Plea For Socialist Unity in Ireland by James Connolly
All thoughtful men and women who observe the political situations of their
countries must realise that Ireland is on the verge of one of the most
momentous constitutional changes in her history. Some form of self-government
seems practically certain of realisation, not because of the increased fervour
of the national demand, nor yet because, as Tory bigots blatantly assert, of
the position of Mr. Redmond, but from the fact that there is no economic class
in Ireland today whose interests as a class are bound up with the Union. The
Irish landlords who had indeed something to fear from a Home Rule Parliament
elected largely by tenant farmers, as would have been the case in the past,
have now made their bargain under the various Land Purchase Acts, and, being
economically secured, are now politically indifferent. Only the force of
religious bigotry remains as an asset to Unionism.
It may be assumed that the 12th of July parade in Belfast this year will be
exceptionally large, as every effort will be made, and no money spared, to make
an imposing turnout in the hopes of, at the last moment, averting Home Rule,
but the parade will be as the last flicker of the dying fire which blazes up
before totally expiring. A spell of bad trade in Belfast might have enabled
Orange orators to stir up rioting among idle mobs, but the rush of good trade
we are at present enjoying destroys any chance of such senseless exhibitions.
The Orangemen of today may hate the Pope, but he hates still more to lose time
by rioting, when he might make money by working, and in this he shows the
"good sense which pre-eminently distinguishes the city by the Lagan."
Home Rule, then, is almost a certainty of the future.
What are Irish Socialists doing in these circumstances? Are they exhibiting any
Statesmanlike grasp of the situation, or are they still peddling along on
sterile street corner theorisings without making any effort to consolidate
their forces to seize the greater opportunities that are almost at their
doors?
Let me attempt to answer this question.
There are in Ireland today two forms of Socialist organisations - the
Independent Labour Party and the Socialist Party of Ireland. The former is
strongest in the North, the latter strongest in the South, although it also has
an active Branch in Belfast. The question which naturally arises as to whether
there is any fundamental difference in policy or tactics between those two
parties can be best answered by stating the attitude of the Socialist Party of
Ireland (S.P.I.) towards the Irish Branches of the Independent Labour Party
(I.L.P.). The S.P.I., then, is so convinced of the need of unity among
Socialists in Ireland that it is ready at any time to have a joint convention
with the I.L.P., and to give to the delegates of such convention the power to
debate and agree upon all questions of tactics, policy, and name for a new
organisation to embrace all sections of the movement in Ireland. It believes
that these questions which divide Socialists are not serious enough to warrant
separate organisations in the one country, but can well be debated within one
organisation; it maintains that the points upon which we disagree are not
nearly so serious as the points upon which we thoroughly agree, and that there
are more serious points of divergence between the various sections of the
I.L.P. (or of the S.P.I.) than there are between the l.L.P. and the S.P.I., as
organisations. What, then, keeps the two organisations divided? Laying aside
all questions of personality, personal ambitions, and personal jealousies as
being accidental and inessential, it may be truthfully asserted that the one
point of divergence is that the I.L.P. in Belfast believes that the Socialist
movement in Ireland must per force remain a dues-paying, organic part of the
British Socialist movement, or else forfeit its title to be considered a part
of International Socialism, whereas the Socialist Party of Ireland maintains
that the relations between Socialism in Ireland and in Great Britain should be
based upon comradeship and mutual assistance, and not upon dues paying, should
be fraternal and not organic, and should operate by exchange of literature and
speakers rather than by attempts to treat as one two peoples of whom one has
for 700 years nurtured an unending martyrdom rather than admit the unity or
surrender its national identity. The Socialist Party of Ireland considers
itself the only International Party in Ireland, since its conception of
Internationalism is that of a free federation of free peoples, whereas that
of the Belfast branches of the I.L.P. seems scarcely distinguishable from
Imperialsim, the merging of subjugated peoples in the political system of their
conquerors. For the propagation universally of our ideal of a true
internationalism there is only required the spread of reason and enlightenment
amongst the peoples of the earth, whereas the conception of Internationalism
tacitly accepted by our Comrades of the I.L.P. in Belfast required for its
spread the flash of the sword of militarism, and the roar of a British 80-ton
gun. We cannot conceive why our Comrades should insist that we are not
Internationalists, and that we cannot be, unless we treat the Socialists of
Great Britain better than we treat the Socialists of the Continent, or of
America, or Australia.
This is a unique conception of Internationalism, unique and peculiar to
Belfast. There is no "most favoured nation clause" in Socialist diplomacy, and
we, as Socialists in Ireland, can not afford to establish such a precedent.
Observe how this peculiarly Belfast attitude affects the development of
Socialism in Ireland.
As everyone acquainted with Ireland knows, Nationalist Ireland contains all the
elements of social struggles and worrying political theories. The fight of the
landlord against the tenant, and the capitalist against the labourer, and vice
versa, has ever waged in Ireland as fiercely as elsewhere. In the Nationalist
ranks the democrat and the aristocrat, the revolutionist and the opportunist,
all fight their battles, and, though weaker than the others, the Socialist also
holds his own and delivers his message.
But in all this warring the advanced sections of Nationalist Ireland have
looked in vain for help to the "sturdy Protestant democracy of the North."
At last, however, there arises in Belfast the Independent Labour Party, and
hope of assistance springs up in the breasts of the battlers in the South. At
last reinforcements are coming, it is thought, Protestant and Catholic working
men and women can now unite as they have not done for a century in a common
warfare against our common enemy. But slowly the news penetrates to us that
Belfast refuses to recognise Ireland; its Labour men are so busy cheering
Labour victories in England that it can give no time, nor hope, nor even
encourage ment to the men and women who are pioneering in Ireland. Finally,
Belfast runs a Labour candidate, who declares publicly that he will vote
against Home Rule or National Freedom, and the conviction spreads throughout
Ireland that the rise of the I.L.P. in Belfast means nothing for social
democracy in Ireland, but is simply the sign of a family quarrel among the
Unionists.
Finally, I.L.P. men, delegates to the Irish Trades' Congress, vote at that
gathering against the establishment of a Labour Party in Ireland. And this
crime against the rise of a native Labour movement is committed in the name of
Internationalism!!!
I have a great admiration for Comrade Walker, of Belfast, and I regretted the
manifesto issued against him by the Irish Socialists during his Leith contest,
but I am glad that he was defeated in North Belfast. This victory would have
killed the hopes of Socialism among Irish Nationalists the world over. Not only
in Ireland, but all over the continent of America and Australia, wherever
Irishmen live and work, a vote given by Comrade Walker in the House of Commons
against Home Rule would have filled the Irish with such an unreasoning and
inveterate hatred of the cause that they would be lost to it for a generation.
