The SPGB and Fascism
The Socialist Party of Great Britain confronted fascism directly during the 1930s in its debate with Mosley's black shirts. The debate took place at Mawney Road Schools, Romford, on March 23rd, 1935 between E. Hardy, representing the SPGB, and Mr. Probyn, representing the British Union of Fascists. The debate can be read in the SOCIALIST STANDARD, April/May 1935 or on-line at https://www.marxists.org/archive/hardcastle/1935/debate_fascist.htm.
The importance of the debate lies in how the speaker for the SPGB was able to show that the British Union of Fascists was just another capitalist political party which the working class should not support. The BUF's case for fascism was destroyed in open debate by fact and argument not by violence and the pursuit of "no-platforming".
And the question of fascism was dealt with in some depth later in our pamphlet, QUESTIONS OF THE DAY published in 1942. A considered opinion can be found in Chapter XIV Fascism and Democracy (pp 80-87).
For socialists the replacement of "democracy by "dictatorship" defined fascism and also highlighted the limitations of liberal democracy. The SPGB noted that the Nazis and the Communists were united in their hatred of what they called "bourgeois democracy" but that there was a difference in that they both "chose different vehicles through which to express their hatred of democracy" (p. 82), For the fascists this "vehicle" was the authoritarian leader pursuing an extreme nationalism fuelled by a politics of "us" and "them".
Under fascism, the traditional forms of working class political and economic organisations are denied the right of legal existence. A party similar to the SPGB could not have been openly formed in Mussolini's Italy or in Hitler's Germany. And under fascism, freedom of speech, the written word and assembly to debate or propagate political ideas is prevented from occurring. Also the media is severely curtailed and made to conform to the needs of a single political party.
What about democracy, or more specifically political democracy because real democracy can only exist in socialism where the means of production and distribution are owned in common and under democratic control by all of society? Under political democracy, the workers are allowed to form their own political and economic organisations. Under political democracy and within limits, there is freedom of speech, of assembly and the use of the media is permitted. And under political democracy workers can choose between contending political parties.
However The Socialist Party of Great Britain puts political democracy into some perspective. The SPGB has always insisted on the democratic nature of socialism. We place great value on the widest possible discussion of conflicting political views has for the working class. We reject "no-platforming" and question the actions of people who to tell others what they can do or what they can say. Likewise we reject "democratic coalitions" with non-socialist organisations for the purpose of defending democracy. As far as we are concerned democracy cannot be defended in this way.
Socialists also reject the "lesser evil" argument: that it is better to side with democratic enemies of the working class than fascist ones. Look at contemporary US politics. In the US, some of the Left see President Trump as the embodiment of fascist values with his contempt towards immigrants, his racism and vile attitude towards women. The working class are told to support alternative political candidates like Joe Biden to Trump even if their policies would lead to war, would do nothing for working class interests, attack workers standard of living and pursue the class interest of the rich and powerful. Why should socialists surrender our principles and our socialist object for the anti-working class political programmes of our opponents?
Socialists have a unique take on political democracy. We state: "Democracy in itself, cannot solve the problems of the working class" (p. 81). Whether a political administration is "democratic" or "fascist" the problems facing the working class - unemployment, poverty, insecurity and so on - remain. Freedom to denounce unemployment and poverty does not abolish unemployment and poverty. In our 1942 pamphlet when considering Hitler's rise to power we remarked:
"Democracy is a weapon, potentially invaluable, it is true; but like every other weapon, it can be used for self-preservation or for self-destruction. And the painful fact is that in Germany the working class chose not to use the democratic weapon in its own interest but chose to commit political suicide with it instead" (p. 82).
What opponents of fascism cannot explain is why fascism or a political atmosphere which favours fascist politics appears at particular points in capitalism's history. Opponents of fascism, unlike socialists, do not work within a materialist conception of history and the political concept of the class struggle. With no access to a labour theory of value our opponents cannot understand capitalism and how it works. Our opponents cannot give an account of fascism in terms of the failure of capitalism to meet the needs of the working class. Nor can it give an account of the rise of fascism as an attempt to solve problems facing the capitalist class or a section of the capitalist class at certain times in its history.
As long as the working class gives its support to capitalism and capitalist policies, it will be tempted by the politics of racism and anti-immigration and to believe their interests are best served by voting for fascist parties as in the 1920s and 1930s or right wing populist parties today.
As we concluded:
"Democracy for the working class can only be consolidated and extended to the extent that the working class adopts a socialist standpoint. To renounce socialism so that democracy may be defended, means ultimately the renunciation of both socialism and democracy" (p. 83).
