisation - were considered, In the first article his final soncept of osganisation was compared with that of the Bolsheviks. In the second article the relationship of his. concepts to his practice in the Sirugeic agains, tis imperialist war was considered, Wow it is necessary to consider the circumstances in which his views developed, The relation— ship of Connolly's ideas to their time, will be discussed in this and the Mext tyvo articles. aoe SECOND INTERVATIONAT, That the objective conditions existed in 1896 for the Irish Workers!

political backwardness has been stated before now. It was a product of she overall economic backwardness in the context of an uneven world-wide spread — qualitative and quantitative - of Marxism. ‘The relations between the classes were undeveloped due to the failure of the industrial revolu— tion (outside Belfast where the same result was caused by the sectarian ‘Sivision within the labour force itself). The unskilled workers had yet #0 establish a permanent form of industrial organisation — let alone 2 Political vanguard. The skilled workers were inevitably inclined to ‘Petty bourgeois radicalism, which in the colonial conditions of Ireland, fended at its most radical to take the form of an extreme and uncomprom s— “2m¢ form of nationalism — Republicanism, Most of the larger capitalists ‘fere Unicnists - supporters of the colonial 1i with Eritain: the emalier “Omes (including the newly, anf potentially liberated peasants) supported the sompromising form of Irish Nationalism — Home Rule, When the influence of e Cathotic Church is added to all this, it is clear that the struggle the Irish Workers' Republic, seventy years azo, even more than @oday, Wes based in objective circumstances that resembled more those affecting oehe workers of the underdeveloped third of the world than those of the i but well-organised workers of Tsarist Russia, _ + Seis was the Irish situation in 1896. However it would be incorrect to Bey that it was the sole influence on the man who came in this year to “Belp found the Irish Socialist Republican Party, James Connolly sained = reputation as an organiser in this time, he would not have been chosen may the Dublin Socialist Club to organise for it, He knew already most ) of the leading figurea of the British Iabour Movement. His development “2s probably not helped by having them centred mainly on Edinburgh — a Beeity that had most of the defects of Dublin and some of Belfast, but which "ad few of the objective strengths of either, However, Edinburgh was @erely one centre for Socialist action within a broad movement — both Mmational and international, The weakness of the British Latour Movement Mas mentioned in the first article of this series, I+ is enough, here, ) te recall that it has been based on an almost opposite condition ta the Weelmers of its Irish comrades, In the latter case, the weakness came trom retarded economic development: in the cese of the British working Glass, it arose from the fact that its industrial base was the oldest in she world and provided the resources for its capitalists to buy of? large Mayers of its proletariat -— first sut of its monopoly and then out cof its moionial super—prorfites,

—S—— =. 2¢t Accordingly, its greatest theoreticians - Connolly and John Maclean — had to fight it with little support from within.

Here it may be merely noted that the debility ef both the British and the Irish working class movements was not eliminated by the International organisation to which the Parties that composed them were affiliated.

Though Connolly never attended a conference of this body, he could eventually read three languages besides his own and follew ita debates. His politics and his choices therein cannot be understood without reference to this body (though the attempt to do so has been made all too often), It is well to consider at length. For most of Connolly's political career - indeed until it broke up inte opposing national sections under pressure of the imperialist war — the bus of the working class movement was organised in the Second Interrational.

As its name implies this body was a reereation of the International Vorking Mensa' Association (the First International) that Marx, Tnzels and Balemin had dominated in the 1860's and which had Irish branches in Dublin, Selfast and Cork, The First International had lasted formally 12 years (1864-1876) though it was, in fact, wrecked well within thet time. The causes for its collapae’ © were the political division that developed within it between ths “azxists the Ultra-left (Anarchist under Bakunin) and the Iabour Opporturicts.

of the main differences was on the issue of the state. Eakunin urged workers should establish their society wherever they could regarcicss capitalist states ruling the countries concerned. On the ome hand, th strategy led to premature and isolated risings, as in Spain im 1572. On ; the other hand, it previded an excuse for a lack of organisation cr plamning of the class war beyond a very simple “cloak and dagger" practic: of secret societies and assassinations. The political strusgle was regearced as an =" irrelevant diversion as was the development of any disciplimed political force to fight that struggle. On all these matters, Bakunin foung ‘himself opposed by Marx and mgels; on his organisational and strategig - if not his basic -— assumptions he found himself in alliance with the Onperaunists, a who wanted a non-political confederated, international that would eilew them to act politically as followers of their local bourgeois politicians. In ~‘. ,”% the disputes following this the International suceumber. : Ons nat the f dhe: Fa] ba el a ef In 1889, after Marx's death, it was revived again. but based, no'v on a mumber of homogeneous Marxist groups and parties, the largest being the German Social Democratic Farty. The Anarchists were exclined from afriiiation.

The Opportunists of the style of the First International did not want to join anyway, preferring to act politically through their bouregois parties.

The new International was not quite as revolutionary as it appeared, [tf ai affiliates paid lin-service tc Marx — more or lesa yet they were all es subject to internal pressures, that wealened their sractice of what they 4 -* preached, In Britain, where even then the working class included over half. -.~ the population , the effects of industrial monopoly prevented that class + from developing a mass Marxist Party in a ratio to its size, It as then > the German Social Democratic Party that became the leading affiliate Of) .the Second International but it, too developed internal problems. §, - ="

‘Until 1890, the German Social Democrats arew in strength despite Pepressive fnti-Socialist laws, Im this year, the laws were fenealed, pertly because they weren't working, partly because the new Kaiser wanted to get cheap popularity, Tho Social Democrats were enabled to operate Ddesgeliy and they used the opportunity. By 1914 they were the largest | Simgie party in Germany, Their organisation was praised by their comrades i in other lands trying to create something similar, One such admirer was young V.i, Lenin in his pamphict, Yhat Is To Be Done, Another, despite His eventual disagreement with its form was James Connolly.

a » it is, of course, history that what Lenin created was a revolutionary | party whereas his chosen model failed the test for such a body. ‘The =) feason for this was simple, ‘The German Social Democrat that had withstood ) @epnificicntly the persecution of the 1880s were weakened from within by _ the casy successes of the later years. ‘The party developed a paid burcaw- | -@racy to run itself and its many daily papers. Members of this became / increasingly conservative, reluctant to give the order to overtum the )) State thet had, after all, allowed them to earn their money, pathetically / ready to believe that the said state could be changed peaceably.

