Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Hi all! We have been experiencing an issue on site where threads have been missing the latest postings. The platform host Vanilla are working on this issue. A workaround that has been used by some is to navigate back from 1 to 10+ pages to re-sync the thread and this will then show the latest posts. Thanks, Mike.
Hi there,
There is an issue with role permissions that is being worked on at the moment.
If you are having trouble with access or permissions on regional forums please post here to get access: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058365403/you-do-not-have-permission-for-that#latest
There is an issue with role permissions that is being worked on at the moment.
If you are having trouble with access or permissions on regional forums please post here to get access: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058365403/you-do-not-have-permission-for-that#latest
Judging WT Cosgrove
-
22-10-2014 9:06amMichael 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.1
Comments
-
I didnt realise that Liam Cosgrave was still alive. Still going strong at 94.
I suppose easons is the best place to get this? I cant see it anywhere online.
has anybody read this book on Cosgrave?
http://www.amazon.co.uk/COSGRAVE-1880-1965-FOUNDER-MODERN-IRELAND-ebook/dp/B0091HCK06/ref=sr_1_fkmr2_2?ie=UTF8&qid=1413981931&sr=8-2-fkmr2&keywords=Judging+WT+Cosgrave0 -
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.0 -
I didnt realise that Liam Cosgrave was still alive. Still going strong at 94.
I suppose easons is the best place to get this? I cant see it anywhere online.
has anybody read this book on Cosgrave?
http://www.amazon.co.uk/COSGRAVE-1880-1965-FOUNDER-MODERN-IRELAND-ebook/dp/B0091HCK06/ref=sr_1_fkmr2_2?ie=UTF8&qid=1413981931&sr=8-2-fkmr2&keywords=Judging+WT+Cosgrave
Not 100% sure on W.T but Liam was one of the worst leaders we've ever had.0 -
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.0 -
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.0 -
Advertisement
-
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.0 -
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.
Some of the worst historians on the planet are academics who behave like 'know-it-alls' and dismiss any opinion that contradicts their opinionated 'analysis'.
Some of the best historians are local historians that have never studied an academic course but over many years have carried out in-depth research into a wide variety of topics.
Fin Dwyer has a masters in archaeology and carries out extensive research into many different history topics. There are things that I agree with and others that I don't from what he writes. But to criticise the perceived lack of credentials of the author because he poses an alternative view to your narrative is b*llocks.
If you have a problem with what he has written then find historical evidence to back up your criticism.
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.0 -
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
etc0 -
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
1. Did Cosgrave order the mass execution of republican prisoners in retaliation for guerrilla attacks?
2. Did Cosgrave and O'Higgins establish the fascist Special Infantry Corps to break strikes, attack and torture trade union activists, burn homes, rob money from the poor etc.?
3. Did Cosgrave and O'Higgins use the army to break the post office workers strike in September 1922?
4. Did Cosgrave, O'Higgins and Blythe engage in vicious austerity that slashed jobs, wages and pensions and resulted in near famine conditions in Ireland in 1924/1925?
5. Did Cosgrave, O'Higgins and Blythe cut taxes for the wealthy elites and use the forces of the state to protect landed estates while rural workers and their families starved?
6. Did Cosgrave, O'Higgins and Blythe provoke a major strike at Ardnacrusha in 1925 in order to further drive down wages and force 3,500 + workers to live in atrocious conditions under the jackboot of a private fascist security force?
7. Did Cosgrave and O'Higgins engage in the arbitrary arrest and internment of political opponents?
8. Did Cosgrave and O'Higgins manipulate the democratic process to abolish local councils who refused to implement the diktats of the government?
9. Did Cosgrave and O'Higgins manipulate the democratic process to abolish the right to a referendum in the constitution?
10. Did Cosgrave and O'Higgins in conjunction with the Catholic hierarchy engage in a massive 'red scare' campaign against political opponents that resulted in regular fascist attacks on left-wing meetings?
Etc.0 -
I’m no fan of any Cosgrave, Liam should have fired Donnegan, and the recent baby version has lost himself in the wilderness. Were the author a historian (which he is not) it would still remain an opinion piece, one splattered with emotive language throughout.
darkest chapters ……. it was receiving prominent attention in the Soviet Daily Pravda…………this callous and dangerous denial……………etc. .
It’s clear to see how the views expressed in the article fit with JRG’s outlook. Boring, belongs in politics not history.0 -
Advertisement
-
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.0
-
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.
