How close is the UK to fascism?

[Wake Up]

Something I've been worrying about recently is the similarities between the UK and 1930's Germany.
Lets do a little check list....

1. Gradual erosion of civil liberties? Check.
I don't think I need to explain this in great detail to anyone who lives in the UK. But we now have 28 day detention without charge, numerous ways to check up on people and a system so slow it's taken over 3 years to get anywhere over the Jean Charles de Menezes case (If you count a few names and retirements as justice....)

2. Big brother is watching you? Check
The Nazi's had a network of informants and the gestapo. The Uk government has many ways to gather information on us. While there is no obvious ID card or central tagging system there are enough other ways to get information legitimately. God knows what they do behind our backs.
UK citizens regularly send of details including address, phone number, picture, birth date, credit card number to internet shopping sites. It will be easy for the government to gather all these details everytime they are sent and build up a pretty good picture of what that person does. Then as soon as the pattern changes...

3. Common enemy to divide the working class? Check.
Nazis had the Jews. We have immigrants, muslims and now benefit fraudsters. The working classes attention is firmly distracted and bikers amongst itself. Classic bourgeois tactic.

4. Control over the media? Check.
While the media is often critical of the government it still peddles the lies that distract the working class day in day out (see above). It is acceptable to be critical of the government as there is no real threat from the pub talk that Brits often limit their displeasure to.

5. Crisis to launch state into dictatorship? Check.
Now here's the bit that really scares me. the nazis used the Riechstag fire to pass the enabling act and destroy what little democracy was left.
The UK is facing many crises and one in particular that will leave the government with a great opportunity. Bird Flu, it's the number 1 threat to the UK and has been for the past few years. If this disease mutates then it has the potential to kill millions, this isn't scaremongering it's what the medical lobby are saying and quite rightly.
Government policy over an outbreak of serious disease is to impose a quarrentine, again probably the most sensible way to go about it. But it doesn't take see how the above 4 points would cause some serious problems for the proletariat if the government imposes such a quarrantine. On top of that there is not enough birdflu vaccine to go around so what the state will do is give it to the police, the army, government workers, doctors and lorry drivers. Instant 2 tier population there - one tier immune and one at risk.
There's also the question of global warming and when places like the Indian subcontinent start getting hit by serious flooding then millions of people are going to start migrating. With a population already fed up wit immigrants I can't see that going down to well...


I hope the above doesn't come across as some nutty conspiracy theory, for one I don't believe their is a sinister masterplan behind us. Merely the government is obsessed with security at the moment and has sleepwalked into a situation where it would be very easy for a fascist government to take control. I don't for a minute think the Gordon Brown is the next Hitler!!
COmments from both Uk members and other countries comparing their goverments current actions would be welcome. If we can come to a conclusion that this is a likely scenario then we can start preparing for it.

[Socialist Scum]

Some of your points I find to be over-blown. 3, for example the "Common enemy". Whilst this is true in many areas, I find many to see immigrants as no threat at all. A "Common enemy" should only be when a large amount of the population hates the immigrants, not the immigration policies.

Control over the media? Ever see GMTV? I know that is not a good example, but they absolutely kill Brown and Darling whenever they come on.

You are pretty much spot on with all the over stuff. I could use some education in these issues too.

[Wake Up]

Some of your points I find to be over-blown. 3, for example the "Common enemy". Whilst this is true in many areas, I find many to see immigrants as no threat at all. A "Common enemy" should only be when a large amount of the population hates the immigrants, not the immigration policies.

But people hate the immigration policy because they don't want any more immigrants in. If you have mo problem with immigrants then why attack the policy


Control over the media? Ever see GMTV? I know that is not a good example, but they absolutely kill Brown and Darling whenever they come on.

But thats no revolutionary chatter is it. It's just sofa talk. We are allowed that pub chat as it gives us the illusion we have free speech. As soon as it becomes dangerous then it becomes a problem. There's probably more government tags on this site than there ever have been on GMTV, but if we trully had freedom of speech then there would be none at all.


You are pretty much spot on with all the over stuff. I could use some education in these issues too.

