2 articles [2nd is 'Can the European fascists come to power today?', WS 39] ******** The fight against fascism to-day ********* from Workers Solidarity No 37 [1993] "What is Fascism, at bottom, but the direct product of the failure to achieve socialism?" Daniel Guerin wrote the above words in 1945 when the classic example of fascism had been defeated. However unlike others he was not naive enough to believe that fascism was defeated once and for all. A certain fact remains true to today, that in a period when capitalism is experiencing a crisis we are once again observing a rise in fascist politics across Europe. The politics are initially racist to begin with but more recently we see that less and less shame is being attached to waving Swastikas or giving a fascist salute. This is mainly due to the revised History which is being spewed out by people like David Irving. Irving, the supposed historian, likes to espouse ideas that Hitler "an ordinary, walking, talking human being" was unaware of the systematic slaughter of nearly six million Jews. Irving's output, coupled along with such views of history as "Did Six Million Really Die" by Richard Verall, means that the Nazi heritage can be revealed with less shame and more perverse pride by the far-right in Germany. Nazi Germany in the 1930s and early 1940s demonstrated the reality of fascism. Today the fascists re not on the way to taking state power anywhere in the world. However this does not mean that they can be safely ignored. Tapping into widespread discontent, they are providing the leadership and stimulus for growing racist hatred and terror. They represent an immediate threat to immigrants and minorities like lesbians and gays. Should they continue to grow they will pose a major threat to all working class and left-wing organisations. RACISM AND ROSTOCK The task in Europe is to combat racism, to oppose it in all its manifestations. This is what the victims of racist oppression need, and this is what can deny the fascists the possibility of a mass base. Fighting the specifically fascist groups, and stopping their activities and recruitment drives is necessary. But the fight against racism, both institutional and otherwise, is the main component of the struggle. The German town of Rostock recently became infamous as we witnessed pictures of neo-nazi youth hurling petrol bombs at the asylum hostel containing mostly Bulgarian and Romanian refugees. One local activist in Germany reported the following. "On Sunday night, a line of riot police could not prevent a second night of attacks, this time by nazi youths armed with molotov cocktails. It seemed the nazis were very well organized. Christian Worch of the far-right 'National List' party from Hamburg was on hand to provide leadership, and neo-nazi cadres with walky-talkies (and even police radios!) helped provide organization. The obvious lack of police intervention made it clear that at least some elements within the police force were quietly sympathetic, or may even have aided in preparations for the neo-nazi attacks. This became clearer when 100 anti-fascists were brutally dispersed as they arrived on the scene. At least 60 local anti-fascists were arrested in Rostock on Sunday night, many were placed in prison cells full of neo-nazis. Obviously the cops wanted to see them get the shit kicked out of them." However what was the reaction of the German politicians to the events of Rostock, Ketzin and Leverkusen? The Social Democrats dropped their opposition to a change in the right of asylum for the politically persecuted. This now means that Article 16(II)2 - which was included in the German Basic Law out of responsibility for the many refugees who fled from the Nazis in the 1930's - is likely to be fully undermined. This seems a strange way to combat the rise of the far-right and their racist attacks on refugees. FRANCE In France Le Pen's Front National received 13.9% of the vote in elections in March. In 1984 (Orwellian irony) the FN received 2,204,961 in the European elections. At this present FN has a presence on every regional council in France. Le Pen and his party have made very significant gains from the time 10 years previously when he could not muster the 500 signatures needed to run for the presidential election. These gains have been made over the last ten years when the 'Socialists' were in power in France. Over this time racism has become an acceptable part of the political culture. The so-called Socialist government talked of the "necessity" of setting up detention centres in all ports and airports. The mayor of Chavieu Chavagnon, near Lyons, buldozed a local mosque with 12 worshippers inside in 1989. Mr Dezenpte (the mayor) boasts that his efforts have more than halved the local Moslem population. Yet, Dezenpte is not a member of the FN, he is in the Gaullist RPR (who vote with Fianna F‡il in the EC parliament). He was re-elected mayor, trouncing the local FN candidate, getting 66.7% of the vote. This is just an example to indicate how racism has become an endemic part of the established