The we!l-known author Tim Pat Coogan once remarked that Irish history has the only example of Communists and bourgeois nationalists joining together against imperialism in which it was the Communists who were gobbled up.
He was referring to the 1916 Rising and to what happened afterwards to the hundreds of socialist workersÑmembers of the trade union militia, the Irish Citizen ArmyÑwho took part in it together with the secretary of the Irish Transport and General Workers' Union, James Connol!Y, the military leader of the rismg.
The Irish labour movement was absorbed in the general nationalist movement as an important but politically subordinate part. So were the socialists.
'Strike together but march separately', 'Don't mix up the class banners'Ñthese were the slogans raised by Lenin and Trotsky to guide socialists involved in national struggles. Ireland between 1916 and 1923 is one of the classic examples of the truth in Lenin's and Trotsky's position.
Unfortunately it is a negative example. In Ireland all the banners were crossed, and the red flag was trampled in the mud. A new and unexpected meaning was given to the old Irish nationalist rallying cry expressing the fervent desire to put 'the green flag above the IEnglish) red'. Now it was the Irish bourgeois green above the Irish working-class red.
Nobody symbolised the confusion and crossed banners which wrecked the brlliant prospects Irish lahour seemed to have in the second decade of the 20th century better than Constance Markievicz.
She was a member of tbe Irish Citizen Army and fought in Citizen Army uniform during the Easter Rising of 1916. She was sentenced to death when the British Army recaptured Dublin. Unlike 15 of the other prisoners of warÑincluding James ConnollyÑwho surrendered to the gallant British General Maxwell and were then shot after summary court martial, Markievicz was reprieved 'solely because of her sex'.
The Irish Citizen Army had been set up by the Irish Transpor, and General Workers'Union to defend striking workers. A member of the Anglo-lrish ruling class and the wife of a Polish count, Constance Markievicz took the side of the workers against the Dublin bosses and tbe murderous policemen during Dublin's bitter labour war of 1913.She organised a soup kitchen at ITGWU headquarters, Liberty Hall.
She became a Connollyite socialist republican. After the strike James Connolly, acting secretary of the ITGWU, kept tb, Citizen Army going and linked it with the revolutionary nationalists, the Irish Volunteers. Together with the Volunteers, th~ Cilizen Army rose in rehellion against British rule in 1916. It faced insuperable odds, but some ItDOO rebels held Dublin for a week against the mighty British Army.
Markievicz was not jusl a member of the Cilizen Army. Sh. was alsoÑwith the support of James ConnollyÑa member of the Irish Volunteers, the pettybourgeois nationalists. Yet sbe was an honest socialist who believed in the workerst republic.
She remained a sincere socialist, and was recognised as one of their own by Dublin workers, until her early death at 59 in a hospital for the Dublin poor. Tens of thousands of Dublin workers marched behind her coffin. But she diedÑstill a follower of Connolly, and still a sincerely committed socialistÑa member of De Valera's Fianna Fail party, the party which is today organising a savage drive against the Irish workers' living standards I
What happened to the militant Irish labour movement and to Constance Markievicz was that they merged and blurred their own political identity with that 0 petty-bourgeois and then bourgeois nationalists. They retreated into politics which com bined, on one level, the militant pursuit of the national cause together with anybody willing to fight for it; on the other, militan but narrow trade unionism.
Socialism, the workers' republic, was there somewhere - but not yet the stuff of practical politics.
Socialism became indistinguishable from nationalism It dissolved into a left wing nationalist current and then, falling under the influence of Stalinism in the 1930s, into a sort of slushy populism. This was all tbe more unfortunate because what was then the big majority of the Irish proletariat, in the north-east, rejected and resisted nationalism.
After Connolly, the unions tried to avoid politics for mixed reasons, but one central reason was their desire to evade issues o' which any answerÑnationalist or UnionistÑwould alienate on' or anotber group of organised workers, and maybe split the unions. That is probably the mai~ reason for the astonishing absten tion by the labour movement in the 19t8 election, when the nationalists appealed for a majorit' on a programme of secession from the UK, and got it.
The political questions became the property of the bourgeoisie and petty bourgeoisie, and their answers held sway even with the workers. Politically and organisa tionally, Irish labour never evolv ed beyond the politics of a tiny reformist Labour Party. Fianna Fail, initially a radical petty bourgeois party, gained the support of most workers and kept it although it bas been the main bourgeois party in independent Ireland.
Constance MarkieviczÑ honest, devoted, and selfless socialist though she wasÑsymbolises the confusion that created this situation. The most important of Connolly's comrades and heirs, if only because of her part in the Rising, she floundered helplessly. Had Connolly lived things might have gone differenlly, but he died before a British firing squad in May 1916.
Constance Markievicz ended up in Fianna Fail; so, in the'40s and 50s, did Connolly's daughter Nora Connolly O'Brien, though she too was always a socialist.
So today, though they are not in Fianna Fail, many Irish socialists can be heard sometimes mutteringÑespecially at electionsÑabout the latent antiimperialist potential which still exists in Fianna Fail.
Diana Norman's book is a splendidly sympathetic account of Markievicz. I liked it a lot though it should be said that it is the work of an uncritical enthusiast, the book of someone English who has newly discovered romantic Irish nationalism and has fallen in love with it. In any case she loves Constance MarkieviczÑbut that is appropriate. Constance Markievicz did what she could, and personalIy this upper-class woman held nothing back from the labour movement once she'came over'. Tragic political confusion was not hers alone.
'Tbe Prison Letters' is a treasure-trove, containing not onIy the letters but also a 130-page biography of Constance and her sister Eva (a socialist and feminist who worked in England) by Eva's life-long companion, Esther Roper.
WL 8, Oct-Nov 1987
revlews 'Terrlble Beauty: a llfe of Constance Marklevicz', by Dlana Norman, and 'Prlson Letters of Constance Marklevicz', edited by Esther Roper.