I think what worries me most is how easy it is to track people. I posted a thread a few weeks ago about London authorities trying to push threw a measure that regulates live music and forces me, a musician, to fill in a form everytime I play live. Combine that with the sneaky tagging system that is the Oyster card (Everytime you use an oyster card it sends a signal to their database showing them where you are), the headlines a few days ago over a central database, the police are getting more and more power
I'm worried that leftists will start being framed. They only need one excuse to lock you up for 28 days and investigate you properly and that excuse could be something as little as a blip in your tax ledger.

I also think the left should really start to wise up about security, but I'm not about to lecture my comrades who are probably infinitely more experienced than me.

[OneNamedNameLess]

Unless we do or plan something really threatening then I don't see the authorities troubling revleft much.

I agree with the alarming nature of some of your points but I don't think the situation is as serious as you make out. What I am concerned about is some of these scenarios playing out in the future. At the moment, no fascist party has the power to seize power in such a manner. People are still cautious of the BNP despite their higher success recently. The BNP are rather hostile towards democracy and the public are aware of this so it will only hinder their aspirations.

Can I turn the question on it's head a bit? What happens if a far left party seizes power?

[Revy]

I read some news story about how the UK is snatching babies from mothers to feed the growing adoption industry. So mothers are leaving Britain so their babies aren't taken away from them.

[Dr Mindbender]

I'm not sure it proves anything other than we are in a time of crisis, and disatisfaction with mainstream parties which means it could go either way.

Don't forget, right before the nazis got in Germany was teetering towards communism as much as anything else. (at one stage there was even a Bavarian communist republic) If it hadnt been for Stalin's damn refusal to allow a German left pact, they could have won the election. It could also go in our favour.

[Angry Young Man]

The story may also have been different if the communist republic wasn't in the most conservative state. I've a German friend and she said that Bavaria's crap, possibly the German Herefordshire.
And fascists usually get influence by hijacking and perverting socialist rhetoric. It's how Hitler managed to get the big industrial cities.

[Hit The North]

I read some news story about how the UK is snatching babies from mothers to feed the growing adoption industry. So mothers are leaving Britain so their babies aren't taken away from them.

This is news to me. You really need to cite a source for this bizarre story.

As for the OP, there's no real grounds to fear a fascist take-over in the UK as bourgeois democracy is alive and well (in its own terms) and it is unlikely that the current crisis will become deep enough to destabilise it.

As Ulster Socialist points out, fascism tends to be the last resource of anti-communist bourgeois politics during times of great polarisation in the class struggle. The level of class struggle - and crucially, the numbers of workers looking for a genuine alternative to the current order - remains quite low.

[Forward Union]

Fascism is a very particular organisation of the economy. It's not just "authorotarianism" or "dictatorship" N.Korea, Or Iraq under saddam were not 'fascist' though they were/are despotic.

There is a difference between a powerful authorarian state and a fascist state.

This said. The Labour party has talked about suspending parliamentry democracy as of september. And now controls the banks, which is, in a crude form, the beginings of a fascist economy.

[Agathon]

Britain (well, England) has always had a wide authoritarian streak. I still can't believe the stuff the right wing papers publish there. It's so much worse than anywhere else I've ever lived. Some of it borders on the comical (especially the Daily Fail), but the public seem to lap it up.

The people who run things are all basically clones of the same two or three people. The same two or three people who seem to comprise British print journalism. They all write the same way, and went to the same schools, and have roughly the same ideas. Sometimes they paint one black, but it makes no difference to the output.

As for fascism. It will never happen in Britain. It will be called something else. Indeed, it already is.

[duffers]

The story may also have been different if the communist republic wasn't in the most conservative state. I've a German friend and she said that Bavaria's crap, possibly the German Herefordshire.

For starters, it was known as the Bavarian Socialist Republic and was ended due to the Freikorps; had fuck all to do with the populace who had supported the movement. Despite the legitimacy of your anecdotal evidence in the form of a "German friend", your lack of knowledge really belittles one of the greatest successes of the far left. Have a bit more respect.

[Angry Young Man]

Would you have a go at me if I had similarly derided Herefordshire.
And I've heard that it generally is quite a conservative state

[duffers]

With proper knowledge of the county? No. However all you have is second hand knowledge from a friend. This isn't in the least credible.

I wouldn't claim to know the current state's political disposition, but the fact remains, that the uprising was supported by the masses, and only the state could curtail it.

[Wake Up]

With proper knowledge of the county? No. However all you have is second hand knowledge from a friend. This isn't in the least credible.