Parties' politics in France. The racist agenda being set by the politicians has lead to a broader acceptance of the policies advocated by the Front National. Recent polls in France showed that 84% "understand" racist reactions and 75% in one poll thought that there was "too many Arabs in France". LE PEN'S PROGRAMME UNFOLDS It is on the back of such open and obvious hostility to immigrants (e.g. 300 riot police storming a hostel and arresting 168 people, deporting 19 of them within 24 hours. This was under a 'Socialist' government) that Le Pen and his mob can now raise more openly extremist politics. The obvious growth of the FN in the polls can be related to the racists rolling in behind them. However new FN policy against the Veil law (legalised abortion) is shown in their slogan "kill the infant and you kill France". They are also campaigning "against the right to strike". In this campaign Le Pen said that "the strike is a weapon against the workers". Here he is obviously trying to lead his already racist flock down the murky path towards fascism. It will be interesting to see if he loses some of his support or if more of the disenfranchised join his ranks. In France, as everywhere else, the Left has weakened. In a country which was buoyant with hopes when the Socialists took power in 1982 the people then went on to see the same party propose Bernard Tappie (multi-millionare and owner of Marsiellies Football Club) on the 'Socialist' ticket for election. There has been large demonstrations against the Front National on the streets of Paris, Nice, Brest, Lyon, Nancy Djion and other cetres. The demonstrations may well have been strong and morale-boosting for the participants. However, the only real way to dispose of the FN is to erode their support by combating their openly racist politics. You have to expose their ideas as racist and unacceptable in order to destroy the support which Le Pen and the FN now have. BRITAIN In Britain where you have three anti-fascist organisations, the Anti-Racist Alliance, the Anti-Nazi League and Anti- Fascist Action, you only have one fair sized fascist party the British National Party. The Anti-Nazi League has risen like a phoenix from the flames. The reason for its resurrection was to ensure "the growth of the far right in Europe ...does not give strength and confidence to Nazi organisiations in this country". Unfortunately however, with the recent poor showing of the BNP in the local elections it would be rather more truthful to say that the ANL were set up by the Socialist Workers Party as a focus around which to rally and recruit new members during a period of low levels of class struggle. The Anti-Racist Alliance is led by Black professionals with the support of various liberals and former Stalinists. It sees itself as a leadership and 'voice' for the victims of racism. It places no particular importance on getting people involved in activity. Anti-Fascist Action, unlike the other two organisations, is committed to preventing the fascists openly recruiting. They are prepared to physically oppose BNP and NF meetings and marches. They also recognise that physical confrontation is only part of the anti-fascist struggle, their ideas must also be defeated. The threat of a growth of fascism in Britain seems very small. In the recent local elections no single candidate received more than 1,310 votes. Out of 13 BNP candidates, only two received more than 2% of the vote in their constituency. The National Front faired even worse with the highest vote for one of their 14 candidates being 675. What needs to be combated is the racism which is leads to a higher number of race related attacks each year. Unless energies are used in such a way as to make racism unacceptable then anti-fascists will always be chasing the same fascists around areas like Tower Hamlets or Bethnal Green. The east German people have come through a period where their hopes have been raised and dashed. The Berlin Wall may have fallen but the unified Germany is fulfilling very few dreams. The neo-Nazi movement taps into the despair of people' lives and encourages the dislike of asylum seekers and foreigners. They have turned this dislike into open hostilities such as those witnessed in Rostock and Leverkusen. The left in Germany have organised the ANTIFA (Anti-Fascist Action) which is a broad based action group of the far-left. This serves as a rallying point for the divergent groups. The Left in Germany is experiencing a dark time as all the ills of the GDR are blamed on "40 years of Communism". The far-left is in a state of disarray. The Anti-Fascist movements serve as a great focus for the far-left but once again the ideological battle is being left on the back burner. DASHED HOPES AND MISDIRECTED ANGER In an historical sense fascism has been portrayed as a religion. During a crisis in capitalism people start to turn towards extremes and, as Mussolini succinctly put it, "if fascism were not a faith how could it give it's adherents stoicism and courage". Fascism draws towards it the unquestioning, those