Judging WT Cosgrove

convert wrote: »

Michael Laffan's book on WT Cosgrave was launched last night in the RIA. A hugely popular and well-attended event. The Irish Times have a pretty decent write-up on it here. From a quick flick through the book, it looks like a great resource to students of and those interested in Irish history.

Was just reading today about the efforts by WT Cosgrave and his government to cover-up the near famine conditions in the country in 1925 and condemn those who attempted to assist starving workers and small farmers and their families as communists.

Given the happy smiling pictures of Liam Cosgrave and Enda Kenny I take it there isn's a chapter on this:

http://irishhistorypodcast.ie/1925-irelands-forgotten-famine/

Or do they take the standard FG line about austerity being in the wider national interest.

convert wrote: »

I'm always exceptionally wary of pieces like this, written by so-called 'historians' who have no actual qualifications in history. There's been quite a lot of very 'interesting' pieces of work produced by people like this, demonstrated by a recent thread here.

The Author is Finn Dwyer. First came across him and his podcast/website when he was on RTE. Don't know about his qualifications but at the very least this article raises questions about the early days of the state, days which are often viewed through rose tinted glasses.

touts wrote: »

The Author is Finn Dwyer. First came across him and his podcast/website when he was on RTE. Don't know about his qualifications but at the very least this article raises questions about the early days of the state, days which are often viewed through rose tinted glasses.

I don't know of anyone who looks at the 1920s in Ireland through rose-tinted glasses. It was a very difficult time, especially after the Civil War devastated Irish infrastrucuture, industry and business. People may say Cosgrave did the best with what he had, and others will criticise him for what he did, but that's different.

Jolly Red Giant wrote: »

As for WT Cosgrave - he presided over one of the most oppressive, reactionary regimes in Europe in the 1920s (and that is saying something). His legacy is one of poverty and repression for the masses to protect the elites that led to four decades of economic depression, exploitation, unemployment and emigration.

That's a bit of a stretch? Maybe letting an ideological approach cloud your vision. Might want to broaden your horizons on this one. There was after all a Labour Party people could vote for, and CnG were eventually voted out in favour of Fianna Fail - who did many things differently but didn't exactly improve the lot of ordinary people much.

Was Cosgrave really as or more repressive as the following:
USSR - no explanation needed
Spain - General Miguel Primo de Rivera
Italy - Mussolini
Hungary - Béla Kun &n Miklós Horthy
Poland - Józef Piłsudski
Portugal - Ditadura Nacional
Greece - Theodoros Pangalos


etc

Arsemageddon wrote: »

The Cosgrave government was a democratically elected centre right government which had to deal with the aftermath of the war of independence and civil war. Like PB1 i wouldn't be a fan, but repeatedly labelling them facists is just ridiculous. No matter how hard you try to pull every available strand to support your hypothesis that there was significant support for communism in 1920s Ireland electoral results show this to be untrue. Extreme left wing and right wing politics have always belonged on the fringes of Irish politics.

If you want to criticise my comments then you should do it on the basis of what I actually said, rather then building paper castles.

I did not and never have labeled the Cosgrave government as fascist. It was not fascist, but it was a right-wing (not centre-right), reactionary and repressive regime that on occasions used the methods of fascism to engage in widespread repression - specifically the use of the fascist Special Infantry Corps in 1922 and 1923. The use of fascist methods during this period date back to 1920 with the establishment of the Farmers Freedom Force to 'fight Bolshevism and anarchism' and break strikes by farm labourers and creamery workers.

Furthermore, the claim that CnanG were 'democratically' elected flies in the face of reality. Both wings of SF attempted to fix the result of the June 1922 election and partly succeeded and the 1923 election took place with a backdrop of widespread repression and intimidation. The ruling elites had secured control and were determined to use any means necessary to protect their control.

As for support for communism - I have produced ample evidence, some of it directly from the leadership of the nationalist movement, that clearly demonstrates the potential for socialist revolution in Ireland during this period. The fact that you refer solely to the results of bourgeois parliamentary elections are an indicator demonstrates that you are not capable of comprehending the nature of the period. To start with the primary left-wing revolutionary trend in Ireland during this period was syndicalism, a revolutionary philosophy that dismisses the use of the capitalist electoral process as a vehicle for change. No where in Europe did the forces of the left during this period focus on parliamentary elections - every supporter of the left understood the reactionary nature of elections as a vehicle to reinforce capitalist rule and were determined to bring it crashing down rather than justify its existence. The support for socialist ideas didn't exist within the electoral process, but on the streets, in the workplaces and in the communities. Despite this the ILPTUC when they did run candidates, did secure significant votes, usually on the back of widespread class struggle in various parts of the country.

Jolly Red Giant wrote: »

As for WT Cosgrave - he presided over one of the most oppressive, reactionary regimes in Europe in the 1920s (and that is saying something).