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.0 -
pedroeibar1 wrote: »It’s clear to see how the views expressed in the article fit with JRG’s outlook. Boring, belongs in politics not history.
More paper castles - can you point out where I actually defended the article by Fin Dwyer?
I objected to the claim above that the article should be dismissed because it claimed (falsely) that Dwyer didn't have any academic qualifications. If you want to dismiss the validity of any argument then do it by producing contrary evidence, not claiming that the interpretation of the author should be dismissed because he doesn't have a series of letters after his name.
On the more substantive issue of the 'starvation' of the period - my father was a young boy in 1924 ( about 8 years old) and he described to me the poverty and starvation experienced by him and the members of his family during the early years of the state. However, before I would comment on the claims by Dwyer in a comprehensive fashion I would conduct my own research (and this is what I do when ever I am commenting on any historical discourse). If I comment in a comprehensive way about any topic I do so on the basis of my own research and not on the basis of what another historian has claimed. I have carried out comprehensive research into certain aspects of Irish life in the 1920s but I have not looked in detail at the issue of 'famine' and probably won't have an opportunity to do so in the immediate future.
I do however, commend Fin Dwyer for raising this issue, producing some evidence and I look forward to seeing more comprehensive research being conducted into the issue and seeing how the debate unfolds.0 -
Jolly Red Giant wrote: »More paper castles - can you point out where I actually defended the article by Fin Dwyer?Jolly Red Giant wrote: »This is a load of b*llocksJolly Red Giant wrote: »……..dismissed because it claimed (falsely) that Dwyer didn't have any academic qualifications.Jolly Red Giant wrote: »…………dismiss the validity of any argument then do it by producing contrary evidence, not claiming that the interpretation of the author should be dismissed because he doesn't have a series of letters after his name.Jolly Red Giant wrote: »On the more substantive issue of the 'starvation' of the period - …….he described to me the poverty and starvation experienced by him and the members of his family during the early years of the state.
It’s a real pity that you demean your obvious knowledge by posts like the foregoing. I can overlook a political bias, but I find it hard to stomach misquoting, which is why any argument with you cannot be rational and I just don’t bother.
(Ecrit dans mon 'chateau en Espagne'!)0 -
pedroeibar1 wrote: »I neither said nor suggested you defended the article, so my response to that assertion is your own quote
I never did this, nor did any other poster, (although there was a suggestion that he was not a ‘historian’, which is a valid criticism, and one which I as a non-historian have been subject to here.)
I accused the author and you of political bias, and quoted phrases (Pravda, FFS!) in support. The article is an opinion piece with some rather odd sources.
There were lots of mini-famines. What about the ‘famine’ in the SW of 1897 when the potato crop failed? That was just as bad, if not worse, and at a more critical time, given the changes in land tenure underway in that era.
It’s a real pity that you demean your obvious knowledge by posts like the foregoing. I can overlook a political bias, but I find it hard to stomach misquoting, which is why any argument with you cannot be rational and I just don’t bother.
(Ecrit dans mon 'chateau en Espagne'!)
1. You didn't say that I defended the article - you claimed that the article fitted in with my political outlook. I will again state that I made no assertion as to the validity of the article - I objected to the assertion that it should be dismissed because of the false claim that the author did not have academic qualifications. Often words are written and even though they don't spell out exactly what is being said, the inference can be seen.
2. You claim that no other poster claimed the article should be dismissed because Dwyer didn't have academic qualifications - well -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.
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.
4. Yes there were a lot of 'mini-famines' - that is not the issue - to start with the causes of the famines are rooted in the economic, social and political policies of the established powers. And a famine does not require the death of a million people - indeed a famine can actually exist without any deaths, it relates directly to food shortages. Secondly, at its heart, Dwyer's article is not actually about the 'famine', it was about the cover-up of the crisis by Cosgrave's government.
5. I couldn't care less whether you overlook my political outlook or not. I will interpret the evidence I uncover based on my perspective. You can disagree with that all you want - just produce the evidence that can contract it. You should go and take a few rennies though, because I did not misquote in relation to the 'b*llocks' stuff above and you again made false assertions as to what defence I was making of Dwyer. Last point - just because I do not agree with you does not make me irrational - it means I interpret evidence differently to what you do and I am perfectly entitled to do that (that is the basis of historical discourse) - if everyone agreed then there would be no history.
