DO THE BNP REQUIRE NEW DEFINITIONS OF LEFT AND RIGHT?
There has been quite an interesting discussion over at Liberal Conspiracy about whether it is correct to describe the BNP as far-right. This has been prompted by a rather sensible letter from Tim Montgomerie, Editor of ConservativeHome to the BBC arguing that describing the BNP as far-right creates a false linkage with mainstream centre-right politicians, and this implicit association tends to legitimise the BNP.
Note that Tim Montgomerie is not arguing that the BNP are a left wing party, he argues that it is more accurate to describe the BNP as ultra-nationalist
Tim’s questioning of the value of left and right labels is actually quite acute, and it is interesting to view how these definitions have changed in British politics, and particularly in the British labour movement. After all Oswald Mosley was a left winger in the Labour Party, and Nye Bevan and A J Cook supported the Mosley Manifesto that popularised the ideas of Keynesianism to the labour movement.
Durng the early years of the Labour Party it was the right wing who advocated full scale nationalisation, and the left who promoted the primary aim being economic equality for the working class; by the 1950s it was the right who promoted equality and cultural diversity and the left who were socially conservative and defined themselves mainly by being in favour of full scale nationalisation, or in Anthony Crosland’s phrase, the Bevanites were “more orthodox than a bench of Bishops”. So the definitons of “left” and “right” have seen considerable evolution, and may not always be useful.
Now I have to say, that the BNP see themselves as far-right, hence their tendency to fume at “Marxist led trade unions”, usually when referring to quite moderate trade union leaders; and they refer to mainstream centre-left politicians as “left wing extremists”; there is also considerable and proven cross-over between UKIP and the BNP which suggests that their voters also see the BNP as a right wing party.
In the BNP’s constitution, rule 2(d) says “The British National Party is implacably opposed to Marxism”. Of course the Conservative Party is also implicitly opposed to Marxism, but doesn’t define itself in those terms, the explicit self-definition of a party as anti-Marxist is a characteristic of fascism. The issue in dispute is not whether the BNP are fascist, but whether it is accurate to describe fascism as being part of a political spectrum that includes conservatism.
The intellectual foundations of modern conservatism derive from the work of neo-liberal political philosophers and economists such as Friedrich Hayek and Milton Friedman; so there is very little ideological overlap between modern neo-conservatism and the statist fascism of the BNP.
Friedrich von Hayek was an Austrian political economist who believed that true freedom only exists in conditions when the individual enjoys an unmediated participation in a free market. The sole legitimate role for the state should be to protect private property. Naturally, David Cameron’s political programme is rather more pragmatic, but nevertheless the thread that runs through it is self-reliance, and dismantling social controls on business (unfettering the freedom of the corporate individual)
The paradox at the heart of this conservatism however is that Margaret Thatcher was both a great supporter of General Pinochet, the military ruler of Chile, and also she was herself quite prepared to use the repressive powers of the state to terrorise trade unionists. In her own terms this was understandable, as she had a transformative political project to sweep away inhibitions to individualism and economic liberalism, and was prepared to use illiberal and statist methods to achieve those ends. Thatcherism of course also unleashed all the nastiest prejuduces of the philistine, middle brow, mediocrities in the Conservative Party, and many of her policies were also petty class-warfare not dignified by any coherent strategy.
Whereas Margaret Thatcher praised the private sphere and denied the very existence of a collective society outside relationships of trade, the BNP identifies itself with racialised communities of solidarity, and seeks to defend a racial commonwealth (Volksgemeinschaft ) against the interests of big business. This is particularly important in the construction of British fascism given our cultural traditions of national self-identity are often as much bound up with class-based signifiers as ethnicity. The BNP locates itself in the iconography of working class communities that have been savaged by free market capitalism. (Indeed there has always been this tradition in fascism, which led the revolutionary socialists, Sergio Pannunzio and Fillipo Corrandi to join Mussolini’s fascist party in 1922, and indeed they wrote Mussolini’s law on trade unions, the Syndical Act of 1925)
But when BNP talks about defending the British working class, it doesn’t celebrate the actually existing working class in all its multicultural diversity, instead the BNP promotes a racialised parody of an Alf Garnett working class, all white and somehow stuck in conservative social attitudes, half a century past their use-by date. It is no coincidence that the BNP’s policies on the family are also from the 1950s - deeply reactionary towards women, who it would push back into the role of housewife, with their horizons circumscribed by Kirche, Küche und Kinder.
The BNP embeds its commitment to a private enterprise economy in its constitution, rule 2(c); but nevertheless believes that this must operate “in the broad frame work of national economic policy”. Rule 2 (d) commits itself to opposition to “liberal-capitalist globalism, which undermine our standard of living, human and ecological welfare [and] freedom”.
The BNP are a fascist party because their constitution – rule 2(b) - commits the main aim of the party as “stemming and reversing the tide of non-white immigration and to restoring, by legal changes, negotiation and consent, the overwhelmingly white makeup of the British population that existed prior to 1948”. This is a programmatic aim that could not be achieved without violence, and would require the BNP to physical smash up the resistance of the trade unions, left and centre political parties and the institutions of our liberal democracy.
In this sense, the defining feature of the BNP is their pervasive racism, or ultra-nationalism; and indeed their fascism; but perhaps it isn’t helpful to describe that as “right wing”, it is far worse than that.
Now of course, the BNP are not left wing either, despite mischievous and politically illiterate attempts by some commenters to put them in our camp. In fact their allegedly leftist economic policies would sit squarely in the 1970s Conservative Party of Edward Heath, and owe more to nostalgic “common-sense” than any rigorous theorisation.
But what is “left wing”? For my money, being left wing is about subordinating the economy to conscious collective and democratic control, and making our society serve human need; but more than that it defines human need as being egalitarian and inclusive – with every person being of equal value, whatever their race, gender, sexual orientation, faith or lifestyle choices. The BNP certainly has nothing in common with us.
The BNP certainly has nothing in common with us.
Parts of the far Right share certain attitudes towards Jews with parts of the far Left
Comment by David T — 11 June, 2009 @ 9:22 am
(Let’s ignore David T’s increasingly psychotic outburts.)
more than that it defines human need as being egalitarian and inclusive – with every person being of equal value, whatever their race, gender, sexual orientation, faith or lifestyle choices
Right. The central scission between the left and the right is in their respective attitudes to human equality. The right is committed to hierarchies of race, class and gender, and the left seeks to demolish these. Attitudes to the state, economic interventionism etc are subordinate to this.
