Understanding Easter 1916 - Connolly

[Andropov]

This article appeared in the Workers Republic on the 8th of April 1916, directly before the 1916 Rising.

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.
It means that in the midst of and despite the treasons and backslidings of leaders and guides, in the midst of and despite all the weaknesses, corruption and moral cowardice of a section of the people, in the midst of and despite all this there still remains in Ireland a spot where a body of true men and women are ready to hoist, gather round, and to defend the flag made sacred by all the sufferings of all the martyrs of the past.

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

Since this unholy war first started we have seen every symbol of Irish freedom desecrated to the purposes of the enemy, we have witnessed the prostitution of every holy Irish tradition. That the young men of Ireland might be seduced into the service of the nation that denies every national power to their country, we have seen appeals made to our love of freedom, to our religious instincts, to our sympathy for the oppressed, to our kinship with suffering.
The power that for seven hundred years has waged bitter and unrelenting war upon the freedom of Ireland, and that still declares that the rights of Ireland must forever remain subordinate to the interests of the British Empire, hypocritically appealed to our young men to enlist under her banner and shed their blood ‘in the interests of freedom’.
The power whose reign in Ireland has been one long carnival of corruption and debauchery of civic virtue, and which has rioted in the debasement and degradation of everything Irish men and women hold sacred, appealed to us in the name of religion to fight for her as the champion of Christendom.
The power which holds in subjection more of the world’s population than any other power on the globe, and holds them in subjection as slaves without any guarantee of freedom or power of self-government, this power that sets Catholic against Protestant, the Hindu against the Mohammedan, the yellow man against the brown, and keeps them quarrelling with each other whilst she robs and murders them all – this power appeals to Ireland to send her sons to fight under England’s banner for the cause of the oppressed. The power whose rule in Ireland has made of Ireland a desert, and made the history of our race read like the records of a shambles, as she plans for the annihilation of another race appeals to our manhood to fight for her because of our sympathy for the suffering, and of our hatred of oppression.

The cause of labour is the cause of Ireland, the cause of Ireland is the cause of labour. They cannot be dissevered

For generations the shamrock was banned as a national emblem of Ireland, but in her extremity England uses the shamrock as a means for exciting in foolish Irishmen loyalty to England. For centuries the green flag of Ireland was a thing accurst and hated by the English garrison in Ireland, as it is still in their inmost hearts. But in India, in Egypt, in Flanders, in Gallipoli, the green flag is used by our rulers to encourage Irish soldiers of England to give up their lives for the power that denies their country the right of nationhood. Green flags wave over recruiting offices in Ireland and England as a bait to lure on poor fools to dishonourable deaths in England’s uniform.
The national press of Ireland, the true national press, uncorrupted and unterrified, has largely succeeded in turning back the tide of demoralization, and opening up the minds of the Irish public to a realization of the truth about the position of their country in the war. The national press of Ireland is a real flag of freedom flying for Ireland despite the enemy, but it is well that also there should fly in Dublin the green flag of this country as a rallying point of our forces and embodiment of all our hopes. Where better could that flag fly than over the unconquered citadel of the Irish working class, Liberty Hall, the fortress of the militant working class of Ireland.

In these days of doubt, despair, and resurgent hope we fling our banner to the breeze, the flag of our fathers, the symbol of our national redemption, the sunburst shining over an Ireland re-born

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 lawyer; 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.
The cause of labour is the cause of Ireland, the cause of Ireland is the cause of labour. They cannot be dissevered. Ireland seeks freedom. Labour seeks that an Ireland free should be the sole mistress of her own destiny, supreme owner of all material things within and upon her soil. Labour seeks to make the free Irish nation the guardian of the interests of the people of Ireland, and to secure that end would vest in that free Irish nation all property rights as against the claims of the individual, with the end in view that the individual may be enriched by the nation, and not by the spoiling of his fellows.
Having in view such a high and holy function for the nation to perform, is it not well and fitting that we of the working class should fight for the freedom of the nation from foreign rule, as the first requisite for the free development of the national powers needed for our class? It is so fitting. Therefore on Sunday, 16 April 1916 the green flag of Ireland will be solemnly hoisted over Liberty Hall as the symbol of our faith in freedom, and as a token to all the world that the working class of Dublin stands for the cause of Ireland, and the cause of Ireland is the cause of a separate and distinct nationality.
In these days of doubt, despair, and resurgent hope we fling our banner to the breeze, the flag of our fathers, the symbol of our national redemption, the sunburst shining over an Ireland re-born.

