From Benito Mussolini, Adolph Hitler, Francisco Franco, Augusto Pinochet and in Ireland our own Blue Shirt fascist movement led by Eoin O’ Duffy to individuals like Enoch Powel in Britain and more recently Margaret Thatcher and later Nigel Farage, all have jumped on popular frustrations of their day among the populace. Adolph Hitler threaded anti-Semitism into German society, initially with little success. He then reverted to attacking global capitalism, particularly that of the USA – despite his own movement being pro capitalist and funded by German companies like I.G Farben and Krupp armaments who benefitted hugely under the Nazis – as the German people were not automatically anti-Semites. His Nuremberg laws of 1935, though not overtly opposed, nobody dare, were not widely popular. Germans married to Jewish people did not relish having their marriages declared null and void but were too afraid to say so. Then, in 1938, a German diplomat, Ernst Vorm Rath was shot dead in France. His assassin was a German Jew, Herschel Grynszpan, unhappy with the Nazi persecution becoming increasingly more violent of the Jews in Germany. This gave Hitler the long-awaited opportunity to reignite his anti-Semitic campaign, this time with more success. The German people having had this rammed down their throats for over a decade by the NSDAP (Nazi Party) this time in many cases swallowed this rubbish. Hitler played on the now growing anti-Semitism and unleashed “Kristallnacht” or Night of Broken Glass resulting in riots and Jewish properties having windows smashed and burnt along with Jewish books and literature. Synagogues were torched as mayhem broke out across Germany.
Today in Britain far-right groups, like Britain First who have links to six county loyalist organisations, spread their anti-Muslim propaganda and play on people’s fears and prejudices. In Ireland we too have a growing far-right neo fascist movement, tiny at this time but ignore them at your peril. There are a number of groups and all reportedly have links to the far-right in Britain and, therefore “Ulster” loyalists. These people are playing the anti-immigrant card and some speeches by individuals may have come straight from the pages of Mein Kamp, page after page of drabble written by Hitler. These Irish groups are playing, at the moment, on the anti-lockdown and anti-mask feeling among elements within the population. For the record, we are perhaps all anti-lockdown in respect none of us like it, neither do we look forward to wearing facemasks. Most of us realise that these measures, certainly for the time being are necessary in the fight against the COVID-19 pandemic. That does not mean we like them! The situation which could change if the government are perceived to be needlessly dragging their feet lifting restrictions. The majority who presently accept the necessity of lockdown are unlikely to show goodwill forevermore.
These right-wing groups organising anti-lockdown demonstrations resulting in public riots, as occurred on Saturday 27th February in Dublin, care nothing for Covid-19 and lockdown. It is an excuse to recruit people for their more sinister agenda. That agenda is to pedal racism, xenophobia, homophobia and numerous other hatreds into society, just as Hitler threaded anti-Semitism into German society, and Enoch Powel in Britain when in 1968 he made his “rivers of blood” speech. Once they have a large enough audience, under the anti-lockdown guise, they will unleash their real agenda. They will, by such time have the ear of many who, genuinely, believe only protest will force the government to hurry things up regarding lockdown. Once they have this audience and no longer have to look for receptive ears, their true colours will come out. There will be less and less mention of Covid-19 and lockdown and more about irrelevances such as the presence of black people, Muslims and other racial and religious minorities who obviously have nothing to do with the pandemic and resulting lockdown measures.
It does not help the situation when constitutional politicians show little knowledge of the subject, they are paid a fortune to know, politics. The Irish Justice Minister, Helen McEntee displayed a lack of knowledge, or certainly confusion, between far-left and far-right political ideologies. Despite Garda Commissioner, Drew Harris making up for his botched statement claiming at a press conference “a number of groups, including far left and far right, had been involved” (Irish Daily Mirror 01.03.2021 page 4) which he later withdrew claiming “there is no corroborated evidence of extreme left factions being involved” (ibid). The Justice Minister then claimed; “some of those who attended were individuals with previous connections to far-left violent groups or organisations.” She also claimed “the Garda Commissioner had clarified that far-left groups at the protest were violent republican groups” (ibid). She had obviously not read the Commissioners retraction of his earlier statement or is oblivious to the difference between far-left and far-right political ideology. The gap between these is as wide as the Cheddar Gorge and any minister should be aware of these huge differences in ideologies. It is tantamount to claiming Arthur Scargill (NUM President during the 1984/85 strike) and Margaret Thatcher (British Prime Minister at the same time) were on the picket line together, or held the same political ideologies and outlooks!