Comment by lenin — 11 June, 2009 @ 9:44 am
Yes, the BNP, and others of their ilk, hold to an obscurantist and mythical notion of an indigenous British working class, combining elements of Nazi ‘volk’ ideology, which looked to the past in an attempt to draw inspiration from a kind of Panglossian innocence in which purity of race was married to pure morals and a social collectivism which was as exclusive as it was inclusive.
Comment by John Wight — 11 June, 2009 @ 9:55 am
Andy, this post is one of the best written on SUN for a long time, well done in identifying the difference of the BNP from the mainstream political discourse.
However although I am not a student of the BNPs constitution I would take issue with your assertion that “rule 2(b) - commits the main aim of the party as “stemming and reversing the tide of non-white immigration and to restoring, by legal changes, negotiation and consent, the overwhelmingly white makeup of the British population that existed prior to 1948” makes them a fascist party- it doesn’t. It makes them a thoroughly nasty intolerant and unrealistic bunch of racists. the BNP under Griffin has pursued a strategy deliberately steering themselves away from the failed political strategies of British fascism, taking inspiration from the examples of Fini and Le Pen and combining electoralism Griffins own third positionism and a conscious anti Nazism within the party which has proved highly successful.
Comment by darren redstar — 11 June, 2009 @ 9:59 am
The concept of left and right in the political landscape stems from a period in history that has long gone and is being replaced by identity politics.
Although there are differences, the BNP, BJP, Hamas all conflate identity with control of land. For example, the Hamas charter says: “This is the law governing the land of Palestine in the Islamic Sharia (law) and the same goes for any land the Muslims have conquered by force, because during the times of (Islamic) conquests, the Muslims consecrated these lands to Muslim generations till the Day of Judgement.”
The BNP bases its ideology on race rather than religion and wants to reverse the tide of non-white immigration and to “… restore, by legal changes, negotiation and consent, the overwhelmingly white makeup of the British population that existed prior to 1948”.
The BJP has similar values regarding the Hindu identity in India. From the friends of the BJP website: “India is a Hindu majority nation and so non-Hindu’s must be given a clear status of second-grade citizens” and that “Those who want to convert to Christianity must also leave the country.”
This article tries to discuss the concepts of left and right but seems to miss the point that the world has changed since February 21, 1848.
To discuss this issue in terms of Left and Right says more about the author’s and contributors’ need to think in those terms
The concepts of left and right regarding the BNP are irrelevant. The problem we are facing is tribalism.
Comment by Eck — 11 June, 2009 @ 10:06 am
Eck - Interesting how you cite the claim made on the land by Hamas, whilst neglecting to mention the claim, both idoelogical and in fact, to the same land by the proponents of Zionism which has led to the world’s only existing settler colonial state, made up largely of European immigrants.
Comment by John Wight — 11 June, 2009 @ 10:10 am
John,
I chose three examples of groups that mix some kind of tribal identity with control of a geographical area. I could have easily selected many others whether the PKK, the Zionist movement, white supremacists in America. They all do the same.
Identity and land.
Comment by Eck — 11 June, 2009 @ 10:19 am
The basic definition of “left” comes from the slogan proclaimed (but not realised) in the French Revolution: “liberté, fraternité, égalité!” The BNP would not pass muster on any of those criteria, so it clearly isn’t “left”. The “right” on the other hand, tends to refer to defenders of the existing order, and the BNP cannot really be accused of that, either. It straddles the “left-right” spectrum, and there is little point in trying to fix it somewhere on that continuum. There are other spectra on which the BNP can be placed much more readily: “enlightened to bigoted”, “internationalist to nationalist”, “freedom-loving to authoritarian”, etc. etc.
Comment by Francis King — 11 June, 2009 @ 10:20 am
All this third position, beyond left and right rhetoric, etc, is a classic of fascist discourse since the 1930s. Andy is correct that the BNP is not just another right wing party. It is indeed an ultra-nationalist party. Its a fascist party. Just because they spend all their time denying this doesn’t mean its not true.
Comment by johng — 11 June, 2009 @ 10:22 am
Indeed this problem of placement was a feature of discussions of the ‘conservative revolutionaries’ in the Germany of the 1920s.
Comment by johng — 11 June, 2009 @ 10:24 am
Eck #8 - Sure, but what is signifcant about this identity with land that your post reveals is the extent to which such claims are rooted in a physiocratic notion of an ideal past as a reflex to a rejection of a present in which national aspirations and rights are claimed to have been thwarted.
For example - the Nazis emerged from the humiliation of Germany’s defeat in the First World War. Zionism is an ideology which emerged in response to European antisemitism at the turn of the last century and gained impetus as a result of the horrors of the Holocaust. Hamas emerged as a result of Palestinian dispossession, and so on. The BNP are travelling along the same trajectory, citing racism against the white working class in Britain in order to promote the idea that the status of whites is under serious threat from hordes of non-white immigrants and Islam.
The common denominator which links them all is either a perceived or a rightly held sense of injustice and threat to the existence of said group.
Comment by John Wight — 11 June, 2009 @ 10:34 am
#5
Darren
The BNP policy of making Britain an overwhelmingly white society could not be acheived by legislative, constitutional means alone; as it would be met with massive extra-parliamanetary resistance from trade unions, the left and centre parties, BME groups, churches and other faith groups.
It is significant that this is not just a policy, but the fundamental programmatic aim of the party embodied by rule in its constitution - this is what the BNP is.
To achieve it they at some stage would have to go beyond electoral politics, and that is what makes them a fascist party
Comment by Andy Newman — 11 June, 2009 @ 10:50 am
“….the extent to which such claims are rooted in a physiocratic notion of an ideal past”
I agree. have you been reading-up your François Quesnay?
Comment by Eck — 11 June, 2009 @ 10:53 am
The BBC and every other part of the media should simply use ‘fascist’ - much simpler, and accurate. The Standards Board of England and Wales has, I believe, stated that this is a fair description so why it can’t be used I do not see.
