Michael Collins - hero or traitor?

[Dr Mindbender]

Yes he was instrumental in leading the rebellion against the british, but by leading the free staters against De valera's pro-republicans he arguably helped to sustain the rule of the british crown over ireland.

What does everyone think as i'd like a second opinion.

Resource-
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Collins_(Irish_leader)

[PRC-UTE]

Traitor who murdered republicans and facilitated the British strategy of creating sectarian states; what Connolly described as 'carnivals of reaction'.

[Redmau5]

Traitor who murdered republicans and facilitated the British strategy of creating sectarian states; what Connolly described as 'carnivals of reaction'.

Little simplistic, don't you think? After all, Ireland was threatened with "immediate and terrible war" if Collins rejected the treaty.

In my opinion, the real blame lies at the door of De Valera. He should have been in London negotiating the Treaty in the first place, not Collins. But I suspect that Dev knew full well that a 26-county state was the best they could hope for, and he sent Collins in order to keep his own image positive among republicans.

And it is important to note that while the Free State's attitude to republicans at the time was nothing short of disgusting, Collins continued to send arms and finance to IRA units in the North.

[PRC-UTE]

Little simplistic, don't you think? After all, Ireland was threatened with "immediate and terrible war" if Collins rejected the treaty.

In my opinion, the real blame lies at the door of De Valera. He should have been in London negotiating the Treaty in the first place, not Collins. But I suspect that Dev knew full well that a 26-county state was the best they could hope for, and he sent Collins in order to keep his own image positive among republicans.

I don't have time to go into the whole thing at the moment, and Collins certainly had more options than brutally securing Ireland for capitalism and British imperialism, and will try to get back to this later, however...

I primarily condemn him for murdering republicans. He's more responsible for starting the Civil War than anyone else: for rejecting the republican attempts at unity, for tearing up the election pact (even the pro-Collins author Coogan supports this), for creating a police state that spawned the Fascist Blueshirts, for his continued armed actions against the British who demanded action against the Republican Army (they naturally assumed it wasn't Collins behind the assasination of a prominent military figure who's name I forget...).



And it is important to note that while the Free State's attitude to republicans at the time was nothing short of disgusting, Collins continued to send arms and finance to IRA units in the North.

Yeah, that's true, and this was essentially financed by the British behind their backs. :lol:

[Dr Mindbender]

what was De Valera's stance on socialism?

Do you think Collins or Dev is to blame for the failure of the rising to embrace communism?

[Dimentio]

what was De Valera's stance on socialism?

Do you think Collins or Dev is to blame for the failure of the rising to embrace communism?

De Valera was the leader of Fianna Fail, which was a liberal conservative party as far as I'll could see, with some nationalist leanings.

[Dr Mindbender]

Connelly was a genuine socialist, Ireland would be a very different country today had he survived.

[PRC-UTE]

Connelly was a genuine socialist, Ireland would be a very different country today had he survived.

I agree.

Dev's politics seemed to revolve around Ireland becoming more economically self-suffecient and developed industrially, which is vaguely similar to Collins (or at least the book Collins wrote outlining his economic ideas).

[hekmatista]

Both DeValera and Collins were economic nationalists willing to tolerate a state-sector within a capitalist mixed economy. Dev dressed his version in cultural nationalism, Collins in military green. Larkin was busy organizing workers both in Ireland and in the USA.

[Comrade B]

I would like to learn more on this topic, I knew a little about Collins previously from stuff my dad told me after introducing me to Black 47 (good band) anyone know any good books on the IRA and the likes so I might learn more on Michael Collins?

[spartan]

I think that Collins realised that instead of Ireland having to go through even more suffering than it had already went through in the past 5 years, he obviously thought that he should take as much as he could from the British and make the most out of what was a pretty shite situation in the early 20's. (Political reality?)

Does that make him a traitor?

Well i suppose that depends on how much of an Irish Nationalist you are as it seems pretty obvious to me that Britain wouldnt allow an independent Ireland without some big compromises from its leaders in Britain's favour. So the rebels fighting on and more than likely being defeated by the British army and Ireland having no independence at all probably made Collins get the best deal that he could out of the British.