But imagine what our situation would have been in the rest of Ireland if the
only Irish Socialist M.P. had voted against Home Rule. The cause in Ireland
would have been completely discredited and damned. Nor would his opposition to
Home Rule have softened the wrath or averted the hatred of the loyalists.
Amongst the loyalists the I.L.P. in Ireland are believed to be Home Rulers,
but, as they refuse to organise on an Irish basis, amongst the Home Rulers the
I.L.P. are looked upon as Unionists-Labour Unionists, it is true, but still
Unionists. And Unionism in Ireland means Toryisrn.
Now what is going to be done! Another Irish Trades' Congress is at hand, and
already I see from the agenda that the same crime is being planned against the
idea of a Labour Party in Ireland. The Trades' Council of Dublin have a motion
in favour of the establishment of a Labour Party in Ireland; the Trades'
Council of Belfast have a motion recommending, as the best means of securing
Labour representation, that Trades Unions in Ireland be recommended to join the
Labour Party (in England). The Dublin motion sets an example which every
Trades' Council in Nationalist Ireland would follow: the Belfast motion would
be limited in its following to Belfast. But then the Socialist movement would
be saved the danger (?) of the rise of a political Labour movement in Ireland.
So would Irish capitalism and clericalism.
Is it too late to appeal to our Belfast Comrades of the I.L.P. to come out of
their impossibilist position? Why sacrifice all Ireland for the sake of a part
of Belfast? The Socialist Party of Ireland asks them what harm can come from
organising on the basis of Irish political life, in view of the fact that in a
few years some form of legislative independence is sure to be established in
Ireland. Are we to wait until that event occurs, and then rush around trying to
do by means of meetings and oratory what should have been prepared for by long
and patient organising and upbuilding? If the first elections in Ireland to a
Home Rule Parliament finds the forces of Socialism unprepared to enter the
field, there will be an awful responsibility at the door of some party, but not
at the doors of the Socialist Party of Ireland.
We, I repeat, are willing and anxious to sit down in Convention with our
I.L.P. Comrades in order to frame a programme and decide upon a policy and name
for a Socialist organisation in Ireland, provided that it be conceded that such
organisation be controlled in Ireland, recognise Ireland's right to
self-government, and maintains equal friendly relations with Socialists of all
nations, irrespective of the Government under which they live.
Is that too much to ask for?
Forward, May 27th, 1911
Top of Page
Rebel Ireland: And Its Protestant Leaders by William Walker
SOCIALISM IN BELFAST
What is Socialism? Such must be the query each of your readers must have
pondered over, when they perused Comrade Connolly's article in last week's
issue. For if what he preaches therein be Socialism, then surely he has a
monopoly of the brand he adumbrates.
He utilises the first two paragraphs to attack Belfast and all within its
borders, and draws a lurid picture of what the "Orange orators" would do, etc.,
"if trade were bad." A picture that, however true of 20 years' ago, is totally
false as applied to the present day. For I affirm that it has now become
impossible in Belfast to have a religious riot, and this is due to the good
work done by that much despised body, the I.L.P.
I hold no brief for Belfast, but past bigotry aside, we have moved fast towards
Municipal Socialism, leaving not merely the other cities of Ireland far behind,
but giving the lead to many cities in England and Scotland.
We collectively own and control our gas works, water works, harbour works,
markets, tramways, electricity, museums, art galleries, etc., whilst we
Municipally cater for bowlers, cricketers, footballers, lovers of band music
(having organised a Police Band), and our works' department do an enormous
amount of "timed" and "contract" work within the Municipality. With the above
in operation, we, in Belfast, have no need to be ashamed of being compared in
Municipal management with any city in the kingdom. What does Comrade Connolly
say?
Now, as to the Socialist Party of Ireland (and, by the way, who are they, how
many branches and members have they?) that superior international body to the
I.L.P.?
They (the S.P.I.) "believe that the Socialist movement in Ireland and Great
Britain should be based upon comradeship and mutual assistance, and not upon
dues paying, should be fraternal and not organic, etc." Words, words, words!
What do they mean in practice? Why that the S.P.I. want the Trades Unions in
Ireland to cease to contribute dues to an amalgamated Union.... That the
Co-operative movement should cease its financial connection; that the great
Friendly Society branches in Ireland should divorce themselves (financially)
from their brethren across the channel, and that, having done so, we should
raise aloft the flag of Internationalism, and declare that we, and we alone,
are the only true Socialists and Internationalists! Bunkum, friend Connolly;
you are obsessed with an antipathy to Belfast and the black North, and under
your obsession you advocate reactionary doctrines alien to any brand of
Socialism I have ever heard of.
PROTESTANT LEADERS
Now, just to correct your history. You say that "Nationalist Ireland contains
all the elements of social struggles and worrying political theories.... But in
all the warring the advanced sections of Nationalist Ireland have looked in
vain for help to the sturdy Protestant Democracy of the North." Did you
understand what you wrote, and what a libel the above is upon many of the
greatest leaders whose recorded deeds illumine the pages of Irish history?
The leader and founder of the "'48" revolt was a Presbyterian from Ulster, John
Mitchell. It was in Ulster that the Irish volunteer movement had its birth, and
its President (Colonel Irvine) and its Commander (Lord Charlemont) were of the
"sturdy Protestant Democracy of the North." It was in Belfast their first grand
review took place.
Twenty years before Michael Davitt started on that great career for the
solution of the Irish Land Problem, Ulster had taken and given a lead to
Ireland. A meeting was held in Dublin, on 6th August, 1850, presided over by an
"Ulster Protestant," Jas. M'Knight, LL.D., to protest and organise a crusade
against landlordism in Ireland, and in the great fight in the '50's, both in
Parliament and the country, for the three F.'s, the names of three "sturdy
Protestant Democrats" of the North are always found leading - William Sharman
Crawford, M.P.; Rev. Mr. Rodgers, of Comber; and Daniel M'Curdy Greer, B.L.,
are names whose association with agrarian agitation, is so intimate as to call
for no further comment.
It was a "sturdy Protestant Democrat of the North," who led the revolt of the
Irish Party, and began that career of obstruction so effective to Ireland. And
Joseph Gillies Biggar, the Belfast pork merchant, can well challenge "any
section of Nationalist Ireland" for work done for the country, whilst in the
great fight on the Land Bill of Gladstone's, Lord Russell's name, a Belfast
Catholic, is inseparably associated, and the famous Protestant, Theobald Wolfe
Tone, found Belfast to be the most favourable place to found that wonderful
organisation, "the Society of United Irishmen," an organisation that has to its
credit at least wonderful doughty deeds. In fact, whilst not disparaging the
other provinces of Ireland, one can truthfully say that Ulster has given her
fair quota to the work so much believed in by Comrade Connolly, viz.,
Nationalism.