who seek a seemingly radical solution to their problems. Fascism actively seeks the youth by exalting them and saying they has a special role to play in the upheaval against the "has-beens" of the world. For some east Germans who have seen the horror of their old state and had their hopes dashed in the newly unified Germany, the far-right is seen by them as having the radical solution. The growth of the ultra-right in Germany is demonstrated in Universities by the right-wing fraternities known as "Burschenschafen" which are enjoying a revival. These fraternities were founded in the days of Bismark. With the Left enduring a very unfashionable period on the campuses these "Burschenschafen" are filling a vacuum with an active membership of 6,000. They are fencing clubs who use slogans such as "Honour, Freedom and Fatherland". They have also had David Irving as an invited guest speaker. The Silesian German territories lost to Poland in 1945 are a hotly debated subject. One member, Christian Paulwitz (23), said "What we keep calling east Germany today is for me middle Germany". Given that conditions in most of the universities are steadily deteriorating it is of concer to see right-wing politics gain a strong grip on the campuses. This could ultimately lead to a right-wing revolt in the 1990s which may compare with the left-wing revolts of the 1960s. Once again it seems that the Right are recruiting the Left's loss. This is exactly what Guerin meant when he said "What is Fascism, ...but a direct product of the failure to achieve socialism". Many arguments have been made to suggest that fascism needs a strong Left and labour movement, coupled with funding by the big capitalists to grow. Well obviously the first two are almost non-existent in the present period and the final criteria is doubtful, but if we continue to only chase these fascists/racists off the streets and fail to counter their arguments ideologically then we truly run the risk of watching the numbers of people we have to chase increasing. The anti-authoritarian Left needs to organise, develop its policies, get their message across to the working class that real socialism has not failed them and that there is a way out of this capitalist nightmare. We do not need to delve into diabolical fascism to achieve this. Dermot Sreenan ****** Can the European fascists come to power? **** From WS 39 [1993?] THE GROWTH of the far-right throughout Europe in the last few years has alarmed many who thought fascism died with Hitler. It also has given rise to a debate on the left over the nature of fascism, one that has spilled over into the letters pages of Workers Solidarity. The debate continues with Andrew Flood discussing some of the historical features of fascism and the importance of racism as the central plank of fascism to-day. In order to explain the rise of fascism to-day it is useful to look at the rise of fascism historically. On the left, fascism is often presented as something that arose to head off imminent revolution. There is some truth in this as in both Italy and Germany fascism appeared in a period of great social upheaval. Germany saw workers' risings in 1918 and 1923. In Italy the years from the end of the war to the early twenties were known as the Red Years and saw waves of land and factory occupations. Although the prototypes of the fascist organisations came into existence at this time they were not significant in defeating these uprisings. They were defeated instead through a combination of the conventional forces of the state and the intervention of the social-democrats, turning protest away from an attempt to fundamentally change society into one of gaining a "fairer" version of capitalism. Significant reforms were won including higher wages, the eight hour day and breaking up of some of the larger landlords' estates. In both Italy and Germany the workers had set up factory councils. Rather then going for a head on confrontation with these bodies the bosses legalised them and converted them into toothless consultative bodies. The bosses were not altogether happy with this because such reforms were paid for in part out of their profits. Heavy industry in particular with its much heavier ratio of fixed costs in the shape of machinery resented this. The state however represented the interests of the capitalists as a whole, and light industry preferred the stable conditions created by the policy of class collaboration rather than a confrontational approach. Therefore the state was unwilling to launch the serious attacks on the workers' organisations that heavy industry demanded. FASCISM AND BIG BUSINESS The heavy industrialists were the first to turn to fascism to help them win back their profits. Initially this was by financing and arming the variety of fascist gangs that had arisen after the war. In Italy in particular the industrialists funded an army of fascists composed of alienated war veterans, adventurists and petty criminals that would arrive in a particular locality and set about smashing the local union organisation and