I wouldn't claim to know the current state's political disposition, but the fact remains, that the uprising was supported by the masses, and only the state could curtail it.

Are you referring to my information on bird flu?
If so then the friend in question is a biochemist who works on the vaccine.
I know it's not concrete but the shortage of a bird flu vaccine is pretty common knowledge. And the quarantine procedure is standard. So none of what I relayed was exactly secret.

[duffers]

Wake Up, I was not directing anything towards you whatsoever.

[Wake Up]

Wake Up, I was not directing anything towards you whatsoever.

ah ok.
it's just the lack of a quote usually makes me think it's directed at the OP.
That and my rampant Paranoia... :drool:

[Devrim]

As for the OP, there's no real grounds to fear a fascist take-over in the UK as bourgeois democracy is alive and well (in its own terms) and it is unlikely that the current crisis will become deep enough to destabilise it.

Bob is absolutely right on this. There is virtually no danger of fascism in the UK at the moment.


As Ulster Socialist points out, fascism tends to be the last resource of anti-communist bourgeois politics during times of great polarisation in the class struggle. The level of class struggle - and crucially, the numbers of workers looking for a genuine alternative to the current order - remains quite low.

I disagree with this point of historical analysis though. Fascism was used to crush the working class after the revolutionary movement had already been decisively defeated. Yes, the capitalists were still afraid that it would return, but it was social democracy that defeated the working class.

Devrim

[communard resolution]

Fascism was used to crush the working class after the revolutionary movement had already been decisively defeated.


Devrim, you've made a similar remark in another fascism thread ("fascism rose on the back of the defeated working class"), and I still don't understand it. If the revolutionary movement is already defeated and no longer poses a serious threat, what is the function of fascism then? Why do the bourgeoisie support it and advocate such tough measures at a time when the battle has already been won? And why do fascists adapt socialist/revolutionary sloganeering to win over the working class when revolutionary consciousness isn't very strong any longer?

As you Lefts tend to be quite stroppy, please note that I'm not picking a fight - I just want to understand what you're saying.

[Forward Union]

Bob is absolutely right on this. There is virtually no danger of fascism in the UK at the moment.


You make this statement in spite of the fact that Labour are discussing suspending parliamentry democracy in September (According to The Guardian) and forming a unitary government to deal with the crisis in 2010 onwards. While they nationalise the banks and take a heavier involvement in market capitalism.

Our economy is very similar to a fascist one already, and they havent even brought in the biometric data yet.

[Devrim]

As you Lefts tend to be quite stroppy, please note that I'm not picking a fight - I just want to understand what you're saying.

I don't think we are stroppy. We never insult or abuse people. We just argue our point.


Devrim, you've made a similar remark in another fascism thread ("fascism rose on the back of the defeated working class"), and I still don't understand it. If the revolutionary movement is already defeated and no longer poses a serious threat, what is the function of fascism then? Why do the bourgeoisie support it and advocate such tough measures at a time when the battle has already been won? And why do fascists adapt socialist/revolutionary sloganeering to win over the working class when revolutionary consciousness isn't very strong any longer?

Look at the historical examples; The Working class was defeated in Germany by 1923 at the latest. Fascism came to power in 1933, ten years later. In Italy the working class was defeated in 1920. Yet fascism came to power at the end of 1922.

Unless you think that there was a revolutionary movement in Germany in the 1930s that was crushed by fascism, the historical chronology seems to suggest that I am right.

Devrim

[Devrim]

You make this statement in spite of the fact that Labour are discussing suspending parliamentry democracy in September (According to The Guardian) and forming a unitary government to deal with the crisis in 2010 onwards. While they nationalise the banks and take a heavier involvement in market capitalism.

Well yes, we make our analysis on the basis of the historic situation, not one speculative article in the Guardian. On the point of the article, I tried searching for it on the Guardian site and found nothing. Could you link, please.


Our economy is very similar to a fascist one already,

In what way?


and they havent even brought in the biometric data yet.

I don't think this has much to do with fascism.

Devrim

[Forward Union]

Fascism; a governmental system led by a dictator having complete power,

Not yet but I don't think this is a necessity of fascism.


forcibly suppressing opposition and criticism,

I don't think this is a defining characteristic of fascism either, but it has been going on for some time.


regimenting all industry, commerce, etc.,

This is important. The "merger of coorporatism and state" and unification of the national economy into a sort of hierachical syndicate. The nationalisation of banks is a step toward this. And an interesting one considering banks loan money to companies etc.


and emphasizing an aggressive nationalism and often racism.