This tendency began to appear withon one year of the repeal of the Anti- ))Secialist leavs. Im 1891, the Party branches in the less developed southern “Sietes of Germany (where the organisation was relatively weak) insisted )em voting for the provincial budgets in their parliament. Until then, “he agreed policy of the Party had been expressed in the slogan "Not a man )@or a farthing for this system". The Party could not vote to maintain the Sfinances of the capitalist state. The south Germans pleaded that they had %o do so if they were not to weaken the relatively liberal state governments pewis a vie the conservatives. Despite protests from old Frederick mmgels ) am London, the Party accepted the argument that the “special circumstances” (of the south German situation necessitated a measure of collaboration with "the bouregois state governments there, | Three years later after Ingels' death and the final acceptance of the South German political uniqueness, the practice of the latter was given be theoretical umderpimning by Engels' ex-secretary, Edward Bernstein Gad lived in Imgiand for some years, While he was there he was influenced (greatly by the British Fabian Society —- at that time a propagendist circle ie the left of the Liberal Party. His relations with this body and his ow | impressionistic view of what was happening led him to advocate a broadly Pabian position in relation to the strategy of German Social Democracy, amstead of opposing the south German's policy, he urged that it be exvended to its logical conclusion: the Social Democrats should carry on their role as just another (i.e, bourgeois) party distinguishable from @he others only because it was more radical than them. They should work /is coalitions with the capitalists to administer their common state if pteede be. | This breach in Marx's teaching on the state had to be defended by further Sttack on Marxist teaching. Bernstein found himself denouncing this in " philosophy, history and economics. Instead of the unfolding of an inevitable historical process which climaxed in the Socialist revolution and the ending of canitalism Bernstein insisted that there was mither inevitability Hor necessity in this.

28 The workers were not getting more impoverished nor were large mumbers of the petty bourgeoisie joining their ranks. Revolution was, therefore, an irrelevance and an obstacle to Social Democracy's real duty: the struggle for piecemeal improvements in existing conditions. Instead of the dialectic forcing the socialist to choose constantly between "Socialism or Barbarism" Bernstein insisted that the socialist had complete freedom to act according to his conscience to alleviate the worst defects in society. Kant replaced Hegel for him. This was 2 clear "revision" of Marx and such it became known : "Revisionism", Bernstein's theory - already because of its Anglo-German development an international foree - became a problem for the Internationnl because of its practical expression. In 1899 the French Social Democrat Alexanber Millerand, did whet Bernstein had advocated and entered an anti-clerical government to defend civil liberties in general ( and the French victims of clerical reaction in particular), Millerand's choice and the fact that even a Revisionist could not get away from the dialectic was emphasised by the fact that one of his cabinet colleagues, General Gallifet, had earned notoriety as the mass murderer wno had suppresse d the Commine, which by the way, did not embarrass the more consistent and hardened Revisionists who tended inevitably to see only the Com«unards' blunders and not their revolutionary achievement, The south German leader, Georg Von Vollmer, summarised his views thereon: "Instead of seizing estate power, they would have done better to go to sleep".

At the 1900 conference of the International at Paris, Millerand was condemned.

He left working class politics altogether and ended his eareer when he had to resign as President of France because he was too far to the right for a new radical government. Bernstein was also formally isolated, and the south Germn strategy remiined limited to south Germany. Only in wealthy Gritain did the Fabian Society continue to play a big role in the growth of the Iebour Party.

Revisionism was in quarantine.

But it was quarantined and not liquidated. The bulk of the Intermetion:l's leaders were more than willing to leave it thus. The Russian Marxist, George Plekhanov urged on his Germ=n comrades a thorough theoretical struggle azainst Revisionism, but he was ignored. When Resa Luxembourg tried later to. carry the struggle for Marxism beyond the status quo of 1900 she found herself oppossed by the leading figures among her official anti-Hevisionist allies. The Millerand affair had already been decided by a motion that condemned iillerand on the. technical point of not getting his party's permission for his act rather than on the political isme involved.

It was in this way rather than in open acceptance of Revisionism that the short term practice of developing Social Demecratic Party bureaucracies wis expressed. In the long term, they would end openly in the Revisionist camp.

However, for the time being, they hoped that the revisionist case would, as it were, prove itself and prevent too decisive a breach with their parties’ left wings, such as those headed by Luxembourg ( in Germany and Poland ) and Jules Guese ( in France ), The bureaucrats' strategy was encapsulated by the advice that Bernstein claimed he was given by Igraz Aver, the Secretary of the German Social Democratic Party :

EY Tar C_ ses 26 "yy dear Ede, one does not formally make a decision to do the things you “sugfest, one doesn't say, such things, one simply does them".

This "Centrism" — so eslied as it took a position in the centre between Merxism and Revisionism — is more difficult to describe that either, precisely teceause it is an attempt to compromise between the two. The important points to remember are, firstly that it is a recurring political phenomenon im the international workine—class movement, and secondly, that is is essentially & tendency towards unprincipled compan ge between the two main competers, (MOne does not say, one simply does") Centrism under pretence of avoiding q sectarian approach towards "good people amongst the Revisionists surrenders to both the good amd the bad in those ianks far more than is consistent wit & principled position, in the Second International, the issue which first caused the Hevisionists 7o renege and on which the Centrists surrenderedttheir positions was that of the Marxist theory of the state. On the eve of the October Revolution of 1917, Vi benin distinguished the three trends in his State and Revolution.

"According to Marx, the state is an organ of class rule, an organ for the eppression of one class by another, it is the creation of ‘order’ which degalises and strengthens this oppression by moderating the conflict betyeen the classes. In the opinion of the petty—bourgeois politicians (including the Revisionists, D.R. O'C.L. ) order, means precisely the reconciliation of classes, and not the oppression of one class by another.; to moderate the conflict means reconciling classes and not depriving the oppressed classes of definite means and methods of struggte to overthrow the oppressors ...- "On the other hand, the 'Kautskyite’ (Centrist, D.R. O'C L see below) distortion of Marxism is far more subtle. ‘'Theoretically' it is not denied that the state is an organ of class rule, or that class antagoniszs are irreconcihable. Bot what is lost sight of or glossed over is that: if the state is the product of the irreconcilasility of class antagonisms, if 7+ is a power standing above society and increasingly alientating itself from it, then it is obvious that the liberetion of the oppressed class is impossible not only without a violent revolution, but also without the destruction of the apparatus of state power which- was created by the ruling class and which is the embodiment of this 'aliena&tion’ ... Marx very definitely drew this theoretically self-evident conclusion as a result of & concrete historical analysis of the tasks of the revolution, And .... it is precisely this conclusion which Zautsky ... has 'forgotten' and 'distorted!

V.I. Lenin, State and Revolution from The Essential Works of Marxisn, Hartam Books, New York 1965 pp 105-106, ‘ Karl Kautsky whose teaching Lenin denounced above, was the chief theoretician of the Centrism to which he supplied a left cover in his acknowledged capacity - after Friedrich Engels death as "Pope of Marxism" (Even the title betrays a cartain degeneration from Marxist principles. ) Of recent months there has been a certain new interest in Kautsky in some Irish left-wing circles and, with it, a certain feeling that his reputation has been unduly diminished as compared with that of his Russian contemporary, Elekhanov.