And, may I further point out, that the Protestant faith has given more leaders
to the Irish rebels than the Catholic faith. Grattan, Davies, Butt, Mitchell,
Parnell, Shaw, Biggar, etc., are all names to conjure with, and all, without
exception, were Protestants!
As to Comrade Connolly's rejoicing over my defeat in North Belfast; well, that
is his affair. But it does seem a peculiar kind of Socialism that aims at
legislative independence before Socialism. I have, however, the satisfaction of
knowing that the Nationalist Labour electors of North Belfast voted for me,
whilst the Nationalists of all shades of thought will give me a hearing at any
time and place, to expound my views, and with an enthusiasm unbounded have
received from me the gospel of Socialism. May I remind Comrade Connolly of the
famous dictum of that still more famous rebel, James Fintan Lalor, who declared
that - "The land question contains, and the legislative question does not
contain, the materials from which victory is to be manufactured."
Whilst "Nationalist Ireland" has mortgaged posterity to the tune of over
200,000,000 to compensate (?) Irish landlordism.
AN IRISH LABOUR PARTY
Now, just a final word. An Irish Labour Party is wanted. The I.L.P. are
suspects: no due-contributing is to be allowed. Why? Count the enormous strides
made in Belfast, under I.L.P. auspices, during the past 20 years, find a
parallel, and would an Irish Labour Party help? Scotland itself affords the
answer. She is a nation seeking academically, at least, legislative
independence, and at the start of the L.R.C. movement Scotland formed a
Scottish Labour Party. For years that Party appealed in vain to the workers,
with the result that in 1909 the Scottish societies agreed to affiliate with
the British Labour Party and their national organisation, whilst the delegates
to the Portsmouth Conference (theoretically Home Rulers), unanimously adopted
this policy.
Bailie Jack (Scottish Ironmoulders) declared that "what was wanted was the
unity of our forces all over." Just so, but Ireland has to be, must be, treated
differently. Why? Because of the Conservative temperament of certain Irish
propagandists, and because of their insistence on viewing the class war as a
national question instead of, as it is, a world-wide question.
In the report of the E.C. of the Labour Party to the Newport Conference, under
the heading of "Internationalism," we find these words: "We are specially proud
of the influence of our Party on International politics.... The visit of the
Labour Party to Germany last Whitsuntide was one of the happiest and most
auspicious events in the whole of our history. The members were received
officially at most of the towns they visited, and at the lunch given in the
Reichstag building at Berlin, one of the speakers who welcomed them was Dr. Von
Bethmann-Hollweg, who, since then, has become the Imperial Chancellor. We hope
that an opportunity will soon present itself for our receiving some of our
Continental Parliamentary friends in the same hospitable way."
This is Internationalism, and it is the I.L.P. who has pioneered this, and with
their policy and aims on the question, I, at least, subscribe to.
My place of birth was accidental, but my duty to my class is worldwide, hence
MY INTERNATIONALISM!
Forward, June 3rd, 1911
Top of Page
Ireland, Karl Marx and William by James Connolly
A few days ago, when conversing with an astute observer of things Socialistic
in Ireland, I asked him, as he was neither of Belfast nor Dublin, what he
thought of my appeal for Socialist Unity in Ireland. He replied, much to my
astonishment, that I had mistaken the nature of the real objection certain
dominating elements in Belfast felt towards such a course. "You will
find," he said, "that their real objection is not based upon
Internationalism, but is based upon Parochialism."
When reading Comrade Walker's astounding article, I felt how true the above
statement had been. Beginning with the absolutely false statement that I
"had utilised the first two paragraphs of my article to attack Belfast and
all within its borders" (for the refutation of which statement I refer the
reader to the article itself). He next proceeded to overwhelm us with a mass of
tawdry rhetoric, cheap and irrelevant schooiboy history, and badly digested
political philosophy, all permeated with an artfully instilled appeal to
religious prejudice and civic sectionalism carefully calculated to make Belfast
wrap itself around in a garment of self-righteousness, and to look with scorn
upon its supposed weaker Irish brethren. All this is, of course, in the
approved Walker style. But it does not touch the fringe of the question at
issue. That question, as readers of Forward will remember, I propounded as
follows:
There are in Ireland two Socialist parties; there should only be one. The only
real dividing issue, apart from personal elements, is the question of
recognising Ireland as entitled to self-government. Any Irish Socialist who
recognises Ireland's right to self-government should logically embody his
political activities in a form of organisation based upon the principle of
Irish self-government. I proposed, therefore, that the two Socialist
organisations in Ireland should each recognise that basis, and then sit down in
convention to frame a programme and policy for such a party suited to the
present and impending political situation of the country. Further, I pointed
out that the trade unions movement in Ireland was considering the advisability
of establishing a Labour Party, and that the same elements which keep the
Belfast I.L.P. from recognising officially the right of Ireland to
self-government had acted and voted last year in the Irish Trades Congress
against a proposition to establish a Labour Party in Ireland, and were about to
do the same this year. This, I contended, and still contend, was and is a crime
against the International Labour movement - a crime committed in the name of
Internationalism - prostituting the name in the act of invoking it.
LORD CHARLEMONT: DEMOCRAT
Now, how does Comrade Walker meet this friendly appeal for Socialist Unity?
First, he declares that I am obsessed with an "antipathy to Belfast and the
Black North," and proceeds to give a long defence of Protestants and
glorification of Protestant rebels in Ireland. The first "sturdy Protestant
Democrat" is Lord Charlemont, an aristocratic poltroon, who deserted,
denounced, and betrayed the Irish Volunteers when they proposed to use their
organisation to obtain a Democratic extension of the suffrage and religious
toleration. That he should be cited by Comrade Walker as a Democrat proves that
there is a kink somewhere, either in Walker's conception of Democracy, or in
his knowledge of Irish history.
But friend William blunders on from absurdity to absurdity. Remember that he is
opposed to self-government to Ireland and then admire his colossal nerve in
citing the glorious example of "sturdy Protestant Democrats," who gave
their whole lives in battling, suffering, and sacrifice for the cause of
National Freedom, which Comrade Walker rejects. He cites Theobald Wolfe Tone.
Wolfe Tone recognised that National Independence was an essential element of
Democracy, and declared that "to break this connection with England, the
abiding cause of all our woes," was his object. He cited Fintan Lalor.
Lalor declared that the Irish people should fight for "full and absolute
independence for this island, and for every man in it." Lalor was not a
Protestant; but our Comrade also cites Lalor's contemporary, Mitchell, whom he
wrongly declares a Presbyterian. He was instead a Unitarian. Mitchell summed up
his political ideal in these words:
"We want Ireland, not for the peers nor for the nominees of peers in College Green, but Ireland for the Irish people - an Irish Republic, one and
indivisible."
