Who was James Connolly (and his theoretical contributions)?

[Die Neue Zeit]

Before I get into a "crisis of theory" mode, I must remark that, just a few moments ago, I read an interesting comment by James Connolly (The Re-Conquest of Ireland):


Add to this the concept of one Big Union embracing all, and you have not only the outline of the most effective form of combination for industrial warfare to-day, but also for Social Administration of the Co-operative Commonwealth of the future.

So, who was James Connolly, and what were his theoretical contributions?

[Forward Union]

So, who was James Connolly, and what were his theoretical contributions?

He was an Irish Republican and Socialist. He argued that the national liberation struggle in Ireland could not be won unless they implimented a socialist sytem afterwards.

"If you remove the English Army tomorrow and hoist the green flag over Dublin Castle, unless you set about the organization of the Socialist Republic your efforts will be in vain. England will 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 in this country and watered with the tears of our mothers and the blood of our martyrs”

He was a member of the IWW and IRSA, and was caught and excecuted by the English after the Easter Uprising. His major theoretical contributions were bringing Socialist politics into Irish Republicanism.

[INDK]

Before I get into a "crisis of theory" mode, I must remark that, just a few moments ago, I read an interesting comment by James Connolly (The Re-Conquest of Ireland):


Add to this the concept of one Big Union embracing all, and you have not only the outline of the most effective form of combination for industrial warfare to-day, but also for Social Administration of the Co-operative Commonwealth of the future.

So, who was James Connolly, and what were his theoretical contributions?

He mainly developed what we know today as "Socialist-Republicanism", particularly the Irish-Nationalist strand of such. He argued the Irish-Republican liberation would be ultimately futile without Socialist implementations on the future society, and he also showed Socialist practical tactics, he was active in the IWW and IRSA, as far as I know.

[Die Neue Zeit]

He was an Irish Republican and Socialist. He argued that the national liberation struggle in Ireland could not be won unless they implemented a socialist sytem afterwards.

"If you remove the English Army tomorrow and hoist the green flag over Dublin Castle, unless you set about the organization of the Socialist Republic your efforts will be in vain. England will 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 in this country and watered with the tears of our mothers and the blood of our martyrs”

I guess that particular argument could be generalized to every national-liberation struggle in the modern era, given that every country is part of the global capitalist system now.


He argued the Irish-Republican liberation would be ultimately futile without Socialist implementations on the future society, and he also showed Socialist practical tactics

I like to know a lot more about his "one big union" idea, and the feasibility of applying some variant of that concept (doesn't have to be an accommodationist, bourgeois-friendly union) to the modern class struggle.

[elijahcraignumbatwo]

I'm not aware of his theoretical writings, and mainly know him through reading Yeats' Autobiography and other Yeats' and Yeats-related books; but he seemed to represent the rights of nations to self-defense extremely well (even though he failed in his attempts).

Does anyone have links to his writings (any of them)?

I remember the phrase in Yeats autobiography: (something similar to) "James Connolly carried a black coffin, "Great Britain" on the top" at some point.

[Tower of Bebel]

I remember him as a writer on the policies of the capitalist nations during World War One. He gave me a better insight into the treatment of 'poor Belgium', a country raped by both Allies and Centrals.

[manic expression]

Other people covered his general contributions to the movement. If you want to read some more specific theoretical positions, I would recommend his analysis of religion and socialism (which is among my favorite writings on the subject):

http://www.marxists.org/archive/connolly/1901/evangel/socrel.htm

More than that, he was undeniably one of the most prolific Marxist writers on the development of Ireland and its relationship to Britain (as well as other topics). I think that Connolly is a very underappreciated Marxist thinker and leader that should be discussed far more within our movement.

Archive of Connolly writings:

http://www.marxists.org/archive/connolly/index.htm

[Die Neue Zeit]

Having read and researched what I needed to read and research, I think that, had Connolly lived until the 1920s, he would have made a far more effective argument against "left-wing communism" than Lenin did.