whatever socialist organisations existed. At the time only the anarchists were willing to physically fight the fascists but the fascist tactic of smashing the left on an area by area basis meant they, on their own, lacked the strength to stop the fascists. Armed anarchist resistance to fascism was to continue throughout Europe until 1945. This fascist tactic of swamping areas was only possible because these gangs were funded by the industrialists while those fighting against them were workers who could not leave their jobs for long periods of time to concentrate where ever the fascists were. Later on the main unions would also, sometimes, hold demonstrations against fascism but more often then not these were broken up by fascists, sometimes even though the fascists were heavily outnumbered. Most of the left shied away from any physical confrontation, preferring to relay on the social democrats and the liberals to protect them through the state. The fascists served other purposes for heavy industry as well. Their focus on "the nation" and rearming suited the industrialists. Heavy industry was the main supplier for the war industry and during re-armament massive profits were made by the industrialists. Re-armament essentially served to provide massive state subsidies and guaranteed profits for the bosses. To achieve this goal and to drive down wages and conditions heavy industry supported fascism in its drive for power. The importance of this financial support was explained by Hitler when in 1934 he invited his audience to consider what it had meant in the elections for the Nazis to have a thousand cars put at their disposal. Did the difference between heavy industry and light industry mean that the light industrialists were natural anti- fascists. Their business were not so capital intensive as heavy industry so they did not have the same need to drive down wages as recession could be controlled by laying off a section of the workforce. They supported social partnership with the social democrats and the trade unions. To a large extent a militaristic expansion did not favour their needs and because they would, at least in part, have to pay for it. WE NEED A REVOLUTION However as fascism grew and gained mass support it became obvious it was going to come to power. The only thing that could have stopped it would have been a revolution. The light industrialists, when faced with a choice of losing their power through a workers' revolution or the more minor disadvantages of fascism, were obviously going to make one choice. In any case fascism did promise them lower wages and the destruction of workplace organisation. This went some way towards making up for its potential disadvantages. Fascism's mass base was built around the middle class, which in both Italy and Germany had been impoverished. After the war very high inflation served both to drive down their earnings and reduce drastically the real value of their income. They lacked the organisation of the workers so it was not unusual for them to be paid less than manual workers. In this situation they could have been won over to socialism but socialism has been very much discredited by the combination of the degeneration of the Russian revolution under Lenin and the repeated betrayals of the social democrats in power. The same was true for the peasantry. Agricultural prices had plummeted in the post war years. The left for the most part made no attempt to influence the peasantry, influenced primarily by the concept that peasants could play no progressive role. Indeed the Russian revolution was attacked at the Italian Socialist Party conference for having given the land to the peasants. In these circumstances it was the fascists rather than the socialists who gained support in rural areas. In Germany the big landowners were able to use fascism to get the peasants to form a block with them, calling for higher food prices. Fascism also recruited from other sources but it was singularly unsuccessful in recruiting any sort of working class base. In the German factory council election of 1931 the fascists achieved only 5% of the vote. In the partial elections of 1933 they achieved only 3% and this with Hitler in power. In Italy the fascist unions were only built by waiting for the fascists gangs to arrive in an area and then firing anyone who was not a member of the fascist union. The gangs would fill the employers need for labour and smash any resistance. Eventually the workers would be starved into joining the fascist unions. Despite the odds against them it would sometimes take months before a majority of the workers would submit. FASCISM TODAY Today it would appear the far right are on the march again. If election figures alone were anything to go by they are 2/3rds of the way to power in France and about 1/3 in Germany (Hitler never got more than 33% of the vote). Is there really an imminent threat of the Fascists taking power? In fact these figures serve to highlight not only the real danger of modern day fascism but also the differences between the situation in