Again, I don't think this is defining. But certainly our own state is guilty of this, mroe so than in the past with the "white season" on the BBC.

[communard resolution]

Unless you think that there was a revolutionary movement in Germany in the 1930s that was crushed by fascism, the historical chronology seems to suggest that I am right.I'm not saying that you are wrong. I'm asking for an explanation to furthen my understanding of what you're saying.


Look at the historical examples; The Working class was defeated in Germany by 1923 at the latest. Fascism came to power in 1933, ten years later. In Italy the working class was defeated in 1920. Yet fascism came to power at the end of 1922.Okay. Let's say you're right. But my questions remain:

If the revolutionary movement is already defeated and no longer poses a serious threat, what is the function of fascism then?

Why do the bourgeoisie support it and advocate such tough measures at a time when their battle has already been won?

And why do fascists adapt socialist/revolutionary sloganeering to win over the working class when revolutionary consciousness isn't very strong any longer?

Again, I'm not picking a fight or claiming you are wrong. I'm just trying to get behind the phrase "on the backs of the defeated working class" and understand what it meant in practice.

[Devrim]

I am quite happy to discuss these questions. However, I think we should be clear on one thing first.

Do we make the theory fit the facts or the facts fit the theory?

I think that the question of whether there was a revolutionary movement in Germany in the 1930s in key here.

Do you think that there was?

Devrim

[Devrim]

This is important. The "merger of coorporatism and state" and unification of the national economy into a sort of hierachical syndicate. The nationalisation of banks is a step toward this. And an interesting one considering banks loan money to companies etc.

The only thing of that definition that you think is relevant is something that is common to all modern state capitalist economies. 'Regimenting all industry, commerce, etc.,' is a feature of state capitalism.

I think the nationalisation of certain banks is not a sign of the approach of fascism.

Devrim

[communard resolution]

Do we make the theory fit the facts or the facts fit the theory?

I want to find out whether the Left position does the former or the latter. In order to do this, I would need to know how you arrived at your conclusion in regards to the rise of fascism.


I think that the question of whether there was a revolutionary movement in Germany in the 1930s in key here.

Do you think that there was?
I don't know. If I told you there was one, you would try to prove there wasn't one or that it wasn't truly revolutionary, which still wouldn't answer my question why and how fascism rose.

But I'm telling you honestly: I don't know. Let's say there wasn't a revolutionary movement. How then would you answer my original three questions?

White flag, open hands, no hidden weapons. I'm happy to fight and argue elsewhere, but here I really just want to know.

[Devrim]

If the revolutionary movement is already defeated and no longer poses a serious threat, what is the function of fascism then?

To unify national capital, to destroy the workers movement (not because it was revolutionary but because it was acting as an obstacle to development), and to impose firm management of the crisis.


Why do the bourgeoisie support it and advocate such tough measures at a time when their battle has already been won?

Because they see it as necessary for the tasks above.


And why do fascists adapt socialist/revolutionary sloganeering to win over the working class when revolutionary consciousness isn't very strong any longer?

Most nationalism does this. You can't call for national unity with working class sacrifice to national capital and expect to get much support.


Again, I'm not picking a fight or claiming you are wrong. I'm just trying to get behind the phrase "on the backs of the defeated working class" and understand what it meant in practice.

It means that fascism wasn't possible until the working class had been crushed.

Devrim

[communard resolution]

To unify national capital

What does this mean?


to destroy the workers movement (not because it was revolutionary but because it was acting as an obstacle to development)What workers movement are you referring to? Do you mean the trade unions and such? And if so, how were they acting as a particular obstacle to what development at that time?



Most nationalism does this. You can't call for national unity with working class sacrifice to national capital and expect to get much support.
Yes, but can you expect to get much support from a working class of low revolutionary consciousness by shouting pseudo-socialist rhetoric at them?
Why then is this exactly what the fascists were doing, and why did it work? Why the particularly strong focus on anti-communism while at the same time peddling pseudo-revolutionary slogans to win over red workers?

[Devrim]

What does this mean?

