Was Pearse a Proto-fascist?

Steerpike

Umberto Eco attempted to define the characteristics of proto-fascism as the "cult of tradition, a rejection of modernism, the cult of action for action's sake, life lived for struggle, and a fear of difference".

The Nazis sprang out of the aftermath of the First World War, and harked back to the rampant nationalism of that time. Their ideas of nationhood were classically proto-fascist, based as they were on notions of race, land, ancient myth and what they saw as a mystical association of the German Volk with the soil of Germany - including those parts ceded by the Treaty of Versailles - which they called "Blut und Boden" (blood and soil).

They rejected modernity - embodied, for them, in the admittedly disastrous form of the penally constrained Weimar Republic - pining instead for aspects of the old, militaristic, Imperial, pre-war past. Their 'philosophy' was also deeply entrenched in myth and an idealised, insular, folk-based past.

It could be alleged that the ideas of Pearse were not very far removed from the type of thinking that spawned Nazism, based as they were on notions of a homogenous Gaelic past, which excluded all other influences:

"For Pearse, the idea of a blood sacrifice had additional appeal. Even as a child, he had unusual fantasies of self-sacrifice for his country, derived from Celtic myths and religious writings." - BBC website, history, the Easter Rising.

Pearse's penchant for the idea of 'blood sacrifice' is further illustrated by:

"Bloodshed is a cleansing and sanctifying thing" - 1913

and

"The old heart of the earth needed to be warmed by the red wine of the battlefield" - 1915

Admittedly, such strange ideas were not unique to Pearse at that time - many extreme nationalists throughout Europe had similarly rabid beliefs - but the interesting thing is that these ideas were rejected for the nonsense they were after the slaughter of the First World War. Indeed it was only the fascists, with their reactionary outlook and rejection of democracy and progress, who clung to them - with the terrible consequences of further war and mass genocide.

While is true that not all those that took part in the Easter Rising shared the same outlook as Pearse - Connolly, for instance, had a socialist agenda - it is telling that Pearse is still viewed with such an uncritical eye by Irish nationalists today, and is held in general high esteem by the wider public.

Indeed, it might be argued that we can only consider ourselves a mature pluralistic republic when we can see Padraig Pearse for the proto-fascist crackpot he really was.

Discuss!!!

The above is was taken from http://www.gombeennation.blogspot.com

Snickers Man

Steerpike wrote:

The Nazis sprang out of the aftermath of the First World War, and harked back to the rampant nationalism of that time.

The Nazis may indeed have been born around the end of the First World War and indeed there was a strong scent of nationalism in the air. But the Nazis didn't come to prominence until the disaster that was wrought on Germany following the Wall St Crash and the great depression that ensued. Even the rampant inflation in the German economy in 1923 was not enough to bring the Nazis to power. They were seen as dangerous lunatics until lunacy was redefined as an international financial standard following 1929.

Nationalism as in ideology was very popular in the first part of the 20th century. In fact, if you look back now, you can see that the principal forces that caused the conflagration that was WWI were the contradictory aims of imperialism on the part of the great powers and the nationalism of the peoples they subjugated.

As always, the aspirations of statehood based on national identity were warmly praised by the Great Powers when the identity in question was being subjugated by one of its rivals; once a Great Power's own subjects started agitating for nationhood they were labelled as terrorists and imprisoned, shot, hanged, exiled etc etc etc

President Wilson might have included the "right to national self determination" as one of his Fourteen Points that would make the post war world safe for democracy but there was never any question of the victorious powers ceding soverignty to those of their subject peoples who had the temerity to take President Wilson at his word.

The victorious Allied Powers were indeed generous in establishing several new nations in Europe after WWI. Those granted their independence included Poland, Czechoslovakia, Finland, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Hungary and Yugoslavia. But all of these had been possessions of the defeated powers of 1918. A few had been in Russia, which had since had had the temerity to go Communist and so there was little sympathy among the western powers to undo the independence of Finland, the Baltic republics or Poland wrought by the treaty of Brest Litovsk which formalised russia's exit from the war.

In fact, when the elected representatives of one small nation which had been part of the British Empire asked to be included in the treaty negotiations at Versailles so that their legitimate claims for independence might be discussed they were laughed out of the house. "No no," old boy, the Irish were told, "only the independence of peoples subjected by our enemies is to be discussed here. We were on the winning side so you just stay put."