Comrade Walker also cites Joseph Gillies Biggar, a sturdy and uncompromising
Home Ruler. In fact, practically all the "sturdy Protestant Democrats"
he cites are men who would have treated with contempt Walker's pitiful straddle
in Irish politics. They are all men to whom he would have been opposed were he
living in their time. He minds us of this section by quoting, among the names
of Irish "rebels," Grattan, Butt, and Shaw, a quotation that must have
brought a grin to the face of anyone who read it, and had even a rudimentary
knowledge of Irish history.
THE HISTORY OF BLACK ULSTER
In passing, let me remark that the names cited by Comrade Walker but confirm my
point. We do not care so much what a few men did, as what did the vast mass of
their co-religionists do. The vast mass of the Protestants of Ulster, except
during the period of 1798, were bitter enemies of the men he has named, and
during the bitter struggle of the Land League, when the peasantry in the other
provinces were engaged in a life and death struggle against landlordism, the
sturdy Protestant Democracy of the North was electing landlords, and the
nominees of landlords, to every Protestant constituency in Ulster. When Comrade
Walker is doing propaganda work in Belfast he does not fail to remind his
hearers of their remissness in such matters. Why, then, does he mount another
horse in his letter to Forward?
All these men will live in history because they threw in their lot with the
other provinces in a common struggle for political freedom. In the exact
measure that we admire and applaud them must we condemn and deplore the
sectional and parochial action of Comrade Walker.
But, he says in his peroration, "My place of birth was accidental, but my
duty to my class is world-wide." Fine, man! Grand!! On a platform,
delivered in your best style, it would sound heroic; in cold print, it smells
of clap-trap. If the place of your birth was accidental, was not the fact of
your birth in the working class an accident also? You might have been born in
Buckingham Palace a prince of the blood royal, or even a princess, for all you
had to do with it. I do not care where you were born - (we have had Jews,
Russians, Germans, Lithuanians, Scotsmen, and Englishmen in the S.P.I.) - but I
do care where you are earning your living, and I hold that every
class-conscious worker should work for the freedom of the country in which he
lives, if he desires to hasten the political power of his class in that
country.
Our Comrade says, in his genial style, that these are "reactionary doctrines
alien to any brand of Socialism" he ever heard of. He must be singularly
ignorant of classical Socialist literature. Karl Marx was not much of a
reactionist, and he knew a thing or two about Socialism. Let me then quote, for
Comrade Walker, the opinion of Karl Marx on Socialism and Ireland.
KARL MARX ON SOCIALISM AND IRELAND
I quote from a letter sent to his friend, Kugelman, on 29th November, 1869,
from Toulon, and re-printed in the Nene Zeit of 1902. Read:
"I have more and more arrived at the conviction - though this conviction has not entered the mind of the English working class - that we shal] never be able
to do in England anything decisive if we do not resolutely separate its policy
in all that concerns Ireland from the policy of the dominant classes, so that
not only will she be able to make common cause with the Irish, but will even be
able to take the initiative in dissolving the Union founded in 1801, and
replacing it by an independent Federative bond, and this aim should be followed
not as a matter of sympathy with Ireland, but as a necessity based on the
interest of the English proletariat.... Each of the movements in England
remains paralysed by the struggle with the Irish who even in England form a
considerable proportion of the working class.... And it is not only the social
evolution established in England which is retarded by these relations with
Ireland, but also its external policy, notably with Russia and the United
States."
Written in 1869, Comrade Walker, but reads like a statement of what is
happening today.
At every International Socialist Congress a separate vote and recognition is
given to such subject nations as Finland, Poland, and the various nationalities
within the Russian Empire; at Stuttgart a reception and message of sympathy was
given to a delegate from India, speaking not on behalf of the Indian workers,
but primarily on behalf of Indian Nationalism; and at the Paris Congress of
1900, the delegates from the Irish Socialist Party were seated, and given the
same votes as the delegates of independent nationalities, such as Germany or
England. At Stuttgart, Comrade Bebel declared that one consequence of the
growth of Socialism would be a renascence of national culture and sympathies in
countries now politically suppressed, and he welcomed such a renascence on the
ground that the civilisation of the future would be all the richer from the
presence of so many distinctive forms of intellectual growth arising from
different racial and national developments.
Such, in brief, is the real position of International Socialism towards subject
nations. It is a concept based upon the belief that civilisation needs free
nations just as the nations need free individual citizens, that the
internationalism of the future will be based upon the free federation of free
peoples, and cannot be realised through the sub jugation of the smaller by the
larger political unit. But Comrade Walker says these are words, and mean that
the S.P.I. desires the Irish to divorce themselves from all Trade Unions,
Friendly Societies, and Co-operative Societies across the water. Not
necessarily. If we look at the two nations across the Atlantic, we can see that
every Trade Union and Friendly Society which does business in the United States
also does business in Canada and vice versa, yet the two nations are
independent politically of each other. Why can England and Ireland not be as
industrially intermingled, and yet politically separate?
WALKER AND THE KING
Our Comrade is sore over my attitude towards his election campaign in North
Belfast. But he should have reminded the readers of Forward of his attitude in
that campaign. He should have told them that he pledged himself to oppose Home
Rule and religious equality. That he pledged himself to oppose any alteration
in the Coronation Oath - that oath which the King of England recently objected
to take because of its stupid reactionary intolerance. The oath was too much
even for a royal stomach, but Comrade Walker pledged himself to maintain it. He
should have reminded his readers that in the 17th and 18th centuries the
ferocious bigotry of the governing class placed upon the Statute Book of
Ireland laws against Roman Catholics so atrocious that they are regarded by
modern sentiment as the very incarnation of sectarian malevolence, and that he
promised to maintain them in his answer to the following question:
"Will you resist every attack upon the legislative enactments provided by
our forefathers as necessary safeguards against the political encroachments of
the papacy?"
Answer by W. Walker - "Yes."
We progress as we get away from the bigotry of our forefathers, but Comrade
Walker was willing to make their bigotry our standard of legislation.
In a country overwhelmingly of our religious faith, he pledged himself to
oppose the entry of members of that faith into certain political and legal
offices; he pledged himself to "make an effort to obtain a redistribution of
Parliamentary seats for the purpose of diminishing the extravagant
representation of Ireland by means of which the Roman Catholics and disloyal
party has hindered the business of the House of Commons," and he declared
that "Protestantism means protesting against superstition; hence true
Protestantism is synonymous with Labour," thus leaving it to be inferred
that if a Catholic embraced the cause of Labour, he also embraced the
Protestant religion.
