Tendance Coatesy

Left Socialist Blog

Posts Tagged ‘far right

Cable Street and Anti Fascism in the US Today.

with 10 comments

https://i1.wp.com/www.socialist.net/images/new-stories/History/CableStreet/cable_streetthe-daily-worker.gif

No, Antifa, This is Not the 1930s and We Don’t Need to Punch a Nazi

It is not often, indeed it has not been never, when I commend an article in Counterpunch, but this is important, if contentious, contribution to what is a very divisive debate in the US today.

The author draws on Daniel Tilles, “The Myth of Cable Street.” History Today, and does not refer to other critical sources well-known to the British and Irish left such as Out of the Ghetto  by Joe Jacobs. His account of his involvement in the famous defence of the East End against an attempted march by Mosley’s fascists is important and a different version to that published by Communist leading figure on the day, Phil Piratin (Our Flag Stays Red, 1948).

Joe describes events leading up to the march, including the changes in the CP leadership’s tactics as they finally realised their calls for a peaceful demonstration elsewhere would be ignored. His account “corrects false impressions later created by official Communist versions of the events”. The Battle of Cable St, 1936 – Joe Jacobs.

The “Battle of Cable Street” is a key event in the “creation myth” of the anti-fascist movement. It goes like this:

On Sunday, October 4, 1936, about 5,000 members of the British Union of Fascists (BUF), led by Sir Oswald Mosley, planned to march in full Blackshirt regalia through several Jewish neighborhoods in London’s East End. Six thousand police were assigned to protect them from about 100,000 anti-fascist protesters. The anti-fascists fought the police and erected barricades to block the marchers. When the fascists saw there was no possibility of moving beyond the barricades, they abandoned the march and dispersed. [1]

Some accounts of the battle claim that the fascists and anti-fascists fought hand-to-hand, but Reg Weston, a journalist who was in his early twenties when he actually participated in the battle, makes it clear that the two sides never clashed. The police and barricades kept them apart. It’s a myth, Weston says, “that the ‘battle’ was between the protesters and the Blackshirts. It was not — it was a battle with the police.” [2]

Nevertheless, the crowd celebrated that day. The “Battle of Cable Street” went down in history as a victory for anti-fascist forces and to this day is part of the heroic mythology of the ultra-left: “For many members of contemporary anti-Fascist groups, the incident remains central to their mythology, a kind of North Star in the fight against Fascism and white supremacy across Europe and, increasingly, the United States.” [3]

I am less than sure that European leftists outside of the Isles are aware if Cable Street (see this very small Wikipedia reference in French. The German Wiki entry signals the passing of the Public Order Act as the main result). Anybody familiar with the violent clashes that took place in France in the 1930s, which led to dissolution in 1936 of the far-right, Croix de Feu, Ligue d’Action française, Parti Franciste, and the Camelots du roi, would be tempted to  consider it a sideshow, above all since those groups would be part of the reigning power a few years later under Vichy.  If “white supremacy” enters into accounts of the Battle against Nazism and Fascism, in the shape of the British Union of Fascists (BUF), I have only just heard of it. Finally, if the British Left considers Cable Street, for all its importance, does not generally consider it something of a significance on a par with, say, the International Brigades, or the Resistance.

Yet Contursi asks a relevant question.

But was it really a victory?

After the battle the fascists grew stronger 

Unfortunately, the anti-fascists celebrating their victory in 1936 couldn’t have known that their actions would ultimately do nothing to stop either the Nazi juggernaut that descended upon Europe three years later, or the immediate popularity of the BUF. In fact, the BUF benefitted from the violence and became even stronger over the next four years, until 1940, when it was banned by the government.