Comment by Mikey — 11 June, 2009 @ 10:59 am
I think this whole debate shows that the answer is a clear NO, it is irrelevant whether we give them a new definition. Trying to do so will result in this sort of pointless intellectual argument.
Comment by Jim Monaghan — 11 June, 2009 @ 11:12 am
#16
But JIm, when UAF supporters engaged in the more muscular approach of throwing an egg at Nick Griffin, their spokespeople then justified it to the media by referring to the fact that the BNP are fascists; surely therefore we need to have an in depth understanding of what makes the BNP fascist.
The whole point of my article is tat they are fascistsm and we shoudl call the fascists - not create a new name; and I agree with Tim MOntgomerie of Conservative Home that the BBC calling the BNP “far-right” imlicitly legitimises the BNP as being part of mainstream politics.
In this respect it is interesting to compare UKIP and EDP with the BNP, as the core demands of both EDP and UKIP are acheivable in a liberal democracy by constitutional means.
Comment by Andy Newman — 11 June, 2009 @ 11:28 am
What we need is the old definition. Fascist. It hardly needs rehearsing here but I find it amazing when commentators forget that Nick Griffen was actually a self avowed Hitler worshipper and Holocaust denier just a decade ago, as were large chunks of his ‘political soldiers’. The open way in which he examined strategies of those from the fascist tradition for tactical tips about how to get into the mainstream (the discussions of the problems with ‘American nationalists’ who ignored ‘public opinion’, ‘American nationalists’ being a euphomism for Nazi White supremacists, etc), relatively recent interviews in which he expressed regret about the second world war (an Independent interview about seven or eight years ago: these should all be collated incidently and put out as a press release, or perhaps (hint hint) a blog, don’t know if they are), all point to the fact that he is an ideologically committed Nazi, shaped by a context were Nazi ideology was an absolute fringe belief (its not something you fall into by accident, you have to be a hardened and committed ideologue) who decided that he could push the project best by distancing himself publicly from his Nazi beliefs. He is the real deal. In that context debates about labelling in terms of left and right, need to be set in the context of older debates about the Nazies. They claimed in their propaganda to be ‘beyond left and right’, and to be ‘revolutionary’. In the sense that their politics marked a break with older aristocratic forms of conservatism their rhetoric appeared distinct from the latter ideology. They also openly repudiated the very idea of democratic ideology (different from those who put foward various critiques of existing forms) and their institutional embodiements from parliaments to trade unions (whilst always being prepared to utilize them). Their understanding of the base of bourgoise democracy was paradoxically more sophisticated then that of many liberals. Hence their understanding of the need to uproot all forms of collective organisation independent of their movement, crucially trade unions, but also any voluntary form of association at all. All this signalled an apparently revolutionary assault on the established order ideologically, politically and institutionally. However, in power, whilst wiping out the left, and pursuing their insane racist fantasies to the limits, they showed themselves ready, willing and able to compromise with the conservative elements of the old regime. Therefore, it seems to me, that it is misguided to describe them as ‘beyond left and right’ whatever their rhetoric implies. Because they aren’t. Its a deception.
On David T: Its extraordinary how his rabid hatred of the far left is allowing him to spend most of his time attacking anti-fascists: in the aftermath of the election of two BNP MEPs. I suspect its partly sour grapes about the failure of New Labour.
Comment by johng — 11 June, 2009 @ 11:33 am
Andy;
The only problem I can see with the term fascist is that it has become de-valued.
Over the last few years I have heard the term used to describe Le Pen, the BNP, Margaret Thatcher, Tony Blair, Traffic Wardens, Yasser Arafat, Ariel Sharon, John Wight and the car park security guard at Standard Life Bank.
All we need to call the BNP is the BNP. Attaching an adjective to it says nothing about them and everything about the person talking about them.
Comment by Eck — 11 June, 2009 @ 11:44 am
The choice of Heartfield’s montage goes to the heart of the political essence of fascism – it needs a mass base and to construct its political support it needs a rhetorical stance that is in tune with what millions of people are thinking in the midst of the daily problems that arise in conditions of crisis. But fascism only becomes THE key problem for the working class when the decisive elements of the most reactionary sections of big capital decide that fascism is the only way to maintain the dictatorship of capital.
In Germany’s case this was when the bankers backed Hitler as Chancellor. You can still see the bank building in Cologne where these discussions took place.
Comment by Nick Wright — 11 June, 2009 @ 11:44 am
#17 Andy, I agree that people should know what a fascist is and should know about the true nature of the BNP, but I dont think that whether this is right or left matters really, except in places like this.
I was brought up in a community where my so called “right wing’ protestant relatives were leading industrial action in the workplace while my ‘left’ catholic friends were at mass eating bread that had changed into some dead guys flesh. Clarifying which was right and left and when they were right or left would have done nothing to help the situation.
This a call from a tory who doesnt want to be associated with the far right.
Shouldnt we hold the same debate given that Labour and others were portrayed by the media as ‘the left’ when analysing the results in the Euro election. Would we be discussing this if a Labour member called for a new defintion of left so that they can diassociate themselves from the far left?
Does it matter that americans call the Democrats left, that the media call Labour left, separate from what we call left?
Comment by Jim Monaghan — 11 June, 2009 @ 11:49 am
Eck - The key point of course is that traffic wardens really are fascists.
Comment by John Wight — 11 June, 2009 @ 11:49 am
Comment by Eck — 11 June, 2009 @ 11:53 am
Its drivers who are fascists, the traffic wardens are fighting the good fight!
Comment by Jim Monaghan — 11 June, 2009 @ 11:54 am
On the front of the magazine used to illustrate this, the paragraph to the left is interesting:
“MIMICRY
After all attempts to transmit national socialist ideas into the working class remained unsuccessful, Goebbels came up with a last despairing idea: he persuaded the ‘Führer’ to put on a Karl Marx beard whenever he addresses the working class.”
Comment by Faust — 11 June, 2009 @ 11:54 am
Faust #25 - Good point. Fascism always arrives dressed up in progressive clothes.