That Connolly provided a fourth position on national liberation (relative to the popular, unconditional-and-reductionist position, the Leninist-yet-prone-to-opportunism position, and the Luxemburgist-but-albeit-reductionist and left-communist-and-reductionist position against national liberation), intertwining genuine national liberation with socialist revolution (because nations and nationalities, in spite of workers having no countries, do not disappear overnight and result in everyone singing "kumbaya"), was truly revolutionary in avoiding reductionist pitfalls.

That he also extended the potential for labour unions as an immediate (but not necessarily long-term) alternative to party-based politics in the pre-revolutionary epoch (although nowadays there can be immediate mass workers' alternatives to both) demonstrates an inadvertent and unsung mastery of "Erfurtianism" and its merger formula (and the more so when considering the albeit-slow globalization of unions (http://www.revleft.com/vb/globalization-unions-t67682/index.html)).

I did say this anti-reductionist warning (against agreeing with any one "third-generation" Marxist's whole set of positions at the expense of key positions by others that were/are superior), however:

How to Build the [Mass] Party of the Working Class (http://www.revleft.com/vb/build-mass-party-t71399/index.html)


With the clarifications made, we can finally tie in the organizational contributions of all the three revolutionary "third-generation" Marxists: Lenin, Luxemburg, and Connolly.

The revolutionary and reformist poles are more or less proto-parties within some sort of mass network. You should clarify on the initial size of the two poles, because my thinking is that the revolutionary pole should start out as small as Lenin's Bolsheviks. Meanwhile, that mass network SHOULD be distinctively working class (and preferrably international in its operations, too). That past message of mine regarding the "Party of World Revolution" - that's an internationalist party that doesn't accept non-workers.

With this working-class distinction, the network as a whole could thus be akin to Connolly's "one big union" ("Add to this the concept of one Big Union embracing all and you not only have THE OUTLINE of the most effective form of combination for Industrial Warfare today..."), and will eventually give rise to Luxemburg's revolutionary mass party as the vanguard.

[cameron222]

"the popular, unconditional-and-reductionist position, the Leninist-yet-prone-to-opportunism position, and the Luxemburgist-but-albeit-reductionist and left-communist-and-reductionist position against national liberation)"

can you explain that toi me?

[Die Neue Zeit]

The first was about unconditional support for all secessionist movements, even outright reactionary ones just for the sake of anti-US "anti-imperialism."

The second was more qualified. The third - principled opposition - is too simplistic.

[PRC-UTE]

Here's an article on Connolly's contributions that a comrade posted: http://www.saoreire.com/James%20Connolly%20and%20the%20IWW.htm

[PRC-UTE]

and btw, the only party today that upholds Connolly is the IRSP: http://irsm.org/irsp/

[Die Neue Zeit]

^^^ Why don't more parties - especially abroad - uphold Connolly? :(

[PRC-UTE]

^^^ Why don't more parties - especially abroad - uphold Connolly? :(

I couldn't tell you why abroad, that would take an historian with the knowledge and research that I lack to answer, but the IWW do uphold Connolly to an extent, even named a GMB in the States after James.

At home I'd say it's because Connolly failed to build up a revolutionary party with trained cadres to continue his views after death;

many of his most ardent followers were later killed, imprisoned, exhausted, and so on after the Civil War;

the influence of Trotskyism which is mostly hostile to Connolly's ideas (not on paper, but in practice);

the counter-revolution that established the Irish Free State and even elements within the Republican Movement suppressed his memory (and more importantly, what he stood for)

and also probably because many within the Left have come to lump all strands of republicanism (whether socialist or not) with bourgeois nationalism and treat them the same.

[Die Neue Zeit]

the influence of Trotskyism which is mostly hostile to Connolly's ideas (not on paper, but in practice)

Just goes to show how political bankrupt revisionist Trotskyism (with its sectarianism) is in the modern world, doesn't it? :(