-James Connolly

[pastradamus]

Good piece.

[Tower of Bebel]

Why did Connolly agree with this Easter Rising? Wasn't he a proponent of a more-or-less national uprising in close cooperation with the trade unions (labour) all over the country? I'm only recently learning about Connolly and irish labour, so forgive me if I'm wrong, but didn't Connolly know that this action, because of its small size, w/could fail and destroy the movement?

[Coggeh]

Why did Connolly agree with this Easter Rising? Wasn't he a proponent of a more-or-less national uprising in close cooperation with the trade unions (labour) all over the country? I'm only recently learning about Connolly and irish labour, so forgive me if I'm wrong, but didn't Connolly know that this action, because of its small size, w/could fail and destroy the movement?
http://www.marxist.com/History/easter_rising401.html
Check that out . Really good article .

I think this passage may shed some light on your question :


Was Connolly right to move when he did?

The question is a difficult one. The conditions were frankly unfavourable.

Although there were strikes in Ireland right up to the outbreak of the Rising, the Irish working class had been exhausted and weakened by the exertions of the lockout.

There were rumours that the British authorities were planning to arrest the leading Irish revolutionaries. Connolly finally decided to throw everything into the balance.

He drew the conclusion that it was better to strike first. He aimed to strike a blow that would break the ice and show the way, even at the cost of his own life. To fight and lose was preferable than to accept and capitulate.


When Connolly marched out of Liberty Hall for the last time that fateful morning, he whispered to a comrade: "We are going out to be slaughtered." When the latter asked him: "Is there no chance of success?" he replied: "None whatever."

[pastradamus]

Why did Connolly agree with this Easter Rising? Wasn't he a proponent of a more-or-less national uprising in close cooperation with the trade unions (labour) all over the country? I'm only recently learning about Connolly and irish labour, so forgive me if I'm wrong, but didn't Connolly know that this action, because of its small size, w/could fail and destroy the movement?

A good point and a good question. Though Many Historians later said this was because Connolly accepted Paidraig Pearse's call for "Blood Sacrifice" this is largely unfounded and the contrary proves otherwise.

Firstly we have to examine the militant role of James Connolly. In 1913 the Irish Citizen Army had been formed initially as a workers' defence force - the first ever armed and uniformed socialist militia in Europe. Under Connolly, it was organised as an insurrectionary force and even before the other elements of the Irish revolutionary movement were ready, Connolly was considering using the ICA to start an insurrection in the hope that it would spark off a national uprising.He Stated the purpose of the ICA.

"We believe in constitutional action in normal times; we believe in revolutionary action in exceptional times. These are exceptional times."

When the poet and educationalist Pádraic Pearse, who was to be the president of the provisional government in 1916 and leader of the 1916 easter rising, once spoke of the battlefields of Europe and how "heroism has come back to the earth", Connolly's reaction was "blitherin' idiot!"
As a realist, Connolly took it on himself to study insurrectionary warfare and to instruct the Citizen Army in what they would be facing. The articles he published, subsequently re-published as Revolutionary Warfare, demonstrated that Connolly was the most prepared and practical of the Irish leaders organising military resistance.
In criticism of Connolly, it has been stated that he believed the British military would not use artillery in Dublin because capitalists would hesitate to destroy capitalist property. A reading of his articles demonstrates that Connolly could not have entertained any such naïve notion. And, indeed, not only field guns were used to crush the insurrection but also a warship, HMS Helga, steamed up the Liffey to pound Dublin and her citizens with her guns.
Connolly, from everything he wrote, said and did, was not taking part in the 1916 insurrection to fail nor to become part of the mythical 'blood sacrifice' which later historians have created either because they want to romanticise what happened or because they deliberately want to mislead people.
The revolutionaries of 1916 went out with the desire to win. There is, in fact, no suggestion from any of the leaders of 1916 that they were taking part in a rising that was inevitably doomed to failure.