Comment by John Wight — 11 June, 2009 @ 12:03 pm
Whilst its true that financial backing from industrialists for Hitler was important, its not true that before this occured the Nazies were not a key or central issue. The Nazies recieved that backing on the basis of having built a movement capable of smashing working class organisation. They built it up in the process of street battles and ideologically winning over large enough numbers to take part in them. This process in itself demoralised and scattered the resistance to them, and it was this that made them an attractive bet for key sections of the ruling class. The danger with ignoring this is that it can lead to quite misplaced claims that in the absence of a section of the ruling class going over to the BNP they are not a threat. By the time that happens its way too late to do anything about it. I recall a discussion with a socialist from Bombay who discussed the rise of the Shiv Sena, an organisation latterly famous for communal riots and attacking ‘outsiders’ but which cut its teeth in anti-communist activity and attacks on the left in the trade unions in the late 1960s. Eventually they did get the backing of a section of the political elite, and a section of the business class (surreptitiously it should be said). But for this socialist the key period was when they were building up their troops. The tendency of the left at the time was to eschew taking them on physically and to rely on appeals to mainstream parties etc. This demoralised many of their supporters in areas were the attacks were happening, and allowed the Sena to emerge as the unchallenged kings of the street. Originally they were just a bunch of middle class hooligans. Now they have a machine far too large to challenge in that way, not just physically, but ideologically and politically too. As the socialist said to me, if we’d just taken the bastards on when they were weak, we could have smashed them. Now its too late.
Comment by johng — 11 June, 2009 @ 12:04 pm
‘The BNP are a fascist party because their constitution – rule 2(b) - commits the main aim of the party as “stemming and reversing the tide of non-white immigration and to restoring, by legal changes, negotiation and consent, the overwhelmingly white makeup of the British population that existed prior to 1948”.’ No it does not although it certainly makes the BNP racist.
‘To achieve it they at some stage would have to go beyond electoral politics, and that is what makes them a fascist party’ Yes your right this is what makes the BNP a classic fascist party. You could add the BNP have always used extra electoral tactics and will continue to do so whener they feel it useful.
‘BNP identifies itself with racialised communities of solidarity, and seeks to defend a racial commonwealth (Volksgemeinschaft ) against the interests of big business… In fact their allegedly leftist economic policies would sit squarely in the 1970s Conservative Party of Edward Heath’ Just so but on the door step this still comes across as more ‘Left’ than Nu Labour and accounts for some part of the BNP’s current popularity. Also remember the BNP have the luxury of never having been in control of anything. Its fairly clear that they would fuck up running a Council let alone a Country but people don’t know that. Instead they hear a Party saying ‘your important and you have been mistreated by those in power’. In itself that is a simple and effective message and self evidentley true. The working class has been mistreated and is important. The current Labour Party has been openly contemptous of the working class while fawning over ‘Middle England’ and unless it finds a reverse gear quickly will lose popular support. The challenge for the Left is to understand the situation and to identify how to effectively intervene. So far it does not look good but you a doing great service in opening this discussion.
Comment by Christy — 11 June, 2009 @ 12:20 pm
#25
Note the symbol that Hitler is holding in the picture, with the hammer and sickle incorporated with the eagle of the Reich; this was the symbol of the NAZI trade union organisation, I believe this AIZ magazine is reporting on the workplace committe elections in around 1934 where the NSBO decisivly lost depsite being the only organised slate allowed to stand.
JOhnG
You miss one big point about the current picture, which is the fact that the BNP are not engaged in the sort fo physical thuggery you describe in any organised way, and what does occur is the ill disciplened self-activity of the odd balls and scum bags they recruit.
Historcially you overlook the importance of co-option rather than only relying on terror;
Comment by Andy Newman — 11 June, 2009 @ 12:23 pm
johng and the BNP, one’s our friend,the other Nazis.
I have a friend who’s a traffic warden, who was intending to change the slogan on John Lydon’s Country Life ad to “I can’t believe it’s not anarchy”. But they’re not all the same.
the defining feature of the BNP is their fascism; but perhaps it isn’t helpful to describe that as “right wing”
Then maybe “far-right” or “fascist” will do,and less important things can be talked about.
Comment by skidmarx — 11 June, 2009 @ 12:25 pm
I can’t read all the words in the paragraph on the top right, as it is blurred in places, but it cites a newspaper article from April 8, 1934, that “this year’s” symbol of the National Labour Front is a head of the German poet Goethe, a Nazi eagle with swastika and a hammer and sickle. The aim is said to be to reach the workers.
The suppression of the SA a little later that year was welcomed in conservative quarters because the SA were thought to be too socially radical - the other side of the gestures towards the workers seen here was the Nazis’ need to reassure the bourgeoisie, which was partly what the Night Of The Long Knives was about.
The NSBO was actually run down as an organisation after the Nazis came to power - it was absorbed into the Labour Front.
Comment by Faust — 11 June, 2009 @ 12:33 pm
The sometimes malodroit language used by anti fascists would be improved if we paid more attention to the actual content of what the fascists are actually saying.
Below is a good summary of fascism made in the same period that Heartfield’s mantage covers of the AIZ put these ideas in a popular form.
“Fascism is not a form of state power “standing above both classes — the proletariat and the bourgeoisie,” as Otto Bauer, for instance, has asserted. It is not “the revolt of the petty bourgeoisie which has captured the machinery of the state,” as the British Socialist Brailsford declares. No, fascism is not a power standing above class, nor government of the petty bourgeoisie or the lumpen-proletariat over finance capital. Fascism is the power of finance capital itself. It is the organization of terrorist vengeance against the working class and the revolutionary section of the peasantry and intelligentsia. In foreign policy, fascism is jingoism in its most brutal form, fomenting bestial hatred of other nations.
This, the true character of fascism, must be particularly stressed because in a number of countries, under cover of social demagogy, fascism has managed to gain the following of the mass of the petty bourgeoisie that has been dislocated by the crisis, and even of certain sections of the most backward strata of the proletariat. These would never have supported fascism if they had understood its real character and its true nature.
The development of fascism, and the fascist dictatorship itself, assume different forms in different countries, according to historical, social and economic conditions and to the national peculiarities, and the international position of the given country. In certain countries, principally those in which fascism has no broad mass basis and in which the struggle of the various groups within the camp of the fascist bourgeoisie itself is rather acute, fascism does not immediately venture to abolish parliament, but allows the other bourgeois parties, as well as the Social-Democratic Parties, to retain a modicum of legality. In other countries, where the ruling bourgeoisie fears an early outbreak of revolution, fascism establishes its unrestricted political monopoly, either immediately or by intensifying its reign of terror against and persecution of all rival parties and groups. This does not prevent fascism, when its position becomes particularly acute, from trying to extend its basis and, without altering its class nature, trying to combine open terrorist dictatorship with a crude sham of parliamentarism.