Certainly Kautsky, if not a revolutionary, did write useful works (most notably his Foundations of Christianity) during his "Papal" reign up to 1914.

However, after making ali allowances he is still a lesser figure that Plekhano in his prime. The Russian educated the vanguard of his country's working class laying the foundations for the achievements of Lenin, Trotsky, the Bolshevik Party: after this he lapsed into open revisionism - but his historic task was completed. Kautsxy could not claim such a result as Plekhanov's even if Plekhanov eventually disowned his child, Despite his undoubted intelli-' gence, there was always in Kautsky limitations which made it inevitable that he would lead the centrists rather than the revolutionaries. Engels summarised it well in a letter which is the more devasting for expressing the opinion of a personal friend and political ally:— "You have exactly hit off Kautsky's decisive wealmess. His youthful inclinaation towards hasty judeement has been still more intensified by the wretched method of teaching history in the wiversities especially the fustrian ones.

The students there are systematically taught to do historical work with materials, which they imow to be inadequate, but which they are supposed to treat as adequate that is to write things which they themselves must know to be false but which they are supposed to consider correct. That has naturally made Kautsky cocky, Then the literary life writing for pay and writing a lot so that he has absolutely no idea of whet really scientific work means, ‘There he has thoroughly burnt his fingers @ few times, with his bistory of population and later with the articles om marriage in primitive times. In all friendship I rubbed that well into him too, and spared him nothing in this respect: on this aide I criticise all his things mercilessly Fortunately,however, I can comfort “im with the fact that I did exactly the same in my impudent youth, and only first learnt the wey ome has got to work from Marx, It helps quite considerably, too — “Letter to 4ugust Libel, London, 29th July 1885(Present author's emphasis. ) Despite Engel's assistance Kautsky was never able to get beyomi a formal theo— retical correctness which was used only too easily to cower for the actual practice. ("One simply does them") of the Social Democratic bureaucracy.

An early glimpse of what centrisim was to mean in the Geman Social Democratic Party's Effort programme of 1891. This was the highest theoretical point reahed by the German Marxists during their E-cial Democratic period. It was regarded as the model programme for all affiliates of the Second International.

However, even in its time, it overlooked certain vital aspects. Im particular 41d Friedrich Engels remarked in his Critique of it, it glossed over the fact that Germany was a monarchy and a federation of monarchies — many of which were far from being restricted by their parliaments, Im short, the question of state power was ignored, as the R,visionists were beginning to distort it openly. Engels ascribed this vagueness to the fact that the Farty bureaueracy — newly liberated from the Anti Socialist laws — were enjoying their new freedom and its prospects too much to risk these perks by attacks on the German states, If this was the case (as seems probable), the bureaucrats were moved by their fear rather than by Engels analysis. The German Social Democratic Party remained vague on the question of the monarchy. This confusion was encouraged — and, in itself helped - the Revisionists to move to clarify it in the direction of acceptance of the bourgeois state.

Kauteky's peculiar qualities — his brilliant sloppiness — were such as to enable him to oppose the outright Hevisionists - but as defender and sustainer of the existing confusion: not of Marxism, He allowed Hernstein to write his articles in the main Farty daily, only attacking him when such youngsters as linemburg and Parvas had already moved, a NN EE EE es —-™ —_—_—_—— a a

3h He drafted the motion at the Paris Conference of the Second International by which Millerand was condemned for breach of discipline rather than for his political treachery, Perhaps least forgiveable was his attitude towards his patrons, Marx and Engels. Undoubtedly, it was difficult to publish everything that they had written. Nonetheless, Bernstein was given an immediate platform whereas such articles of immediate importance by the founder of Scientific Socialism, as Engels Critique of the Export Programme were kept suppressed for ten years. Other writings in a similar vein were left to the Third International to make available.

With Kautsky as its"Pope" it was inevitable that the Second International should have fallen into a schism along national lines on the outbreak of the First Yorld War. No doubt, his elevation to his exalted position could not have been achieved without objective factors working for him; the point is that these factors were much less than the needs cf the working class either in Germany or in the world at large. In the end, his dominance — despite all his works - was one that merely heightened the confusion. Ite real struggle for Marxist clarity was fought by Plekhanov at first and laxemburg and, jater by Frang Mehring, Lenin and Trotsky, So, in 1896, when Connolly began his Irish career, there were four tendencies or embryo tendencies in the Labour Movement of the world. Outside, the international there were the 4marchists with their strength centred mainly emong the workers of the less developed industrial countries (such as Spain, Italy and Switzerland), In the International were the Marxists on the one fend, the Revisionists on the other and, in between them, the shadowy Sentrists. In each case, the basic difference between the currents was that of their respective views towards the state. The Anarchists regarded the Bite 45 an ultimate source of oppression, perhaps, even exploitation, They ) urged, accordingly, that political action (that is theoretically action affecting directly the distribution of state power, though, in practice, tis definition remained remarkably difficult to operate) be renounced, fee opposed Marxiem from the Ultra—Left.

"The other Anti-Marxist currents developed within the reconstituted International | Within sections where there were large bureaucracies. These vested interested feared to risk their immediate needs by too resolute opposition to the central ‘Soercive organisation, and hoped toe gaon their ends by peaceful (and piecemeal ) feform without making trouble for themselves. To justify their needs for a | Gcapromise with the capitalist state they backed demands to drop Marxieam as being "obsolete" and “unjustified by results" (the Rorisichiste) or, more Weubtiy, paid lip service to it while ignoring it in practice (the Centrists).

- doubt, there were possibilities of Merxist theory being degenerated from | Sther incorrect conceptions. Anarchism had always ineluded many such (as on ) religion) at the same time as its politicio phobia. But the question of | te state drew its significance from the objective need of the Social | Bezocretic bureaucracies (or, particulary in Britein, the trade union | Baresucrscies ani labour aristorracy's) to conform to a system that did — @tisty enough of their needs to raise the odds against the profitability o risking its overthrow, | 1

32 Whether he liked it or not.Connolly was, in fact, bound to develop his strategy in relation to the divisions of the working class movement of his time. History has placed him in the revolutionary -— the Marxist camp -, However, his final failvre shows that his Marxism was considerably less advanced than that of his successful contemporary, V I Lenin, In Germany a Third Revolutionary Marxist, Rosa Luxemburg came te gricf - and with her went the hopes of prolitearian revolution in that country, for many years to come. In her case, the decisive failure was her inability to break in time with the Centrist RevEsionist majority of the Social Democratic Farty.