What the anti-fascist forces did achieve at Cable Street was a singular victory in stopping a single march. But at what price? In the aftermath of that action, membership in the BUF grew. Rather than smashing fascism, the battle turned out to be a recruitment tool for the BUF. The organization gained an additional 2,000 members immediately, and its membership continued to climb steadily. Seven months before the battle, BUF membership was around 10,000; one month after the battle, it rose to 15,500. It continued to rise until, by 1939, the BUF had about 22,500 members. [4]

The anti-fascist actions didn’t dampen the peoples’ enthusiasm for Mosely’s message. In the weeks after the battle, pro-fascist crowds in the thousands turned out for BUF meetings, listened to Mosley’s fascist proselytizing, and marched through London without much opposition. [1] An intelligence report on the battle noted that afterwards, “A definite pro-Fascist feeling has manifested itself. The alleged Fascist defeat is in reality a Fascist advance.” [1]

Violence, it seems, provided free publicity for the fascists. The BUF “thrived off the publicity that violent opposition produced. The national media, under pressure from the government, largely avoided reporting on Fascist activity other than when disorder occurred. A leading Mosleyite lamented the ‘total silence’ in the press when BUF events passed without incident, complaining that only after disruption by opponents did newspapers show any interest.” [1]

So,

The lesson from Cable Street is clear—the anti-fascists succeeded in shutting down one march. But in the aftermath of that action, fascist membership grew and, within a few weeks, the BUF was marching again—with little or no opposition.

It is a long piece and the rest has to be read in full.

There is discussion of  the experience of Nazism, but no reference is made to early battles with Mussolini’s squadristi, (we used to call street fighting antifafs ‘squadists’) of the importance, in the context of Cable Street of the start of the defence of the Spanish Republic.

We learn that the 1930s were a different time……where Nazism and Fascism were in power  in Europe.

That said, it is easy to sympathise with those making a stand against the ‘anti-fascist’  hysteria which apparently has gripped sections of the US left.

Whether ” Nonviolent direct action” is the answer is open for them to answer.

Janet Contursi makes her case clear:

1) Violence is not an effective long-term tactic against Nazi hate groups. When Mosley’s fascists were perceived to be the victims of violence, their membership grew; but when they were perceived to be the perpetrators of violence, it dropped.

2) What does work, but is more difficult for peace groups to achieve, is applying economic pressure to the fascists’ financial base and swamping their propaganda with truth. This requires a long-term organizing strategy beyond the occasional demonstration or peace march (a good example of a long-term nonviolent strategy is the BDS movement).

To repeat, it is hard to disagree with the view that the US far-right, fragmented and marginalised, is not about to be a major threat that needs the kind of violent tactics that some indicate.

But others believe that they must be confronted. 

Nevertheless, since Contursi  draws parallels between our very different societies and politics (to say the least: there is no equivalent of the Labour Party or the socialist inclined trade unions in the US), can one say that mass street action has always been ineffective against the British far-right?

What of the conflicts between the British far-right and left  in the 1970s and later?

Contursi neglects any discussion of the British experience of fighting the National Front in the 1970s, not to mention subsequent battles withe British Movement, the BNP and, more recently, the English Defence League.

There is a good case that the street activism of the 1970s, which was centred on the goal of confronting the far-right,  helped, in the context of a much wider cultural anti-fascism and a grass-roots movement, the ANL, local anti-racist and anti-racist committees,  and Rock Against Racism, had it place in preventing a ‘break through’ of the far-right into national politics at the time, for all that people will cite Thatcher as the ultimate benefactor of the racist undercurrents at work.

Since that time European far-right groups have grown in a number of countries.

Nobody could have prevented the rise of UKIP – which is clearly far-right – by street battles, nor would this have been desirable for democratic socialists intent on challenging their ideas, not physically standing up to their  members.

It would equally be ridiculous to imagine that any large-scale street fighting could have defeated the French Front National.

When their first electoral successes happened in the mid-1980s I was met with laughter by my French left-wing comrades when I suggested similar tactics to the ANL and anti-fascists, anti-racist street campaigning groups. In fact what happened in France was SOS-racisme which – with something like Rock Against Racism’s cultural approach, moblised people against racialist ideology.

The legacy of SOS racisme has been contested, involving a whole series of cultural issues which we, and others, have taken up (La Fabrique du Musulman. Nedjib Sidi Moussa: ‘Manufacturing Muslims’.).