The accession to power of fascism is not an ordinary succession of one bourgeois government by another, but a substitution of one state form of class domination of the bourgeoisie — bourgeois democracy — by another form — open terrorist dictatorship. It would be a serious mistake to ignore this distinction, a mistake liable to prevent the revolutionary proletariat from mobilizing the widest strata of the working people of town and country for the struggle against the menace of the seizure of power by the fascists, and from taking advantage of the contradictions which exist in the camp of the bourgeoisie itself. But it is a mistake, no less serious and dangerous, to underrate the importance, for the establishment of fascist dictatorship, of the reactionary measures of the bourgeoisie at present increasingly developing in bourgeois-democratic countries — measures which suppress the democratic liberties of the working people, falsify and curtail the rights of parliament and intensify the repression of the revolutionary movement.
Comrades, the accession to power of fascism must not be conceived of in so simplified and smooth a form, as though some committee or other of finance capital decided on a certain date to set up a fascist dictatorship. In reality, fascism usually comes to power in the course of a mutual, and at times severe, struggle against the old bourgeois parties, or a definite section of these parties, in the course of a struggle even within the fascist camp itself — a struggle which at times leads to armed clashes, as we have witnessed in the case of Germany, Austria and other countries. All this, however, does not make less important the fact that, before the establishment of a fascist dictatorship, bourgeois governments usually pass through a number of preliminary stages and adopt a number of reactionary measures which directly facilitate the accession to power of fascism. Whoever does not fight the reactionary measures of the bourgeoisie and the growth of fascism at these preparatory stages is not in a position to prevent the victory of fascism, but, on the contrary, facilitates that victory.
Georgi Dimitrov Report delivered at the Seventh World Congress of the Communist International
http://communist-party.org.uk/index.php?page=shop.product_details&flypage=flypage-ask.tpl&product_id=33&category_id=1&option=com_virtuemart&Itemid=4
Comment by Nick Wright — 11 June, 2009 @ 12:39 pm
“I can’t read all the words in the paragraph on the top right”
You eye sight is better than mine, I can only just make out MIMIKRY
Comment by Andy Newman — 11 June, 2009 @ 12:40 pm
Thing is though Andy that there has been a change in tactics. In the face of being faced down on the streets last time round, and the dreadful political consequences, an attempt has been made to adopt a purely electoral approach and hide away the thugs. This has of course led to a fair amount of ideological controversy (but see my points about the way this controversy was conducted revealing commitment to Nazi ideology) inside his movement. But I think its very foolish to imagine that BNP thuggery (which still takes place: a friend of mine in the Greens described to me recently how friends of his canvassing for Respect were attacked: I’m hearing more and more stories about the intimidation of individuals who take part in attempting to argue against the BNP in localities etc) is just the work of a few ‘odd balls’. Its not at this juncture a key factor of mobilisation. But the more entrenched they become the more visible it will become. At least to those of us trying to campaign against them.
Ideological confidence coming from ‘mainstreaming’ will only encourage this. The leapord has not changed its spots. The tendency for many commentators to define the BNP on the basis of what they say about themselves, I find just peculiar. Of course you have to pay attention to what they say. But we’re dealing with a movement whose very essence is dissembling and violence. I think its important always to stress this.
Comment by johng — 11 June, 2009 @ 12:42 pm
Well I’m afraid I think comrade Dimitrov was wrong. Fascism is not simply a stage of capitalism and it is not simply the dictatorship of finance capital. The example I gave from Bombay illustrate that even when conditions are not right for a fully fledged fascist dictatorship, movements built up on the basis of reactionary populism which prove capable of smashing left wing organisation will come to recieve the support of sections of the capitalist class. They have to be smashed before they reach that stage. If you leave it till that stage its way too late.
Comment by johng — 11 June, 2009 @ 12:46 pm
The ideology of the fascists is not racism per se but militarism. These are the shock troops of imperialism. The racism is used to manufacture a `security dilemma’ (us against them) with an unstoppable logic which leads to their eventual seizure of power (see the way bombs were planted in Soho and Brixton to draw retaliation and create an arms race not so long ago). The ruling classes would much rather rule economically but will turn to brute power in the end to ensure their rule even though it will lead to their own destruction as, having established their dominance domestically on the basis of militarism, they must then push outwards to maintain it. War is the continuation of politics by other means but for the fascists/militarists war and it must be total war is an end in itself (see Brando in Apocalypse Now). The mass middle classes and lumpen workers in turning to this instrument fail to realise that once unleashed it cannot then be reigned in to serve their ends. It is an end in itself. They and their children will die eventually along with the trade unionists, racial minorities, marxists, reformists who they first kill. Power through might. When economics and politics fail the ruling elite the sword is all they have left and believe me, capitalism is kaput.
Comment by Military Instrument — 11 June, 2009 @ 12:53 pm
I recall another discussion with an old Communist in Bombay who had been a trade union organiser. In the Sena weekly from the 1960s they had made fun of him for being unable to halt their advance in the industrial suberbs. When I first met him he came out with a Dimitrov kind of line. “The Sena are the armed wing of monopoly finance capitalism” he had stated. After we got chatting a little, and he started to enjoy reminicing he turned to me and said ‘actually I knew those boys, grew up with them…and very few of them were monopoly finance capitalists’. It is simply implausible to describe fascism as something that grows up INSIDE the capitalist class. It grows up inside capitalist society. A section of the capitalist class then comes to back it.
Comment by johng — 11 June, 2009 @ 12:54 pm
Few of the SA were monopoly finance capitalists, either. They were merely used by monopoly finance capitalists. SA would sometimes attract unemployed men known to them to join up by saying that there was a free glass or two of beer going for SA members, and every so often some money would be distributed. Probably quite an inducement to the unemployed in Depression-ridden Germany.