Placing Fascism and democracy in a historical context of class, class interest and class struggle highlights the inadequacy of liberal and left-wing accounts of fascism. Fascism and fascist politics derives from the material conditions of capitalism, its inadequacy in meeting human needs, its competiveness, conflict and war.
So what can we do? We need to use democracy to free ourselves from capitalism. We need to establish socialism. Socialism will be a world without artificial boundaries, borders guards and refugees from capitalism's war.
However democracy is not enough. We need socialists and socialist parties. The struggle against racist and xenophobic views should not be separated from the struggle for socialism - a world without frontiers, border guards and barbed wire. All we can do is tell workers not to support capitalist parties but instead think and act in their own class interests. It currently appears easier for capitalist politicians to divide our class rather than workers unite around a socialist agenda of revolutionary change. Nevertheless, the case for socialism is well within the grasp of all reasonable workers to understand, accept and to act upon. As the American philosopher, George Santander remarked: "Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it".
How Fascism Works: The Politics of Us and Them
"Fascism" is a word that gets tossed around pretty loosely these days, usually as an epithet to discredit someone else's politics. One consequence of the mis-use of the word is that no one really knows what the term means anymore. Some political commentators see fascism as the culmination of conservative thinking: an authoritarian, nationalist, and racist system of government organized around corporate power. Others point to President Trump's administration or to the politics of Marine Le Pen's National Rally Political Party or to the Alternative for Germany Party, as examples of contemporary Fascism. A common mis-use of the word is to describe anyone in authority wearing a uniform as "fascist".
However, Fascism did exist as a historical and political fact. Within capitalism's anarchic and violent history, three openly Fascist regimes came to power in Europe. Two came to power through democratic elections and one through a coup d'etat and civil war. The rise of these fascist dictatorships took place during the 1920s and 1930s.
In 1922 the Italian King, with the support of a section of the ruling class and its political representatives, appointed Mussolini Prime Minister. Once in control of political power the fascists were able to consolidate their rule with Mussolini becoming a dictator, dissolving parliament and banning all other political parties. Mussolini's dictatorship lasted until March 1943 and the Italian Fascist Party lasted until the end of the war.
In Germany the 'National Socialist German Workers Party', or Nazis, also came to power. The Nazis were not socialist but they were anti-Semitic nationalists. Their political programme was described as fascist. Electoral support from the working class was won largely as a result of the failure of the reformist parties to solve the problems caused by capitalism, in particular the mass unemployment in the trade depression that followed the economic crisis of 1929. Like the Italian fascists, they too came to power constitutionally when President Hindenburg, with the scheming of other conservative politicians, appointed Hitler as Chancellor in 1933. From this position of state power, the Nazis were able to ban all other political parties and make Hitler the dictator of Germany. The Thousand years Reich lasted only twelve years at the cost of 51 million lives. Hitler committed suicide in May 1945 with the Russian army entering Berlin and fast approaching his concrete bunker.
In Spain, the fascist leader, Franco came to power in 1939 following a bitter civil war vividly described in Orwell's autobiographical book, HOMAGE TO CATALONIA (1938). Franco's route to power came through a coup d'etat not elections. Those associated with the losing Republicans who stayed in the country were persecuted by the victorious Nationalists. Franco established a dictatorship in which all right-wing parties were fused into the structure of the Franco regime. He remained in power until his death in November 1975.
How do modern fascist movements differ from the fascism found in Europe in the 1920s and 1930s? Is there a "one-size-fit-all" definition? Or was the fascism of the past so unique we have to find a new political vocabulary to describe the forms of authoritarian regimes found today in the US, Europe, Brazil, India and elsewhere in the world?
If we look at Fascist governments of the 20th century we can see that Fascism can be defined as the abolition of liberal democracy, the suppression of political parties, absolute control of the media, restrictions on trade unions and the use of a police state to restrict dissent, arrest critics of the regime and to kill opponents. This was the view of George Orwell in his 1941 essay FASCISM AND DEMOCRACY, recently republished by Penguin books. However Orwell also conflated the state capitalism of Stalin's Russia with Hitler's regime in Germany. He wrote:
"Democracy has been much more subtly attacked by both Fascists and Communists, and it is highly significant that these seeming enemies have both attacked it on the same grounds" (p1).
Fascism came out of particular political and economic crises within capitalism notably the First World War and the economic crises in the 1920s and 1930s and fascism was mistakenly seen as a solution to these problems rather than a consequence of them. Fascist governments did not last very long, usually as long as the life of the fascist dictator although strands of fascism did not altogether disappear and are alive and well today. Openly fascist groups in Greece and elsewhere use violence against immigrants and others but they are a minority not likely to assume power and abolish liberal democracy.