Clearly the very  the possibility of the far-right winning substantive political power in France, and elsewhere in Continental Europe, is of a different degree and nature to the problems US anti-fascists face.

But anybody interested in more than “myths” about the extreme right and their opponents should be more concerned with looking at these developments than backwards to the 1930s.

 

 

Advertisements

Written by Andrew Coates

September 19, 2017 at 12:33 pm

Nigel Farage Boosts German Far-right AfD.

with 3 comments

Die Berliner AfD-Landesvorsitzende Beatrix von Storch und der Euroskeptiker Nigel Farage aus Großbritannien sprechen am 8. September 2017 in Berlin auf einer Pressekonferenz zu den Medienvertretern (picture alliance / dpa / Kay Nietfeld)

Farage with Beatrix von Storch.

Image result for farage and galloway

Farage with another Friend, George Galloway.

Sky has just reported,

Nigel Farage given standing ovation at German far-right AfD election rally

Ahead of the German election on 24 September, Mr Farage said: “(I’m trying) to get a proper debate going in the biggest, richest and most important, powerful country in Europe about not just the shape of Brexit but perhaps even the shape of the European project to come.”

He urged Germans to “say to Brussels: look, the reason the Brits left is because you’re behaving so badly, you’re taking away so much of people’s freedom, liberty and democracy”.

Mr Farage said: “We managed to break it in the United Kingdom. At the moment Germany is at a point where it is very, very tough to break through.”

However he added: “I predict, in Germany, it will probably start in Bavaria.”

He said he was at the rally at the “personal invitation” of his fellow European Parliament member, the AfD’s Beatrix von Storch, the granddaughter of Hitler’s finance minister Lutz von Krosigk.

Polls currently put the Eurosceptic AfD on up to 11% of the vote, which would make it the largest opposition party if Mrs Merkel wins as expected and renews her coalition with the Social Democratic Party (SPD).

Ms Von Storch – whose party is calling for a referendum on Germany’s EU membership – praised Mr Farage for “showing that doing the impossible is possible”.

The leaders of the anti-Islam have provoked controversy in the past by saying German border guards should open fire on illegal immigrants “if necessary”.

They have also dubbed Berlin’s Holocaust memorial a “monument of shame”.

The visit, to give support to fellow extreme-right Sovereigentists, has been widely reported in Germany.

Nigel Farage in BerlinMister Brexit besucht die AfD.

Deutschlandfunk (radio).

Nigel Farage sieht „eine große Verantwortung“ für die AfD  die Welt.

Farage says, the AfD has a great responsibility.

Europa-Skeptiker treffen sich in Berlin  Taz.

AfD-Frau Beatrix von Storch hat Nigel Farage nach Berlin eingeladen – um ein paar Gemeinsamkeiten zur Schau zu stellen. Taz.

That is, a few double act shows with the AfD leader have taken place.

The visit has not only been noticed in Germany.

Le Monde has just reported that Farage was strangely ‘indulgent’ towards Merkel, which raised a few eyebrows amongst his far-right friends.

Devant l’AfD, « Mr Brexit » dit trop de bien de Merkel

Invité à participer à un rassemblement de l’extrême droite allemande, Nigel Farage a tenu des propos indulgents vis-à-vis de la chancelière.

Invited to a meeting of the Gemran far right, Nigel Farage showed signs of understanding  toward the Chancellor.

 

Written by Andrew Coates

September 9, 2017 at 12:32 pm

Jacques Cheminade: LaRouche Candidate in French Presidential Elections.

leave a comment »

LaRouche’s targets.

It’s not all serious politics in the French Presidential election.

A serious quester for truth, Jacques Cheminade is also standing.

He calls for ” libération de l’occupation financière »  leaving the European Union, the Euro, and NATO. He is also denounced “«sionisme» (Zionism – more on this here). Cheminade is an admirer of the film, The Great Global Warming Swindle

Jacques Cheminade wants to colonise Mars and industrialise the moon, has likened Barack Obama to Hitler and accused Queen Elizabeth of being involved in international drug trafficking. His party, Solidarité et Progrès, is the French branch of the US’s far-right LaRouche movement. In 2005, his party was listed as a “political sect”.