Quite a few SA members were like their opposite numbers in the Red Front Fighters’ League, the KPD’s paramilitaries. It has been said that not all members of both groups were particularly political - there were rowdies who were looking for a fight, above all, with politics a poor second.
Comment by Faust — 11 June, 2009 @ 1:10 pm
It is this incidently which makes fascism such a murderously and uniquely dangerous form of reaction, when compared to old style conservative reaction or the reaction of police states etc. Its ability to build up a mass movement which is used as a weapon against the left and which leverages it into power (both physically and through the leverage it hence aquires with sections of the bourgoisie). Dimitrov gets right the fact that this is not a normal transition of power, but his glancing reference to the nature of their base demonstrates a failure to grasp the very essence of that to which he refers. In the smaller and little known events in the industrial suburbs of Bombay I referred to, the Communist I mentioned described the left as being at the time ‘like a rabbit caught in the headlights’. That paralyses in part was not knowing what to make of or how to respond to the mass charecter of this kind of reaction: the language of orthodox Communist analyses which through its identification of fascism with a stage of capitalism, had come to blur the distinction between fascism and other kinds of reaction (and yes a by-product was over-usage of the terminology) meant that they were ill prepared for the reality they had to confront. In many ways most Communists would now concede that bad preparation, but not, (of course!), the theories which led to that lack of preparation.
Comment by johng — 11 June, 2009 @ 1:12 pm
Actually Faust its amazing how much your second paragraph recalls the grimy atmosphere of the archives I went through of the street battles in Bombay of the late 1960s. With the proviso that typically, there was ideological motivation on behalf of many of the Sainiks (soldiers) not just various material inducements (though these were there to). However I think you do have to distinguish between capitalists and capitalism, and that its wrong to see fascism as emerging simply as an instrument of finance capital. All this must seem very abstract to those reading, but the political point is that today, in Britain, whatever we may agree or disagree on about the past, it makes little sense to see the BNP as the ‘armed wing of finance capital’. My point is, lets not waiting for them to get around to funding them before we oppose them. By then it is way too late. Some of the controversy relates to whether reactionary ideologies and organisations can exist under capitalism without direct capitalist funding. I think they can. I think capitalism produces reactionary ideologies quite spontaniously.
Comment by johng — 11 June, 2009 @ 1:18 pm
35 John G
Of course fascism “is not simply a stage of capitalism”. But the term, to retain any analytical force in a discussion in which it is thrown about as an epithet, has to connect to the utillity it performs in any given situation.
All the examples, including the Indian experience, demonstrate its dialectical relationship to established bourgeois power, its relatives spheres of autonomous action, its distinctive belief systems.
We are agreed on the function of fascism in its embryonic and developmental stages in any given society.
The important point for our current discussion is to be clear about its potential to develop beyond its current role – which is a long way from state power – so that our tactics and language are appropriate.
Comment by Nick Wright — 11 June, 2009 @ 1:20 pm
Excellent post.
Haven’t seen John Heartfield’s images in ages either. As an earlier poster said, the image sums us Nazism pretty well: it exposes the duplicitous nature, and ideological gymnastics, Nazis pursue to gain power and separate themselves from the mainstream, conservative right.
Comment by Seán — 11 June, 2009 @ 1:21 pm
#36. Hitler was at pains to distance his movement from conservatism (generally monarchist in Germany, wanting the Kaiser back etc.) Hence the socialist-sounding demagogy. Much of the Nazi electoral success came from drawing disparate layers of the population towards them, though their inroads into conservative parties’ electoral support were more impressive than their impact on the SPD and KPD.
The Nazi flag was a symbol of this dual approach. It was largely red and looked socialist. But it was also black and white, and all three colours were in the national flag of the Kaiser’s Reich. The Weimar Republic adopted the black, red and gold flag used today, but many conservatives continued to use the flag of the Kaiser’s time - some referred to the official Weimar flag as being “black, red and chickenshit”. So the Nazi flag contrived to attract socialists and monarchists at the same time.
Comment by Faust — 11 June, 2009 @ 1:37 pm
Yes the key thing is to be aware of the potential of the fascists, and what they’re therefore about. The debate about the best theories for arriving at such conclusions can wait for another time. Its certainly true that if the fascists were not seen by sections of the boss class as possessing such utility they would never be able to take power. One part of our task is to ensure that they do not ever aquire that utility. My experiance of the small example I gave is chilling in this respect. It took the organisation two decades to achieve local state power and become a national force. But in Bombay itself it took just two years to come to dominante muncipal elections and three years to become a mass movement that no-one could frontally challenge. And in Bombay itself, as my socialist friend remarked, this was the key stage. The BNP is nowhere near state power. But we may be living through decisive days in terms of them establishing themselves as a major and long term force in British politics. Today its actually possible to drive them off the stage despite their election successes. It may not be possible tommorrow. What we do now matters. They’re still at the stage where we can take them on. The other side of this is overcoming our own divisions. I’m more and more aware of what an appalling waste the last couple of years have been in this respect, something for which I don’t think anyone can disclaim responsibility when they look at those election results. Those from my political tendency least of all.
Comment by johng — 11 June, 2009 @ 1:57 pm
Respect is an example of a group that claims to be of the left even though many of its policies are from the far right. Yet they claim to be from the left. Still it looks like they’re a busted flush at the present and primarily appeal to right wing Islamists.
Comment by Bennett — 11 June, 2009 @ 2:35 pm
# 45 #
Gordon ?
Comment by Alf G — 11 June, 2009 @ 3:05 pm
“Still it looks like they’re a busted flush at the present and primarily appeal to right wing Islamists.”
Bennett, are you Chris Harman?
Comment by external bulletin — 11 June, 2009 @ 3:09 pm
“Bennett, are you Chris Harman”
How dare you insult me !
I remember Seth Harman at NUS conferences in the mid 1980’s - i think he broke the record for how many times somebody could say “actually” in 60 seconds.
Comment by Bennett — 11 June, 2009 @ 3:23 pm
Sounds to me like Jim Denham’s got pissed again and forgotten his name.
Comment by 'spotter — 11 June, 2009 @ 3:25 pm
“Sounds to me like Jim Denham’s got pissed again and forgotten his name.”
Oh spotter , you are funny.
Comment by Bennett — 11 June, 2009 @ 3:27 pm
Apologies for being off topic.
