{"id":192428,"date":"2019-12-25T14:59:41","date_gmt":"2019-12-25T14:59:41","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.worldsocialism.org\/spgb\/?page_id=192428"},"modified":"2019-12-25T15:01:35","modified_gmt":"2019-12-25T15:01:35","slug":"fascism-avoiding-anachronism","status":"publish","type":"page","link":"https:\/\/www.worldsocialism.org\/spgb\/fascism-avoiding-anachronism\/","title":{"rendered":"Fascism: Avoiding Anachronism"},"content":{"rendered":"\n

Anti-Fascism and Fascism<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

What is fascism? Or, more pertinently, what was\n fascism, since the ideology and movement of that name developed in the \nspecific historical conditions of the period between the last century\u2019s \ntwo world wars.<\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n

The \nword itself originated in Italy as the name given itself by an \nultra-nationalist group opposed both to parliamentary democracy and to \nleft-wing parties and which employed direct physical force on the \nstreets as a deliberate tactic against its opponents. But it was not \nthrough street fighting that the fascisti<\/em>\n came to power. They did so constitutionally when in 1922 the King, with\n the support of a section of the ruling class and its political \nrepresentatives, appointed Mussolini Prime Minister. Once in control of \npolitical power the fascisti<\/em> were able to consolidate their rule with Mussolini as dictator by dissolving parliament and banning other parties.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

In \nGermany the similar ultra-nationalist, anti-democratic movement called \nitself the \u2018National Socialist German Workers Party\u2019, or Nazis, but were\n also conventionally called fascists at the time. They were able to gain\n considerable popular and electoral support (over one-third of voters) \nas a result of the failure of the democratic and reformist parties to \nsolve the problems caused by capitalism, in particular the mass \nunemployment in the slump that followed the Wall Street Crash of 1929. \nThey too came to power constitutionally when the German President, with \nthe approval of other politicians, appointed Hitler as Chancellor in \n1933. From this position of control of state power, the Nazis were able \nto ban all other parties and the trade unions and install Hitler as \ndictator.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

One \nthing that Italy and Germany had in common was that they were relatively\n recent unified states, in 1870 and 1871 respectively. As a result, \nfeelings of national unity were not as strong as in longer-established \nstates such as Britain and France. The more virulent nationalism there \nreflected the ruling class\u2019s need for a stronger central state that \ncould overcome the remaining regionalist loyalties.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

In \nthe case of Germany, its attempt in 1914 to get a place in the sun \ncommensurate with its industrial and trading strength, inevitably at the\n expense of Britain and France which had carved out substantial colonial\n empires for themselves, had failed. But the problem remained for their \ncapitalist class and any second attempt was going to be more aggressive \nbecause more desperate.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Fascism,\n then, in its proper sense was an inter-world-war historical phenomenon \nwhich is not going to repeat itself because the conditions of that time \nare not going to. In this sense classical fascism is not a threat. So \nwhy \u2018anti-fascism\u2019 today?<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Anti-fascism<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Anti-fascism\n was the ideology under which Britain and France, aided later by the US,\n fought the Second World War to see off Germany\u2019s second attempt to find\n a place in the sun at their expense (they succeeded but only to see the\n US take their place as the dominating world power). Somewhat \nironically, it was also the ideology under which their ally, Russia, \nfought its war over which power \u2013 Germany or Russia \u2013 should dominate \neastern Europe; ironically because, apart from the institutionalised \nanti-semitism, the Russian dictatorship was the mirror-image of the \nGerman one (leader-worship, mass rallies, concentration camps, etc).<\/p>\n\n\n\n

As a \nresult there have been two kinds of anti-fascism, one in defence of \npolitical democracy, the other in defence of the Russian dictatorship. \nThe situation has been confused by the fact that the latter \nhypocritically employed the language of the former. So some \nanti-fascists have not really been \u2018anti-fascist\u2019 if this is defined as \nopposition to one-party dictatorships. But who isn\u2019t opposed to these? <\/p>\n\n\n\n

Who \ntoday wants to replace political democracy by a one-party or a one-man \ndictatorship? Not even most far-right parties do. There are still some \nclassical fascist groups around but their support is negligible. All \npolitical parties with any degree of electoral support now favour \ngovernments being chosen through parliamentary and\/or presidential \nelections.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

It is\n an historical anachronism to describe today\u2019s far-right parties which \ndo have considerable support as fascist. Their ideas are still \nobjectionable and dangerous, but they need to be opposed on some other \nbasis than being fascist. On what basis, then, and how should they be \nopposed?<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Anti far-right<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Far-right\n parties have grown in recent decades as a result of two things \u2013 their \nopposition to immigration into their countries and the failure of \nconservative, liberal and social-democratic parties to solve the \nproblems people face. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

As \nthese problems are caused by the capitalist economic system\u2019s imperative\n to put profit-making ahead of meeting people\u2019s needs, governments \nformed by the conventional parties are doomed to fail and always do. The\n far-right parties have been able to exploit this to convince \nconsiderable numbers of people that the reason the other parties fail is\n because they are incompetent, self-seeking and corrupt, in much the \nsame way as the classical fascists in the inter-world-war period were \nable to convince people that their problems were caused by democracy not\n capitalism.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The \nmain reason, however, why these parties have attracted support is their \nopposition to immigration. They are xenophobic, racist, nationalist \nparties. That\u2019s the basis on which they should be challenged. But how?<\/p>\n\n\n\n

No platform no way<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Basically,\n what\u2019s involved is a battle of ideas. Such battles can only be fought \nthrough discussion \u2013 and with leaflets, pamphlets, books, meetings and, \nnowadays, websites, podcasts and social media. That\u2019s the only way to \nchange ideas, not by physically fighting with those who hold them nor by\n taking action, legal or extra-legal, to stop people expressing or \npromoting them.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