It has to be remembered that it the three main countries where fascism came to power, the ruling class was hugely divided, not only on the direction of how to manage the state, but also that the state itself was quite a new thing, Germany had existed since 1871, Italy since 1861, and Spain had strong separatist tendencies.

To unify national capital meant to have strong centralised control of the state, as opposed to weak leadership and strong centrifugal forces.


What workers movement are you referring to? Do you mean the trade unions and such? And if so, how were they acting as a particular obstacle to what development at that time?

I mean the revolutionary and workers organisations, but also the class itself.

The crisis was hitting and the workers' organisations neede to be crushed to maintain profits, and allow further development.


Yes, but can you expect to get much support from a working class of low revolutionary consciousness by shouting pseudo-socialist rhetoric at them? Why is this exactly what the fascists were doing, and why did it work? Why the strong focus on anti-communism while at the same time peddling pseudo-revolutionary slogans to win over red workers?

They called for concessions to workers (few of which appeared)not for the dictatorship of the proletariat. The anti-communism was part of the strong stable state argument, a 'they are trouble makers using the workers movement' sort of thing.

Devrim

[bawbag]

I have noticed alot of scaremongering tactics going on in the UK these days, those adverts where the narrator has put on an annoying deep voice and says: if you dont pay your car tax, we'll find you and we're comin for you
they use the same thing on benefit theft and tax returns, there are some other things, cant remember what, seems to me like a crack of the whip from the government to make us think they are something to be feared, and keep us in control

it really annoys me, think its one of the reasons i try to watch as little tv as possible

[Die Neue Zeit]

http://www.revleft.com/vb/police-set-step-t98745/index.html



With this thread up and running, how can Trots still deny the validity of social fascism as a phenomenon?

[Tower of Bebel]

http://www.revleft.com/vb/police-set-step-t98745/index.html



With this thread up and running, how can Trots still deny the validity of social fascism as a phenomenon?
How is that social fascism?

[Die Neue Zeit]

How is that social fascism?

Comrade, these are the two works that I intend to use for my "Parliamentarism and Social Fascism Revisited" section:

1) http://www.inclusivedemocracy.org/journal/newsletter/vol2_no4_socialfascism.htm
2) http://www.arbark.se/pdf_wrd/berger_int.pdf (I quoted this one already to end the section on "Broad Economism")

These, coupled with the Comintern's and Trotsky's common definition of fascism ("Fascism in power, like Bonapartism, can only be the government of finance capital" (http://www.marxists.org/archive/trotsky/germany/1934/340715.htm)), compel me to revive the Comintern's term "social fascism."

[My personal view is that the Comintern's usage was indeed faulty in describing "social-democratic" class-collaborationists of the day, but that the term is more relevant now to describe Blairites, Eustonites, etc.]

[redarmyfaction38]

fascism = the corporate state.
forget the nazis and bnp for a moment.
is britain a corporate state? has the thin veneer of capitalist democracy been exposed for what it is?
do all the "parliamentary parties" seek to serve capital?
what "democracy" is there for the worker?
do workers bother voting?
what control have they over their "own" organisations?

i would suggest that, most of the capitalist world is already fascist according to the original definition of the word.
the nazis and the bnp are just racist and extremeist fascists financed by capital in order to preserve a failed economic system.
us "trots" like to explain to the world that "fascism" is an extreme form of capitalism.
i will now take issue with trotsky, i believe, given the evidence of the last 54 years since the end of ww2, that capitalism is fascism.

[peaccenicked]

Fascism was a specific form of counter revolution. It arose in countries that
had growing workers movements. There is a counter-revolution going on but not against a growing workers movement but the vestiges of bourgeois "democracy" that amount to little more than legal conditions.
The workers movement in the UK has been neutralized. We have marginalized pockets of resistance with very little influence.
The present counter-revolution corresponds to the decline of the Anglo-American empire. The imperialists have sought to protect their power by strengthening the bourgeois State. They have foreseen the breakdown of the age of "manufacturing consent'' and are in the process of accentuating fear as their primary mode of operation.
Yet at present, those who wish that class consciousness or socialist consciousness was not in retreat but achieving more tangible results than mere networking do not see the need for this transition. It looks as though the working class has been largely pacified or docile.
This tends to suggest that our rulers have more faith in the revolutionary potential of the working class than we do.
If this is the case or not, there are somethings to think about.
What if they are preparing to shaft us so much that there will be substantial resistance.
In my view, this is a very likely scenario, the economy is badly damaged and we are have seen much off shoring over the years, similar to the recent
movement of Dell to Poland in Ireland.
Production is falling in the UK, and the pound is sinking like a stone.
The government is considering "quantitative easing" that is the same as printing money.
The upshot of this is inflation and as there is no corrective measures available bar the movement of real wages to competitive levels with China and India or poor European countries.
We will see the next best thing for them - hyper inflation.
This will reduce real wages and tax us into the arena of super exploitation.

