The Connolly & religion debate
FOLLOWING Peter Hadden’s article, The real ideas
of James Connolly, (Socialism Today No.100, April-May 2006), Scott
Herbert commented on Connolly’s approach to religion (Letters, Socialism
Today No.101, June 2006).
Connolly’s legacy is not just of historical
interest. The struggle to unite Catholic and Protestant workers against
sectarianism and the bosses remains a central task for socialists in
Northern Ireland. All his political life, James Connolly courageously
sought to unite Catholic and Protestant workers, and workers of no
religion, to resist the bosses, the bigots and imperialism, and to fight
for socialism.
Ireland in the late 19th century and
early 20th century was a deeply religious country. The
majority of the population were oppressed Catholics, living in rural and
urban poverty. The Catholic Church hierarchy, however, was tied to the
Establishment. In the late 19th century, its power and
confidence grew, reflecting the interests and outlook of a rising,
conservative Catholic middle class. This led to pulpit attacks on
militant republicanism and also against trade unionism and socialism.
In this situation, Connolly and his supporters tried
to build mass class organisations and socialist parties. They were often
targeted by clerics and reactionary Catholic organisations, like the
Ancient Order of Hibernians (AOH), which physically attacked public
meetings of Connolly’s Irish Socialist Republican Party (ISRP).
Socialists were often denounced from the pulpit when they stood in
elections.
The early socialist movement also had to overcome
religious sectarianism, mainly in the more industrialised north.
Sectarian divisions between Protestants and Catholics were fostered by
the bosses, to ‘divide and rule’ workers.
Connolly struggled to unite workers in action,
leading strikes and building unions and socialist organisations. He also
replied to Church ideological assaults on socialism. In response to
Father Kane’s clerical attacks on the foundations of socialism, Connolly
wrote Labour, Nationality and Religion (1910). Connolly
brilliantly showed the hypocrisies of the Church leaders, who always
took the side of the oppressors against the oppressed in the national
liberation struggle in Ireland. He also highlighted the Church
hierarchy’s defence of private property and capitalism, in contradiction
to early Christian teachings.
However, while Connolly defended Marxist historical
materialism in Labour, Nationality and Religion and in other
writings as a theory that explained history and capitalism, he stopped
short of giving a thorough-going scientific view of religion. This would
have meant showing the materialist basis of all religious belief. "Man
makes religion, religion does not make man", wrote Karl Marx. The
founder of scientific socialism explained that the roots of religion can
be found in the historic limits of humankind’s understanding of the
natural world and by centuries of social oppression. "Religion is the
sigh of the oppressed creature, the heart of a heartless world… It is
the opium of the people".
When dealing with religion, Connolly tended to
compartmentalise Marxism as a tool for analysing economics and politics.
While Connolly held to the application of historical materialism to
explain successive forms that religion took, he did not apply it
to explain the nature of religion.
As to whether Connolly was personally religious, a
"devout Catholic" as Scott Herbert wrote, there is conflicting opinions
from Connolly’s contemporaries, from historians, and also contradictory
evidence from Connolly’s actions. In the only written record made by
Connolly about his personal position in relation to Catholicism, he
stated: "though I have usually posed as a Catholic, I have not done my
duty for 15 years, and have not the slightest tincture of faith left…"
(Letter from James Connolly to John Carstairs Matheson, 30 January,
1908).
In the end, it remains impossible to know for sure
Connolly’s personal opinions on religious belief, given his
inconsistency on the matter, up until his execution in 1916.
Connolly’s personal beliefs, however, are a
secondary issue. Much more important was his approach to the question of
the socialist party and religion.
Conservative Irish nationalists have long sought to
claim the Marxist revolutionary as one of their own. Some described him
as a ‘Christian Socialist’. But Connolly specifically criticised
Christian Socialism, asking why the socialist movement should allow
Church clergy, "the right to interfere in our politics by giving a
religious name to an economic and political movement?"