The Bottom Line is, Connolly, one of the foremost Marxist theoreticians of his day, had neither changed a lifetime of views nor simply "ran amok". Neither was he an advocate of what many historians later tried to claim the 1916 insurrection was - a 'blood sacrifice'. His role in 1916 was the logical progression of his life's work and teachings that had clearly been in print in articles and books written during the twenty years before the event. Connolly Basically understood that to wage warfare and eventually succeed he was going to have to work with other organisations inculding the IRA & IRB. He had made clear his stand for an independent Irish socialist republic from the outset. He had also made it clear that he was pragmatic enough to understand that, given the circumstances of the time, socialists would have to engage with all the elements that sought a separation from Britain. Socialists, in the anti-colonial struggle, would have to co-operate with other groups to achieve Irish independence.

[Leo]

Why did Connolly agree with this Easter Rising? Wasn't he a proponent of a more-or-less national uprising in close cooperation with the trade unions (labour) all over the country? I'm only recently learning about Connolly and irish labour, so forgive me if I'm wrong, but didn't Connolly know that this action, because of its small size, w/could fail and destroy the movement?

Here's an article dealing with the situation and the reasons Connolly took this tragic course: http://en.internationalism.org/wr/292_1916_rising.html


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."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."

[pastradamus]

"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."

Thats Connolly's classic quote.

Here's a good one which I feel can be reflective of most, if not all societies.
Ireland, as distinct from her people, is nothing to me; and the man who is bubbling over with love and enthusiasm for “Ireland,” and can yet pass unmoved through our streets and witness all the wrong and the suffering, the shame and the degradation wrought upon the people of Ireland—yea, wrought by Irishmen upon Irish men and women, without burning to end it, is, in my opinion, a fraud and a liar in his heart, no matter how he loves that combination of chemical elements he is pleased to call Ireland.

[PRC-UTE]

Connolly saw removing the British presence in Ireland as an essential step towards socialism. Not separate from socialism, but a logical priority.

the real tragedy, aside from Lenin's comment that the Irish acted earlier than the rest of the European working class was that Connolly did not build up a political organisation capable of leading events after him. The CPI did gain some influence within the IRA during the civil war, but too little too late

[PeaderO'Donnell]

Connolly saw removing the British presence in Ireland as an essential step towards socialism. Not separate from socialism, but a logical priority.

the real tragedy, aside from Lenin's comment that the Irish acted earlier than the rest of the European working class was that Connolly did not build up a political organisation capable of leading events after him. The CPI did gain some influence within the IRA during the civil war, but too little too late

According to the Starry Plough of October/November 2004 James Larkin attended the the first congress of the Communist Workers International and maintained close links with the English Communist Sylvia Pankhurst. So it would seem that his Irish Workers League (?) was opposed to the CPI who's programme Sylvia Pankhurst exposed as being non-Communist for more idealogical reasons than the offical history of the CPI admits.

Sylvia Pankhurst's critque of the CPI's programme is worth reading still as a clear exposition of the differences between Communism and State Capitalism.

http://www.marxists.org/archive/pankhurst-sylvia/1922/ireland.htm

I think that Connolly understood that fight against British Capital and its State in Ireland was fundamentally proletarian in nature. Something that the two largest Communist organizations in Britian in the 80s and 90s, Class War Federation and Red Action (though they later degenerated into Parlimentarianism) also recognized. By not recognizing this fact the Internationalist Communist Current is in reality creating divisions between the English and Irish Working classes rather than seeking to link up struggles and expose their common nature. It's attitude towards the potentially social-fascist organization Orangize! is also worrying.