On the Moon, Robotic exploration, industrial and scientific centres, and a Lunar Village.”LANCER UNE EXPLORATION ROBOTIQUE LUNAIRE DE GRANDE AMPLEUR SUIVIE DE L’IMPLANTATION DE CENTRES INDUSTRIELS ET SCIENTIFIQUES SUR LA LUNE. SOUTENIR LE PROJET DE « VILLAGE LUNAIRE » DE L’ESA.” (L’espace, impératif économique et culturel).

What is the LaRouche Movement?

Wikipedia begins what could turn into a long, a very long, trail on the Net:

Lyndon LaRouche began his political career as a Trotskyist and praised Marxism, He and the National Caucus of Labor Committees abandoned this view in the 1970s. LaRouche no longer opposes capitalism as an economic system, and his analysis of political events is no longer phrased in terms of class.

According to Tim Wohlforth, during and after his break with Trotskyism, LaRouche’s theory was influenced by what he called his “Theory of Hegemony” derived from Vladimir Lenin‘s view of the role of intellectuals in being a vanguard helping workers develop their consciousness and realize their leading role in society. He was influenced by Antonio Gramsci‘s concept of a hegemon as an intellectual and cultural elite which directs social thought. LaRouche’s theory saw himself and his followers as becoming such a hegemonic force. He rejected Gramsci’s notion of “organic intellectuals” being developed by the working class itself. Rather, the working class would be led by elite intellectuals such as himself

This is also interesting,

LaRouche’s critics have said he is a “disguised anti-Semite”, in that he takes the classical antisemitic conspiracy theory and substitutes the word “Zionist” for the word “Jew”, and ascribes the classical antisemitic caricature of the “scheming Jew” to particular Jewish individuals and groups of Jews, rather than to the Jews as a whole.[37][38][39][150] “Modern Zionism was not created by Jews, but was a project developed chiefly by Oxford University“, LaRouche says. He says “Zionism is not Judaism.”[151] In 1978, the same year LaRouche’s article cited The Protocols, the LaRouche group published Dope, Inc.: Britain’s Opium War against the U.S., which cited the Protocols and defended its authenticity, likening the “Elders of Zion” to the Rothschild banking family, the British Royal family, and the Italian Mafia, and the Israeli Mossad, General Pike, and the B’nai B’rith. (Dope, Inc.) Later editions left out cites to The Protocols. This is the genesis of the claim that LaRouche has said Queen Elizabeth runs drugs. When asked by an NBC reporter in 1984 about the Queen and drug running, LaRouche replied, “Of course she’s pushing drugs…that is in a sense of responsibility: the head of a gang that is pushing drugs; she knows it’s happening and she isn’t stopping it.”[152]

Chip Berlet argues that LaRouche indirectly expresses antisemitism through the use of “coded language” and by attacking neoconservatives.[150] Dennis King maintains, for example, that words like “British” were really code words for ‘Jew.'”[153] Other critics of LaRouche believe that LaRouche’s anti-British statements disparage the British system rather than the Jewish religion. Laird Wilcox and John George write that “Dennis King goes to considerable lengths to paint LaRouche as a neo-Nazi, even engaging in a little conspiracy-mongering of his own.”

More on  Jacques Cheminade FrenchEnglish.

When he last stood for the Presidency (1995)  he got  0.27% of the votes.

Written by Andrew Coates

April 6, 2017 at 1:42 pm

George Galloway: Aaron Banks’s Star Columnist.

with 5 comments

Galloway Visits Gorton. 

Yesterday the Observer carried this long story,

Arron Banks: ‘Brexit was a war. We won. There’s no turning back now’

Now out of Ukip – the party he bankrolled – Arron Banks is creating a political movement of his own. We met the ‘bad boy of Brexit’ just before article 50 was triggered – and found his ambitions go far beyond leaving Europe.

An important thread in the story was the importance of Putin’s grab for international political influence and use of all forms of media.