Connolly aimed to build mass socialist parties and
he understood that Marxists must do everything possible to involve all
workers in the struggle against capitalism, including those who are
religious. He correctly concentrated on defending socialism against
Church attacks and on exposing the reactionary role the Church hierarchy
plays. But along with his one-sided analysis of religion, Connolly also
thought the Catholic Church tops were not necessarily hostile to
socialist revolution. This led him to believe socialist parties should
not discuss religion.
Connolly believed his Irish Socialist Republican
Party (ISRP) conformed to the practice of socialist parties
internationally, following the German socialists’ Erfurt Programme
(1891), when he declared his party should not be concerned with
questions of religious belief. Connolly went further and "prohibited
discussion of theological or anti-theological questions at its meetings,
public or private". (Workers’ Republic, 17 June 1899)
Under the Erfurt Programme slogan, ‘Religion is a
private matter’, the German social democrats correctly opposed
persecution of Catholics. But from this correct position a distortion of
Marxism emerged; that religion is a ‘private matter’ for the party, as a
whole. In the 1890s, Frederick Engels opposed this view. He insisted
that social democrats regard religion as a private matter in relation to
the individual and the state, but the revolutionary party had to defend
Marxism against ideological attacks, including those from the Church
Establishment. Of course, the revolutionary party must be very sensitive
to those who hold religious views, especially in countries where
religion has mass influence, and people with religious views can join
and participate fully in the party.
In contrast, the ISRP’s position on religion meant
the party was ultra-cautious and defensive towards the Catholic Church.
Attempts to ban religion from discussion proved impossible. At the same
time, the ISRP’s prohibitive policy hindered the development of a core
of Marxist cadres.
The Catholic Church, as an institution, would
inevitably side with reaction, as was shown in Ireland in the years of
revolution and counter-revolution after Connolly’s death. Workers needed
a socialist programme to break them from the political hold of the
Church leaders.
In making these criticisms of Connolly’s approach to
religion, it is necessary to take a balanced view, including his
strengths and weaknesses in developing a position in difficult
circumstances and in relative isolation from other international Marxist
revolutionaries.
In his article (The real ideas of James Connolly),
Peter Hadden discusses Connolly’s call for class unity, and his fight to
achieve it, despite Connolly insufficiently developing a fully rounded
socialist programme to counter genuine Protestant fears of capitalist
Home Rule.
Despite these shortcomings, as Peter Hadden points
out, Connolly left a tradition of courageous struggle to unite Catholic
and Protestant workers against Unionist and Nationalist bosses. Compare
this to the sectarian-based, pro-market economy politics of Sinn Fein
today, which still claims the mantle of Connolly. No doubt many
rank-and-file Sinn Fein supporters, particularly those in the trade
unions, genuinely aim to follow in the footsteps of Connolly, to
struggle for workers’ unity and socialism. But the Sinn Fein leaders
base their support on a nationalist appeal to Catholics, whatever their
‘anti-sectarian’ rhetoric, and, therefore, help to reinforce and deepen
sectarian divisions amongst workers. Connolly completely opposed this
type of nationalist politics, just as much as he opposed bigoted
Unionism. While standing against religious discrimination and injustice,
Connolly always appealed to workers on the basis of their class
interests and in the fight for socialism.
The real traditions of Connolly can be seen, for
example, in Belfast, July 2006, when hundreds of striking postal workers
marched up the ‘Protestant’ Shankill Road and down the ‘Catholic’ Falls
Road. The Socialist Party (sister party of the Socialist Party, England
and Wales) was the only political party with a banner on the march and
won applause for its slogan ‘For Worker's Unity’.
This also provides lessons for socialists in
Britain, and across Europe, who must oppose discrimination and injustice
against Muslims and other minorities, while also appealing to all
workers for unity against the bosses’ and their system. This remains one
of the main legacies of James Connolly, which socialists in Ireland, and
everywhere, should emulate.
Niall Mulholland
London
|