Well, Comrade Walker may feel scandalised at my statement that I am glad of his
defeat, but I refuse to endorse the idea that because a man styles himself
"Independent Labour" or even "Socialist," he has a right to be a
renegade to every other principle of progress. When he has purged himself of
such reactionary ideas, as other men have done since the same election, I will
gladly support him in his contest for a Parliamentary seat in an Irish House of
Commons.
Finally, the fact remains, and we may yet have to appeal to the tribunal of the
International Labour movement on the question, that Comrade William Walker, a
member of the Executive of the Labour Party is vehemently opposing the
formation of a Labour Party in Ireland. We may have to ask the aforesaid
tribunal whether Comrade Walker, in such action, has the support of his
Executive, or is speaking with their mandate in thus doing the work of the
enemy joining with the bigoted Orangeman, and the equally bigoted follower of
Mr. Redmond to stifle the aspirations of the more militant section of the Irish
Working Class for a party of its own, to fight its battles against the common
enemy.
I, for one, do not believe that any one of the men whose genius have made the
Socialist movement what it is, would hail the uprise of a Labour Party in
Ireland, and the consolidation of our Socialist forces, with anything save joy
and satisfaction.
Forward, June 10th, 1911
Top of Page
Socialism and Internationalism: A Reply to Friend Connolly by William Walker
Comrade Connolly evidently recognises that his cause is lost, as from argument
in his first article he descends to personal abuse in his second, and this is a
sure symptom of defeat. But, however tempting his example, I have too much
regard for Socialism to follow the path he has unfortunately chosen to tread.
Personal abuse is much too plentiful in our movement, and should not be
tolerated; as if we cannot discuss principles without introducing
personalities, it were time we had ceased to call ourselves Socialist. In his
first article, Comrade Connolly set out to prove certain articles. (a) The need
of an Irish Labour Party; (b) the failure of Protestant Democratic Ulster to
help the Nationalist movement; and (c) the non-National character of the I.L.P.
in Ireland.
From all of these Comrade Connolly keeps as far away as possible in his last
article, preferring copious extracts from Karl Marx and a résumé
of a Parliamentary experience of mine as matter to review, rather than the
propositions he set out to father.
May I assure Comrade Connolly that much though I admire Karl Marx, he is not a
deity to me, and I trust I will always preserve the right to exercise my own
judgment, and not merely when I am in trouble, turn to Marx to have his
ex-Cathedra opinions rammed down my throat: and as to my Parliamentary
experience, which is evidently quoted with the object of making an appeal to
sectarianism and opening a chapter long closed, may I say that I am willing to
take the verdict of the Belfast Catholics themselves upon the question, as I
know that they and I have long since reconciled the difference so magnified by
our Socialist comrade.
Now, Friend Connolly, you don't answer my question. Who are the S.P.I., how
many of you are there, what have you done, and what are you going to do that
the I.L.P. cannot do? These are pertinent to the issue, and I would like an
answer.
I have glorified Belfast! - have I? Well, I have only told the truth - which,
by the way, friend Connolly doesn't dare to challenge; and though he may sneer
at Belfast, still I am glad to think that I am going to welcome him as a
citizen within its borders. Democracy, my friend, has no geography, and when
you query Lord Charlemont as a democrat, you query something I never wrote, as
I was replying to your charge that "the Protestant Democracy of the North
had not contributed to the Irish movement." And I simply wrote that he was
of the Protestant Democracy, a vast difference; which I trust you may now
comprehend.
Into a pitfall of errors Comrade Connolly falls when he assumes that I was
quoting "the Protestant rebels," as approving of them. I wasn't, but I
was pointing out that Catholic Ireland had many Protestant leaders in all the
great revolutionary movements, and this evidently was information to friend
Connolly. But to get to essentials. What do you want an Irish Labour Party for?
Will Ireland more readily respond to it than to the British Labour Party? What
is your experience? Have you proved that? No; everything that the people of
Ireland want can be safeguarded much better under the protection of the United
Democracies than if we were isolated. This truth has been reaffirmed at the
recent Irish Trade Union Congress, when once again a Congress of Irish
representative workmen pledged themselves over to the British Labour Party,
recognising therein the elements of protection; but Comrade Connolly, who three
weeks ago found me without Nationalism, finds me today full charged with
parochialism, and this he declares is why I am not an Internationalist like
unto him. Just so. That is just the reason. Whilst frothy talk about
"Nationalism forming the basis of Internationales" has been plentiful
with some people, some of us in Belfast have been doing something to improve
conditions - in the Poor Law Board, in the City Council, and the Trade Union
branch. Amongst the textile workers, the sweated and oppressed, the dockers and
the carters, we have gone to help to lift them to a better condition of life.
Of course this is Parochialism. Well, Friend Connolly, I am proud of my
"parochial" reputation. It has meant something to the poor consumptive,
to the workhouse child, and the Trade Union member; with this knowledge I am
well content to be so labelled. But my "parochialism" is true nationality. I
would give each locality (within certain well-defined limits) local autonomy,
and thus develop a healthy rivalry in the supply of those amenities to our
municipal life, which, alas, in the larger part of Ireland are in the hands of
the private speculator. As to my Parliamentary defeat (?) My friend, I don't
feel scandalised a little bit about your being glad. If I mistake not, you were
in the land of the Stars and Stripes when we in Belfast were essaying a tilt
with the forces of reaction, and may I assure you from a very intimate
knowledge of Belfast life, that had you been with us, and canvassing and
speaking against me, it wouldn't have affected one vote beyond your own.
Against clericalism I am (and I have said much more about the Protestant than
the Catholic clergy); yet there is not a worker in either ranks who doesn't
know that my activities are not self-interested. But that my opinions are
honestly if wrongly (?) held, and that not once in all my public career did
personal religion in the least influence me.
Now for the tit-bit of the article. Comrade Connolly "is to ask the Labour
Party whether in my action I have their support," and I assume he will make
them expel me. Wonderful! This is the tolerant spirit which at its birth the
S.P.I. discloses. Those with whom you agree on everything are blessed;
otherwise, be ye accursed. My friend, remember the injunction of Ruskin, "To
tolerate everything but every other man's intolerance." Try first of all to
do something for Ireland or a part thereof, in addition to talking, and whilst
so doing you will learn a lesson which we of the plodding and non-ornamental
party have been taught, viz., that the revival of Ireland and the prosperity of
her people lie not in platitudes or vain-glorifying, but in doing that work
which, bringing no personal remuneration or glory, yet lifts the veil of
poverty and shame a little more from the face of the people.