This quote alone undermines the entire thread. As noted when you compare Cosgrave with all the other "regimes" in Europe at the time. Surely such a man would have made himself "President for Life" (as happens in so many other new states), rather than hand over power to his former enemies in Fianna Fail?

Jolly Red Giant wrote: »

His legacy is one of poverty and repression for the masses to protect the elites that led to four decades of economic depression, exploitation, unemployment and emigration.

How can you blame Cosgrave for the following four decades? Different governments and policies came along. Many elections were held. Certainly he had no role in the Great Depression, Dev's Economic War or WW2.

Jolly Red Giant wrote: »

I did not and never have labeled the Cosgrave government as fascist. It was not fascist, but it was a right-wing (not centre-right), reactionary and repressive regime that on occasions used the methods of fascism to engage in widespread repression - specifically the use of the fascist Special Infantry Corps in 1922 and 1923. The use of fascist methods during this period date back to 1920 with the establishment of the Farmers Freedom Force to 'fight Bolshevism and anarchism' and break strikes by farm labourers and creamery workers.

In fairness, you did use the word "Fascist" 3 times in the preceding post. And "jackboot" too! Overuse of the word Fascist tends to usually mean, "someone who disagrees with my point of view". In this case though you seem to use "Fascist" in the context of a government using threats, violence or imprisonment to intimidate people. Surely this isn't unique to Fascism? (or even Bolshevism)

Jolly Red Giant wrote: »

As for support for communism - I have produced ample evidence, some of it directly from the leadership of the nationalist movement, that clearly demonstrates the potential for socialist revolution in Ireland during this period. The fact that you refer solely to the results of bourgeois parliamentary elections are an indicator demonstrates that you are not capable of comprehending the nature of the period. To start with the primary left-wing revolutionary trend in Ireland during this period was syndicalism, a revolutionary philosophy that dismisses the use of the capitalist electoral process as a vehicle for change. No where in Europe did the forces of the left during this period focus on parliamentary elections - every supporter of the left understood the reactionary nature of elections as a vehicle to reinforce capitalist rule and were determined to bring it crashing down rather than justify its existence. The support for socialist ideas didn't exist within the electoral process, but on the streets, in the workplaces and in the communities. Despite this the ILPTUC when they did run candidates, did secure significant votes, usually on the back of widespread class struggle in various parts of the country.

So elections are not a good indicator of what people want? Not perfect, but do you/they have a better one? Sounds like this "revolutionary philosophy" simply knows what's best for everyone (like Fascists?).

Jolly Red Giant wrote: »

As a historian I unashamedly look at this period not from a pro- or anti-treaty perspective, but from a working class perspective (a perspective that has been consciously buried in the historiography of this period)

You say you're a historian, but I think your use of language could be more clear and concise. You use a lot of flowery rhetoric and hyperbole. e.g. "tossing capitalism into the sea" "the lapdogs of CnanG", fascist "jackboot", "bourgeois parliamentary elections".
More like stuff you see on a Socialist Workers pamplet or flyer.

Also, why does a working class perspective have to sound so left-wing? Plenty of people from "working class" background espouse "right-wing" views.

Jolly Red Giant wrote: »

3. I do not know the political outlook of Dwyer and I have repeatedly declared that I approach historical discourse from a working class perspective. No matter what a historian may claim we are all influenced by and are products of our environment and cannot eliminate these biases from any historical analysis. Many historians (usually those who look at history from the class perspectives of the establishment) will deny the influence of bias - but they are spouting the soft brown smelly stuff when they do. I will add that I am meticulous in my research and do not comment definitively on any topic when I have not carried out my own independent and verifiable research.

We can all agree that no-one is entirely impartial unbiased, but I think we can try to be. Historian can at least try and get to the truth (the meaning of those concept can be debated on the Philosophy or Humanities forum).

Been away for the past couple of days - so replying with a bit of a delay

donaghs wrote: »

This quote alone undermines the entire thread. As noted when you compare Cosgrave with all the other "regimes" in Europe at the time. Surely such a man would have made himself "President for Life" (as happens in so many other new states), rather than hand over power to his former enemies in Fianna Fail?

It would be a mistake to assume that Cosgrave (or any other political leader) operates in a political vacuum. Cosgrave and his government were representing a certain political interest in Ireland during this period (specifically the larger farmers and the business and professional classes). If it were necessary to create a dictatorship to protect the interests of these social classes (like in other European countries) then it would have happened. However, the left had been decisively defeated as a result of the crushing of workers resistance during the nine month long strike during the building of the Ardnacrusha power station.

donaghs wrote: »

How can you blame Cosgrave for the following four decades? Different governments and policies came along. Many elections were held. Certainly he had no role in the Great Depression, Dev's Economic War or WW2.