The irony is that Ireland did cut loose all its ties with Britain (That was demanded by the Anglo-Irish treaty) and was fully independent post-WW2 (If such a thing exists in a Capitalist world).

This is looking at it from the POV of Ireland as a Capitalist nation. Perhaps if Connelly and the Irish Socialists had had much more influence things might have turned out differently?

Out of intrest how would Ireland's economy have been run if Connelly and Irish Socialists gained power, as i dont know anything about the man? (Though people on here talk highly of him)

[PRC-UTE]

This is looking at it from the POV of Ireland as a Capitalist nation. Perhaps if Connelly and the Irish Socialists had had much more influence things might have turned out differently?

Out of intrest how would Ireland's economy have been run if Connelly and Irish Socialists gained power, as i dont know anything about the man? (Though people on here talk highly of him)

Comrade, this article will answer some of these questions, I posted it here recently: http://www.revleft.com/vb/communists-and-irish-t80189/index.html

[Philosophical Materialist]

Both Collins and De Valera were limited in their progressive leanings, as far as bourgeois nationalism goes. Neither offered socialist democracy and like James Connolly predicted, the future non-socialist Irish state's population were still subject to the whims of international capitalism (especially British capitalism).

Collins' acceptance of the Treaty was out of pragmatism. Nationalist forces were close to collapse under the weight of Imperial forces. The issue of constitutional monarchy vs religious nationalist republic was a rather empty shibboleth since neither brought any emancipation to Ireland's people.

The tying of the Irish liberation movement to conservative religion, and bourgeois nationalism was a great loss to the Irish socialist movement and labour emancipation. It replaced British imperial oppressors with homegrown reactionaries.

[Joe Hill's Ghost]

My problem with Collins lies in the fact that he wasn't much of a socialist. Pragmatically taking 26 counties was a smart move. The brits were tooled up from WWI and ready for massacre. He knew that. However, he wasn't much of a socialist and he handled the civil war rather poorly. The catholic church had too much influence on the IRA by that point. It soured everything from worker's socialism to catholic nationalism. If Connelly had won things may have been different, but let's face it, Connelly had no strategic or tactical knowhow. The Easter Rising was a shameless bloodbath that lacked planning and operated on antiquated military doctrine.

[Greg Collins]

The term "traitor" is not applicable to Michael Collins... I sincerely believe he did the best he thought he could do at the time for his country. I also agree with much that has been said regarding the results and his politics. Perhaps "misguided hero for the short term" might be an appropriate title. Heroes and villains are created by the times and circumstances, and as the times and circumstances change, so often do our opinions of these people.

[Redmau5]

The Easter Rising was a shameless bloodbath that lacked planning and operated on antiquated military doctrine.

To be fair, I don't think any of the rebels expected to win a military victory.

[Joe Hill's Ghost]

To be fair, I don't think any of the rebels expected to win a military victory.

And that's a bit of a problem. Blood sacrifice is a really silly idea. Revolutionaries need to show consistent victories, repeated martyrdom isn't a prescription for a healthy revolutionary movement. Collin's wasn't much of a socialist, but he did understand that.

[DropZoneRecords]

Connolly was a great figurehead and true socialist and a Hibernian FC fan to boot so he gets my vote every time! :D Collins... Im no fan of.

[Redmau5]

And that's a bit of a problem. Blood sacrifice is a really silly idea. Revolutionaries need to show consistent victories, repeated martyrdom isn't a prescription for a healthy revolutionary movement. Collin's wasn't much of a socialist, but he did understand that.

Well I don't think Connolly or the ICA expected to win a military victory either. Connolly was hoping that such a "blood sacrifice" (although I don't think he would have phrased it in quite such a vulgar way) would help awaken the Irish working-class. Of course it did help awaken the Irish working-class, but not the way Connolly had hoped.

[Joe Hill's Ghost]

Well I don't think Connolly or the ICA expected to win a military victory either. Connolly was hoping that such a "blood sacrifice" (although I don't think he would have phrased it in quite such a vulgar way) would help awaken the Irish working-class. Of course it did help awaken the Irish working-class, but not the way Connolly had hoped.