‘Why is there a culture within the SWP of dressing like nobody else does?
It’s always baffled me that.
Comment by John Wight — 9 June, 2009 @ 11:26 pm ‘
John I’ve never really thought of you as a style guru. Still as your on friendly terms with a number of SWP members including myself I thought you may want to take us all to Jenner’s for a make-over. I’ll buy you a pint in the Bow Bar afterwards.
Comment by Solidarity — 11 June, 2009 @ 3:31 pm
Are we familiar with politicalcompass.org? They describe the Nazis as being center in reality. I’m inclined to agree with them. This focus on left and right is far too one dimensional. You need at least two dimensions to paint a proper picture, namely economic (left ad right) and a social scale (libertarian and authoritarian). This isn’t a perfect system but it’s far superior in my opinion. BNP would come out as center authoritarian.
Comment by Johnathan — 11 June, 2009 @ 3:32 pm
#52
JOnathan
Interestingly the political compass includes an axis for economic policy, and an axis for social permissiveness.
It doesn’t have another axis for where the parties stand on getting rid of 9% of the UK population, those who are not white British by descent - which by chilling coincidence is 6 million people.
The reaoson there isn’t a genocide axis, is because no parties except the BNP would be on it.
That is why they are pariahs, and that is why they must NEVER be treated as a mainstream part of political discource.
Comment by Andy Newman — 11 June, 2009 @ 3:37 pm
Can I also have one of John Wights makeovers please? (long queue of eager SWP members). I remember Chris Harman’s description of the popular image of trots. “A bunch of misdressed lunatics clutching wads of newspaper that no-one wants to buy”. A bit close to the bone I remember thinking nervously glancing at my wardrobe.
Comment by johng — 11 June, 2009 @ 3:43 pm
“the world’s only existing settler colonial state, made up largely of European immigrants.”
Not really that relevant to the general discussion, but for what it’s worht only about 40% of the Israeli population is even of European origin, let alone born in Europe.
Comment by nasty nick — 11 June, 2009 @ 3:47 pm
#54
Perhaps you should rebrand, now the RCP are no more, there is a gap in the market for a fashion conscious left group.
Comment by Andy Newman — 11 June, 2009 @ 3:50 pm
#55 - Which is why I used the word ‘largely’, as in a large proportion.
Comment by John Wight — 11 June, 2009 @ 4:26 pm
#51 - Jenners, ugh, how downmarket? I was thinking Corniche myself.
Comment by John Wight — 11 June, 2009 @ 4:29 pm
Fashion consious? Nah. Don’t see it happening…
Comment by johng — 11 June, 2009 @ 4:30 pm
#57 “largely” doesn’t mean “large”, it means “mostly”.
Comment by nasty nick — 11 June, 2009 @ 4:44 pm
Perhaps the return of class politics might suggest that men in suits aren’t the role model they once were.
Comment by skidmarx — 11 June, 2009 @ 4:47 pm
#60 -
largely (adv) in a large manner; in great measure
The Chambers Dictionary (9th edition)
Comment by John Wight — 11 June, 2009 @ 5:04 pm
perhaps an away team visting man city
might like to join the local in a short vist to the ace of diamonds
Comment by Sean — 11 June, 2009 @ 5:05 pm
Ah, this is the first time Johng has decided to show his face over here since the Martin Smith calamity. Interesting.
Comment by Ed D — 11 June, 2009 @ 5:19 pm
# 62 “in a large manner; in great measure”
Yes, preponderantly, dominantly, to a great extent. Ie not a minority of the population. If I was to suggest that the electorate had largely voted for the Conservative party in the European elections what would you take that to mean?
[in any case, your reference was to “European immigrants” and the proportion of the Israeli population born in Europe would be much lower than 40%. But maybe that wouldn’t stop you employing your rather odd usage, after all 10% is quite a large figure isn’t it?}
Comment by nasty nick — 11 June, 2009 @ 5:34 pm
..Griffin on the other hand, seems typical of the pasty faced, misbegotten weirdoes who inhabit the BNP.
You can well imagine him at some godawful social full of similar male weirdoes and their “eileens”, with a pint of warm bitter in his fist.
Some dreadful Nazi-Punk will be playing over the PA as a few of the more overenthusiastic ones head but each other and get into fights about spilling their beer. White men who can’t dance only need apply.
Comment by prianikoff — 11 June, 2009 @ 5:37 pm
..but one reason to doubt whether the BNP “threat” equates with Hitler’s movement is the degree to which the BNP has been pushed into claiming to defend democracy and claim that it’s not really racist.
Of course they’re a bunch of liars, but this is very powder-puff stuff compared to anything that Hitler or Mussolini would have come up with.
They led movements that were thoroughly contemptuous of democracy, organising anti-labour militias and attempting putsches before coming to power.
Whereas Griffin acts like a cry-baby when he gets pelted with a few eggs.
At the moment the BNP is not the preferred option of the ruling class and won’t be getting the backing of monopoly capital, or the armed forces. That would require a level of threat to capitalism by the working class which is not present.
In fact, making all political decisions subservient to the idea that the BNP *does* currently represent such a threat could be seriously disorienting.
The United Front tactic as advocated by Trotsky in the 1930’s would be the correct response to such a situation - which implies an alliance with both the membership and leadership of social democracy in order to stop the fascists, but NOT dissolving the differences between the revolutionaries and reformists.
i.e. it would lead towards socialism and not simply the defense of capitalist democracy.
But the reality at present is that the BNP has no serious chance of winning power and what we face at the moment is the threat of a Tory government which will be committed to a programme of deep cuts in public spending.
Comment by prianikoff — 11 June, 2009 @ 5:51 pm
#65 - It’s about context. So, again, I disagree with you.
As to your denial of the impact of European immigration to Israel, why so?
It’s nothing to be ashamed of, is it?
