Far-right theory?

[spartan]

What do you think of the theory that far-right movements in the UK only become popular during Labour Governments and soon die out when the Tories are re-elected?

Certainly history supports this theory as it was during the late 70's, when Labour were in power and the economy was doing badly, that the openly racist National Front (NF) became a nationwide menance with far reaching support (Even forcing the old Liberal party into fourth place in certain constituencies) which led to the Rock Against Racism (RAR) movement to counteract these Fascists from brainwashing vulnerable youths (There had been increasing racial violence back then which led to many deaths).

Now in another Labour era (1997 to now), and with the economy again doing badly, we have seen the far-right re-emerge as the British National Party (BNP), who no longer openly come out with racist rhetoric and now wear suits, and they to have had a remarkable degree of success at a local level and have always had no problem attracting mainstream publicity (No matter how negative) to air their views.

Anyway everytime the moderately right wing (When compared to the BNP) Tories have been elected the far-right movements seem to die down and splinter into smaller and more insignificant groups until Labour are re-elected and the economy starts going bad again, which is about the time they re-emerge with seemingly limitless amounts of money and coming out with the same old "blame the immigrants" stuff that worked over 30 years ago for the NF.

Do you think that this theory has any basis in reality?

[Cencus]

In my lifetime it certainly applies.

I think it's because when the Tories are in power working class folks see Labour as their great hope, but once they're elected folks see what a shower of shit they really are and turn to fringe parties. The left are divided and imo spend too much effort *****ing about each other, that leaves the gates wide open for the BNP to come strolling in.

[EscapeFromSF]

Cencus, some of what you say would certainly be consistent with what sociologists (and I think others too) say about working class people in the United States voting against their own interests.

We are led to believe that jobs are not being lost, rather that they are being taken away by all the people whom affirmative action is intended to help. I can't say I'm fully satisfied with this explanation, because the export of well-paying jobs overseas has been well-reported.

That means there is a missing link in the logic. Everyone knows who chooses where to invest. Everyone knows that the rich are getting richer. Everyone knows that the only jobs being created in this economy are service jobs that pay far less than old manufacturing (union) jobs did. Yet instead of challenging the capitalist paradigm, we blame people of color, women, and immigrants. Instead of questioning the entitlement of the wealthy, we see the unions as leeches.

I guess it is just my political outlook; I really don't understand this.

[Sam_b]

I don't think it holds. I mean, look at the conservative led National Government in the 30s and the rise of Mosely's BUF.

[Zurdito]

Cencus, some of what you say would certainly be consistent with what sociologists (and I think others too) say about working class people in the United States voting against their own interests.

We are led to believe that jobs are not being lost, rather that they are being taken away by all the people whom affirmative action is intended to help. I can't say I'm fully satisfied with this explanation, because the export of well-paying jobs overseas has been well-reported.

That means there is a missing link in the logic. Everyone knows who chooses where to invest. Everyone knows that the rich are getting richer. Everyone knows that the only jobs being created in this economy are service jobs that pay far less than old manufacturing (union) jobs did. Yet instead of challenging the capitalist paradigm, we blame people of color, women, and immigrants. Instead of questioning the entitlement of the wealthy, we see the unions as leeches.

I guess it is just my political outlook; I really don't understand this.

well, don't forget that the BNP does explicitly claim to be anti-capitalist, and their materials quite regularly refer to this. the explanaton is that an unpatriotic and greedy capitalist class is selling out their country, and that business should work for the national interest. of course this is a fantasy, and this fantasy when acted on remains capitalism, but we can't ignore that fascism does demagogically base itself on anti-capitalist sentiment and promises a new system - the term national socialism is no coincedence, that's what they saw it as.

I am NOT saying that the following is the root of fascism (as for that I read "What is fascism and how to fight it", by Trotsky), but we should note that turning to fascism in times of economic uncertainty for some working class people is an example of turning to a supposed national community as a source of protection and common interest, rather than their class.

In the case of Britain, you have some workers turning to a section of "nationalist" ruling class (as opposed to the liberal and tory "traitors") which will unite with them in a block and help them protect their jobs/huosing/income against competition from immigrants and foreigners.

Capitalism does turn communities into competition with each other unless a working class movement links them together against capitalism, so fascism amongst workers is not "irrational" or an example of "brainwashing", but an example of them trying to band together along lines to protect their interests within a system which places them in real competition with each other. of course, it is a disastrous con, but that's another story.