The economic morass created as a result of the austerity of the 1920s was the main factor in the depression and stagnation of the following 30 years. The policies pursued by DeV also contributed to the forty years of economic crisis but the key factor was the destruction of the economy by Cosgrave's government.

Similarly with social policy - the arch conservatism of Cosgrave's government contributed to the creation of a society that facilitated the domination of the Catholic hierarchy over the health and education systems, the hierarchy's control of the industrial schools, reformatories, laundries etc, the implementation of draconian censorship etc that continued again for more than four decades. Cosgrave's government set the tone and DeV continued it.

donaghs wrote: »

In fairness, you did use the word "Fascist" 3 times in the preceding post. And "jackboot" too! Overuse of the word Fascist tends to usually mean, "someone who disagrees with my point of view". In this case though you seem to use "Fascist" in the context of a government using threats, violence or imprisonment to intimidate people. Surely this isn't unique to Fascism? (or even Bolshevism)

I absolutely agree that the word 'fascist' is tossed around far too much - and is often used as a term of abuse. I am always very precise when I use the term in a historical context. The SIC were a fascist force, hired known fascist thugs and were used for a specific purpose - namely the destruction of the trade union movement in defense of the interests of the elite. That is the very essence of fascism.

Similarly with the FFF, which, although not an organised fascist force like the SIC, were a quasi-fascist formation again with the objective of smashing the workers movement. At the end of the day it is a vital component of historical discourse to correctly catagorise political movements and components.

Again, for clarification, Cosgrave's government was not fascist, but it was a right-wing reactionary regime that imposed massive repression in the new Free State and used some fascist elements to impose its rule.

donaghs wrote: »

So elections are not a good indicator of what people want? Not perfect, but do you/they have a better one? Sounds like this "revolutionary philosophy" simply knows what's best for everyone (like Fascists?).

Elections are a snapshot of public opinion - they do not indicate accurately what is happening in society for a variety of reasons. The parliamentary electoral system in this country is designed to protect the rule of the establishment. It is not democratic, it can be manipulated, it is not representative and it can be dispensed with when the establishment regard it as necessary. This has nothing to do with 'what is best for everyone' but is related to 'what is best for a particular social class'.

donaghs wrote: »

You say you're a historian, but I think your use of language could be more clear and concise. You use a lot of flowery rhetoric and hyperbole. e.g. "tossing capitalism into the sea" "the lapdogs of CnanG", fascist "jackboot", "bourgeois parliamentary elections".

I use very clear and precise language and always back up any assertions I make with evidence. The terms you but in inverted commas are precise and are relevant in certain contexts (like a discussion about the role of the CnanG). If you are incapable of understanding the historical contexts of these terms and their relevance to the period then that is not my fault.

donaghs wrote: »

Also, why does a working class perspective have to sound so left-wing? Plenty of people from "working class" background espouse "right-wing" views.

Who said it does?

You completely miss the point of looking at historical periods and events from a working class perspective and assume that this means making political arguments from a left perspective. The two things are entirely different.

donaghs wrote: »

We can all agree that no-one is entirely impartial unbiased, but I think we can try to be. Historian can at least try and get to the truth (the meaning of those concept can be debated on the Philosophy or Humanities forum).

Again - you assume that because I state that I look at history from a working class perspective that I do not strive to be unbiased. To be biased is to ignore historical evidence that does not fit into a particular historical narrative. I am meticulous in my research and never ignore or dismiss historical evidence irrespective of the impact it might have on the topic I am researching. Again, I would argue that by openly declaring the approach I am taking to historical discourse that I am operating with a clear intent and not hiding behind claims of balance that so many other historians declare (and that includes some historians that approach researching historical topics from the same perspective as I do).

Just because I am presenting a different narrative to what you believe or accept, does not mean that my narrative is any less valid. History at its heart is about expressing an opinion based on a certain interpretation based on clear evidence.

Arsemageddon wrote: »

I have a problem with your subjective interpretation of the past, the language you choose to use reinforces my opinion of your posts. You could easily make your points in plain English. How you can infer that this indicates 'class bias' on my part is mind boggling.

I use plain English - in fact I use very precise terminology when I engage in historical discourse. You claim that I have a 'subjective interpretation' - I carry out meticulous research and base my interpretation on it. I make no apology for writing from a working class perspective in this period - we have far too much historical writing from other perspectives. If you disagree with my interpretation then produce evidence that opposes it.

Arsemageddon wrote: »

To form an objective opinion of the period would require an analysis of both the negative and positive aspects/achievements of the Cosgrave government.

There were negative and (some) positive aspects with the CnanG government as there are with any government - however, there is also an over-riding objective outlook for every government and for the CnanG government that was the suppression of all opposition.