[Jorge Miguel]

Great posts all around comrades. Maith thú.

[Pirate turtle the 11th]

Class War Federation and Red Action (though they later degenerated into Parlimentarianism

Erm wtf are you on about. Class war shrunk during the late 90s and red action was replaced by Antifa.

[PeaderO'Donnell]

Erm wtf are you on about. Class war shrunk during the late 90s and red action was replaced by Antifa.

During the 1980s and for most of the 1990s (though yes Class War had shrunk by the late 90s and Red Action was fading away by than) they were the largest Communist groups in England, were they not?

Certainly in the 1980s were they not the largest?

BTW does the Anarchist Federation have links to Organize in the occupied six counties?

[Leo]

Connolly saw removing the British presence in Ireland as an essential step towards socialism. Not separate from socialism, but a logical priority.

Well, if we look at the next sentence: England would still rule you. She would rule you through her capitalists, through her landlords, through her financiers, through the whole array of commercial and individualist institutions she has planted...

I don't think this quote supports your point at all. I think in 1916 Connolly unfortunately had gone a bit far from his own words, and died in vain, for hoisting the green flag without setting about the organisation of the Socialist Republic.


I think that Connolly understood that fight against British Capital and its State in Ireland was fundamentally proletarian in nature (...) By not recognizing this fact the Internationalist Communist Current is in reality creating divisions between the English and Irish Working classes rather than seeking to link up struggles and expose their common nature.

Which struggle against "British state and capital" are you referring to? Whose struggle are you referring to? Of course both the Irish and English workers have indeed a common nature in that their interests require them to struggle directly against the British state and capital. On the other hand is Irish nationalism, with all its organizations a struggle against British capital in any way? Is it capable of it? Can nationalism have a proletarian basis? If would this not imply a position similar to proletarian nations theory rather than proletarian internationalism?

[PRC-UTE]

Well, if we look at the next sentence: England would still rule you. She would rule you through her capitalists, through her landlords, through her financiers, through the whole array of commercial and individualist institutions she has planted...

I don't think this quote supports your point at all. I think in 1916 Connolly unfortunately had gone a bit far from his own words, and died in vain, for hoisting the green flag without setting about the organisation of the Socialist Republic.

Not to sound disrespectful or stirring, but I've never been sure why you've put this quote to me. I agree with Connolly that uprooting capitalism is part of national liberation. That's what makes the republican socialist tradition distinct from the RM and the "stagist" communists.

You can claim that Connolly abandoned the socialist republic, and that interpretation is shared by some others. However Connolly was an anti-imperialist before 1916 and always stated that setting up an independent republic was necessary for building socialism. I don't see that he actually abandoned the socialist republic. His thinking was that striking a blow against Britain when she was at her weakest was a starting point.

If you mean that Connolly failed to build a republican socialist party, then I agree, but that's another discussion.

[Devrim]

To clarify on a few points of recent history;



Class War Federation and Red Action (though they later degenerated into Parlimentarianism Erm wtf are you on about. Class war shrunk during the late 90s and red action was replaced by Antifa.

Red Action did go into electorialism joining the RCP's 'Red Front' in the mid-80s, and the Socialist Alliance at the end of the 90s.

I think the successor of Red Action if anybody is the IWCA. AFA was replaced by Antifa.


During the 1980s and for most of the 1990s (though yes Class War had shrunk by the late 90s and Red Action was fading away by than) they were the largest Communist groups in England, were they not?

Certainly in the 1980s were they not the largest?

It depends which groups you define as communist. Class War wouldn't have even been the largest anarchist group though being smaller than the anarcho-syndicalist DAM for example.

It is difficult to judge as CWF didn't have membership, but I reckon that they had around 100 people at their peak in the late 80s. I am not sure about RA, but I would guess at a little smaller.


BTW does the Anarchist Federation have links to Organize in the occupied six counties?

