What do you think?
Connolly: A Marxist analysis
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 1 of 1 review
April 19, 2024
This fairly obscure book offers a comprehensive, Trotskyist analysis of the political thought of the famous Irish socialist James Connolly. Initially published as a series of essays, the authors bring together a critique of various aspects of Connolly's understanding of political economy and socialism, to paint a picture of the somewhat confused programme in his writings. To be sure, the authors do not totally dismiss Connolly's legacy or contributions to the extensive body of socialist literature, but offer a very useful juxtaposition of the man's thought to that of Marx and Engels (and, to a lesser extent, Lenin) to show the limitations of his grasp of Irish political economy, as well as his problematic embrace of nationalist paradigms. Indeed, Connolly's socialism and nationalism is, to their eyes, 'only one paradox, albeit a central one, in the written corpus and practical legacy he has left us' (p.5).
On this first point, the authors correctly identify the bourgeois origins of nationalism and concepts of "nationhood" (p.53). They convincingly locate Connolly's nationalism within the context of the bourgeois constitutionalism more associated with Redmond and earlier with Wolfe Tone (p.16), and look at the problems this created when Connolly attempted to detach nationalism from material context (ie. capitalist development). Rightfully arguing that the 'struggle for an Irish nation-state originated not in the misty past or in the land question as such but in the emergence of Irish capitalism, particularly in the 18th century' (p.29), the book successfully demonstrates how Connolly misinterpreted pre-Norman Irish society as an exemplar of primitive communism, in which he can locate some mystical "genuine Irish nation" in need to "reawakening" through the emancipation of Ireland from British rule (pp.42-5). This, however, overlooks the fact that a feudalist mode of production was already well entrenched by the time of the Norman conquest, not least the later Tudor settlements. The Norman arrival, then, does not represent such a sharp break as Connolly wishes to suggest it does. The consequence of such framing is that capitalism, then, represents a further disruption to the development of Ireland, rather than a stage through which Irish society progresses in order for the sufficient advancement of production to allow for the ultimate establishment of socialism. In other words, as Marx and Engels identified in the Manifesto, the emergence of capitalism does contain within it progressive elements, as it establishes production and communication on an unprecedented scale, which ultimately provides the means through which socialism can ferment. Further, in concentrating the goal of his political programme on the nation-state, Connolly's vision falls short of an actual societal transformation that can bring about the emancipation of all peoples.
The subsequent section on religion is enlightening, shedding light on Marxist approaches to the subject while using Connolly as a case study. Recognising 'cultural, artistic and religious phenomena have complex roots in material conditions of human existence in the broadest sense' (p.75), they demonstrate how Connolly's social context greatly informs his defence of Catholic doctrines against socialist trends of his time (for instance, in the matter of allowing divorce). This section, however, suffers from the typical Marxist problem of totally subsuming "religiosity" under the paradigm of class society. Although Marx and his inheritors are correct in recognising the influence and impact of material context (though it's ironic that Marxists don't tend to apply this to their own critique of religion), this sometimes overstretches and totally excludes any role played by psychology. In this sense, it is typically eurocentric, built as it is on the specific experience of the Church in early modern Christian Europe. In other words, though the authors are right to argue 'religion and ideology [...] sanctif[y] the existing social order' (p.81) - and indeed this can be shown in Connolly's own conceptualisation of religion - this neglects the role theology can also play (and has played) in subverting the existent order. This, in fact, neglects the first part of the dialectical doctrine from the Eighteenth Brumaire that Men make their own history, just not in circumstances of their own choosing. Again, the notion religion engenders a kind of fatalism about class society is based specifically on the European experience and betrays an element of reductionism as a result.
Sometimes the critique is pretty thin and appears as though the authors simply oppose Connolly's arguments on the grounds they don't align with what they perceive to be "orthodox" Marxism, as opposed to being assessed on their own merits. For instance, they criticise him for failing to 'share Lenin's insight [...] into the reactionary character of the [pre-WW1] epoch' (p.158) without really sufficiently demonstrating why this might be significant.
At other times, although they acknowledge early on that Marx and Engels rejected notions that socialism would follow inevitably in the course of history, rather than (as they did) from conscious revolutionary action (p.13), they do also sometimes lean too much into Lenin's determinism about the supposed "ripeness" of Irish society for revolution. The authors also criticise Connolly for advocating a general strike in opposition to WW1, while defending Lenin's own position - which actually also called for supporting any and all action taken by the workers (which, you'd think, would include a general strike...).