Arsemageddon wrote: »

You rightly raised the issue of labour disputes. However, you then derailed the entire thread by loosely throwing the word Fascist around

I never - ever - loosely throw around the word 'fascist' - I use in a precise fashion where appropriate. It is a fact that Kevin O'Higgins in 1922 when he was Minister for Justice in the Provisional Government, established a fascist unit within the police known as the Special Infantry Corps. The SIC had one objective and one objective only - the suppression of strikes and the smashing of workers organisation.

Arsemageddon wrote: »

and labelling the Cosgrave government the most reactionary in Europe.

Here is your problem - I never made the statement that you claim - I stated that CnanG government were -

one of the most oppressive, reactionary regimes in Europe in the 1920s

Arsemageddon wrote: »

The thread then became about you rather than the original subject. Donaghs provided a pretty good list of contemporary regimes that were far more brutal.

You are using the word 'brutal' - I did not - and I could produce a much longer list of regimes that weren't remotely as oppressive as CnanG

Arsemageddon wrote: »

As for engaging in debate, you waded in with rather personal comments from the outset (not capable of understanding the period, accusing me of class bias and being a troll). TBH I find your 'debating' technique utterly obnoxious.

As for the issue of hyperbole, well, People in glass houses shouldn't throw stones.....

I do not make personal comments - I never have - I make statements based on the evidence I see before me. The difference is that throughout this thread you have done nothing except reject my interpretation without providing one iota of evidence to back up any assertions that you make - again in this post you have done exactly the same thing.

I have absolutely no problem with people disagreeing with my interpretation of historical evidence - and I will engage in debate with anyone - but if you choose to do so then do it by providing counter evidence. The nonsense that you have posted above has no substance to it - it is a rant because you cannot agree with what I posted yet you appear unwilling or incapable of producing any alternative viewpoint backed with evidence.

Arsemageddon wrote: »

That depends how you define fascist. In an earlier post you referred to 'Fascist methods' in relation to the SIC. That they used violence, intimidation, etc. is unquestionable. However, I reiterate my earlier point that such tactics are not exclusive to fascists.

Apologies for butting in: it's not the methods that constitute fascism, but the objective for which they're used i.e. to advance the interests of the ruling class by using physical violence to suppress the organisations and interests of the working class. Think of the brownshirts then the organs of the state v the Communist Party in Depression-era Germany, or Franco and the army / Falangists / Royalists v workers' militias in Republican Spain.

I would not argue that the CnaG government was fascist per se, but their use of the SIC very obviously fits into the same bracket.

Arsemageddon wrote: »

Your terminology is far from precise. For example, In the quote above you state that you are writing from a working class perspective. The working class in the 1920's were not a single homogenous block, for many the realisation of nationalist/republican objectives was the primary concern. For the religiously devout the atheism inherent in far left ideology made it anathema. As I'm sure your well aware government propaganda at the time frequently played on the 'godless' aspect of communism.

I think your failure to acknowledge the existence of a diversity of opinion within the working class of 1920's Ireland demonstrates the very prejudice you are accusing others of.



I pretty much agree with this statement.




That depends how you define fascist. In an earlier post you referred to 'Fascist methods' in relation to the SIC. That they used violence, intimidation, etc. is unquestionable. However, I reiterate my earlier point that such tactics are not exclusive to fascists. All sides in Ireland north and south used violence and intimidation during the 1920's and 1930's. For example, the state forces/loyalists in Northern Ireland in this period were violent, reactionary thugs, but I don't think they could be considered fascists.

There are many definitions of Fascism, none of which are generally accepted to explain the phenomenon. Perhaps you could provide your definition?




Fair enough, I misquoted you in my post. You did however state that the Cosgrave government was 'one of the most reactionary in Europe'. That statement combined with repeated ruse of the word fascist would tend to indicate that you considered them brutal. The list of contemporary regimes provided by Donaghs puts your 'one of the most reactionary in Europe' statement in clear perspective. Indeed, it could be argued that the free-state government wasn't even the most reactionary government on this island.




You did make personal comments. You should have the good grace to debate without flaming.



You don't make personal comments, but here you accuse me of ranting!

I raised the issue of general election results. You dismissed this by saying 'bourgeoisie elections' don't count. That is a total cop out. Voter turnout was quite high during the period and Labour grew significant support between 1923 and the two elections in 1927, also a number of independent labour candidates were returned. The only communist elected during this period was Jim Larkin. This would tend to indicate that the vast bulk of the left leaning element of the Irish working class did not support the far left.

You have repeatedly chosen to reduce the debate to a simplistic black and white argument without acknowledging that any shades of grey exist. I find this to be an entirely subjective approach to the period coloured by your own political beliefs.

Sorry A - but again - once again you produce a post that contains zero evidence and engages in hyperbole in an attempt to produce an argument (and that is not a personal insult - it is a statement of fact relating to your post).