No dowbt, her error here was linked to her ultre leftiem on the national issue, and her mistakes on the question of Imperisliss, Nonetheless, it was specifically as an organiser that she fell.

CONNOLLY AND CENTRISM

James Connolly failed for the same cause, Fer less then Iuxemburg (who kmew the Bolshevik leader) was he able to benefit from ibe development and clarifications that Lenin and his party were malcing in Marxian, On many issues such as the nature of the state, of the nation, on the Merxist'’s attitude to religion and, above all, on the que::tion of political arganisation, Comolly's position owed more to the formal]i=m of Kautsky than to Lenin's revoluticnary perspective and iniistence on clarity of formulation.

It's worthwhile considering Connolly's wealmesses. wo of them -— his positi on religion and on the nation — have bcen escribed to his serrender to that truly esoteric phenomenon "Catholic Nationalism” — er. gore accurately, Irish Nationalism. In fact, though the objective conditions of Irish life were not ones from which there could easily develop a more sclentifie approach to these matters, Connolly's position on each of then was in tyme with most of the best thinking available to him witiin the Secoml International.

in his Critique of the Erfurt Frogremre in 1891, Beiedrich Engels made specifi insistence in favour of the demand for:-- "Complete seperation of church and state. All religious groups without | exception to be treated by the state as private sssociations, They are to lo all support from public funds and all influence on publie schools. (One cannt after all forbid them from founding their ovm schools out of their om resources and teaching their nonsense in them,)" Frie@rich Engels, Critique of the Erfurt Programme, British and Irish Commmist Organisation, Belfast This view was encapsulaled by the Social Democrats in their statement that "Religion is = private matter": that the state should not persecute religiou belie? but that it should not give it any aid at ali in the expansion thereof, let alone maintaining in existence laws against blasphemy, atheism, or antielerical propaganda, Since the German Social Democratic Party was a recognis Marxist organisation in 1891, it was assumed that anyone who joined it would be Marxist, i.e. a Dialectical Materialist, and, hence, an Atheist. It was then, not considered necessary to immediately urge a struggle against religion within the party itselr,

i of Lill \intek, coi i i ee ee See a —— 3% The immediate opposition to the H-rxi d irom positions even more obviously an r ous than that of Envels. The attitudes of =e msTk pense bs ai f the eetrly Revisionists on religion provite one wore es resting exemple of horultra leftism end reformism teud te find thetselves on the same side.

e to relicsion wes he .nerchist nosition wes Jeseribed oy Harz (letter to F Bolte, 23rd November 1871) 55 being ‘Atheism as a dogms dictated to members", This annarent likeness to the nosii ion 2s develoned by Lenin wes, in fect, very daflerent, since the Anarchists were not interested in organising = prover political party. (In practice whet it mesut was 2 egppe ea ur. anti-clerical propaganda Bnd, or occesions, “practical seitati n* such es the burning of ch urches. hough the Revisionist position wes not precticsally as Lerroristic as thet of the Anerchists, tt hed one decisive point in erreenent with theirs, Hoth canitulated shepreticaily to the anti-clerical propagenda distributed by one section of the contemporary Suronesn bourgecisie, The excnse used by Vollmar and the ssnth Geran Revisionists in 1699, by MSlierend, dean Jaevres end the Geltium Emile Vauderville in 1899-1900 for their co-operstion in bouryeois governments woe tie gute Ine ch cease: the nead to: supnert one section of the bourvecisie (the enti cl eet liberals) Pad mainst the other: the tectic of the “Zesier evil". (Lecter Con -oilyts osvuonent Jilliom cslker was 2 Bsamiiar teaticien,) Im fest of course, eventuelly the clericals did teke oower eve: without the sup ort of the Mevisioniste, the Litter's world G1 not cuvae to ‘an end, and eventucsliy, they ond their eirs would find ree, ons to werk wit the specter evil to oppose which had been the excuse for the original departure from Marxism.

is Connolly wes to discover in Americs, these two views on religion the ‘narchist end the Revisionist - were to merfe in views reanart an his origincl choice SF Sarty there - the Scctelist iabeur Porty Brod in the theory of its. ~ odins ié@eologist Uaniel be eons Connolly wee to lead the onnos sie on to this confusion.

bs & vonoliy's mistake then, was that of tie sainstre:m of what wes tuought to be warxism durin, the originel Second Interna) onal... Le hitself Wes, on his own sdoiasion to his friend M.theson (30th January 1908) en etheist. He never wavered from the Mrfurt position on seculor educstion, Inthe oriminel vroproemie of Ais Irish secielist Republican Porty, the teapnd for t is was the eighto of its 10 points, Twenty yeers leter, ne wes rees erting it in his Reconquest of Ireland, his was @ bosic stand in opposition to the thorght prevailing: in Irish Wetienelist cireles in his lifetime. (It should not be necesirry to os ert, et this soint, thet, though iilisn Connolly bore ter husband eight ciildren during their aerrissge, there is no evidence for saying thot he ee todoy be a supporter of the clerical refusal to #Llow ¢ontroeceptives to anyole, or even, fret he would ac eat the ridiculous Epes Sropose les En nreference to the Hobinson Bill.

of Christianity, but, or more precisely, the Party Secret- ries, Aver Connolly's overall politicsl1 view on religion was sunmitarised early in his career in his erticle "Socialism and Religion - the Rnown and the Unknowable", which appesred in his 1901 pamphlet, The New Evangel. hile he later developed his thesis - snd developed it brilliently -— he never deported quelitetively from the »osition eiven below:- "The Socialist Party of Ireland prohibits the discussion of theolofical or anti-theolozicel questions at its teetings, public or privete, This in in conformity with the vrectice of the chief Socialist parties of the world, which hsve frequentiy, in Germany for exemple, declared religion to be a »rivate Satter, end os it is held and worled for by sn increasing number of enthusinstic adherents | throughout the civilised world, pee en essentiaily meteriel, asterof-fact foundstion, We do not mean that itssupperters are necessaril motverialistic in the vulgar, sue merely enti-theoelo-icel sense ef the teru, but taoet they do not base their socisiaem toon 2:7 interpretation of the lanjuaze or mesning of Jerigture, mer upon ve real or supposed intentions of = beneficient Deity. Tay as @ party neither offirm or deny these things, But Peave it ." the dadiviaued conscience of each member to determine whet belicts on such questions they shall hold. As e politiesi perty t cy wisely prefer to teke their stand upon the sctusi phenomen: of social life as they can be observed in operation encougst us Eotey ae as they can be treced in the recorded fects cf histery". 7 niet iiope = The End and the leans and the New Dvangel, New Park Public. ie Ong, Dublin, 1966, te “Ded Such s policy in the politically under-developed Irish worting cless movement woes not precticaliy caleulsted to build 9 larxist Tenguerd therein, But there is « further point. Connolly wes onl; steting what beceme in fact the policy of the Germgn Socisl Denocvetic rerty leadership. Relizion becene a “private matter” for members of what Was supposed to be the leading Merxist orgonisetion in the world.