The following caught my eye,

Out in the open is this, Banks’s statement to me: “What you’re talking about is the degree to which the Russians actually – let’s say they influenced the Brexit vote. Say I’m pro-Putin. Nigel said he’s not anti-Putin, if that’s the right word. But all we’ve said is that there are elements of what Russians do that we don’t disagree with. We don’t agree with everything they’re doing, like murdering journalists in the street.”

I interrupt him. You’re saying, on the record, that you don’t agree with murdering journalists on the street?

“I’ll only say it once,” he says.

We both laugh. Though possibly only one of us has a slightly high-pitched edge to our voice.

Dismiss, distract, dismay. This, Nimmo tells me, is the classic Russian disinformation strategy. You launder information like you launder money. You pass it through a set of different bodies. You send it from one shell company/mouthpiece to another. You confuse its origins. You chuck in a distraction. You create outrage.

The Star columnist for Bank’s Westmonster site is George Galloway.

Galloway has close enough relations with Russia to have his own show on RT.

Now he has cosy connections with Banks and Westmonster,

GALLOWAY: I’M BEING CHEERED FOR BEING A BREXITEER

Read George Galloway’s Gorton by-election diary exclusively on Westmonster.

… as I reported last, down on the streets of Manchester- astoundingly the Official Child Poverty Capital of the country – the alleged 60% support for the EU is as visible as an honest MP.Last time I described my campaigning in the two Gorton Wards of the constituency. I faithfully reported that I found not a single Remainer or Regretter in a whole day of politicking.

Cynics put that down to the large number white English people in those two wards (itself a stunningly telling alibi).

Yesterday a huge crowd of mainly strangers came to the official opening of my campaign HQ. I filmed the speech and the audiences reaction and livestreamed it on Facebook.

Standing Room Only in Galloway’s Cubbyhole. 

It was an almost suspiciously perfect cross section of the Gorton constituency.
Black, white, Asian, young and old, poor and rich, men and women.

I dealt with my reasons for being a Brexiteer. They were cheered to the echo. As can be clearly heard.

My opponent – it is already a two-horse race – has as an MEP millions of good reasons for loving the monster that is the EU. His campaign initially thought my Brexit record might be my Achilles Heel. I suspect he now knows and with more than 30 days to go, that like with so much else inside the bubble, that is the opposite of the truth.

People Rush to Gorton Galloway Rally.

Written by Andrew Coates

April 3, 2017 at 12:58 pm

The Fake ‘Secularism’ of Marine Le Pen.

with one comment

Image result for front national gens de couleur bougnoules

The Front National Has Changed!

Last year Marine Le Pen announced that he would ban “all religious symbols” including kippas, headscarves, veils, burqas and burkinis from public spaces if she is elected president, explaining the move as a “sacrifice” to combat Islamic extremism.”

On Thursday evening Marine le Pen was interviewed on France 2.

A full critical account of her statements is given in le Monde,  Etrangers, décret anti-immigration… Les affirmations trompeuses de Marine Le Pen dans « L’Emission politique »

But this is of special interest.

She reiterated the above commitment, extending the 2010 French law, which prohibits the full-body veil, the Burqa in public to anybody with  such ‘ostentatious’religious symbols or dress.

As many commentators have noted enforcing such legislation would invite a veritable “hunt” for those wearing religious symbols, in the front line, Muslim women wearing a variety of head scarves, veils, not to mention one religious groups that has Kippas…..

But as Jonathan Bouchet-Petersen in today’s Libération observes, (La laïcité de Marine Le Pen s’arrête aux portes de l’école, on the central issue of French secularism, the education system, the école publique, obligatoire, gratuite et laïque, Marine Le Pen strongly backed confessional private schooling. 

That is,

l’enseignement libre hors contrat, qu’elle entend largement favoriser au détriment de l’école publique. Or de quoi s’agit-il ? En premier lieu de l’enseignement catholique tendance Manif pour tous, qui se porte déjà bien, mais aussi des écoles juives, plus ou moins orthodoxes, ou bien sûr des établissements musulmans, plus ou moins salafistes.