Comment by John Wight — 11 June, 2009 @ 6:03 pm
I think its right that the BNP are not identical to the German National Socialist Workers Party, and that naughties are not the 1930s and that Britain is not Germany. However I think its wrong to equate the fact that democratic ideology is not in the deep crisis it was in the 1920s and thirties with the idea that the BNP don’t want to demolish it. Similarly its a mistake to think that because Griffen cries when he gets pelted with eggs that there are not racist murderers in the BNP or that if you live in the wrong area and you speak out against them you will suffer intimidation, bricks through your window or worse. Its also right to point out that the BNP are not on the verge of taking state power but its wrong to say that the continued mainstreaming of the BNPs views could not lead to their consolidation as a permenant fixture on the political landscape..and that the next year or so might be decisive in that respect. And that if this was to occur you would see a shift to the right amongst all the major parties as well as the consolidation of their forces organisationally which would present a serious threat and problem for all of us. I don’t think suggesting that we ignore the problem in favour of campaigning against a Tory government, deals with these threats adequately.
Comment by johng — 11 June, 2009 @ 6:05 pm
“But the reality at present is that the BNP has no serious chance of winning power and what we face at the moment is the threat of a Tory government which will be committed to a programme of deep cuts in public spending.”
That sounds familiar. Wasn’t that what a few on the left were arguing before the BNP got two MEP’s? Where does the line between being a threat and being a joke begin and end? Unless the left acts now to stop Griffin it will be too late to stop them getting MP’s at the next election or the one after that. The BNP have relied on our disunity and complacency to build the level of support they have now.
Comment by Ray — 11 June, 2009 @ 6:25 pm
#66 There is no conceivable context, ever, in which “largely” means less than 50%. I have said nothing about the impact of European immigration to Israel. On the same basis it could be asked why you wish to deny the impact, equivalent in terms of numbers, of North African and Middle Eastern immigration to Israel. It’s nothing to be ashamed of either, is it?
Comment by nasty nick — 11 June, 2009 @ 6:28 pm
#71 - Nonsense Nick. The tone of your posts suggests otherwise. I have no wish to deny the impact of North African or MEastern immigration to Israel.
The point is it is a settler colonial state.
Do you agree?
Comment by John Wight — 11 June, 2009 @ 6:37 pm
Ray, the trick is to oppose the BNP before the election by making sure you vote for the parties that can beat them in the areas where they can win seats, and be careful not to use the same propaganda about the government as they do. This flapping around in the aftermath by the SWP is unseemly and strikes me of a guilty conscience.
Comment by Ed D — 11 June, 2009 @ 6:42 pm
#72 I did not question your characterisation of Israel as a settler colonial state, but your assertion that its population is “largely made up of European immigrants”. Because it isn’t true and solidarity with the Palestinians is not aided by wildly inaccurate statements of this kind.
Comment by nasty nick — 11 June, 2009 @ 6:56 pm
#74 - It is not a wildly inaccurate statement. 40 percent constitutes a LARGE proportion of the population.
Your focus on semantics here is baffling to me, really.
Comment by John Wight — 11 June, 2009 @ 7:05 pm
#75 So you would be equally happy with somebody writing that the Israeli population was largely made up immigrants from North Africa and the Middle East? Would that just be a matter of semantics to you?
Comment by nasty nick — 11 June, 2009 @ 7:09 pm
you say;
“Of course the Conservative Party is also implicitly opposed to Marxism, but doesn’t define itself in those terms, the explicit self-definition of a party as anti-Marxist is a characteristic of fascism.”
I’ve grappled with this myself, but I don’t think its fair game to take as standard the BNP’s perception of itself, and the way it positions itself (since, for one, it is clearly deluded as to what racism is).
On the LC blog entry you talk about at the start of this article, Sunny Hundal - the editor of LC, said in the comments section somewhere that Nick Griffin had actually said the BNP didn’t fit comfortably in any given criteria of left and right politics. I don’t have any sources for this, but what I can say for sure is that the NF has a slogan in a similar context: “We are not right as opposed to left, we are right as opposed to wrong”. For this reason, I shall reiterate, I’m sceptical to take their self-perception as granted.
(In a bit of shameless self-promotion - )I covered some of this stuff in a sizey blog entry on how to define the BNP, here –) [http://raincoatoptimism.wordpress.com/2009/06/10/the-bnp-is-far-right-my-two-cents/]
Comment by Carl — 11 June, 2009 @ 8:41 pm
#69 “Unless the left acts now to stop Griffin it will be too late to stop them getting MP’s at the next election or the one after that. The BNP have relied on our disunity and complacency to build the level of support they have now.”
The BNP are closer to Le Pen’s organisation in France, or Hayder’s in Austria, than to the NF of the 1970’s. Both of these organisation achieved substantial electoral successes, but have fizzled away.
The electoral success of the BNP reflects the effect of a recession on working class voters in a period of unprecendented labour mobility. New Labour doesn’t have anything to offer these people.
Quite a good example of that, which I know of is the South Oxhey Estate in Hertfordshire, which is a ghettoised white working class, former council estate,just south of Watford.
This returned BNP councillors in the last election, no doubt because the people there are far more economically vulnerable than in surrounding areas and because New Labour hasn’t done anything about them. Indeed, Labour’s post-war policies of shifting the working class from the inner cities left them in such estates ,isolated and resentful.
I don’t think it’s disunty on the left they care about, or even know about. It’s the fact that the LP doesn’t represent their interests and they are easily deflected into nationalism because of their geographical situation on an area of high Asian immigration. That’s a reality I’m afraid.
The biggest thing that will reverse the hold of the BNP would be socialists becoming active in such areas, not simply on an “anti-BNP” basis, but on the basis of fighting for the interests of people in such areas.
Which means building a mass socialist organisation that fights for the interests of the working class, black and white.
Alongside that, what’s needed is a united front against the BNP. A classic united front policy requires approaching the Labour Party at branch and national level to discuss how to stop the BNP and stop the Tories winning the next general election.
Not simply uniting the far left in yet another of the musical-chair permutations of the past 10 years, which are getting increasingly bizarre and improbable.
Comment by prianikoff — 12 June, 2009 @ 8:56 am
At this point the biggest barrier to the BNP is probably UKIP. Another barrier down the road might be a Tory government, which might weaken the BNP by behaving much like it (not a comforting prospect either). Remember, the old NF was gravely weakened by the Tories getting in in 1979, and electorally the Thatcher years were fallow for the far right, though they picked up a bit under Major. It remains to be seen whether the BNP can consolidate what they have gained under New Labour.
Comment by Faust — 12 June, 2009 @ 12:28 pm