ALB
Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
The outcome of Pieter Lawrence’s campaign was this compromise resolution carried by Conference in 1991:
“That this Conference recognises that rules and regulations, and democratic procedures for making and changing them and for deciding if they have been infringed, will exist in socialist society. Whereas a ruling class depends on the maintenance of laws to ensure control of class society, a classless society obtains social cohesion through its socialisation process without resorting to a coercive machinery. However, in view of the fact that in socialist theory the word “law” means a social rule made and enforced by the state, and in view of the fact that the coercive machinery that is the state will be abolished in socialist society, this Conference decides that it is inappropriate to talk about laws, law courts, a police force and prisons existing in a socialist society.”
A comrade had a similar experience in 1908.
I meant it was rubbish from the point of view of clarifying what the term “ecofascism” might mean.
The word “fascism” of course originated in Italy as Mussolini’s name for what he was up to. It was the Stalinists who extended it to mean any authoritarian regime (that was inimical to the interests of state-capitalist Russia) including, in fact especially, Nazi Germany. But as far as I know the Nazis did not call themselves or regard themselves as Fascists. It is as the Stalinist meaning that it has become part of the political vocabulary and why we should avoid using it ourselves except in a historical context.
Since there were clear parallels between the totalitarian regimes in Nazi Germany and Stalinist Russia it is not surprising that some opponents of the Stalinists called it “Red Fascism”. We have even used it ourselves on occasion, even if more as a debating point than strictly an accurate description.
It is in fact a moot point as to which is worse. A totalitarian regime that openly proclaims that that is what it is or a totalitarian regime that pretends to be democratic? Both Nazi Germany and Stalinist Russia claimed to be socialist.
You’re right, Marcos, that one’s a load of rubbish. Now I am more than ever convinced that we should not use the term “ecofascism”. We should attack ecologists who say the world is overpopulated and that the population should be compulsorily reduced, but on the ground that the premise is wrong and so their conclusion does not follow. not on the ground that it is “fascist” (which is merely a way of saying that you very strongly disagree with it).
Just read the Wikipedia entry on “eco fascism”:
“Ecofascism is a theoretical political model in which a totalitarian government would require individuals to sacrifice their own interests to the “organic whole of nature”. Some writers have used it to refer to the hypothetical danger of future dystopian governments, which might resort to fascist policies in order to deal with environmental issues. Other writers have used it to refer to segments of historical and modern fascist movements that focused on environmental issues.”
I expected to find something more substantial than “theoretical political model” or “hypothetical danger” of what some future government “might resort to”. The only substantial thing is that it was part of the ideology of historical fascist movements and governments.
Are there or are there not ecologists who actually advocate that without having any connection with historical fascist governments or current grouplets inspired by them? And if there are, calling them “fascist” would just be a way of discrediting them.
So, “ecofascism” is a useless term too.
In that interview Traverso is accepting that “fascist” is not an accurate description of the far-right parties that have managed to win an electoral following. To call them “post fascist” is to say that they are not or at least no longer “fascist”. But I don’t think that’s the word we are looking for.
“Eco-fascism” is not as bad as “fascism” on its own but the suggestion is still there that they are some sort of “fascist”.
Yes, Jack, I think that’s right. Here’s our analysis of the rise of Nazism from the 1978 edition of our pamphlet Questions of the Day though it was in previous editions.
The trouble is the word “fascism” has a history as a political term as has the term “anti-fascism”. It has been used as the ultimate “evil”, so evil that all non-fascists are duty-bound to unite against it. This was the line of the old CP in the 1930s and has been inherited by the SWP. It leads to the struggle against those designated “fascist” being considered more important than the struggle for socialism; to “popular fronts” and the like with openly pro-capitalist parties.
Capitalism, not fascism, is the enemy. In fact it was capitalist conditions in the 1930s that gave rise to fascism as a mass movement as a reaction to the inevitable failure of democratic reformism.
Of course there are a few real “fascists” about — people who see themselves in a direct line of descent from the Nazis and advocate the same policies and political regime, swastikas and all — but there’s not many of them and they are not a threat. I dare say some “eco-fascists” fit into that category. But the far-right parties with some electoral following do not. I don’t know what to call them. Nativists? Extreme nationalists? Eco-nativists?
I am reluctant to say so because I wrote the article he refers to but I agree with Marcos. We shouldn’t bandy about the term “fascism” like left wingers do completely out of context and giving the impression that fascism is worse than capitalism. With the danger of implying that the priority should be anti-fascism rather than socialism. Best to see “fascism” that has been and gone.
There’s also been rioting in the French West Indies but against not for vaccination restrictions. Apparently the trade unions there have been involved.
This report (in French I’m afraid but you can see the pictures) says the march in Brussels was led by a Flemish nationalist MP. Today’s Times reports that:
“Marching behind a banner stating ‘Together for Freedom’, the crowd included far right activists , LGBT+ rights campaigners and people carrying the Flemish flag.”
There is obviously something going on which we need to have something to say about.
Our criticism of Big Pharma is presumably that it is just another profit-seeking industry no better or no worse than any other?
And of course it is not just anti-vaxxer conspiraloons that criticise “Big Pharma” but many Greens who favour herbal medicine instead.
But I am still impressed that over 30,000 can turn out for a demonstration in Brussels.
He seems to want to keep the word “fascism” because if its negative connotations. Those he criticises
“have little or nothing to do with the legacy of Nazism. They are not totalitarian; not at all revolutionary; not based on violent mass movements or irrationalist, voluntarist philosophies. Nor are they toying, even in jest, with anti-capitalism”
In other words, not fascist but something else. He seems to be talking about so-called “ethno-nationalism”, the only thing those he criticises share with fascism.
Over 30,000 march against covid restrictions in Belgium ! That the same if not more than those protesting against climate change. Surely we must have something to say these discontented people? But if protests in this scale spread to Britain we need to have something to say them. I don’t know what but there may be some there more amenable to our message than the do-gooders and Christians on the “climate justice” marches.