Organise in Northern Ireland was formed by a merge of an older group also called 'Organise' with AF members in Ireland.

Devrim

[Tower of Bebel]

Connolly lacked the patience to build a solid, revolutionary organization. Maybe his involvement with the rising was an attempt to activate the masses. It failed, but it could explain his own involvement without having to resort to sayings like "he betrayed his own words". Connolly knew that only the working class was capable of removing the British. He knew that only their republic could be free.

[Andropov]

Connolly lacked the patience to build a solid, revolutionary organization.
Connolly did attempt this when he formed the ISRP but it never took off the ground, never having a membership of more than 80.


Maybe his involvement with the rising was an attempt to activate the masses. It failed,
I disagree.
If you look at how the masses were invovled in the war of independance and how soviets began springing up around the nation, with even the whole of Limerick coming under a soviet you can see how his action in 1916 did help spark a working class mobilisation.
Unfortunately alot of the working class activism and strikes were washed over in history.
One example of this was that the Train drivers Union refused to permit British Soldiers or British armaments on trains during the War of Independance.
If anything it was the complete lack of militancy in the leadership of the Labour movement that failed, their leadership at this time was a calamity, they sold the working class out.


but it could explain his own involvement without having to resort to sayings like "he betrayed his own words". Connolly knew that only the working class was capable of removing the British. He knew that only their republic could free.
True.

[Tower of Bebel]

By failed I actually meant that, even though the civil war saw the participation of the toiling classes, it didn't succeed because the working class lacked the strong mass organizations it needed to offer an alternative to capitalist exploitation (in the form of reformist leadership for example). This again refers to what I wrote earlier that he would have "lacked the patience to build a solid, revolutionary organization".

But didn't the civil war start after 1916?

[Andropov]

By failed I actually meant that, even though the civil war saw the participation of the toiling classes, it didn't succeed because the working class lacked the strong mass organizations it needed to offer an alternative to capitalist exploitation (in the form of reformist leadership for example). This again refers to what I wrote earlier that he would have "lacked the patience to build a solid, revolutionary organization".
The working class did have strong Unions at this time with highly radicalised membership but as you said the leadership in Labour at this time did sell them out.
There was a brilliant documentary done by TG4 about the role of Labour in the War of Independance that you might find interesting, ill have a look for it.


But didn't the civil war start after 1916?
Yes it did indeed, but I would see the Rising as the spark of the War of Independance, the catalyst so to speak.

[PRC-UTE]

By failed I actually meant that, even though the civil war saw the participation of the toiling classes, it didn't succeed because the working class lacked the strong mass organizations it needed to offer an alternative to capitalist exploitation (in the form of reformist leadership for example). This again refers to what I wrote earlier that he would have "lacked the patience to build a solid, revolutionary organization".

You do have a point. bourgeois historians basically agree as well: the failure of the Limerick Soviet to spread is usually attributed to the reformist trade union leadership throughout the country that wouldn't back it.

[BOZG]

It's attitude towards the potentially social-fascist organization Orangize! is also worrying.

Could you at least provide some evidence before slandering organisations as potential social-fascists?

[pastradamus]

Which struggle against "British state and capital" are you referring to? Whose struggle are you referring to? Of course both the Irish and English workers have indeed a common nature in that their interests require them to struggle directly against the British state and capital. On the other hand is Irish nationalism, with all its organizations a struggle against British capital in any way? Is it capable of it? Can nationalism have a proletarian basis? If would this not imply a position similar to proletarian nations theory rather than proletarian internationalism?