And back on topic - I was just reading this evening that the main efforts to alleviate the famine conditions that developed in Ireland in 1924/25 came from a solidarity organisation established by the Communist Party of Great Britain called the Workers International Relief which was roundly condemned by both the government and the LP opposition. Among other sources the History Ireland website has an article that discusses the starvation and the work of the WIR (but be careful, maybe Adrian Grant has a biased political outlook as well).
http://http://www.historyireland.com/20th-century-contemporary-history/workers-to-the-rescueworkers-international-relief-in-ireland-1925/0 -
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).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.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.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.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)
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).0 -
Jolly Red Giant wrote: »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.
Wow, that's just brilliant. I think you have managed to fit in every known 1970's student Marxist cliché in that post.
In an earlier post in this thread you defended a bloggers right to have an opinion, yet in the line quoted below you state that (based on the evidence of one short post) I am incapable of understanding the period, primarily because I don't agree with you. I have to presume it's because all animals are equal but some are more equal than others.
"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."
You refer to the Special Infantry Corps using 'fascist methods'. The S.I.C. were indeed violent thugs, but violent thuggery is not the sole preserve of fascists, as is amply demonstrated by the Cheka and NKVD.
I would have taken the time to write a longer post only for the fact that Donaghs has already posted much of what I would have said.0 -
Thinking on the OP's original question, a balance opinion could be given of the man and his party depending on one's own world view.
On one hand, that party had a rather dismissive view of their poorer fellow citizens as offhand I remember reading their de facto policy was one of emigration of that problem of those undesirables. So Oliva Mitchell's recent comments have a historical pedigree.
On the other, democracy is a hard to achieve. Ireland is one of the oldest such in the world. In large part this is due to keeping many of the institutions/traditions inherited from the British, one of which was the peaceful handover of power. To have been electorally defeated in the 30s by the losers in the civil war and still transfer authority to them was foundational to the stability of the state.
Thus for crafting a lasting settlement, a measured regard is due.0 -
Liam Cosgrave oversaw the biggest mass murder in this states history & didn't do a thing to pursue the perpetrators. Contrast with the British government's reaction to the biggest mass murder (until 2005) in their state,0
-
Been away for the past couple of days - so replying with a bit of a delayThis 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?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.
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.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)
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.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?).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".Also, why does a working class perspective have to sound so left-wing? Plenty of people from "working class" background espouse "right-wing" views.
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.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).
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.0 -
Advertisement
-
Arsemageddon wrote: »Wow, that's just brilliant. I think you have managed to fit in every known 1970's student Marxist cliché in that post.Arsemageddon wrote: »In an earlier post in this thread you defended a bloggers right to have an opinion, yet in the line quoted below you state that (based on the evidence of one short post) I am incapable of understanding the period, primarily because I don't agree with you. I have to presume it's because all animals are equal but some are more equal than others.Arsemageddon wrote: »You refer to the Special Infantry Corps using 'fascist methods'. The S.I.C. were indeed violent thugs, but violent thuggery is not the sole preserve of fascists, as is amply demonstrated by the Cheka and NKVD.Arsemageddon wrote: »I would have taken the time to write a longer post only for the fact that Donaghs has already posted much of what I would have said.0
-
DarkyHughes wrote: »Not 100% sure on W.T but Liam was one of the worst leaders we've ever had.
Wasn't it Cosgrave Jnr that sat outside in the car rather than go into St Patrick's Cathedral for the funeral of Ireland's first President?0 -
Wasn't it Cosgrave Jnr that sat outside in the car rather than go into St Patrick's Cathedral for the funeral of Ireland's first President?
But Liam wasn't in Cabinet; he was only a Parliamentary Secretary at the time. It was another five years before he got into Cabinet. So I don't know whether he was among those who sat outside the Cathedral waiting for the funeral to emerge.0 -
Sorry, I must be confusing him with Costello. Cheers Peregrinus0
-
Jolly Red Giant wrote: »So because you feel certain terminology is
outdated you dismiss the presented evidence. How much more biased can you get?
Terminology is relevant if it clearly explains the issues under discussion. The
idea that Marxist terminology is 'outdated' is a demonstration of clear class
bias based on political outlook rather than realising that the notion of the
'end of history' after the collapse of Stalinism was nothing more than a piece
of blatant propaganda.