Ksuteky contented himself with writing an exposure of fhe foundations end Friedrick Ebert, allowed into the Party many who bed on oltogethe differznt view on the subject, witout eny attempt being mede to explain matters, to them. In Germany t is wes Gersly pert of the overall dezeuerstion of Socisl Dewocrecy. In Ireland, it wos of initial importance in the aborting of a strong Merxist tredition.

It wes left to Russia where there wes o strong petive ond conscious industrial working class to provide the environment in whisk in 1909 Lenin could develop primer bosis for lerxist thinkin on the relizious question. (Five years before, the American, Frank Janke had decisred o similar poet ton in the original Connolly-D: icon polemic - but he was just e member of a smell Farty stout to decline. |] “Sociel Democrets_regerd religion as a private met"“er in relation to the state, but not in relation to themselves, not in re.7bion to Marxism, ond not in relation to the workers’ Ferty? - ‘he attitudt of Workers' Party Towords Religion" — Mors—uasels -Morxiqm pp2734286.

: 35 ) By the time Lenin wrote this Conmolly's position on religion hed | developed for the better; he was using the materialist method | Cobservetion of the'sctusl phenomens of every dsy life") to explein end thus expose religion. However, insteed of developing his anprosch 40 the Perty in the same menner, he had sllowed it to deckine. By f 7909 he tad adopted the Anarchistic organisationel form of Syndicalisn, gliied to his oversil Harxist aperogsch, This resulted in his continu anz to evoid posing the religious question amongst even the Gsdres of his orgenisetions. ‘This was just enother vert of his failure to @evelop sn Irish Bolshevism. Hnt it wes ean importent part.

Connolly's epprosch te réligion hes been oscribed to a surrender by 3m to the forces of Irish Neticnalism, In fect, the link between mis errors on religion and nationalieam was less Ai perky both were the Heturel results of dependence for theory on the current couscicusness Gn the Second International.

i t E dust 2s the current (Second Internstions1) licrxist position on rélircion Biscted o vitel clerification by V I senin, so did ite position on SBetionslism - slthough here, for once, J V Stalin wes to play a pro= Beressive role. The Internstieonzi wes orgenised on the support of the Sworking classes of the metropoliten countries. (It wes to be the Meomintern that was to teke seriously the oroblems of the workers and Hpeesonts in the colonies.) Becsuse of this, its sections were under ressure from the tourreocisies of their countries to accent their Pexnensicnist 2ims end their exploitation of other nations. In many Pceses this pressure wes successful; in Dritein, the leading harxist at the time HM Flyndman, gave full support to the imperialist povern- Ment of his country in its imperislist plens. Rerisionism in such Mcountries as Eritein, France end Germany necessitated the seceptonce Sef the sims cf the bourgeoisies of these countries - es reserds neation- Selisem os well as other things.

)Tais position was opposed first f Ultra-Left. The Anorcuists Bimply denied any relevence to Seti ticas and "political" matters included Sinevitebly n2tioneal questions, A precticolly similar position was teken Pup by the Polish Nerxist Rose imxenburg. She reaerked on the economic S development that had token place since the pertition of her country, )pointed out the fect that the main forces demanding independence were She snoll business end professionel people, end Tevred the effect of their propagenda on the young Polish prolevarist tuet she wes trying Go win to Gocielism. Her cuswer to the Netionalists wee teteal opposition ~ even to the soint of ignoring the rerl srievences created by forcign oppression. Fr UJ ue} o =) si Pineliy, these lines were complimented by 5s Gentrist tendency bosed on the Austrien Social Democratic Party which offered cult eet a not | politicsl self-deteraination to onmressed notions, 4s against 211 these, Lenin ond the Bolsheviks were once again to do the work of clarification. Their analysis hos been chronicled in Morxist Review No.1 and in the Pivst Appendix of Comrede Hebert Dora's pemphliet, Irish Nationslism end Sritish Tmperielisn.

Here it is neceasory to recoll only two coin points. Firstly, beni declared hie rizht to neliticeli soli-deterwin ~tiun hed to be recophised for every mation, except where it definitely retarded develepment towerds Jocislism - simply tecouse its denial created hostility on the subjective pert of the workers cf the oppressed netion against their oppressors (including the workersof smons the latter). Netionelism sprung from circumstances tniat hod so Life ef their own over end above their originel economic base. For the jocizlist, there could be no ending of nationalist divisions evcest by solving them by the fairest possible means. ‘4s @ senerel rule: supoort for the national clsims of the oppressed azsinst those of tie oporesdor.

4. conerete exemple of Lenin's enalysis wes Norwey. In i974, he replied to Iwecouburge whe hed dencunced Norway's secession from Sweden:- "In the question of the self-deterainstion of notions, es in every otter question, we are interestcd first end foremost on the self- ‘eteruination of the proletearist within = given mation. Ross Luxemburg modestly evaded this question too, for sae reslised tist analysis of it on the basis of the exauple of Norwey, which she herself hed chosen, would be disasterous to her theory.

what position “id the Norweigian end Swedish proleterict take, and indeed t d to teke, in the conflict over seccession? de do not hnow whether the Norweician socislist vrosremme mede it ebligetory for Nerweigien Social Democrats to hold perticuler views om the ouestion of seccession. We will assume thet it did not, and that the MNorweision sociolists left it en ocnen question es to wuct extent the ocutonony of Norway gave sufficient scope to ware the class strugsle freely, or to whet extent the eternsl friction end conflicts with the Swedish eristocr-cy hindered freedom of economic Life. But it ceansot be disputed thet the Norweigien proletorist hed te Gppose “this < pistocr cy ond support } Norweigian pes. ner soat: it deuocrecy (with 211 its philistine Famieaticns)., he Richt of Netions to 3elf-Deterainetion' from Suestions of N-iisnsl Policy ond “preletrricn Internationslisa, ¥rogress fublishers, Moscow, 1957, pn 77-78 (Present outhor's emshesis) ~geinst Luxemburg, slso, uinin quoted aporovingly Esrl iorx's insistent thot the British workers! scigure of state poser would only be tuos«ible with the ersnting of self-daterminotion for Ireiend. In beth coses, he was correct. The only major difference between Norway and Irelend during the period sefore 1914 (eport from the complicstiens crested by the Ulstar Protestants) wos the f-ct thet the liberstion of the Lorweigien peasont from bis Londlerd h:d been achieved in Norwey for nesrly = century, wieress, in Ireland it wes not to be ended rs source of discontent until the 1930s.