Agreed. But if Connolly had planned a bit more, got more soldiers, waited 6-8 more months, he might have had some success. Instead the ICA was decimated, leaving only the nationalists left.

[DancingLarry]

I would like to learn more on this topic, I knew a little about Collins previously from stuff my dad told me after introducing me to Black 47 (good band) anyone know any good books on the IRA and the likes so I might learn more on Michael Collins?

A good leftist reading of the history of Irish resistance is The Longest War by Kevin Kelley.

[Joe Hill's Ghost]

I would like to learn more on this topic, I knew a little about Collins previously from stuff my dad told me after introducing me to Black 47 (good band) anyone know any good books on the IRA and the likes so I might learn more on Michael Collins?

Not exactly on Michael Collins, but this (http://libcom.org/library/story-irish-citizen-army-sean-ocasey)is a small book on the ICA. Also here's an interesting article on the limerick soviet (http://libcom.org/library/limerick-soviet-april-1919) during the independence struggle.

[PRC-UTE]

Agreed. But if Connolly had planned a bit more, got more soldiers, waited 6-8 more months, he might have had some success. Instead the ICA was decimated, leaving only the nationalists left.

The problem though was that they expected the governement to move against them and introduce conscription. I believe I read somewhere that they felt if they didn't act then that the chance for any rising at all was lost for generations.

From Connolly's statements, it seemed he wanted the workers' organisations to ocntinue the struggle for national liberation alongside the republicans, but not be absorbed by them, which wasn't the case due to the Labour Party sitting out of the 1918 election, despite having pro-republican views. Unfortunately, the CPI wasn't able to influence the republicans until it was too late. See that article I posted on communists in the Irish Civil War, it's releveant to this topic as well.

[Joe Hill's Ghost]

The problem though was that they expected the governement to move against them and introduce conscription. I believe I read somewhere that they felt if they didn't act then that the chance for any rising at all was lost for generations.

From Connolly's statements, it seemed he wanted the workers' organisations to ocntinue the struggle for national liberation alongside the republicans, but not be absorbed by them, which wasn't the case due to the Labour Party sitting out of the 1918 election, despite having pro-republican views. Unfortunately, the CPI wasn't able to influence the republicans until it was too late. See that article I posted on communists in the Irish Civil War, it's releveant to this topic as well.

Yeah but Connolly was already waiting for a rising. He wanted to rise months before, threatening to bring the ICA into the battle alone...all 200 of em. Even with conscription you’d think that would only anger the people more. It probably would have led to a more generalized rising. Instead it was really limited outside of Dublin. Had they waited they I think could have built the numbers necessary.

The problem with his “alongside” strategy was that it allied him directly with some “nationalist” Irish bosses who had participated in the lockout. The republican groups had a lot of capitalists in them. It was only a matter of time before the double influence of the church and property pushed the republicans away from a real anti-capitalist standpoint.

Could you provide a link? I’m having trouble finding it.

[PRC-UTE]

The problem with his “alongside” strategy was that it allied him directly with some “nationalist” Irish bosses who had participated in the lockout. The republican groups had a lot of capitalists in them. It was only a matter of time before the double influence of the church and property pushed the republicans away from a real anti-capitalist standpoint.

And the capitalists would never go as far as the workers- ultimately they had many interests tied up with the British as well, at least a section of them. They were happy to settle for a 26 county client state, becoming a junior partner in british imperialism. My criticisms of the republicans aren't primarily that they weren't socialist, but that they weren't consistently republican, which comes down to class orientation. But it was really the failure to build a political party to carry on Connolly's ideas that was at fault. The Labour Party didn't run in the 1918 election out of desire to not divide the republican vote, and the CPI (under connolly's son) didn't gain influence until it was too late.

As the article linked to below explains better than I could, any compromise with imperialism essentially strengthens it. Of course, this is easier to point out with the benefit of hindsight. But that's a conclusion that few in this discussion have been able to make.



Could you provide a link? I’m having trouble finding it.

http://www.revleft.com/vb/communists-and-irish-t80189/index.html