the twenties and thirties and that which exists today. Two different threats need to be distinguished when we talk about fascism. The first threat is the threat to individuals of being set upon and maimed or killed by fascist thugs. This clearly exists today in almost every European country. Since the early eighties an average of two racist murders have occurred a week in France. Racist attacks in Germany last year became a regular feature on all the worlds news services. Attacks on leftists have also become far more common throughout Europe in the last few years. The second threat is different, this is the threat of fascism on the road to power, where the right wing attempts to smash all opposition by physical means. European fascism has not yet entered this phase. It does not have the backing of any sizeable section of the ruling class. Its attacks to date are designed by the leaders of the fascist organisations to win it more support. The concentration on racism rather than attacks on workplace organisation is not primarily due to the fascists hiding their true colours. As yet big business has not called upon the fascists to play their historic role of smashing potential opposition to austerity measures. There are few reports of fascists attacking pickets or breaking up the premises of unions. Direct attacks by fascists on the left have increased but are still very much fewer than the number of attacks on immigrants. This is not to say there are none, the bomb attack on the office of the Danish section of the International Socialists in which one of their members was killed or the physical attacks by FN supporters on anti-fascist demonstrations show such activity is occurring. Leftists have been killed in Germany by fascists and in Britain physical attacks on the left have become more common. There was the recent daytime attack on the anarchist Freedom Bookshop in London's Whitechapel by the neo-nazi C18 gang (the 1 and 8 refers to the letters of the alphabet, A & H or Adolph Hitler) and the attempt to burn down another anarchist bookshop, the 121 Centre in Brixton. It is, however, a secondary feature of the activities of fascists to-day. LONDON ARRESTS As yet there is little evidence for any substantial link between the fascists and sections of the ruling class. This is also the reason why the police can sometimes choose to move in force against the fascists. The recent arrest of some 300 fascists trying to attack the Bloody Sunday march in London is a case in point. This is not to say the cops are an ally in the fight against fascism, just that at the moment the cops and the state have no great enthusiasm for the fascist groups. The fascists have little support from any section of the ruling class so any support they get from the police is restricted to that engendered by a set of common prejudices they share. There is no doubt though that the fascists in Germany have the passive if not active support of the cops a lot of the time. At Rostock the local police failed to do anything to protect the immigrants or prevent fascists from arriving at the town. Considerable numbers of anti-fascists were arrested in Rostock however. Yet the German polices response when sections of the left use physical force as a weapon is much more spectacular. In the 70's the terrorist Red Army Fraction (RAF) killed a much smaller number of people than the fascists have killed in Germany. This activity was enough for the German state to ban members of left organisations from any state employment, hounding tens of thousands out of their jobs. It saw waves of arrests and torture in police custody. It saw the murder of three of the leading members of the RAF in jail by the state. The German far right has not received anything like the same sort of treatment. They do have the support of at least a small section of the ruling class. FASCISM OR RACISM? The concentration by the fascists on racism also explains why their supporters include many workers this time around. When all the mainstream political parties are blaming unemployment and poor housing on immigration the fascists are able to say, look we are fighting to get you jobs by driving out these foreigners. This is why many on the left see the far-right as being ultra-racists rather than fascists. At the moment the fight against the manifestations of racism is more important, but this can not be artificially divided from the fight against the far-right parties. This separation also comes out of a analysis of fascism that sees it as something which can only arise in opposition to the existence of a large militant socialist movement. Essentially in this analysis fascism is a tool the bosses use only when there is a working class movement heading in a revolutionary direction. Before World War Two fascism did not arise to head off an imminent revolution in either Germany or Italy. It arose because the bosses needed to squeeze the working class a lot harder than the democratic capitalist state was capable of. Wage cuts were so savage under fascism that wages in Germany, for