So Connolly wee not nrecticing en a4irescth to the metionel struggle qualitetively different fo thet of lenin when He worked to place, in turn, the Irish Secislist Republican Party, the Irish fronsvoert and Generel Workers’ Union «nd the Irish Citizen .rmy at the heod of the Irish notionel struecle for self-dcetermin: tion.

a Bel ee ll ee eee

37 Mny successful scizure of power by the workers of the British Isles or Say ocrt thereof would hove invelwed recognition of Irelond's right te Belf-determinction - just as the ~elievement of stote power by the WRussicn workers wos to involve the iiberotion from their srison house Bf tie ve rious anticas of Tserist Russie.

Gonnolly exoressed this truth in BMewde Gonne's LtIrionde .iere in 1097:- MHon~politic=1 co-operstion effort must infsliibly succomb in frce of = onnosition of the privileged Clesse= interested behind the reap rts Sof lsnw ond mononoly. his is way, even wien he is from the oconomic Soint of view intensely conservative, the Irish hoticnalist, even Beith his folse res-oning, ic *m Betiwvwe ecent in socicl resenercticn, sofer -s he secks to invest wath 2a@fl power over its own destinies @ vecple sctuslly governed in the Gmtercsts of + foudol sristocrocy" — etn Socielism ond Hetionsliem ; saree Cenodles Press, Dublin fespite the form] error of fst (@yem in 1997, Irelend wos not Sverned ‘tin the interests of 2 femal eristocrocy*, but rother sore Sf British finence crpits1, tiomgaeme femtet eristocrets still foain ted the colonic] regiae), Eee @eoresses the rezlity of the Suction. it is when Connolly Grae te develop his position beyond hi- thet there arserrs 2 reste 'o Cepttulcie ts the politicel Blusicns of W:tion-lism, Thus, ® poper, the Workers! Renuolic of 4th foveaber 1899, he sume "Piggies position so os to reveel its feekness rcther thon its strengt fe woiicy on the cless atrugmle of fe SGeli—interest of the workers L & Sey sometimes te bose does rot fect the correctness of our pebaeeem. The were fact tot the in- Srited (ond often unrecsening) "mea—sritish sentiment of > chouvinist Sish potriot impels him to the sume conclusion 5 we srrived et os the Bsult of our economic studies @ mot Gouse us to siirink from ecleimins our position. It reiGgr deods us to rejoice thet our proieends in tus mode cll the e-sier By this acne too common identity aim est2blished -s > consequeme@ of wart we esteem the strong ond Sereconcilsble hostility between Eeglish impericlism ond socizlism" from Lobour ond Wcater deek, 3 CemM@les Press, Dublin 1956 Be 26 w socizlists we bose our poliem Re worlers, becouse we know 0°98) des cur woy. Thet the self int Gm this, the error lies p rtly im Connolly's (typicel) confusion of the bjective needs of the situction wath the subjective oppro ch to it the individuel (in this cose the nmoticnolist but more often, os wilt Ge shown, below, ts worker.) Taere is no reslicetion thet the Sunressoning snti-British sentimemt of «= chouvinist trish ee tricot" micht, by its very lock of revsemy prevent thet potriot from sking Hue finel transference of cllegicace irom Coitlin Ni Moulihon to Thternstion-). Socin-lism. Undoubtedly, Connolly's f-ilure to understand this lost several potenticl ESRP recruits to the Fenion Movement.

——E——Ee— —— a ————— - — _ $3 The other pert of the weskness in this possage crises from s theoretical failing thot will be considered in a future article. Jlere it con be seid, briefly, thst he did net, so much coepitulste to Irish noticonelism a6 underestimete it beth for the renson given sbove snd becsuse his whole approcch to the concept of the "Notion" (and hence indeed, of 'stionalism') wes on historical end static. (Undoubtedly, = visible expression of this wos his idecllised view of Celtic society).

But over and ebove Connolly's errors on religion ond the notion (though closely intertwined with them, es hea been shown) were his sttitudes to the n-ture of the State ond of the Gocial Democretic Porty thet would lecd the workers in smoshing it. As Hos slresdy been stated, in this erticle, the essence of the Morxzist view is that the State is the orgenised noliticsl exoression cof the power of the ruling ¢loss the Revisionist view is that it is somehow “sbove' clesses cnd os force for reconciling differences snd the Keutskyist Centrist view is thet it is "formally" the first but thet it cen, in practice be crptured peacefully ~- police, ormy ond 211 by the exploited individurls, Where did Connolly stond in -1l this? In 1916 he wos to plrce himself with the Revolutionrries. iven in 1900 delerates from his ISRP voted in the Second Internstionsl sgoinst Keutsky's compromise on Millerend.

But, - end coming first from the home of Revisionism, it is not surprising - he only developed his fins] position gr-duclly nad with meay l-pses. In his dsys in the ISRP he showed distinct tendencies towcrds s Revisionist ides of the seigure of stote power, His View con be comsees with Koutsky's; theoreticelly Koutsky upheld the .orxist concept of the state but denied in prectice thet it sonlied 2ny ony moment in which he found himself, Connolly tended formeliy st this eric’ te sc¢cent the Revisionist ides thot stzte power could Se 7ciieved by the workers through porlismentery tiesns; he wes coreful to rule out Irelond from this perspective. His senerel statement on ends cnd eons is well known:= "The whele of Irelond for the people of Irelend — their public property to be owned ond operated os o nations] heritage, by the labour of free wen ino free country. Thot in ous ideal, end when you @¢sk whet ore our methods, we reply: ‘Those which lie nesrest our hoads'™, Jorkers' Republic, Sth August 1698 - from Socislism pnd Netions Op Gk pee. % a _ism Four years leter in Americas, he stated, mere certainly: "YT believe firmly that the revolution ry Socialist movement will clweys be numerically weak until the hour of revolution srrives, ond then it will be an enay to get aherents by the thousends as it is naw to get single individuols" - Weekly People, 10th toveuber 1902.