That \nis why \u2018no platforming\u2019 far-right organisations is not the way, and is \neven counter-productive. Stopping them holding meetings, breaking them \nup, and refusing to let others debate with them, are not going to change\n their ideas. In fact they are more likely to reinforce them. Physically\n confronting far-rightists, turning their demonstrations into street \nbrawls or beating up their members is even less effective and, besides, \nreduces politics generally to the more primitive level of settling \ndisagreements by fisticuffs rather than voting.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Of \ncourse, in so far as there are fringe gangs and deranged individuals who\n physically attack immigrants, as happens from time to time, nobody is \ngoing to object to self-defence groups, but this is a different issue to\n combating the broader ideology of far-right parties which don\u2019t engage \nin such attacks.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

So, \nno, the way to combat xenophobia and racism is not direct action to stop\n these views being expressed but to challenge and confront them as \nmistaken and dangerous, even in public debate with groups that advocate \nthem. In fact refuting their mistaken and dangerous views in a public \ndebate can be very effective.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Anti-capitalism and anti-nationalism<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

What \nshould be the content of the case against far-right ideas? This has to \nbe more than just the general case that all humans are members of the \nsame species with the same range of abilities and should be treated \nequally. This has to be an essential part of course but it is not enough\n on its own. Opposing these ideas cannot avoid bringing up the cause of \nthe problems ordinary people face and which the far-right wrongly \nidentifies and to which they offer a mistaken solution. Capitalism has \nto be mentioned and it has to be explained that the way-out is to \nestablish a world of common ownership, democratic control, production to\n directly meet people\u2019s needs and not for profit, and distribution of \ngoods and services in accordance of the principle \u2018from each according \nto their abilities, to each according to their needs\u2019. In short, \nsocialism properly understood.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The \ntrouble is that most \u2018anti-fascists\u2019, even those calling themselves \nsocialists (some are supporters of third-world dictatorships), are not \nanti-capitalism. They think that the problems ordinary people face can<\/em>\n be solved within the profits-wages-money system that is capitalism. \nThis is a serious weakness when it comes to making a case against the \nfar-right since it rules out making the point that one reason for its \nrise in recent years is precisely the failure \u2013 impossibility in fact \u2013 \nof the conventional parties to solve these problems because they seek \nsolutions within the framework of capitalism, so contributing to a \nsituation which the far-right can benefit from. It goes without saying \nthat of course the far-right can\u2019t solve them either.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The \nother weakness is that most \u2018anti-fascists\u2019 are nationalists, that is, \nthey accept that the world is, and should be, divided into separate \nnational groups entitled to inhabit a part of the globe and whose \nmembers share a common interest. Nations are in fact \u2018imagined \ncommunities\u2019 whose members are divided into two antagonistic classes \u2013 \nthe capitalists who own the means of production and who are the ruling \nclass and the rest who work for them for wages. Nationalism is the \nideology through which a national ruling class obtains and maintains the\n support and acquiescence of those they rule over. The \u2018national \ninterest\u2019 is their interest.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

This \nis a misconception that \u2018anti-fascists\u2019 share with the far-right. It \nmeans that nationalist \u2018anti-fascists\u2019 are combating the ideas of the \nfar-right on the far right\u2019s territory, as when it comes to arguing \nwhether or not immigration is in the \u2018national interest\u2019. Since the \nnational interest is that of the capitalist class within each supposed \nnation in some cases the far-right is able to show that immigration \ncontrols and discrimination against \u2018foreigners\u2019 are in the national \ncapitalist interest,<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Conclusion<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

\"\"<\/figure><\/div>\n\n\n\n

Any campaign against the far-right views has to be waged on the level of ideas, not physical attacks\n or legal or extra-legal bans. It has to be based on recognising that \ncapitalism is the cause of the problems such parties exploit to gain \nsupport and so a cause of their existence, and on a rejection of all \nnationalism of which xenophobia is just one end of the same spectrum. In\n short, the struggle against racist and xenophobic views should not be \nseparated from the struggle for socialism as a world community without \nfrontiers.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

ADAM BUICK<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

From Socialist Standard January 2020<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

Anti-Fascism and Fascism What is fascism? Or, more pertinently, what was fascism, since the ideology and movement of that name developed in the specific historical conditions of the period between the last century\u2019s two world wars. The word itself originated in Italy as the name given itself by an ultra-nationalist group opposed both to parliamentary … <\/p>\n

Read more “Fascism: Avoiding Anachronism”<\/span><\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":2282,"featured_media":192430,"parent":0,"menu_order":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","template":"","meta":{"_bbp_topic_count":0,"_bbp_reply_count":0,"_bbp_total_topic_count":0,"_bbp_total_reply_count":0,"_bbp_voice_count":0,"_bbp_anonymous_reply_count":0,"_bbp_topic_count_hidden":0,"_bbp_reply_count_hidden":0,"_bbp_forum_subforum_count":0,"footnotes":""},"class_list":["post-192428","page","type-page","status-publish","has-post-thumbnail","hentry"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.worldsocialism.org\/spgb\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/pages\/192428","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.worldsocialism.org\/spgb\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/pages"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.worldsocialism.org\/spgb\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/page"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.worldsocialism.org\/spgb\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/2282"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.worldsocialism.org\/spgb\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=192428"}],"version-history":[{"count":1,"href":"https:\/\/www.worldsocialism.org\/spgb\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/pages\/192428\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":192429,"href":"https:\/\/www.worldsocialism.org\/spgb\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/pages\/192428\/revisions\/192429"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.worldsocialism.org\/spgb\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/192430"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.worldsocialism.org\/spgb\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=192428"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}