Thus bringing about circumstances that will bring us closer to Zimbabwe.

We need to prepare for our defense.

I have seen only one article which begins on this theme only in the weekly worker. If there are other articles, I would like to see them. Yet I have a much worse diagnosis of the economic crisis than him.
http://www.cpgb.org.uk/worker/751/crisisand.html
(http://www.cpgb.org.uk/worker/751/crisisand.html)

Yet this is what we should be discussing.

[Die Neue Zeit]

This will reduce real wages and tax us into the arena of super exploitation.

Thus bringing about circumstances that will bring us closer to Zimbabwe.

We need to prepare for our defense.

I have seen only one article which begins on this theme only in the weekly worker. If there are other articles, I would like to see them. Yet I have a much worse diagnosis of the economic crisis than him.
http://www.cpgb.org.uk/worker/751/crisisand.html
(http://www.cpgb.org.uk/worker/751/crisisand.html)

Yet this is what we should be discussing.

I have read the article, and I'm still figuring out how to incorporate some of his key points and references into my stuff. :(

[peaccenicked]

Jacob.
The thing is that not everything can be done at once, and contemplation over a longer period of time is bound to cause contextual marriages or clear separations or even divorces, in thinking. This the letter I have sent to the weekly worker. I am not sure if thy will publish me or not. They might or they might not but they have a history of giving me space.
The best thing is to try to find the sharpest questions that can clarify things for you.
I regard the discussion as embryonic and nowhere near fully mature. I am merely looking for more voices at the moment.

Dear Editor,
Mike McNair tells us "The reason is that we are still in the 'crisis' phase of the cycle. The capitalist business cycle naturally follows a 'sawtooth' pattern: a gradual rise of economic activity, accelerating in the boom period and then slowing slightly as this period comes to an end, followed by financial and credit crisis and a rapid and disorganised fall, the phase of 'crisis' proper. "
The business cycle is part of the of the history of capitalism, yet the scale of this crisis is unprecedented. We are witnessing the unwinding of the shadow banking system that has monetized the real economy, to the extent that it has been mortgaged and remortgaged in the form of derivatives and to a futhermore extent that it expanded well beyond the world's GDP. Derivatives have by-passed ordinary concepts of ownership as the casino market has been de-collateralised .
Madoff's $ 50 billion dollar fraud is only the tip of the iceberg.
The boom became a massive overextended bubble built on the deregulation and criminalisation of the economy beyond the normative legalized robbery of surplus value. The central banks involved in the bailouts are little more than clearinghouses for this laundered money.
Commodity production itself will find it hard to survive the bets and counter bets that are been made on the sinking economy.
The pound will sink quicker than the dollar but the death dance of zombie banks is not a mere sign of depression but the disintegration of
these economies. Depression implies some degree of what the bourgeois economists call "correction".
Obama's trillion dollar stimulus package is for infrastructure that will support ever decreasing production levels, and a de-skilled population which was previously centred around the housing market. Last year we saw gold go into unprecedented backwardation,
which a sign that the warehouses are emptying while there is a shipping crisis directly linked to the banks cutting of lines of credit to the industry.
The ground is being set for hyperinflation as the money supply is entering into the arena of "quantitative easing". Ie printing money.
Defensive measures ought to include joining the euro, which will become the only currency that is trusted as the pound sinks. Yet this can only be part of a strategy that puts workers and community defence committees on the agenda. The point is not to only predict the depth of this crisis but to prepare for the battle against the coming super-exploitation of workers in our "own" country not only in the short but the long term. This super-exploitation will be embodied in taxation by inflation. The differences between third and first world countries are becoming blurred on an economic level. This unfortunate circumstance may augur well for international action.