And it wos at this time too thst he wrote in on orticle, leter to be incorporsted in the first pert of Socielism iiade Besy:- ‘Revolution is never precticol + umtil the hour of the Tevolution strikes. ‘THEI it alone is precticol, end 711 the efforts of the conserv-tives ond compromises become the most futile end visionary of human beings", Socialisn lade Easy, Plough Book Service, Dublin, 1971, p28

34 then, but not till tuen, the perty which represents the ruvolution:ry ides is justified in tcking steps to cssume the powers of government and in using the weopons of force to dislodge the usurping closs or sovernment in possession and tresting ite uembers ond supporters 3s usurpers end rebels agoinst the constituted suthorities heve clwoys been trested. In other words, Socislists believe thot the question of force is «f-very minor importonee; the reolly inpertent question is of the principles upon which is Scsed the movement thet usy or may not need the use of force to reslise its object weecans “The bollot-box wes civen us by our asster use it for our own. <b. Us denonustrote 2+ stroneth and intelligence of tae revelutio; hustings ¢ restrua frou which to promulcst = ror their ee let us hat betiet-box th ory ideo: Tetcis sei tae ur principles; Let us arosp the public powers in the interest of tie disi uherited class: let us enulete our fathers ond, like the ‘true wen. of 496" ' ploce ourselves im Line! with the gest cironced bicates of our ofe ond arowing inspiretion cond hepe from the svectecle presented by the world-wide revolt of the workers, »repcre for i coming of the day when the Socialist working=civss of drelond will, through its elected representotives, present ifs dearrd for freedom froa the yoke ors TOVeErning moster cless OF metion = the doy on which the question of merel or physicoel force sholi Be fincliy decided." Ibid, P:P.55-57.

Cf course Connolly wee mot te foresee the dresdful results thot would s¢erueé Dis cless ae tic0se tee fraquent occasions when it did weit — it ted “exssusted 211 the pesceful icons ot its disposcl for the purpése cf demomstreting to the peonle ond their eneuivs thet the now revolutiensry idess do possess the suffroze of the wojority."

The poiut is, however, Gast his opprorch coss show s certrin empericisa stout tie etete which does not inevitobly link his views thereon with the Horxist position ond which, es o matter of foct, were to be supersedaéd for hin by the Anercho-Syndicolist position thst workers! control of ths economy could force the casitslist stete's liquidation. In ether words, for Connolly, the workers could tee over the copiteabist coercive mschinery. the Nerxiat formule wes sud is thet, os em entity, it would heve to be siteshed.

In the iriené Libre orticle slready quoted he duscribeud the state power (“he politics1 power of Government”) as Doing Bitply, "The orgonised forces of the amtion." |o recofnisud, Later in the srticle, thet: the “roupoerte of low end saononoly" nroviced strongholds for the propertied clogses. But he remorked on this only to contest ormunmonts en beholf of “non-nolitics1 co-overstive effort" (es through the co-cnerstive of Sir dorace Plunkiit) es 2 mense towords ochicving Socialist. Connolly wos not ean Anerchiet; his position derived fron the Horxist one - but it was frow the debosed liorxism domihant in the Second International.

ind, of course, just »s this debosement offected the whole onprosech of the mejority of secticns of the fourth Internstionol tow rds their Se ene aS: so @td at sfifect Connolly's oresnuissticnal concept from the berinning. Conditions of bourgsis democrecy poth crested the circumstences for the esteblishment of (ot first, smell) Vested interests in the Socicl Denocrsetic Perty uschines, ond for excuses for loosening Morxist stendords (os on relimion) to expond recruitment quontitctively.

eee Ss. ... ae rane words, yet even with them, it is clear what Connolly means by ‘revyolution", There are quototions in his writings st this time thet fill the fap, In the Manifesto of the ISRP, it is declsred:- "That the conquest by the Socisl Democracy of political power in Parliament, ond on o11 public bedies in Ireland, is the readiest ond most effective meons whereby the revolutionery forces may be orgenised end disciplined to ottein thet end" - Socicliam aud Nationslism, Op Cit.

pelo6. find in the Belfast Shan Van Vocht, of August 1897, be steted:- "In an independent country the election of s gajority of Sociszlist representatives tc the legisloture mesns the conguast of political power by the revolutionery party, and, conmsequentig, the mestery of the military end police forces of the State, which wonid then become the elly of revolution, instesd of its enemyfess "Irelend not being an independent country, the election of a me jority of Socialist Republicans would not, unfortumeteig, plece the fruits of our toil so readily within our gresp. But it would h-ve enother perhaps no less importent effect. lt would seam Ghat for the first time in Irish history a clear m-jority of the respomeibie electorste ef the Irish nation -— men cepeble of beeriig sras = Red registered et the ballot bexes their desire for seperation fram the British Empire. Such ‘a verdict arrived ot not in the tumuitdons =nd, too often fickle enthusiessm of monster meetings, but im fhe sober stmosphere and judicisl calmmess of the polling bocth, would rimg Tike 9 trumpet c71l in the eors alike of our rulers end every enemy of the British imperiel systen. nat would not long survive such » ¢coppum@metson, Ite enemies would read in the verdict thus delivered st the Boliost box 9 pessionste appeal for help ageinst the oppressor, the morei Gmsurrection of the Irish people, which = small expeditionsry force gud wer moeterial might convert into such = militery insurrection ts woald exaeust the power of the empire et home ond render its possessions em @esy prey cbrood.

How Long would such an appeal be disregarded?" — Thad, 5.30 And, in his own party's Workers' Republic of 22nd duly 7899, he stcted, more fully then he hod done before, his verepectivwe for the workers’ seizure of power:- “It may be interesting thon, to plece before our readers the Sociclist Republicon conception of the functions ond usea of physicel force in a populer movement, We neither exelt it into = principle mor repudisete it @s something not to be thought of. Our position towerts it is thot the-use or non-use of force for the renlisotion of the-ideas of progress flwoys hes been and alweys will be determined by the sttitude, not of the perty of progress, but of the soverning cless opposed to thot purty.

If the time should @rrive when the norty of progress finds its way te frecdom barred by the stubborn greed of s possessing closs entrenched vYelind the berries of law snd order; if the perty of progress hos indectrinzted the people -t lerge with the new revolutionsry conception of society snd is there representative of the will of 2 majority of the notion; if it hes exhousted ©11 the tecceful meons ot ites dispossl for the purpose of domonstrsoting to the people ond its enemies thet the new revolutionsry idess do possess the suffrege majority;

& | Th turn this dilution improved conditions for the bureaucrats who encouraged further dilution and so on, ad infinitum. But, ofter Bll, the porties were working in conditions of coi colpe ppecet ive, freedon.

There wes no obvious reason for developing revolutionary consciousness onongst their geadbers. Beth victim end executor of this process. He had lisetionsl] theories in Britsoin where organisotionsl 25 sdvonced os gnywhere. In his first peupblet @ 2nd snd the Means, he gave his views th ‘ ip of the "revolutionary" ce cicess of Irelend, therefore, devolves the task of aticol representetion for their closs os the prelisinery jae conquest of nolitical power. This task can only be fed upon by wen end women who recognise that the first revolutionery army must hornonise in principle with those Be its lost, end thet, therefore, no revolutioniste con Fite the co-operrtion of men or classes whose ideals Beirs, end wion, therefore, they zy be compelled to fight Suture initiel stage of the journey to freedom. To this Belongs cvery section of the properticd closs, end every fa@@et of those classes wico believes in the righteousness of his : = The freedom of the working cless must be the work of £a@ working cless." - Erin's hope, The fnad snd the Mesns/ _ Phe Tew Evongel, op cit. YP. 235-24 These views were deve ~ oped in 1896 to form Connoily's nearest opproxinstien Ko o> Leninist position: NVe ore trode een but we ere wore than trade unioniste.