So in that sense, Pearse was very much a man of his time. He is held up today as the representative of the national identity wing of the independence movement, those for whom language, birthright and cultural identity were foremost in the claims for independence. Connolly, on the other hand, represents the Socialist wing, those who deduced that division of the working class along national lines was keeping them in servitude from which they could only be rescued by having a national state of their own.

Steerpike wrote:

It could be alleged that the ideas of Pearse were not very far removed from the type of thinking that spawned Nazism, based as they were on notions of a homogenous Gaelic past, which excluded all other influences:.............

Careful where you go with that one. You could say the same about Darwin, whose theories of 'survival of the fittest' and "natural selection" dove tailed neatly (excuse the pun) with Nazi race theory. Is it fair to accuse Darwin of some responsibility for Nazi ideology? Probably not, but there is no doubt that at the loonier end of that movement many were influenced by his theories and resolved to give them a helping hand.

Similarly, to imply that everyone who believed in national self determination was a potential Nazi is taking things a little too far.

Steerpike wrote:

many extreme nationalists throughout Europe had similarly rabid beliefs - but the interesting thing is that these ideas were rejected for the nonsense they were after the slaughter of the First World War. Indeed it was only the fascists, with their reactionary outlook and rejection of democracy and progress, who clung to them - with the terrible consequences of further war and mass genocide.

Like I said, I don't think nationalism was rejected after WWI. On the contrary, the establishment of new nations was seen at the time as one of the building blocks for a better and more secure future.

Voipjunkie

Personally i find the whole proto fascist allegation as distasteful it is a clear attempt to undermine Pearse and by extension the liberation movement by attempting to associate it with events that took place 25 years later.

It is a simplistic nonsense to suggest that Nationalism must inevitably lead to fascism and genocide.
Liberation movements by their nature nationalistic.

brianthebard

Pearse was a nationalist, I think reading anything else into what has been written about him is going a bit too far, especially linking the idea of Pearse's blood sacrafice (which is on some level what fuels all armed revolutions) with the hugely serimonial and complex relationship that fascist groups had with it. Fascism grew out of nationalism in Italy and later Germany, but the blood sacrafice ideas' you are talking about, which were shared by military groups such as the Arditi in Italy for example is more like the end of the connection between nationalism and fascism, rather than the beginning.

Ekancone

I would regard Fascism as a system that believes the state knows better than the individual and would seek to control all aspects of their behaviour for their own good. It doesnt neccesarily have to include nationalism, cult of tradition, a rejection of modernism, the cult of action for action's sake, life lived for struggle, and a fear of difference. All it requires is the belief in state control and a rejection of individualism.

Capt'n Midnight

The Nazi's were the national socialist party, that bunch back in 1916 were socialist wern't they ?

Snickers Man

Capt'n Midnight wrote:

The Nazi's were the national socialist party, that bunch back in 1916 were socialist wern't they ?

Some of them were. in particular the Irish Citizen Army. But I don't think the wing represented by Pearse had a socialist thought in their heads. It was, as were many "national liberation" movements in the 20th century, a coalition of people with left and right wing agendas.

Bit like just about every resistance movement against the Nazis in WWII. Much of the French resistance was died-in-the-wool communist.But De Gaulle certainly wasn't.

McArmalite

Snickers Man wrote:

The Nazis may indeed have been born around the end of the First World War and indeed there was a strong scent of nationalism in the air. But the Nazis didn't come to prominence until the disaster that was wrought on Germany following the Wall St Crash and the great depression that ensued. Even the rampant inflation in the German economy in 1923 was not enough to bring the Nazis to power. They were seen as dangerous lunatics until lunacy was redefined as an international financial standard following 1929.

Nationalism as in ideology was very popular in the first part of the 20th century. In fact, if you look back now, you can see that the principal forces that caused the conflagration that was WWI were the contradictory aims of imperialism on the part of the great powers and the nationalism of the peoples they subjugated.