instance, did not reach the 1931 level until 1956. Including cuts in the social wage, new taxes and direct wage cuts workers lost at least 50% of their pay. In fact a large part of the German "economic miracle" after World War Two was due to the fact that post-war German bosses were left both with the physical legacy of the capital created under fascism but also a level of wages and conditions much lower then the rest of Europe. At the moment capitalism is in a deep crisis and it would appear that neither social partnership as practised in Ireland or the "free market" economics of the Thatcherites can pull it out. This does not mean that the bosses will necessarily turn to fascism in the near future, it does however mean that it would be dangerous to rule out this possibility. It has been argued that the unions are very weak and the bosses would not need to resort to such measure to drive down wages. As against this wages in most European countries have not yet fallen in real terms. Attempts by the bosses to actually cut back wages have been met with limited resistance like the metal workers' strike in Germany or the miners' marches in Britain. Some workers, like the tube workers in London, have taken action outside the official structure of their unions. The actual level of resistance to substantial real cuts is unmeasured, the bosses could decide the current states are incapable of enforcing their will. SOFT RACISTS The current status of the European far-right as a primarily racist rather than fascist movement does effect the way we fight it. It is the official racism of the governments and opposition parties that has made the far right acceptable. Yet many of their campaigns built by the left to-day have sought to include soft racists in the fight against the hard racists. This is a mistake for three reasons. Firstly it means those sections of the population subject to racism will just see the left as not offering any real alternative. Secondly it makes the fascists' racist agenda itself more acceptable although it aims to make their methods less so. Thirdly, it's wrong to give any respectability or comfort to racism. The racists have succeeded in creating a consensus throughout Europe that runs from the far right to the soft left. Immigration is identified as the key to the problem affecting workers' conditions. The difference between the fascists fire-bombing houses and the French Socialist Party deporting immigrants is, in the final analysis, one of tactics and not one of principle. The fascists may well lose support to the more moderate racists if these 'moderates' succeed in slowing immigration. This demonstrates how it is not the fascists setting the terms of debate but rather the mainstream parties. There is a need to win what remains of the activists in social democratic parties to a more serious anti-fascism but this can not be effectively done through alliances with the leaderships of these organisations. All of the larger far left groupings in Europe do not seem to be serious about fighting the rise of fascism. Many of the anti-fascist organisations that have been set up are no more than the crudest of recruiting fronts for various Leninist parties. Some like the Anti-Nazi League and 'Youth against Racism in Europe' do not even have a real branch structure or meetings. They operate entirely as a wing of the Party, propagating a somewhat watered down version of the full line with the aim of identifying potential recruits. Outside involvement is confined to big name speakers. This is very much a repeat of the tactics used by both the Communist Parties and the social democrats in the early thirties (albeit from a different political angle). They tended to identify the other left groups as a more serious threat to themselves then the fascists, the Communist Parties going so far as to characterise the social democrats as "social-fascists". Later when the depth of the threat had been realised alliances with "progressive" elements of the bourgeoisie were ranked as being more important than any physical opposition to the fascists. Indeed it was feared that any physical confrontation might drive away liberal supporters. CONTROLLING THE ANTI-FASCISTS? What is needed is an open campaign that will fight against fascism as part of a broader campaign against racism. Physical confrontation, and physical defence and mobilisation of their victims, will have to form a key part of this. What we can expect is unfortunately somewhat different to this. The bulk of the left is so demoralised by the events of the last few years that all of the large organisations are afraid of involving their members outside the immediate role of paper sellers. It was the refusal of the left in the 20's and 30's to recognise a common enemy and work against it that helped fascism into power. The struggle for the control of the anti-fascists became more important then the struggle against fascism. Cute phrases about history repeating itself can not sufficiently describe the horror that will come about if the same mistake is made again.