As unpopular as lockdown is, as is the wearing of masks, I would urge people not to follow these neo fascists and their extreme right-wing agenda, which has nothing to do with what they claim the protests are about. They claim to be Irish “patriots” and even have the cheek to claim allegiance to the men and women of 1916. How can this be when their bedfellows have links to loyalist organisations? They try to invoke the 1916 leaders in what they consider to be a patriotic stance, they obviously know little of the seven signatures on the proclamation. James Connolly, one of the leaders during the rising, was a trade unionist and a Marxist. During the 1903 Wood Quay election Connolly stood on the socialist ticket and had his election literature translated into Hebrew so that the Jewish community could understand, in their native tongue, what and where he stood. He viewed anti-Semitism and sectarianism as two sides of the same coin. While in the USA Connolly championed the rights of the black working-class, the most downtrodden section of the proletariat. He remonstrated with the descendants of George Washington, Americas own so-called “father of freedom”, over the word “freedom”. Connolly argued for the freedom of black people who the Washington’s employed as servants claiming they, Washington’s descendants, were taking it for granted a black girl would spend her life in servitude and expected any children she had to do the same. This family who spoke so flippantly of freedom and their famous forefather were more than happy to sentence others based on skin colour to a life with no freedoms. Not content with this they were condemning any children this black servant may have had to the same life. Connolly also argued with sections of the Irish/American working-class about equality for Italian and Polish workers, asking why they – the Irish – attacked fellow workers, as they themselves were attacked on their arrival in the US, and demanded they stop such actions which divide the labour and trade union movement. Such policies as those held by Connolly are an antithesis to these far-right groups who play on ethnic and racial divisions, as well as hating trade unions, claiming to be patriots and falsely to be disciples of James Connolly and the other 1916 leaders. A distortion of historical fact if ever there was one!
If these groups, or their ideologies ever get their hands on the reins of political power any benefits in working conditions and pay increases the trade unions have wrought from the employers will be reversed. They will enact laws which will make lockdown look like toytown, just as their predecessors in Italy and Germany did.
Do not be bluffed by their false concern about civil liberties, free speech and lockdown. If they ever get to have any say then civil liberties, free speech – which they claim to champion – will be consigned to the dustbin of history. Strikes or any form of industrial action may well be banned by law which perhaps brings us to one last question.
If these right-wing organisations presently on the fringe of politics, at best, ever ascend to governmental power, backed by the capitalist class who in crisis would turn to such fascist ideologies, and if they passed laws based on race similar to Hitler's 1935 Nuremberg laws, then would An Garda Siochana or any other police force in any country uphold such laws? Would they say the same as they do today, “we are here to uphold the law?” Would they begin rounding up people, undesirables in the eyes of the fascists, for deportation based on skin colour, ethnicity or political belief? Would they be prepared to take people away to “resettlement” camps as has happened in the past? Would they police and uphold the fascist laws as efficiently as they try to enforce lockdown and mask wearing? Let us hope we never find out and we can start by not allowing these far-right groups to use Covid-19 as a cover to gain support for their more sinister vile agenda.
It is important people consider these far-reaching consequences if the far-right get a foothold, therefore no matter how frustrated with this inept government’s handling of Covid-19 people may feel do not fall for the wolf in sheep’s clothing. Fascist groups claiming to champion free speech and civil liberties, these groups are in fact the opposite of such rights as free speech.
Caoimhin - thanks for doing this. While we have seen a lot of lazy characterisation of the protest, you have made it clear that there is little room for doubt how these things evolve and the intent of those on the far right to push forward their hate agenda.
ReplyDeleteCommunism was a resounding success. Twenty million dead in Stalin's education camps # Far left talking crap
ReplyDeleteRonan,
ReplyDeleteCommunism was a direct response to deaths caused by Capitalism. While it's accurate to point out the horrors of Communism, I find it disingenuous to attribute all deaths in the Soviet Union, Cuba,China etc to Communism but at the same time, those people never mention Capitalism when speaking of deaths caused by the French, Brit, Yankee empires
Caoimhin,
ReplyDeleteAn excellent piece, with which I couldn't agree more!
Ronan, 'communism' has never existed except on paper! The number of deaths which can be attributed to the dictatorship in the USSR is debatable, but no matter how many, none of these were because of communism.
David,
It is not in the accurate to 'point out the horrors of communism'. The degeneration of the revolution in Russia, meant that the social and economic system was never going to evolve into anything like communism. Except for the planned economy, the intermediate stage- socialism wasn't even realised.