As always, the aspirations of statehood based on national identity were warmly praised by the Great Powers when the identity in question was being subjugated by one of its rivals; once a Great Power's own subjects started agitating for nationhood they were labelled as terrorists and imprisoned, shot, hanged, exiled etc etc etc

President Wilson might have included the "right to national self determination" as one of his Fourteen Points that would make the post war world safe for democracy but there was never any question of the victorious powers ceding soverignty to those of their subject peoples who had the temerity to take President Wilson at his word.

The victorious Allied Powers were indeed generous in establishing several new nations in Europe after WWI. Those granted their independence included Poland, Czechoslovakia, Finland, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Hungary and Yugoslavia. But all of these had been possessions of the defeated powers of 1918. A few had been in Russia, which had since had had the temerity to go Communist and so there was little sympathy among the western powers to undo the independence of Finland, the Baltic republics or Poland wrought by the treaty of Brest Litovsk which formalised russia's exit from the war.

In fact, when the elected representatives of one small nation which had been part of the British Empire asked to be included in the treaty negotiations at Versailles so that their legitimate claims for independence might be discussed they were laughed out of the house. "No no," old boy, the Irish were told, "only the independence of peoples subjected by our enemies is to be discussed here. We were on the winning side so you just stay put."

So in that sense, Pearse was very much a man of his time. He is held up today as the representative of the national identity wing of the independence movement, those for whom language, birthright and cultural identity were foremost in the claims for independence. Connolly, on the other hand, represents the Socialist wing, those who deduced that division of the working class along national lines was keeping them in servitude from which they could only be rescued by having a national state of their own.

Careful where you go with that one. You could say the same about Darwin, whose theories of 'survival of the fittest' and "natural selection" dove tailed neatly (excuse the pun) with Nazi race theory. Is it fair to accuse Darwin of some responsibility for Nazi ideology? Probably not, but there is no doubt that at the loonier end of that movement many were influenced by his theories and resolved to give them a helping hand.

Similarly, to imply that everyone who believed in national self determination was a potential Nazi is taking things a little too far.

Like I said, I don't think nationalism was rejected after WWI. On the contrary, the establishment of new nations was seen at the time as one of the building blocks for a better and more secure future.

Snickersman making some very good points as usual. " never any question of the victorious powers ceding soverignty to those of their subject peoples ". And when subject people of the victoious powers take up arms against them, it's called ofcourse - terrorism. Much of todays Al Queda/Taliban 'terrorists' were freedom fighters of the Mujahideen against the Soviets a decade or two ago. Interesting to learn how Poland, Czechoslovakia, Finland, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Hungary and Yugoslavia became independent.

Must say though, that well, Pearse was a bit 'quirky' in some of his views. It is true as Steerpike posts that " Even as a child, he had unusual fantasies of self-sacrifice for his country ". I have heard that somewhere before and as for "The old heart of the earth needed to be warmed by the red wine of the battlefield" - 1915 " well, self explainatory. ( BTW, that poem on Gombeen Nation - Little Lad of Tricks, did Pearse write this or is it a windup ? ).

McArmalite

daithifleming wrote:

I would regard Fascism as a system that believes the state knows better than the individual and would seek to control all aspects of their behaviour for their own good. It doesnt neccesarily have to include nationalism, cult of tradition, a rejection of modernism, the cult of action for action's sake, life lived for struggle, and a fear of difference. All it requires is the belief in state control and a rejection of individualism.

Good definition of fascism, but would treating people of countries/ethnic groups of countries occupied by them in the most barbaric and shameful way also fit into the definiton somewhere ?

Ekancone

McArmalite wrote:

Good definition of fascism, but would treating people of countries/ethnic groups of countries occupied by them in the most barbaric and shameful way also fit into the definiton somewhere ?

Perhaps it is sufficent, but not neccesary. Anarchists could collectively, through individual action but without central authority (like a riot), attack specific ethnic groups in a barbaric/shameful way. But i suppose if these ethnic groups were deemed to be standing in the way of the unity of state, then i guess it would be neccesary to remove them which is why you see Fascist regimes behaving consistently like this.

Put yourself in charge of a fascist regime, looking to create a single unit of culture, faced with secret guilds, societies and close-knit groups like Jews/Gypsies. It is easy to see when attempting to impose such a doctrine why they viewed it as being important to remove these groups from their lands.

Thats why i think the definition i provided above is better than Eco's example. Its a simple definition that can be easily applied and it unambiguous (that a word?).