Try to remember that your opponent may be as honest as yourself, and that in
his own way may be working out Ireland's salvation - and that the best tribute
(you unconsciously pay) ever rendered to my humble self lies in the last
paragraph but one of your last article, in which you accuse me "of joining with
the bigoted Orangemen and the equally bigoted followers of Mr. Redmond." I am
proud that I have been with others an humble instrument to draw on to a common
platform the bigoted sections of both armies. It is a matter for sincere
congratulation. That this spirit may flourish like the green bay tree is the
earnest wish of yours truly.
Forward, June 17th, 1911
Top of Page
Socialist Symposium on Internationalism, and Some Other Things by James Connolly
This is a symposium of Socialist ideas upon Nationalism and Internationalism!
It is made necessary because of the crude and ill-digested ideas upon the
subject, which, in certain quarters, pass muster for Socialist thought - ideas
which by reason of their crude and ill-digested character have done, and are
doing, infinite harm to the Socialist cause.
In passing, however, let me remind the reader that in this controversy Comrade
Walker and Comrade Connolly are but representatives of two opposite policies,
that as persons they are of interest to nobody, and that, therefore, any
criticism of the past or present policy of either cannot be construed as a
personal attack. When a Socialist whose policy has been exposed in all its
baneful consequences begins to cry out about "personal abuse" the most
charitable thing we can do is to pass his whine over with the contempt it
deserves, and stick to the subject in hand.
All that unctuous self-glorification and holier-than-thou attitudinising about
his work for the "poor consumptive, the workhouse child, and the Trades
Union member," "the textile workers, the dockers, and the carters, the sweated
and the oppressed," and "that work which, bringing no personal
remuneration or glory, yet lifts the veil of poverty and shame a little more
from the face of the people," all that is valuable as a study in the
psychology of Comrade Walker, and, as an indication that the Pharisaical spirit
of the "unco guid" and "rigidly righteous," still walks abroad amongst us, but
as a real contribution to the questions in dispute, like the flowers that bloom
in the spring, tra la, they have nothing to do with the case. Comrade Walker
knows that upon the side opposed to him there are as hard and unselfish workers
for our class as he ever knew how to be, even although they do not write to
Forward to call attention to their unobtrusive (?) self-sacrifice, as he
has done to his.
Nor yet is there any question of making or asking the Labour Party to "expel"
Comrade Walker, as he pretends to assume I desire. I do not care three cents
whether they expel him or make him chairman. If the Labour Party wish to send
their electoral ship to sea loaded with such a heavy freight as the reactionary
opinions of Comrade Walker, that is their business, not rnine. But it is my
business to know if in the struggles of the militant Irish workers to found a
political party of their class upon independent Labour lines they have to
regard the Labour Party in England as a helpful elder brother or as a deadly
rival. That is the question.
We, of the Socialist Party of Ireland, now, as in the past, hold it to be our
duty to assist and foster every tendency of organised Labour in Ireland to
found a Labour Party capable of fighting the capitalist parties of Ireland upon
their own soil. Comrade Walker and his followers insist that every such
tendency is to be fought to the death, that in its upward march the idea of a
Labour Party in Ireland must fight its way against the combined hosts of
Orangeism, Redmondism, and I.L.P.'ism. That the Labour Party of England is the
enemy of every attempt to found a similar party in Ireland. I refuse to believe
him. I hold that his policy in Ireland is the very reverse of all that the
I.L.P. stands for in Great Britain.
At the Irish Trade Union Congress, held in Galway, on Whit Tuesday, a motion to
establish a Labour Party in Ireland was defeated by an amendment moved by
Comrade Walker to the effect that the way to secure Independent Labour
Representation was to affiliate with the Labour Party in England. If he had
moved an amendment leaving it optional upon the Trade Unions to choose which
Labour Party they should join no one could find fault, but no such option was
left. His motto was: "Either affiliate with England, or we will squelch
you." His amendment was carried by 32 votes to 29. The unborn Labour Party
of Ireland was strangled in the womb by the hands of I.L.P.ers. The 29 votes
for the motion represented all the militant forces of the more progressive
Trade Unions of Ireland, forces anxious for a battle on behalf of Labour
against the political forces of Irish Capitalism; the 32 votes for Walker's
amendment represented the forces of reaction anxious at all costs to save the
present political parties from the danger inherent in a proposal to give the
political forces of Labour an Irish home and Irish basis of operations.
Had the motion been carried, next General Election would have seen some seats
in Ireland fought by Labour against all comers. The motion was defeated by an
unholy alliance, and reaction in Ireland breathes freely once more. By
dishonesty - and I use the word deliberately - suppressing the latter half of
my sentence, Comrade Walker says I pay him an unconscious tribute when I accuse
him "of joining with the bigoted Orangemen and the equally bigoted followers
of Mr. Redmond," and he says "I am proud that I have been with others an
humble instrument to draw on a common platform the bigoted sections of both
armies."
Now add the part of my sentence he has suppressed - "To stifle the
aspirations of the more militant section of the Irish working class to have a
party of its own, to fight its battles against the common enemy." That,
dear reader, is what Mr. Walker is proud of. What do you think?
I do not propose to discuss the municipal achievements of Belfast. They are
small compared with those of Birmingham, and I have yet to hear of the
Birmingham I.L.P. claiming that the municipal enterprise of the Birmingham
Conservative City Council makes the Birmingham I.L.P. infallible guides on
questions of national policy, as Comrade Walker seems to claim that the
enterprise of the Belfast Conservative City fathers endows with political
wisdom the Belfast followers of William Walker. I do not "dare to
challenge" his statements about municipal activities in Belfast, because
they have nothing to do with the question, and were only brought in by friend
William in the faint hope of diverting attention from the point at issue.
As every reader of Forward knows, I have denounced the civic rottenness of
Nationalist Ireland in general, and Dublin in particular, in words infinitely
more scathing than anything I have said about Belfast. As to Lord Charlemont,
even the merest dabbler in Irish history knows that he was an aristocrat of the
aristocrats, neither politically, socially, nor yet sympathetically "of the
Protestant Democracy," all my opponent's wriggling notwithstanding.
Then our Comrade Walker, slipping presumably by inadvertence, into the real
questions, asks - "What do you want an Irish Labour Party for? Will Ireland
more readily respond to it than to the British Labour Party?"
Well, we want an Irish Labour Party because the Irish Trade Unions have not, as
a whole, affiliated with the British Labour Party. Has any Trades Council
outside of Belfast affiliated with it in actual practice? Where is there a
branch of the Labour Party, or a Labour Representation Committee affiliated
with England, south of Belfast? The vast mass of the Trade Unionists of Ireland
look upon the Labour Party as essentially British, and even when they are
members of an amalgamated Union nationally affiliated to that Party, they in
Ireland refuse to take steps to embody that theoretical affiliation in actual
Irish Practice. We want an Irish Labour and Socialist movement because we
believe, in the spirit of the founder of the Internationalism of the Socialist
movement, Karl Marx, whose words in favour of Irish independence I quoted in a
former letter, that no nation is good enough or wise enough to be able to rule
another nation. We want an Irish Labour and Socialist movement because we
believe in the words of the declaration of principles of the Irish Socialist
Party of 1896:
"That the subjugation of one nation to another, as of Ireland to England, is a barrier to the free, political, and economic development of the subjected
nations, and can only serve the interests of the exploiting classes of both
nations."