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.Nope - I said that you were incapable of understanding the period based on the
post you made and numerous other posts you have made. You toss out criticism
based on your own biases without one shred of evidence and my assertion is not
unique - others have made similar criticisms.
To form an objective opinion of the period would require an analysis of both the negative and positive aspects/achievements of the Cosgrave government. You rightly raised the issue of labour disputes. However, you then derailed the entire thread by loosely throwing the word Fascist around and labelling the Cosgrave government the most reactionary in Europe. 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.Actually - Donagh at least put forward a series of coherent comments - you
stopped at this point because you don't make any real effort to engage his
historical debate, instead engaging in discussions in a fashion that has more in
common with trolling than historical discourse. If you want to disagree with the
perspective I am outlining then do so with clear historical evidence, not
hyperbole.
Donaghs had already made the points I would raised, I didn't see the point of repeating them.
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.....0 -
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.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.Arsemageddon wrote: »You rightly raised the issue of labour disputes. However, you then derailed the entire thread by loosely throwing the word Fascist aroundArsemageddon wrote: »and labelling the Cosgrave government the most reactionary in Europe.one of the most oppressive, reactionary regimes in Europe in the 1920sArsemageddon 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.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 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.0 -
Jolly Red Giant wrote: »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.
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.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.
I pretty much agree with this statement.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.
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?Here is your problem - I never made the statement that you claim - I stated that
CnanG government were -
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
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.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.
You did make personal comments. You should have the good grace to debate without flaming.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.
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.0 -
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.0 -
Dr.Nightdub wrote: »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.
Don't think that's a good enough definition of "fascist" methods. It would apply to many varied situations like the East German workers revolt in 1953.
http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uprising_of_1953_in_East_Germany0 -
Advertisement
-
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.0 -
Don't think that's a good enough definition of "fascist" methods. It would apply to many varied situations like the East German workers revolt in 1953.
http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uprising_of_1953_in_East_Germany
Fascism is the most brutal and repressive form of repression under capitalism. It bases itself on a specific section of society - namely the middle-sized farmers, small shop keepers and professional class. It is specifically designed to smash workers organisations.
The term 'fascist methods' is a bit of a misnomer - fascist methods can only be used by fascists. Other elements within society can use fascists to implement fascist methods of repression (as in the case with CnanG when they established the SIC).
Capitalist regimes can use the most brutal repression - this can happen even without fascist input.
The East Germany Stalinists used brutal repression to suppress the 1953 Uprising in East Berlin (as did other Stalinist regimes at different times) - but there was no fascist content to this repression.0 -
Jolly Red Giant wrote: »Fascism is the most brutal and repressive form of repression under capitalism. It bases itself on a specific section of society - namely the middle-sized farmers, small shop keepers and professional class. It is specifically designed to smash workers organisations.
That's a shockingly poor attempt to define fascism. An individual or organisation is not autmoatically fascist because it is reactionary or conservative.
A decent overview of definitions of fascism can be found here
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Definitions_of_fascism
The stupidity of incorrect use of the term is best summed up by George Orwell...the word ‘Fascism’ is almost entirely meaningless. In conversation, of course, it is used even more wildly than in print. I have heard it applied to farmers, shopkeepers, Social Credit, corporal punishment, fox-hunting, bull-fighting, the 1922 Committee, the 1941 Committee, Kipling, Gandhi, Chiang Kai-Shek, homosexuality, Priestley's broadcasts, Youth Hostels, astrology, women, dogs and I do not know what else ... Except for the relatively small number of Fascist sympathisers, almost any English person would accept ‘bully’ as a synonym for ‘Fascist’. That is about as near to a definition as this much-abused word has come0 -
<Mod>
Uncivil posting, please refrain from name calling in the future.
</Mod>0 -
Jolly Red Giant wrote: »<Mod> ---Edited-- </Mod>
Given that you claim to be 'meticulous' in your research and 'precise' in your use of language your interpretation of the past appears to be based on an astoundingly limited definition of fascism. I thought the simplest guide readily available might have been of some use.
If you were to read the Wikipedia page you might notice that the 'definition' you use is shared by no one.
I find your repeated failure to engage in discussion quite hypocritical given what you said in an earlier post.........Some of the worst historians on the planet are academics who behave like 'know-it-alls' and dismiss any opinion that contradicts their opinionated 'analysis'.0 -
Less with the intemperate language, or I'll have to hand out bans.0
-
Advertisement
Advertisement