Erin Go Brath

Steerpike wrote:

Indeed, it might be argued that we can only consider ourselves a mature pluralistic republic when we can see Padraig Pearse for the proto-fascist crackpot he really was.

Discuss!!!

The above is was taken from http://www.gombeennation.blogspot.com

What utter rubbish. We're only mature when we're putting down the people who sacrificed their lives for their country in '16, and comparing their leader to Hitler, no less. :rolleyes:

brianthebard

McArmalite wrote:

Good definition of fascism, but would treating people of countries/ethnic groups of countries occupied by them in the most barbaric and shameful way also fit into the definiton somewhere ?

That particular nazi trait was a culmination of German volksgemeinschaft thought going back over a century. Those who believed in it basically saw Germany as for germans only-no jews or serbs or outsiders. Hitler just brought that sentiment a bit further.

TerrorFirmer

Seems too far fetched to be credible. If you were to single out specific traits from any contrasting ideals, almost anything is comparable.

Good definition of fascism, but would treating people of countries/ethnic groups of countries occupied by them in the most barbaric and shameful way also fit into the definiton somewhere ?

I don't think that's a very accurate comment. You're solely focusing on Nazi Germany. This quote is one I've always found both interesting and true:

Politically Convenient historiography does not take account of shades of white and black. No grey is allowed.

Communist Russia was guilty of horrific war crimes and atrocities on enormous scales as well but to the average person with a basic grasp of modern history it is indeed a black and white picture in which good prevailed, evil lost. Jews were safe in Francos Spain, and generally also in Mussolinis Italy until the Germans took over the northern part of the country. It really is wrong to lump fascism indiscriminately in with atrocity, barbarity and cruelty.

Snickers Man

HavoK wrote:

Jews were safe in Francos Spain, and generally also in Mussolinis Italy until the Germans took over the northern part of the country. It really is wrong to lump fascism indiscriminately in with atrocity, barbarity and cruelty.

How many Jews were in Franco's Spain? I thought the Jews had been evicted from there several hundred years before during the height of the counter reformation and the Inquisition. I believe that the origin of the Sephardi division of Judaism, now used to denote Jews who came from Mediterranean-typically Arab-countries, comes from the Hebrew word for Spain, whence they were evicted.

Fratton Fred

Snickers Man wrote:

How many Jews were in Franco's Spain? I thought the Jews had been evicted from there several hundred years before during the height of the counter reformation and the Inquisition. I believe that the origin of the Sephardi division of Judaism, now used to denote Jews who came from Mediterranean-typically Arab-countries, comes from the Hebrew word for Spain, whence they were evicted.

Not sure how many were in Spain, but a lot of French Jews passed through Spain to flee the Nazis and Vichy French. I think the Fascist were more worried about communists than they were jews

TerrorFirmer

Snickers Man wrote:

How many Jews were in Franco's Spain? I thought the Jews had been evicted from there several hundred years before during the height of the counter reformation and the Inquisition. I believe that the origin of the Sephardi division of Judaism, now used to denote Jews who came from Mediterranean-typically Arab-countries, comes from the Hebrew word for Spain, whence they were evicted.

I didn't mean that Spanish Jews went unpersecuted by their own regime, I meant that plenty of Jews of other nationalities were able to seek refuge there and were safe from the reaches of the Nazis. Anyway this is getting a bit off topic from Pearse but I was just saying.

Ekancone

HavoK wrote:

I didn't mean that Spanish Jews went unpersecuted by their own regime, I meant that plenty of Jews of other nationalities were able to seek refuge there and were safe from the reaches of the Nazis. Anyway this is getting a bit off topic from Pearse but I was just saying.

Well the discussion is whether Pearse was a fascist, and we are debating the definition of fascism, so i dont believe it is off-topic.

Mick86

Steerpike wrote:

Umberto Eco attempted to define the characteristics of proto-fascism as the "cult of tradition, a rejection of modernism, the cult of action for action's sake, life lived for struggle, and a fear of difference".

I don't think Pearse could be accused of fear of difference, of being traditional or rejecting modernism. By 1916 he and his followers were different in that there was little sympathy for revolution. And the actions he took were geared towards a goal not for the sake of action itself. He even differed from the Nazis in that they got elected to power, Pearse decided to seize it because he could not get a mandate from the Irish people.