Private education without state contracts (and controls)  which she intends to favour to the detriment of public state education. What is this? In the first instance, Catholic schooling, in the (hard line) line of the anti-Gay Marriage movement Manif pour Tous, but equally Jewish schools, more or less orthodox, and, naturally, Muslim institutions, more or less Salafist.

Some ‘secularist’.

This also raised eyebrows today  (Washington Post),

PARIS — French far-right presidential candidate Marine Le Pen has vowed to request all people with dual citizenship in France and other countries to choose only one nationality, except for Europeans and Russians.

She said this doesn’t mean foreigners would need to leave the country, explaining they can stay “as long as they respect French laws and values”.

Le Pen said she considers Russia to be part of the “Europe of nations.” In response to a specific question from a reporter on France 2 television Thursday night she said the measure would involve Israel, since it’s not a European country.

This is their Europe of Nations, give or take a degree of exaggeration:  France’s Nationalist Party Has a Plan to Break Up the Euro and Probably Start a New Financial Crisis  Jordan Weissmann (Slate),

Le Pen’s top economic adviser, Bernard Monot, outlined the plan to Bloomberg recently, and reportedly discussed it back in September with a governor from the Bank of France. The plot has three steps:

  1. Le Pen would call a meeting with the EU and ask it to replace the euro with brand-new national currencies. If it balked, France would go it alone.
  2. Le Pen would commandeer the French central bank, ending its independence.
  3. She would print “new French francs” to finance government spending.

Not to put too fine a point on it, but the National Front is essentially threatening to suicide-bomb the whole EU monetary system.

At present  indications point to a Le Pen lead in the first round of the coming Presidential election, and a “Macron versus Le Pen” duel in the Second, with Macron the favourite, in the latest opinion polls, to win.

 

Les intentions de vote ne constituent pas une prévision du résultat du scrutin. Elles donnent une indication de l'état des rapports de force et des dynamiques au jour de la réalisation du sondage.

Written by Andrew Coates

February 10, 2017 at 11:52 am

Europe’s Far Right Capitalises on Brexit and Trump Victories.

with 3 comments

Image result for Proteste gegen Europa der Nationen und der Freiheit)

Against Far-Right Meeting: Koblenz Stays Multihued!

The pro-Brexit UK left claimed that a vote to leave would strengthen the ‘anti-austerity’, left-wing and labour movement, forces across in Europe.

Nothing could be further from the truth.

Now Donald Trump, who gives credit to the victory of Leave to his own triumph, heralds America First! – a slogan straight out of the back catalogue of his own, and the European extreme right’s favourite tunes.

The European far-right is also trying to capitalise on Brexit, and the success of Trump’s reactionary populism.

The Irish Times reports,

Koblenz will be the meeting place of European far-right leaders this Saturday. Hosting the event is Alternative für Deutschland (AfD) co-leader Frauke Petry and her new husband, party MEP Marcus Pretzell. Guests include French presidential hopeful and Front National (FN) leader Marine Le Pen, Dutchman Geert Wilders, whose Party for Freedom (PVV) is leading polls ahead of March elections, and Matteo Salvini of Italy’s Northern League.

Hours after Donald Trump’s inauguration in Washington, European far-right leaders see a mutual benefit in presenting themselves in public as a united front opposed to the EU’s current form, to its open borders, to its currency and to its approach to the refugee crisis.

The Tribune de Genève carries the same story:

Au lendemain de l’investiture de Donald Trump, la présidente du Front national en France, Marine Le Pen, retrouve samedi en Allemagne des dirigeants de partis de droite extrême et populistes européens, pour tenter d’afficher un front uni avant plusieurs scrutins cruciaux.

The day after Donald Trump’s investiture, the President of the Front National in France, Marine le Pen, is meeting this Saturday with the leaders of the European extreme right and populist parties, to attempt to assemble a united front before several crucial election contests.

The far from left friendly or even liberal Bild report that this meeting has caused outrage in Germany,

Wilders, Le Pen und AfD tagen in Koblenz Empörung über Gipfel der EU-Hasser

Gegen den geplanten Kongress formiert sich Protest

Wilders, Le Pe and Afd (Alternative for Germany) meetin in Koblenz. Outrage at the Summit of European Union Haters. Protests are being organised against this Congress.

