Die Neue Zeit
1st June 2011, 15:04
http://www.inclusivedemocracy.org/journal/newsletter/vol2_no4_socialfascism_PRINTABLE.htm
Once, in the founding years of the Second International, (social-democracy) was dedicated to the overthrow of capitalism. Then, it pursued partial reforms as gradual steps towards socialism. Finally, it settled for welfare and full employment within capitalism. If it now accepts a scaling down of one and giving up of the other, what kind of movement will it change into?
The answer to the above crucial question, raised about ten years ago by a distinguished member of the ex-“New Left”, has been given in practice by the policies of the social democratic parties that have been in power since then, and which —following in the footsteps of the British Labour party— everywhere, from Sweden to Germany, have been transformed into social-liberal parties. It seems, however, that their descent from social-democracy did not (and could not) end with social-liberalism. Today, the same Labour party pioneers a new route, this time towards social fascism. This development should not surprise anyone, given that the intensification of domestic and foreign economic suppression implied by neoliberal globalisation (of which the “new” Labour party is a fervent supporter)—has inevitably been leading to a corresponding political suppression, both in Britain and abroad.
Thus, on the pretext of the London bombings, this ex-socialdemocratic party has intensified its anti-terror campaign (although the Labour government had initiated a series of Draconian “anti-terror” measures long before the bombings), introducing several semi-fascist arrangements that would allow the arbitrary arrest and detention of any suspect for a period that could extend to three months —if the security services’ proposal is finally accepted, as seems likely at the moment.
http://indymedia.nl/nl/2010/03/66081.shtml
But, social-fascism today takes a very different form from the old image used by the Comintern to describe the social democratic parties in the 1930s. Social-fascism then was supposed to be a variant of fascism, in the sense that it stood in the way of the final transition to communism. Today, social-fascism takes the form of a mix of spurious social democracy and semi-totalitarian “democracy,” as the inevitable outcome of the adoption by the ex-social democratic parties of the necessary social-liberal policies to make them conform with the present neoliberal globalisation of open and liberated markets. This outcome was inevitable, because it was only through massive, preventive as well as repressive, systemic violence that the present reversal of the social democratic achievements, which were realised during the statist period (1945-mid of 1970s), could be consolidated. Thus, the disintegration of the welfare state, through the effective dismantlement of fundamental social services (free education, national health systems, comprehensive social security arrangements, etc.), with the ultimate aim to fully privatise them; the massive unemployment and underemployment following the massive cuts in public spending; the introduction of “flexible” labour relations; and more importantly, the enormous concentration of economic power in the hands of the privileged social strata that has led to the present monstrous levels of inequality in the distribution of income and wealth ―all these could not have been achieved without being effectively “shielded” from popular counter-violence, namely, the defence of the weaker social strata against the mass systemic (economic as well as physical) violence.
No wonder, therefore, that cameras have been installed everywhere in major cities like London, supposedly to protect citizens from crime; citizens are humiliated when travelling even to the extent of being forced to have an electronic striptease before being allowed to travel; demonstrators are violently suppressed when they dare to blame the transnational elite for the present multidimensional crisis (e.g. in London during the G20 meeting, then in Copenhagen during the climate conference, etc.); the right to strike is effectively suppressed through the banning of wildcat or sympathetic strikes, inevitably leading to the consolidation of the power of trade union bureaucrats (who are usually controlled by the elites); telephone and internet communication is closely monitored by “Big Brother” and so on.
I disagree with Fotopoulos's use of "Social Fascism." It's better to call it and the phenomenon inaccurately described by the Comintern "Social Corporatism." However, such descent into actual Social Fascism would be true if this tendency prevails in the Labour Party:
Don't underestimate toxic Blue Labour (http://www.revleft.com/vb/dont-underestimate-toxic-t155636/index.html)
Once, in the founding years of the Second International, (social-democracy) was dedicated to the overthrow of capitalism. Then, it pursued partial reforms as gradual steps towards socialism. Finally, it settled for welfare and full employment within capitalism. If it now accepts a scaling down of one and giving up of the other, what kind of movement will it change into?
The answer to the above crucial question, raised about ten years ago by a distinguished member of the ex-“New Left”, has been given in practice by the policies of the social democratic parties that have been in power since then, and which —following in the footsteps of the British Labour party— everywhere, from Sweden to Germany, have been transformed into social-liberal parties. It seems, however, that their descent from social-democracy did not (and could not) end with social-liberalism. Today, the same Labour party pioneers a new route, this time towards social fascism. This development should not surprise anyone, given that the intensification of domestic and foreign economic suppression implied by neoliberal globalisation (of which the “new” Labour party is a fervent supporter)—has inevitably been leading to a corresponding political suppression, both in Britain and abroad.
Thus, on the pretext of the London bombings, this ex-socialdemocratic party has intensified its anti-terror campaign (although the Labour government had initiated a series of Draconian “anti-terror” measures long before the bombings), introducing several semi-fascist arrangements that would allow the arbitrary arrest and detention of any suspect for a period that could extend to three months —if the security services’ proposal is finally accepted, as seems likely at the moment.
http://indymedia.nl/nl/2010/03/66081.shtml
But, social-fascism today takes a very different form from the old image used by the Comintern to describe the social democratic parties in the 1930s. Social-fascism then was supposed to be a variant of fascism, in the sense that it stood in the way of the final transition to communism. Today, social-fascism takes the form of a mix of spurious social democracy and semi-totalitarian “democracy,” as the inevitable outcome of the adoption by the ex-social democratic parties of the necessary social-liberal policies to make them conform with the present neoliberal globalisation of open and liberated markets. This outcome was inevitable, because it was only through massive, preventive as well as repressive, systemic violence that the present reversal of the social democratic achievements, which were realised during the statist period (1945-mid of 1970s), could be consolidated. Thus, the disintegration of the welfare state, through the effective dismantlement of fundamental social services (free education, national health systems, comprehensive social security arrangements, etc.), with the ultimate aim to fully privatise them; the massive unemployment and underemployment following the massive cuts in public spending; the introduction of “flexible” labour relations; and more importantly, the enormous concentration of economic power in the hands of the privileged social strata that has led to the present monstrous levels of inequality in the distribution of income and wealth ―all these could not have been achieved without being effectively “shielded” from popular counter-violence, namely, the defence of the weaker social strata against the mass systemic (economic as well as physical) violence.
No wonder, therefore, that cameras have been installed everywhere in major cities like London, supposedly to protect citizens from crime; citizens are humiliated when travelling even to the extent of being forced to have an electronic striptease before being allowed to travel; demonstrators are violently suppressed when they dare to blame the transnational elite for the present multidimensional crisis (e.g. in London during the G20 meeting, then in Copenhagen during the climate conference, etc.); the right to strike is effectively suppressed through the banning of wildcat or sympathetic strikes, inevitably leading to the consolidation of the power of trade union bureaucrats (who are usually controlled by the elites); telephone and internet communication is closely monitored by “Big Brother” and so on.
I disagree with Fotopoulos's use of "Social Fascism." It's better to call it and the phenomenon inaccurately described by the Comintern "Social Corporatism." However, such descent into actual Social Fascism would be true if this tendency prevails in the Labour Party:
Don't underestimate toxic Blue Labour (http://www.revleft.com/vb/dont-underestimate-toxic-t155636/index.html)