Finally, the book assumes a lot of base knowledge of Irish and Marxist history. References to Tone, Redmond, the SDF, and Sinn Fein (among others) all assume familiarity with the topics. Although extensive sections of Marx's writings on Ireland are helpful in providing historical context, a reader is likely to get very lost without some prior knowledge. There's some good analysis of the SDF, and of late-19th century socialism, but lateral reading on the topic is highly recommended.
On this first point, the authors correctly identify the bourgeois origins of nationalism and concepts of "nationhood" (p.53). They convincingly locate Connolly's nationalism within the context of the bourgeois constitutionalism more associated with Redmond and earlier with Wolfe Tone (p.16), and look at the problems this created when Connolly attempted to detach nationalism from material context (ie. capitalist development). Rightfully arguing that the 'struggle for an Irish nation-state originated not in the misty past or in the land question as such but in the emergence of Irish capitalism, particularly in the 18th century' (p.29), the book successfully demonstrates how Connolly misinterpreted pre-Norman Irish society as an exemplar of primitive communism, in which he can locate some mystical "genuine Irish nation" in need to "reawakening" through the emancipation of Ireland from British rule (pp.42-5). This, however, overlooks the fact that a feudalist mode of production was already well entrenched by the time of the Norman conquest, not least the later Tudor settlements. The Norman arrival, then, does not represent such a sharp break as Connolly wishes to suggest it does. The consequence of such framing is that capitalism, then, represents a further disruption to the development of Ireland, rather than a stage through which Irish society progresses in order for the sufficient advancement of production to allow for the ultimate establishment of socialism. In other words, as Marx and Engels identified in the Manifesto, the emergence of capitalism does contain within it progressive elements, as it establishes production and communication on an unprecedented scale, which ultimately provides the means through which socialism can ferment. Further, in concentrating the goal of his political programme on the nation-state, Connolly's vision falls short of an actual societal transformation that can bring about the emancipation of all peoples.
The subsequent section on religion is enlightening, shedding light on Marxist approaches to the subject while using Connolly as a case study. Recognising 'cultural, artistic and religious phenomena have complex roots in material conditions of human existence in the broadest sense' (p.75), they demonstrate how Connolly's social context greatly informs his defence of Catholic doctrines against socialist trends of his time (for instance, in the matter of allowing divorce). This section, however, suffers from the typical Marxist problem of totally subsuming "religiosity" under the paradigm of class society. Although Marx and his inheritors are correct in recognising the influence and impact of material context (though it's ironic that Marxists don't tend to apply this to their own critique of religion), this sometimes overstretches and totally excludes any role played by psychology. In this sense, it is typically eurocentric, built as it is on the specific experience of the Church in early modern Christian Europe. In other words, though the authors are right to argue 'religion and ideology [...] sanctif[y] the existing social order' (p.81) - and indeed this can be shown in Connolly's own conceptualisation of religion - this neglects the role theology can also play (and has played) in subverting the existent order. This, in fact, neglects the first part of the dialectical doctrine from the Eighteenth Brumaire that Men make their own history, just not in circumstances of their own choosing. Again, the notion religion engenders a kind of fatalism about class society is based specifically on the European experience and betrays an element of reductionism as a result.
Sometimes the critique is pretty thin and appears as though the authors simply oppose Connolly's arguments on the grounds they don't align with what they perceive to be "orthodox" Marxism, as opposed to being assessed on their own merits. For instance, they criticise him for failing to 'share Lenin's insight [...] into the reactionary character of the [pre-WW1] epoch' (p.158) without really sufficiently demonstrating why this might be significant.
At other times, although they acknowledge early on that Marx and Engels rejected notions that socialism would follow inevitably in the course of history, rather than (as they did) from conscious revolutionary action (p.13), they do also sometimes lean too much into Lenin's determinism about the supposed "ripeness" of Irish society for revolution. The authors also criticise Connolly for advocating a general strike in opposition to WW1, while defending Lenin's own position - which actually also called for supporting any and all action taken by the workers (which, you'd think, would include a general strike...).
Finally, the book assumes a lot of base knowledge of Irish and Marxist history. References to Tone, Redmond, the SDF, and Sinn Fein (among others) all assume familiarity with the topics. Although extensive sections of Marx's writings on Ireland are helpful in providing historical context, a reader is likely to get very lost without some prior knowledge. There's some good analysis of the SDF, and of late-19th century socialism, but lateral reading on the topic is highly recommended.
Displaying 1 - 1 of 1 review