So no, he wasn't a Proto-Fascist.

Ekancone

I dont see how fascism representing a rejection of modernity is neccesary, perhaps it is sufficient. The idea of national socialism was revolutionary in its day, i dont see how that could be regarded as being a rejection of modernity as would be the case in another fascist country such as Francos Spain.

brianthebard

daithifleming wrote:

I dont see how fascism representing a rejection of modernity is neccesary, perhaps it is sufficient. The idea of national socialism was revolutionary in its day, i dont see how that could be regarded as being a rejection of modernity as would be the case in another fascist country such as Francos Spain.

National socialism wasn't revolutionary at all, it drew on German nationalist sentiment that had been growing since the start of the romantic period. There is hardly anything about National Socialism or the reign of Nazism that you can point to as new or revolutionary, that had not existed in Germany in another form or time before.
Fascism grew out of a fear or rejection of modernity, of the strange and unfamilar country that Germany became after WWI and the emergence of the Weimar republic. Nazism put heavy emphasis on traditions such as the Volk, the family, the importance of Germany for Germans. Modernism was a rejection of what came before it, and if Nazism wanted to restore that world, then surely you can see they had to reject modernism and modernity?

Steerpike

McArmalite wrote:

Must say though, that well, Pearse was a bit 'quirky' in some of his views. It is true as Steerpike posts that " Even as a child, he had unusual fantasies of self-sacrifice for his country ". I have heard that somewhere before and as for "The old heart of the earth needed to be warmed by the red wine of the battlefield" - 1915 " well, self explainatory. ( BTW, that poem on Gombeen Nation - Little Lad of Tricks, did Pearse write this or is it a windup ? ).

Sorry about the delay in rejoining this thread - was away. It's nice to see that there is some intelligent and generally polite debate on Boards... apart from the odd "don't diss our dead patriots" remark.

No, McArmalite... that poem is the real deal alright! I thought it was a wind-up myself when I first saw it!

Ekancone

brianthebard wrote:

National socialism wasn't revolutionary at all, it drew on German nationalist sentiment that had been growing since the start of the romantic period. There is hardly anything about National Socialism or the reign of Nazism that you can point to as new or revolutionary, that had not existed in Germany in another form or time before.
Fascism grew out of a fear or rejection of modernity, of the strange and unfamilar country that Germany became after WWI and the emergence of the Weimar republic. Nazism put heavy emphasis on traditions such as the Volk, the family, the importance of Germany for Germans. Modernism was a rejection of what came before it, and if Nazism wanted to restore that world, then surely you can see they had to reject modernism and modernity?

Perhaps you are right from a socio-political point of view. But we didnt see the Nazis returning to using the horse and cart either, quite the opposite as they turned Germany into an industrial powerhouse. A great example of rejection of modernity would have been De Valeras Ireland or Pol Pots Cambodia from that position. But yeah i concede your point about political culture.

brianthebard

What tools the Nazis used does not have to conform to a dislike for modern living. And btw, when the German army marched on Russia they brought about a million horses. Germany had been an industrial powerhouse for over a century before the Nazi party got its hands on it. Also, the often quoted statistic that they virtually eliminated unemployment, while technically true, does not tell the full story. Women were encouraged (read forced if they did not agree) to return to the home and to raise the children, freeing up jobs for men. Another example of a rejection of modernity (ie women in the workplace). I agree that DeV's Ireland was a study in the rejection of modernity, no doubt about it.

Ekancone

brianthebard wrote:

What tools the Nazis used does not have to conform to a dislike for modern living. And btw, when the German army marched on Russia they brought about a million horses. Germany had been an industrial powerhouse for over a century before the Nazi party got its hands on it. Also, the often quoted statistic that they virtually eliminated unemployment, while technically true, does not tell the full story. Women were encouraged (read forced if they did not agree) to return to the home and to raise the children, freeing up jobs for men. Another example of a rejection of modernity (ie women in the workplace). I agree that DeV's Ireland was a study in the rejection of modernity, no doubt about it.

So was De Valera a fascist, by the above criteria?

brianthebard

:rolleyes: What a way with rash labelling you have. Return to dictionary, do not pass go, do not become historian.