The Hungarian Prime Minister, Viktor Orban, for example, wants to retain political democracy but to replace the liberal set of ideas and beliefs of previous administrations by conservative and nationalist ones, which he calls "illiberalism". He has centralised power and enacted authoritarian policies and is hostile to refugees. He is also taps into anti-Semitism by denigrating the multi-billionaire, George Soros and his work with immigrants. Orban enjoys popular support from the working class, misguided as it is, and has been re-elected several times. Although he is steeped in the politics of "them" and "us", he is no Hitler, Franco or Mussolini.
An attempt to place fascism in a modern context has been attempted in a new book, HOW FASCISM WORKS: THE POLITICS OF US AND THEM (Random House 2018) by the Yale philosopher Jason Stanley. He tries to clarify what fascism is and how it functions in the modern world. Stanley focuses on political propaganda and rhetoric, so his book is largely about the political language that drives fascist politics.
Professor Stanley accepts that fascism in Germany was different from what occurred in Italy. He also points out that the existence of fascist politics does not necessarily lead to a fascist state. There are fascists in the US and in Europe with political programmes similar to Hitler and Mussolini, but they are currently a minority. He goes on to say:
"fascist politics includes many distinct strategies; the mythic past, propaganda, anti-intellectualism, unreality, hierarchy, victimhood, law and order, sexual anxiety, appeals to the heartland, and a dismantling of public welfare and unity" (p xiv - xv).
Each chapter of his book deals in detail with these political strategies. Little is said by Professor Stanley about capitalism and the economic and social problems created by capitalism which allowed fascism to take hold in the first place. He cannot give an account of the persistence of fascism in the 21st century. He cannot give a Marxian account of how and why fascism works because he is trapped in his liberal bubble which rejects the social reality of class, class interest and class struggle. For Stanley, liberalism cannot be questioned; nor the failure of liberal policies. He cannot accept that Fascism comes out of capitalism's crises, both economic and political, and it is impossible to deal with the economic and political consequences without first dealing with the capitalist cause.
What the book lacks is a Marxian account of fascism within a historical setting. There is no acknowledgement by Stanley of the extreme limitations the profit system imposes on the policies proposed by capitalist political parties, including liberal and fascist ones. There is complete silence on the contradictions and forces acting upon commodity production and exchange for profit.
Stanley does not attempt to answer the important question; why do dictators fail? Politicians might be able to become dictators and dictate to people what to do and what to say, but the laws of capitalism are outside their control. Capitalism controls governments and politicians, not the other way around. This can be seen in the predictable failure of their reform programmes of all capitalist political parties to meet the need of the working class. And this includes fascist ones.
Only socialism can meets the needs of the working class and socialism has to be established globally. First, there has to be class unity and internationalism. Class unity does not just appear, it has to be struggled for. Workers must also recognise that they must act as, what Marx called, "a class for itself". They must actively understand and reject capitalism. They must become socialists capable of enacting revolutionary change. And they must be democratically organised in active pursuit of their own interests without leaders and the led.
A working class majority understanding, accepting the need for socialism and being prepared to vote for it, can use the vote to send socialist delegates to parliament or its equivalent in the world. The vote can be used for a revolutionary objective rather than the purposes of reform and the retention of the profit system. Socialist delegates can form themselves into a leaderless majority in parliament, and gain control of the machinery of government, including the armed forces of the state. This control will stop the capitalist class and its political agents from preventing production for profit being replaced with production directly to meet human need.
Class Division and the politics of Us and Them
In his book HOW FASCISM WORKS: THE POLITICS OF US AND THEM (2018) Professor Stanley identifies one common feature found in all fascist politics and that is the way its adherents single out a particular group of people who are then blamed for all the countries economic and social ills. In the 1920s and 1930s it was the Jews, the Slavs and the Gypsies. Today it is largely refugees and immigrants: the politics of "Us" and "Them".
Stanley writes:
"...fascist politics distinguishes "us" from "them", appealing to ethnic, religious or racial distinctions, and using this division to shape ideology and, ultimately, policy" (p.xvi).
The politics of "Us" and "Them" undermines class unity. It was a problem for socialists in the 1920s and 1930s as it is for socialists today. Anti-immigration politics splits the working class. It pits worker against worker. It prevents workers from seeing that their problems derive from capitalism not from other workers.
A politics of division hampers the fact that all workers, wherever they live, face the same economic and social problems and share the same economic and political interests. Workers must come to understand that a world working class confronts a world capitalist class over class exploitation and the private ownership of the means of production and distribution. Without such an understanding socialism is impossible to achieve. It is only through class unity that workers can forge democratic and political action to replace capitalism with socialism. World capitalism has to be replaced by world socialism: the profit system replaced by the common ownership and democratic control of the means of production and distribution by all of society.