Deutsche Welle provides the background,

Frauke Petry is careful about her reputation. She does not want to be seen as a right-wing extremist and nor does she want her party, Alternative for Germany (AfD), to be labeled as such. She has called the Thuringian AfD leader Björn Höcke, who held a controversial speech in which he criticized the Holocaust Memorial in Berlin, a “burden for the party.” For a while, Petry’s reservations have kept her from contacting Marine LePen from the France’s National Front, which is considered to be at least a notch more radical than the AfD.

Last summer, Frauke Petry secretly met Marine Le Pen. Now she is seeking public appearances with LePen, Wilders and Matteo Salvini from the Italian Lega Nord. Nonetheless, the AfD itself is not hosting the party gathering. Petry’s new husband, the head of North Rhine Westphalia’s AfD, arranged the meeting. He is a member of European Parliament for the AfD and as a lone MEP joined the Europe of Nations and Freedom (ENF) parliamentary group, whose driving force is the National Front. Pretzell’s only party colleague in Strasbourg, Beatrix von Storch, is a member of Europe of Freedom and Direct Democracy (EFD), which is mostly run by Britain’s UKIP and the Italian Five Star Movement.

There are people in the AfD who think Petry’s appearance at the gathering is wrong. “That is a pure ENF matter that has nothing to do with the AfD,” says Jörg Meuthen, who ironically makes up the party’s leadership duo with Petry. Even the Berlin AfD chairman Georg Pazderski says that the AfD should distance itself from the National Front, as its economic policies are too “socialist” for him. The FN does indeed advocate isolationism and anti-globalization, unlike the economically liberal AfD.

The protests today:

a broad counter-alliance with the slogan “Koblenz remains diverse” has formed and will demonstrate on Saturday. The head of the SPD and deputy Chancellor Sigmar Gabriel wants to join the march as do representatives of the Green Party, the left-wing party Die Linke and even the Social Democrat foreign minister of Luxembourg, Jean Asselborn. “We cannot leave the destiny of the continent in the hands of the nationalists,” Asselborn told the German Press Agency.

Yesterday around 100 people demonstrated against the far-right in Koblenz: Erste Demo gegen Rechtspopulisten in Koblenz

 Notice of the much larger  march today:

ENF (Europa der Nationen und der Freiheit) kommt nach Koblenz – Statement zu den Hintergründen und der Brisanz – Proteste am 20.01/21.012017 in Koblenz

Der ENF (Europa der Nationen und der Freiheit), die Fraktion ultranationalistischer und rechtsradikaler Parteien im Europäischen Parlament, besteht aus 39 Abgeordneten des „Front National“ (FN, größte rechtspopulistische Partei Frankreichs um Marine Le Pen), „Der Freiheitlichen Partei Österreich“ (FPÖ – Rechtsextreme … ENF (Europa der Nationen und der Freiheit) kommt nach Koblenz – Statement zu den Hintergründen und der Brisanz – Proteste am 20.01/21.012017 in Koblenz weiterlesen

Written by Andrew Coates

January 21, 2017 at 11:23 am

Ernst Nolte, Historian of Fascism and Nazism, Dies at 93.

with 2 comments

Ernst Nolte, Historian of Fascism and Nazism, has just passed way ay at 93.

Ernst Nolte’s The Three Faces of Fascism (Der Faschismus in seiner Epoche. 1963) was the first serious book that I read (in the late 1970s and still have a copy of) which dealt properly with Action française. That is the French pre-Great War movement that arose from the anti-Dreyfus campaigns. This violently nationalist (and ‘monarchist’), and anti-Semitic group which was the precursor of many forms (the youth squads of Camelots du Roi) and ideas of the 1920s and 1930s European extreme-right. Nolte took time to unravel the writings of their ideologue, Charles Maurras. His “nationalisme intégral” and use of Catholicism against Laïcité  (even if as a self proclaimed Comtean ‘positivist’ he was not a believer, and was eventually denounced by the Church)  has echoes which can still be heard in France today..

