SINN FEIN, SOCIALISM AND
THE NATION
In a recent issue of The Peasant,
a
correspondent, `Cairbre', in the midst of a very fair and reasonable
article on
Sinn Fein and Socialism,
says:---`A rapprochement between Sinn
Feinism and Socialism is highly desirable'. To this I desire to say a
fervent
`Amen', and to follow up in my prayer with a suggestion which may help
in
realising such a desirable consummation. Always presupposing that the
rapprochement is desired between Sinn Feiners who sympathise with
Socialism and
not merely with those who see no further than `the Constitution of
'82', on the
one hand, and Socialists who realise that a Socialist movement must
rest upon
and draw its inspiration from the historical and actual conditions of
the
country in which it functions and not merely lose themselves in an
abstract
`internationalism' (which has no relation to the real internationalism
of the
Socialist movement), on the other.
But, first, it would be as well to state
some of
the difficulties in the way in order that we may shape our course in
order to
avoid them.
Sinn Fein has two sides---its economic
teaching
and its philosophy of self-reliance. With its economic teaching, as
expounded
by my friend Mr. Arthur Griffith in his adoption of the doctrines of
Frederick
List, Socialists have no sympathy, as it appeals only to those who
measure a
nation's prosperity by the volume of wealth produced in a country,
instead of
by the distribution of that wealth amongst the inhabitants. According
to that
definition, Ireland
in 1847 was a prosperous country because it exported food, whereas Denmark
was comparatively unprosperous because it exported little. But with
that part
of Sinn Fein which teaches that Ireland must rely upon itself, respect
her own
traditions, know her own history, preserve her own language and
literature
without prejudice to, or denial of, the worth in the language or
literature of
other people, stand erect in her own worth and claim to be appraised
for her
own intrinsic value, and not as part of the wheels and cogs of the
imperial
system of another people---with that side of Sinn Fein,
Socialists may
sympathise; and, indeed, as a cold matter of fact, those doctrines were
preached in Dublin by the Irish Socialist Republican Party from 1896
onward,
before the Sinn Fein movement was founded.
The first side of Sinn Fein necessarily
excludes
the Socialists; the second does not. The first rests upon a capitalist
conception of progress; the second is a gateway by which Ireland may
enter into
the intellectual domain which Socialism has made its own---by its
spiritual
affinity with all the world-wide forces making for social freedom.
Socialists are also somewhat divided in
their
ideas as to what is a proper course in a country like Ireland.
One set, observing that those who talk loudest about `Ireland a Nation'
are
often the most merciless grinders of the faces of the poor, fly off to
the
extremest limit of hostility to Nationalism and, whilst opposed to
oppression
at all times, are also opposed to national revolt for national
independence.
Another, principally recruited amongst
the
workers in the towns of North-East Ulster have been weaned by Socialist
ideas
and industrial disputes from the leadership of Tory and Orange
landlords and
capitalists; but as they are offered practical measures of relief from
capitalist oppression by the English Independent Labour Party, and
offered
nothing but a green flag by Irish Nationalism, they naturally go where
they
imagine relief will come from. Thus their social discontent is lost to
the
Irish cause. These men see that the workers shot down last winter in Belfast
were not shot down in the interests of the Legislative Union; they were
shot
down in the interests of Irish capitalists. Hence, when a Sinn Feiner
waxes
eloquent about restoring the Constitution of '82, but remains silent
about the
increasing industrial despotism of the capitalist; when the Sinn Feiner
speaks
to men who are fighting against low wages and tells them that the Sinn
Fein
body has promised lots of Irish labour at low wages to any foreign
capitalist
who wishes to establish in Ireland, what wonder if they come to believe
that a
change from Toryism to Sinn Feinism would simply be a change from the
devil
they do know to the devil they do not know!
The other section of Socialists in
Ireland are
those who inscribe their banners with the watchword `Irish Socialist
Republic',
who teach that Socialism will mean in Ireland the common ownership by
Irish
people of the land and everything else necessary to feed, clothe, house
and
maintain life in Ireland, and that therefore Socialism in its
application to
Ireland means and requires the fullest trust of the Irish people as the
arbiters of their own destinies in conformity with the laws of progress
and
humanity.
This section of Socialists were so Irish
that
they organised and led the great anti-Jubilee procession of 1897 in
Dublin,
which completely destroyed all the carefully-prepared British
preparations to
represent the Irish as loyal; and yet their position was so
correct from
their standpoint that at the International Congress of 1900 at Paris
they were
granted, in the name of Ireland, separate representation from England
and
treated and acted as a separate nation.
Connolly was not one of the delegates.
They were
E. W. Stewart, Mark Deering and Daniel O'Brien.
Now the problem is to find a basis of
union on
which all these sections who owe allegiance to one or other conception
of
Socialism may unite. My position is that this union, or rapprochement,
cannot
be arrived at by discussing our differences. Let us rather find out and
unite
upon the things upon which we agree. Once we get together, we will find
that
our differences are not so insuperable as they appear whilst we are
separated.
What is necessary first is a simple platform around which to gather,
with the
understanding that as much as possible shall be left to future
conditions to
dictate and as little as possible settled now by rules or theories. As
each
section has complete confidence in their own doctrines, let them show
their
confidence by entering an organisation with those who differ from them
in
methods, and depend upon the development of events to prove the
correctness of
their position. Each person to have complete freedom of speech in
conformity
with the common object; the lecture platform to be common to all, and
every
lecture to be followed by questions and discussion. With mutual
toleration on
both sides, the Protestant worker may learn that the cooperation of the
Catholic who works, suffers, votes and fights alongside him is more
immediately
vital to his cause and victory day by day than the co-operation of
workers on
the other side of the Channel; and that Socialists outside of Ireland
are all
in favour of that national independence which he rejects for the sake
of a few
worthless votes.
And the Catholic Sinn Feiners may learn
that love
of freedom beats strongly in the breasts of Protestant peasants and
workmen
who, because they have approached it from a different historical
standpoint,
regard the Nationalist conception with suspicion or even hostility.
ยท
Irish Nation