Leo its all good and well to look back at this with the luxury of hindsight. The fact of the matter is that the Irish Populace was the most bitterly oppressed people in western Europe for the previous 100 years (at least). Famine was widespread (not only happening during the 1845-1850 great potato famine period, but also occurred during the 1860's, 70's, 80's in many area's), people were poorly educated, Numerous Uprisings and rebellions and there was massive land struggles going on at the time - which I would argue is probably the biggest land struggle in western European History speaking proportionally of course, as well as huge emigration. So its easy to point out the utter detestiblity of the UK government from the Irish peasants perspective. Its obvious Irish people saw their UK counterparts as being different in one sense. The UK had trampled on every ounce of pesent/working class freedom for the last few hundred years - they had every reason not to like Britain or their people -keep in mind that they were largely uneducated (let alone aware of internationalism) The Home Rule movement began with Parnell and the Irish Working class were appeased with this Idea momentarily but after almost 20 years campaigning for home rule it descended into direct Nationalism as people became impatient and tired of the Parnellites.
Now, Many Socialists and Leftist romanticists like to think of Marx as being the primary influence in Irish Peasant/Working class thought during this time. This is very untrue as the mentality at the time probably owed more to Thomas Paine's "rights of man" than anything else really. We only really firstly see Marxism coming into real view during the 1913 Dublin Lockout, thought the ISRP were founded previously to this it was not very popular. Syndicalist, James Larkin (affectionately known as "big jim") and Connolly were responsible for this first introduction of class conscientiousness. The lockout created a boom in leftism and this is what gave way to an Irish Citizens army's surge in Numbers and this is Connolly's group in the Easter rising of course. I think what one must bear in mind is that Connolly could do nothing in an undemocratic society where Socialism of Any form was punished severly and more so than calls for independance - and so felt if the UK government was overthrown he could finally get a shout-in as to the running of the state. I also believe that Connolly was an Internationalist. He frequently went to the UK, USA and others promoting leftist idea's. Had he not been interested in Internationalism and working class struggle worldwide he simply would not have went. Connolly's works in Both the Belfast and Dublin unions show him as an enemy of sectarianism as in Belfast we see the Dock workers of varying backgrounds uniting under Socialism and solidarity through Connolly.

In the End, Connolly and Larkin alike were the greatest political Irishmen ever in my opinion. They were grassroots leaders who worked from the bottom up and helped beat down the claws of Imperialism as well as that of capitalist William Martin Murphy - Although the actions of the ITGWU and the smaller UBLU were unsuccessful in achieving substantially better pay and conditions for the workers, they marked a watershed in Irish labour history. The principle of union action and workers' solidarity had been firmly established; no future employer would ever try to "break" a union in the way that Murphy attempted with the ITGWU.

[Pogue]

Why did Connolly agree with this Easter Rising? Wasn't he a proponent of a more-or-less national uprising in close cooperation with the trade unions (labour) all over the country? I'm only recently learning about Connolly and irish labour, so forgive me if I'm wrong, but didn't Connolly know that this action, because of its small size, w/could fail and destroy the movement?

Well intially, it could have met with more success, if it wasn't for the fact that only a small amount of the planned militants actually went out onto the streets due to poor communications (the plan to attack was taken back but the ICA and others were not notified). Also, the positions they took were tactically and strategically awful, for example the GPO was a very hard building to defend.

Also theres the point that no one expected the British to shell 'their own' buildings.

[Tower of Bebel]

Well intially, it could have met with more success, if it wasn't for the fact that only a small amount of the planned militants actually went out onto the streets due to poor communications (the plan to attack was taken back but the ICA and others were not notified). Also, the positions they took were tactically and strategically awful, for example the GPO was a very hard building to defend.

Also theres the point that no one expected the British to shell 'their own' buildings.
What do you mean by success? Do you mean that it could probably have succeeded if it wasn't for those military and tactical failures?

[Andropov]

What do you mean by success? Do you mean that it could probably have succeeded if it wasn't for those military and tactical failures?
Indeed if there was a national uprising and not merely confined to Dublin and some minor skirmishes around the country.
But the IRB's betrayal of O'Neills trust, O'Neill being the leader of the irish Volunteers, ment that the vast man power and resources at the disposal of the Irish Volunteers were not utilised.
A considerable amount of the Irish Volunteers did join the Brits in WW1 but there was enough of an Irish Volunteer presence to possibly stimulate a National Uprising if they did fully back the rebels.