And we want such an Irish movement because it is in harmony with the spirit and
philosophy of International Socialism.
Permit me to quote to you some International testimony. I take, first, the
testimony of that brilliant Socialist orator and publicist, Gabriel Deville,
the veteran pioneer of Socialist Internationalism. The quotation is from a
speech delivered in Paris, in November, 1893, and regarded as such a valuable
statement of the Socialist position that it has been printed and published in
book form in both France and America. Read:
"Just as the idea of revolution is identified with the ideas of murder and
destruction, in the same way the Intemationalism of the workers is identified
with anti-patriotism. There is in the latter case as in the former, a
fundamental error, and it remains for me to show that theoretically and
practically the identification of the Internationalism of Labour with
anti-patriotism is unjustifiable. And to begin with, he who says
Internationalism says Internationalism, and does not say anti-nationalism;
consequently, you see at once that no one ought - either to approve or condemn
it - to use the word, Internationalism, to express what it does not mean and
what other words do mean. Instead of allowing ourselves to be led astray by our
various fantastic notions, let us here, as elsewhere, examine the facts, and
see what conclusions they impose upon us. Socialism flows from the facts, it
follows them and does not precede them.... Now the facts shew us two things: on
the one hand, the existence of countries (fatherlands); on the other, the
existence, in every social stratum, of an international solidarity. It is with
countries as with classes; some deny the existence of the former, others of the
latter. Now, in reason, it is no more possible to deny the existence of the
country (fatherland) than the existence of classes in that country. It is all
right to look forward to the day when national patriotism shall be swallowed up
in world-wide brotherhood, but while waiting for the facts to turn where
classes shall vanish in human solidarity, but while waiting for the facts to
turn this noble ideal into a reality, we must - in both cases - adapt ourselves
to the facts as they actually are at present. To wish to suppress them (classes
and nationalities) does not suppress them, to protest against their existence
does not at all prevent them from existing, and so long as countries and
classes exist it will be necessary for us, not to deny their existencc in
declarations, but to adapt our tactics to the facts which are the consequences
of their existence. Just as the feeling of national solidarity is added to the
feeling of family solidarity, without destroying the latter, in the same way
the relatively new sentiment of international solidarity is added to the
former, which is still retained. A new sentiment springing from a new situation
does not annihilate the older sentiments and emotions as long as the conditions
that gave them birth continue to exist, and families and nations are still in
existence."
"To safeguard the little independence left to them as labourers, the workers
have been led by the state of affairs, by actual conditions, as were the
business men before them, to be Internationalists; but they are patriots, and
must be patriots only, whenever their country is menaced by danger from abroad.
I hope you now see that the Internationalism of the workers and the Socialists
cannot, by any possibility lead to anti-patriotism."
So far, Deville. Now hear the eloquent Jaures, the peerless orator of the
International movement. He is speaking at Limoges, in 1905, about the
separation of Norway from Sweden. Bear in mind that this is no mere question of
a Home Rule Parliament, but of actual separ ation. Norway had a Home Rule
Parliament, but was not satisfied, and declared for absolute independence.
Jaures says:
"Norway, conquered nearly a century ago by Sweden, and seeking ever since,
at intervals, but with increasing vigour to recover its autonomy, has at last
proclaimed its national independence. It has broken the link which for nearly a
hundred years has bound it to Sweden. And there have been in Sweden certain of
the Conservative governing class proud and obstinate, who, for a time, have
dreamt of resorting to war to compel Norway to submit in spite of herself to
the Swedish Union. If this war of the Swedish bourgeoisie had broken out, in
spite of the Norwegian Socialists, in spite of the Swedish Socialists, it is
very clear that the Norwegian Socialists who, beforehand, had by their votes,
by their suffrages, afffimed the independence of Norway, would have defended it
even by force against the assaults of the Swedish oligarchy.... But at the same
time that the Socialists of Norway would have been right in defending their
national independence, it would have been the right and duty of the Swedish
Socialists to oppose, even by the proclamation of a general strike, any attempt
at violence, at conquest, and annexation, made by the Swedish bourgeoisie."
Thus Jaures affirms, in the name of International Socialism, that the
Socialists of a subject nation were and are not only in the right in voting for
the national independence of their country, but in defending it with their
lives if need be. And what he says has at all times been acted upon by
Socialist thinkers before and since.
Keir Hardie was battling for Irish Home Rule when the Liberal Government was
filling Irish jails with unconvicted Irish men and women. Bruce Glasier was a
member of the Irish Land League in Glasgow at the same stormy time. H.M.
Hyndman sat upon the National Executive of Great Britain of the Irish Land
League; Edward Aveling, brilliant expositor of Socialist science, was the first
man outside Ireland to formally join the Irish Socialist Republican Party; his
wife, Eleanor Marx Aveling, daughter of Karl Marx, in her "History of the
Working Class Movement in England," says sympathetically of our national
struggle:
"It is certain that the hope of 'Ireland a Nation' lies not in her
middle-class O'Connells, but in her generous, devoted, heroic working men and
women!"
And within a month of its formation in 1896, she wrote to the Dublin
organisation offering us whatever help it was in her power to give. Comrade
Leatham, now editing the Huddersfield Worker, in his pamphlet, "What is the
good of Empire?" has some pertinent things to say of the desire for
national independence, that sufficiently in dictates where he stands on such a
question. The whole Socialist Press of the world cheered on the Cubans in their
rebellion against Spain, and the Filipinos in their insurrection against the
United States; in fact, in all the world there is not to be found such an
extraordinarily perverted conception of Socialism as that fathered by Comrade
William Walker. It is, I repeat, a brand of mere parochialism, which seeks to
hide its true essence by flaunting the International banner, but when examined
in the light of its acts, we find that the banner under which it seeks to rally
us is not the sacred banner of true International ism, but is instead the
shamefaced flag of a bastard Imperialism!
"The working-class International," says Jaures, "which is the free
combination of all the national organisations of the universal proletariat,
each using in the common struggle the means of action given to it by the
nationalist constitution and the national traditions, this working class cannot
solve the international problem by the suppression or by the isolation of any
nation."
So says Jaures, so says the Socialist world, so, as a humble member of the
great international family of Socialists, says the Socialist Party of Ireland.
Who are we, what are our members?