Socialism (The dictatorship of the proletariat) is a transitional period in which the working class take power. This was stifled at the very beginning of the Russian revolution, because as Rosa Luxembourg pointed out, The Bolsheviks didn't trust the workers with power and decided to do the dictating themselves. This was in part due to the external threat posed by the military intervention of western capitalist powers. The other countries you cite as 'communist', unfortunately followed this model.
Communism, put simply is a society without classes, money, or states, and without these, there would be an end to exploitation and wars.
Please tell me where this exists and I'll start packing.
Mike,
ReplyDeleteI don't think that argument works either. If Communism only existed on paper, then the same must be said of capitalism. There's plenty in the wealth of nations that isn't implemented in Capitalism. Maybe it's more to do with fairness being at odds with human nature than following models.
David,
ReplyDeleteNo offence, but that argument simply doesn't hold water.
If you are going to argue that communism does, or did exist, at least try to present some evidence. If you can't be bothered to find out what communism is (and the communist manifesto is freely available online, and is a short read) how can you argue about its supposed existence?
Mike - I suppose the pressing question is one of why it hasn't existed. It sounds like heaven to me which has never existed and never will. Give revolutionaries a sniff at power and they will strangle you to keep it.
DeleteAnthony,
ReplyDeleteYes, indeed that sums it up quite well.
I believe the answer is to not let 'revolutionaries' get that power, it doesn't belong to them. Their role is to agitate and educate, not to control.
What Marx and Engels meant by the 'dictatorship of the proletariat' was workers control, not bureaucratic control by an elite.
We only have to look at the composition of our own trade unions and labour parties to see how this elitism manifests as a stifling impediment to workers' interests.
Mike - in my view Lenin shafted the whole lot when he abandoned the Marxist concept of dictatorship of the proletariat - which included universal suffrage - and insisted on a dictatorship of the party over the proletariat. What chance the revolution after that?
ReplyDeleteI take the view that the revolutionary transformation to an egalitarian and non exploitative society can only come without the revolutionaries as they will be waiting in the wings to shaft it. To quote the title of a Foucault book "Society Must Be Defended" from the 3 Rs - Racists, Reverends and Revolutionaries.
Well, on Lenin, (and Trotsky) that's basically what I'm saying, but I think the finality of your statement is a bit pessimistic.
ReplyDeleteThe idea is to learn from mistakes, not throw the towel in because of them.
Rather than throw the towel in I think defending society against the 3Rs is keeping us in the ring
DeleteThe far right will only get a foothold due to the ineptitude and pussying around of the far left.
ReplyDeleteMick,
ReplyDeleteI own a copy of the Communist manifesto. Whether it exists or not, doesn't matter. Whether the Soviets were proper Communists or not doesn't matter. All that matters is people's perception. It's finished as a viable output.
Of course that argument holds. Whether it is a Communist revolution, a Capitalist, religious, so on, the same mentality rises to the top. That, to me is the problem behind political theories.
I meant to write Mike there, not Mick. Another query will I'm here. If 17 per cent of the workforce will be AI by 2027, by Soon Musk estimations as much as seventy per cent in the next fifty years, how do we control the means of production and by extension have a dictatorship of the proletariat?
ReplyDeleteThat's supposed to Elon Musk. This tablet is going out the window
ReplyDeleteDavid,
ReplyDeleteThat's a very good question. I would take Elon Musk's prediction with a pinch of salt for a whole lot of reasons. Yes the original idea that the Working class should take control of society was based on the fact that it was this class which produced everything that humanity needed.
The strange thing about this is that during the 170 years since this was put forward in the Communist Manifesto, production has steadily been automated, yet this didn't bring about rising unemployment at the same rate.
Marx and Engels said that only the socially useful labour of workers produced value, and that the automating of some of the production processes would not have the effect of displacing workers, but would in fact create a demand for more labour.
If we got to the situation where machines could operate autonomously, then the demand for labour would fall, but we're a long way from that yet. Labour demand would really only fall significantly when machines could reproduce themselves. Certainly we are moving slowly towards that situation, but this raises other problems.
The real issue is who owns the machines and the commodities which they produce. For the foreseeable future, value will still have been created by labour - historic labour. None of the machines which could possibly reproduce themselves could ever come into existence without the mental and physical labour of workers. Capitalists like Elon Musk, did not contribute to any of this, so it doesn't belong to them. Only the legal property rights which have existed for centuries allow the ownership of this means of production to belong to capitalists. Also the prediction is based on the belief that the market system, with infinite economic growth, and infinite natural resources is a rational one.
We are going to see a fall in the demand for labour, which is why I support the idea of a universal basic income, as part of a transitional programme moving towards a more democratic society, post capitalism.