And the politics of "us" and "them" is symbolised in the EU's Fortress Europe policy which attempts to prevent a flow of the poor and desperate escaping war, poverty, drought and hunger, from Syria and the African continent into Europe. The response has been callous and retributive. Throughout the EU there has been a rise in anti-immigration legislation, increase in the number of border guards and the construction of detention centres.
Fortress Europe was a military propaganda term used by both sides of the Second World War which referred to the areas of Continental Europe occupied by Nazi Germany. The term is now used, rightly, in a pejorative sense, to describe the EU's system of border controls and detention centres, like the one on the island of Lesbos in Greece. The EU has also outsourced prevention of refugees coming into Europe to other countries like Libya whose coastguards, paid and trained by the EU, have a long history of shooting at migrants.
In 2014, the EU ended Operation Mare Nostrum, a search and rescue program in the Mediterranean which was part of its obligations under international law. It replaced it with Operation Triton, headed by Frontex. Frontex is the EU's border security regime which had its funding doubled to help in its attempt to restrict the entry of refugees.
In 2016, the EU signed a deal with Turkey to seal its border with Greece and Bulgaria to stop refugees crossing, allow thousands of refugees already in Greece to be sent to Turkey, in return for 6 billion Euros. The agreement led to barbed wire fences along Europe's borders with Turkey and vast, overcrowded prison camps for refugees on Greek islands. Some 42,000 people are now held in camps on the islands close to Turkey in the north Aegean Sea.
What is happening in Libya and in other African states where the EU has created a huge "kidnap and detention industry" goes largely unreported. Similar deals were made between Libya and the EU. According to Amnesty International, about 20,000 undocumented migrants fleeing poverty, civil war and drought, are held captive by the Libyan government, militias and criminal gangs, many subject to torture and abuse, practices in which European governments "are complicit" (Kenan Malik, DETENTION, TORTURE AND KILLING...HOW THE EU OUTSOURCED MIGRATION POLICY" (THE OBSERVER 08.03.20).
Malik goes on to write:
"Nobody knows how many migrants have been killed by EU-funded forces. Of those who have escaped their clutches, at least 20,000 people have drowned in the Mediterranean in the past six years alone"
Many EU populist political leaders tap into anti-immigration fears to secure political power. It has been a successful political strategy in France, Germany, Hungary, Poland and Austria. No capitalist politician or political party will now openly criticise the "Fortress Europe" policy for fear of losing votes. Refugees that had already made it to Greece have been kept in detention in Moria and other refugee camps, in barbaric conditions. Those who made it to Calais and Dunkirk have had their camps destroyed, face regular attacks from French police, and France has refused to acknowledge their rights to resettlement.
Although the plight of immigrants is largely ignored by the media, a recent video of Greek border guards attempting to capsize a small rubber dinghy full of migrants, and firing shots towards it showed how brutal and cruel the EU policy is. And hundreds of people attempting to cross by land into Europe have been attacked by Greek security guards using tear gas, batons and rubber bullets.
Ironically, the EC policy on immigration did not make much of an appearance in the recent Brexit debates. Remain supporters found it very easy to characterise the Brexit working class vote as xenophobic and racist but were very quiescent about the EU "Fortress Europe" policy.
As Stanley concluded:
"...refugees are once again on the road everywhere. In multiple countries, their plight reinforces fascist propaganda that the nation is under siege, that aliens are a threat and danger both within and outside their borders" (p xix).
However, the politics of division - of "
Workers have identical class interests no matter where they live. And our class interest recognises that capitalism is the cause of our problems and needs to be abolished and replaced with socialism. Socialists do not see migrants and immigrants as a problem anymore than we see other groups singled-out for attack, derision and hate; single parent mothers, the unemployed, the elderly, the disabled and those forced to subsist on benefits. Instead the problems facing the working class flow from capitalism and a world divided into competing capitalist nation states.
Against the petty nationalism of the anti-migrants with their fear of the other and its crude neo-Mathusism, socialists propose a society where there will be no artificial frontiers, where people will be free to travel all over the world unrestricted by border guards, and passport control. In socialism there will be no gun-boats, no barbed wire, no immigration officers, and no internment camps.
And as a response to the poison of nationalism we urge workers to become socialists. That is the real fear of the capitalist class who fund and support anti-migration pressure groups. Our class is better than the crude propaganda used to divide us. Class solidarity and a socialist movement increasing in numbers and strength: that is the only answer to the politics of hate and division.