We will answer that to any authorised official of the I.L.P. who writes to ask
such information, with a view to the proposed joint convention.
Let us cast off all sectionalism, all parochialism, and sit down as brothers
and sisters together in an earnest effort to find a common basis of agreement
for actions on a national scale against the capitalist enemy within our shores.
Given the formation of a United Socialist Party in Ireland, and, guided and
helped by such a Party, a Labour Party on Irish soil, con trolled from within
Ireland, thus the necessary and inevitable incidents of the electoral struggles
of such a Party against the Irish political capitalist parties will teach
Socialism and Internationalism to the Irish workers better than a million
speeches.
Forward, July 1st, 1911
Top of Page
A Socialist (sic) Symposium and An Evasion by William Walker
May I apologise to Comrade Connolly for having, in my last week's note, charged
him with personal abuse. I withdraw my charge - as it appears from last week's
issue that it is a temperamental weakness of friend Connolly's, for which
Nature alone is to be blamed.
In addition, my memory has played me false on history. I had always understood
that "Biddy Moriarty," Dan O'Connell's famous termagant, had only given birth
to twins, viz., Arthur Trew (of Belfast) and Paster Boal (of Glasgow) - whereas
it now appears that it was triplets, and that the third child was James
Connolly, sometime of Edinburgh, sometime of Dublin, then of New York, again of
Dublin, now of Belfast, and several other places, all of which had the
unblushing temerity to refuse the Gospel of the new Messiah, and to demand some
earnest as to the qualifications of the man who, refusing to WORK either in
Scotland, Ireland, or America, in any existing organisation, demands as the
price of his allegiance to Socialistic propaganda that the organisation must be
his, and either GENERAL Secretary or NATIONAL Organiser must be his title.
Aut Caesar, aut Nullis! But, alas, Caesar's army is a drummer boy, with a very
big drum, and a fifer, with a very discordant tone.
"The Socialist Party of Ireland!" When friend Connolly previously
resided in Ireland HIS organisation was "The Irish Socialist Republican
Party." Why has the "Republican" been dropped? Has friend Connolly
also joined the worshippers of Monarchy, or has the change in title been
dictated by the fact that he hopes to scoop some of the Royalists into his
organisation? Whatever be the reason, the change is indicative of the basis
upon which the new creed is founded.
I understand that the Socialist Party of Ireland object to the capitalistic
system on the ground that the capitalist reaps where he has not sown. How does
friend Connolly square his preaching with his practice? For 18 years the I.L.P.
have preached the Gospel of Socialism in various parts of Ulster with
gratifying success. They have faced the batons of the police; the deacon poles
of the Orangemen; the assaults of the hooligan; the execration of the rabble;
and have surmounted all difficulties: and now, when the seed sown is yielding
forth its fruit, along comes our drawing-room warrior, with an order to clear
the way for he and his to reap where they never had the courage nor capacity to
sow. Pretty bumptious, when you think of it: and exactly on a parallel with
Landlordism and Capitalism!
Again friend Connolly, whose chief weapon in an apparently attenuated armoury,
is vituperation, has a weakness for quotation.
Andrew Carnegie, you have a few sins to answer for, and one amongst them is the
fact that your "free" libraries entice people to borrow books and amply quote
therefrom, even though they neither understand the theory nor are possessed of
the capacity to apply in practice the instruction and admonition thereof.
Evidently originality is too big a strain to be endured, hence quotations look
well and read better than original matter, besides doing nobody any harm.
Belfast's municipal activities seem to be gall and wormwood to our Comrade.
They excite his ire. They induce him to throw aside the last vestige of
comradeship, and to descend to the level of the corner-boy in his rage against
all and sundry, who have dared to spend their time in doing the collar work
which ALONE makes for success, instead of leading an invisible ammy nowhere,
but content if the general be visible to the people of the plain.
If and when friend Connolly came to Dublin from Edinburgh he had been content
to be a soldier of the line, and not aspire to range himself with the Olympian
deities; had got down to the problem of poverty and WORKED to solve it, Dublin
today would tell a different tale, and its municipal activities would have
extended into fields where private speculation reigns triumphant, but no glory
would have been associated with the drudgery, hence avoidance of such menial
tasks was the supreme virtue of our "National Organiser."
And, now, just a word on the main question which has so successfully been
evaded by our Comrade. He denounces the I.L.P. in Ireland, and appeals to the
I.L.P. of Scotland to give him engagements (and, by the way, it is curious
that, vide Press notices, the main work of the National Organiser of the
Socialist Party of Ireland is in Scotland - a conundrum to me). Surely, if
because of national characteristics, Ireland has a right to an Irish Socialist
Party, by the same parity of reasoning Scotland also should have its Scottish
Socialist Party; and, to pursue the matter, a Highland and a Lowland Party, a
Welsh Party, a Berwick-on-Tweed Party; and as York was once the seat of power,
a Northern English Party and a Southern English Party? In fact, if Comrade
Connolly understood the ramifications of "Nationality" he would be chary about
tilting a lance on the question, but as "fools step in where angels fear to
tread," so we may excuse the temerity which, avoiding the issue of combat,
rushes to the abuse of the individual to distract attention from his obvious
difficulties.
The I.L.P. have enabled the Irish in Belfast to unite, James Connolly
(Catholic) can - thanks to the spade work of the I.L.P. - come to Belfast and
speak to audiences mainly Protestant, and be patiently heard, and it is curious
that our Comrade never came to Belfast until he was confident that the I.L.P.
had won a tolerant hearing for all classes; and if this can be accomplished in
Belfast, what is to prevent the other parts of Ireland from using the same
organisation to accomplish all those reforms which - whether we YELL for
Socialism or WORK for it - are clamant for adoption.
Remember the capitalistic system will not (like the Walls of Jericho) fall down
at the shouting of the people, but will only succumb to the pick and shovel,
the assault and counter mine of an active army of assailants.
I am an Internationalist because the same grievances which afflict the German
and the Englishman afflict me. I speak the same tongue as the Englishman: I
study the same literature: I am oppressed by the same financial power: and, to
me, only a combined and united attack, with out geographical consideration, can
assure to Ireland an equal measure of social advancement as that which the
larger and more advanced democracy of Great Britain are pressing for.
I am content to be a rank and filer! I am content to preach Socialism without
reward! I am content to use in the Trade Union and the I.L.P. all the
opportunities therein afforded, to consolidate the power of the workers. Don't
please allow ambition to impede the march of our army; but, if you are a
Socialist, help the fighters to secure an early victory, and in doing this you
will give some proof, very much needed, of a belief in the doctrine you preach.
Forward, July 8th, 1911
(Unless this correspondence can be raised to the discussion of principles, it
had better cease.-EDITOR)
Top of Page