Ekancone

brianthebard wrote:

:rolleyes: What a way with rash labelling you have. Return to dictionary, do not pass go, do not become historian.

I posed a question, i didnt make a statement.
How is a question a label?*







*(Again, this is a question, not a statement)

brianthebard

Dev was a nationalist, end of. Apologies perhaps I am assuming that you have more knowledge of modern history than you actually do. It was hard to tell if you were being sarcastic or not.

Ekancone

brianthebard wrote:

Dev was a nationalist, end of. Apologies perhaps I am assuming that you have more knowledge of modern history than you actually do. It was hard to tell if you were being sarcastic or not.

Fair enough, never mind that misunderstanding. I have a good knowledge of modern history, though i wouldnt say im an expert. As a political philosophy question, i was posing, according to Eco's view as stated above, could Dev be considered a Fascist? In your opinion?

brianthebard

No I wouldn't. I see that there are similarities, but as I mentioned before, fascism evolved from nationalism. But there were three points in the quote

the cult of action for action's sake, life lived for struggle, and a fear of difference".

Which I don't believe belonged to Dev's nationalism. I wouldn't like to say that one part of fascism is more important than another, but the definition of fascism by Eco contains five parts, and Dev only embodies two. So by that reasoning he can't be considered fascist.

pork99

We read some of Pearse's writing nowadays for example;

The last sixteen months have been the most glorious in the history of Europe. Heroism has come back to the earth. It is good for the world that such things should be done. The old heart of the earth needed to be warmed with the red wine of the battlefield. Such august homage was never before offered to God as this, the homage of millions of lives given gladly for love of country.

and by modern standards the political mysticism and glorification of war looks like a fascist rant but ideas like this were common currency in Europe at the time. One parallel that's struck me is with Italian Futurism for example;

We will glorify war-the world's only hygiene-militarism, patriotism, the destructive gesture of freedom-bringers, beautiful ideas worth dying for, and scorn for woman.

from "The Manifesto of Futurism and War, The World's Only Hygiene" by Filippo Tommaso Marinetti 1910

McArmalite

Steerpike wrote:

Sorry about the delay in rejoining this thread - was away. It's nice to see that there is some intelligent and generally polite debate on Boards... apart from the odd "don't diss our dead patriots" remark.

No, McArmalite... that poem is the real deal alright! I thought it was a wind-up myself when I first saw it!

Yeah, I checked it out on Google and it's true, he did write it. No doubt about it, the fella had pederastic tendencies. Far from being the whiter than white revelutionary he may have been preceived of in the past. Though it has to be said, he has never been accused by anyone of his pupils of any wrong doing. Even Ruth Dudley West Brit couldn't uncover any practical proof of homosexual or paedophile practice. But as I said, he was 'quirky' to say the least.

" nice to see that there is some intelligent and generally polite debate on Boards ".

pork99 - " One parallel that's struck me is with Italian Futurism for example;

We will glorify war-the world's only hygiene-militarism, patriotism, the destructive gesture of freedom-bringers, beautiful ideas worth dying for, and scorn for woman.

from "The Manifesto of Futurism and War, The World's Only Hygiene" by Filippo Tommaso Marinetti 1910 "

Some of the depth of knowledge of a few of you fellas is something else. I'm just an amateur historian meself , and not to say that having studied a subject at uni makes someone an 'expert', but some of you people must surely have studied history at 3rd level ?

TerrorFirmer

I don't think you need have ever studied any course to have a good knowledge of history. While I'm not huge on Irelands own history admittedly or even that interested in it to be honest, I do have a huge interest in European military history of the early to mid 20th century. A good discussion we had in which a lot of the board contributed for example, was here, and good general knowledge was displayed all around. I've, however, never once studied the second world war outside of the usual section of secondary school textbooks that literally skim over the entire conflict in a few pages. I have studied Irish military history to some extent, but lack of interest means that I don't retain the information well, and don't really post much even in topics I am knowledgeable about.

So while I agree that some of the knowledge is impressive I often find it's the natural enthusiasts that give far better answers then those who have merely studied it. Although that does go for alot of things apart from History, of course, and it's not always applicable either, as obviously many people who study history are doing so because they love it. But just generally.