The trode unionist who is only = trade unionist is to the socislist wheat the believer in constitutioncl monorchy is to > republican. The constitutionel monarchist wishes to Linit the power of the Aing, but still wishes te hove o King; the republicen wishes to sbolish Kinzship and ~uts his trust in the people; the trade unionist wishes to Linit the power of the moester but still wishes to heve tosters: the socinlist es: to hove done with mosters ond pins his frith to the colluctive elligence of s deaocrotic community." - (Workers' Republic) August, 1698 in Yorkers' Republic Turee . Candles Press, n, 1951, PSG, en erticle republished in The New ivengel he exnosed the gZons of his opnrecch:- &isbour uprising st the Irish hocol Governucnt elections a uD spontineously without @ lesder, ond despite the P Berties; wien the .en wie supported it Acve renlised the Stryane to effsuct eny erect imorovetent in their condition igs the Sct dam ef focol bodies, they will seek for 2 peliticol porty which 8m @xaress their cless interests upon 2 rotionel besis ond seeking it find the Soecizlist Porty, resay ond equipped fer the tosk.

rae By our action todey we sre urepering the ground for uore ageressive revolutionory ection when the working cless of Irelend ot lest recognise (sic) in our principles the embodi- .

ment of their hopes; firnly grounded upon our knowledge of the economic besis of sll political action, we confidently await the day when the ever incressing pressure of capitalist society shall brin; the workers inte our ranks - end the destinies of the nation inte our hends". ine New Evenrel 1901 Opt cit p.37 Tt is clear thet what Connolly did wes adapt his larxist enalysis to pit his orgenisctionsl nerenective - elthough there is no reason to presume thet he did so consciously. .lthough Connolly dnoisted that the members of the ISRPF were tore tuan just trede unionists its overage level of consciousness wes not qualitetively superior to that of the trade unionists of the time. The Ferty wee, as indeed, its none implies, not seonsciously llerxist body, but rather s formally Merxist body including sone genuine Marxists.

When it split in 1903 4ts politicel divisions were overleid by rersonelis. as the lsst guote expresses Connolly expected that the workers as 9 whole would develop steadily to becone Socialists becouse of their objective situction (just as he expected the some to heppen to even “unressoning® Irish Yetionslists). thot he did not anticipete wos that the Socialist Parties theuselves might go the other way - which was in fect, wast commonly heppened.

Helped in this motter by the facts of o developed industriol proleterist ond of undemocratic conditions Lenin prepered an orgen-— 4eation thet would be @ horxist bedy in fora :nd in substance and that would mointein a deteruined internel strugsle to keep itself so. His works on porty-building - hot Is fo Be Done ond One step Towoerds, two steps beck - heve been quoted by the present author Sn his introduction to Connolly's Socizlism Hode wasy. (See Op Cit p.i2). Here it is necessery only to quote from them one pessege which stends in stork relief egeinst Connolly's somewhet fotelistic thecretical optinisim:— ‘where follows ¢ reference to the concrete Hussien conditions which fatelisiticelly impel the working cless movenent on to the revclutionory peth. But ... the revolutionery path of the working cless might not be a Sociol Democretic p th. qnen absolution reigned, the Sniire (est Surovecn bourgecisie ‘impelled! deLliberstely impelled, the workers on to the peth ef revolution. fe Sociol Democrsts, however, connot be aetisfied with thot - whet Is To Be Done, Progress Publishers, lloscow 1969, pp 94-95 (Present author's italics.) As en excression of the relevence of ‘Kerxist anolyeis to conditions outside the enclysts immediate idea, tnis can seorcely be bettered.

Tn Irelond, "the Revolutionary path" wes only morched by the workers, as far os a (26 county) bourgeois republic. lo working class lesdership epresred to cerry over the werlers' strugcle into the nehievement of o workers' Republic. Indeed i¢ could not heve appecred, os it wos not crested.

a a i a —~ 4) Connolly was to discover the weaknesses in his parties in Ireland , Britain and America, But by training and environment, it was impossible for him to discover the cure developed by Lenin and the Bolsheviks, His own disgnosis would be in keeping with his original dependence on objective facts (the class nature of individual party members ) as opposed to Lenin's recognition of the value of the subjective element ( Marxist training and education), Instead of working to improve the quality of the cadres in his group, he would rely more than ever on the spontaneous ( trade union ) wisdom of the worker: workers, The only vanguard parties of which he had knowledge were not abie to make revolutions -— even parliamentary "revolutions", He concluded that the concept of the Social Temocratic Party as a revolutionary force was in itself wrong, How he reached this position will be examined more closely in the next article of the series,

CONCLUSION

James Connolly came to the Irish working class as one of the most advanced political cadres of its British opposite numbers. He was, indeed, a cadre of the Second International. But for the International or, more precisely, the Marxist method that powered its theoretical life, he would not have been able to advance as far as he did Irish working clasa consciousness, However, that quality was insufficient for the theoretical needa of his time and place. Connolly's centres of activity -— Edinburgh, Dublin, the urban areas of the USA, Belfast -— could not provide the environmental conditions for @ spontaneous development of his thought further into Bolshevism than it went. Accordingly, Commnolly by himself is an inadequate guide to the Irish wor’ ers. He points towards the October Revolution, but the path he shows has remained for too many as dark and hazardous, without the the extra light provided from the teachings of Lenin, Trotsky and their Internationale,

(NEM? INSTALMENT: AMERTCA)

dee ree ars 4 = Pamphiets available, British Strategy in Northern Ireland — from Order from: the White Paper to the fall of Sunningdale 25p is Flough Book Service What Is Trotekyism? - by Ernest Mandel 410p Top Floor, e Mary Street, James Connolly - Socialism Made Easy 15D Dublin 1.

pee or Trish Nationalism and British Iuperiaiism 25p Plough Book Service - by RF Porn fe Castle Street, Belfast 1.

~. international “4 workers movement read: inprecor INPRECOR os the analytical journal of the Fourth International, published simultaneously every two weeks in English. Spanish, French and German. Price 20p from RMG branches or 30p (including postage and packing) from am Plough Book Services c/o 38 Clanawley Road. Killester. Dublin