The book deals head on with the anti-Marxist strain of Action française.

Fascism is anti-Marxism which seeks to destroy the enemy by the evolvement of a radically opposed and yet related ideology and by the use of almost identical and yet typically modified methods, always, however within the unyielding framework of national self-assertion and autonomy

The study has its faults, above all the reliance on the history of ideas. But this is also a strength in that Nolte offered a lot of detail that did not depend on his theoretical framework. But it’s hard to ignore that he neglected class issues  which is extremely important in the way French nationalism appealed to a constituency beyond the ‘traditional’ Monarchist strongholds in the army and conservative fractions of the bourgeoisie, to the peasantry and a section of the ‘patriotic’ working class. And these became more apparent as the Three Faces extended towards the rise of Italian fascism, which is unintelligible without the role of post-war workers’ conflicts, not to mention Nazism, born in the heat of intense class conflicts.

By underlining the anti-Marxist ideology of the far-right Nolte’s contribution to the history of the French far-right  stands head and shoulders over Zeeve Sternhell’s La droite révolutionnaire, 1885-1914. Les origines françaises du fascisme, (1978) and Ni droite ni gauche. L’idéologie fasciste en France, (1983).

Sternhell claimed that French fascism derived much of its force and ideology from Boulangisme, the 1880s  populist movement around the  nationalist would-be dictator George Boulanger, seeking revenge for France’s military defeat by Prussia,  Revolutionary syndicalism, which (he falsely asserted),  embraced fascism in its early stages. His evidence relied on the mere existence of the  Cercle Proudhon (a small discussion group). This involved syndicalist patriots loosely  connected to the contrarian leftist Georges Sorel), the  modernist novelist  Pierre Drieu La Rochelle and Monarchists associated with Action française. Its exact influence, rather than associations,  was is never demonstrated.

There is no doubt that the period before the First World War saw a rise in “political confusionism” in France, with some on the left passing to the right, even the far-right, (as is happening today across Europe). But French fascism, as it emerged as a para-military force with some strength in the 1930s, owed more to traditionalist nationalism (Maurice Barrès) and forces hostile to the French Revolution human rights universalism and cosmopolitanism , than to anything from the left apart from rhetoric about capitalism and  Anglo-American ‘plutocracy’. Nolte’s account made this absolutely clear. In this respect the Three Faces remains an important, essential, work.

 Nolte’s contribution to understanding this dark side of history is, nevertheless, overshadowed by  this: the Historikerstreit

The debate opened on June 6, 1986 when the philosopher and historian Ernst Nolte had a speech printed in the Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung, entitled Die Vergangenheit, die nicht vergehen will (“The past that won’t go away”). Nolte argued that the “race murder” of the Nazi death camps was a “defensive reaction” to the “class murder” of the Stalinist system of gulags. In his view, the gulags were the original and greater horror. In the face of the threat of Bolshevism, it was reasonable that the German people would turn to Nazi fascism.[10] He had already articulated this argument the previous year in an essay published in English: “Auschwitz… was above all a reaction born out of the annihilating occurrences of the Russian Revolution… the so-called annihilation of the Jews during the Third Reich was a reaction or a distorted copy and not a first act or an original

This is how his passing was reported.

 

Controversial German historian Ernst Nolte dies at 93 (Deutsche Welle.)

 Controversial German historian Ernst Nolte dies at 93

German historian Ernst Nolte, responsible for a contentious essay on the causes of Nazism, has died in Berlin after a short illness. Nolte’s 1986 essay was the source of much debate among historians.

With his 1986 essay in the “Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung” newspaper entitled “Vergangenheit, die nicht vergehen will” (“The past that will not pass away”), Ernst Nolte caused an uproar in historical circles.

His controversial thesis that Hitler and the Nazis were Germany’s logical reaction to the “existential threat” represented by the Russian Revolution launched a wave of indignation and led to furious debate among historians.

“Did the ‘Gulag Archipelago’ not exist before Auschwitz?” Nolte wrote in the essay. “Was Bolshevik ‘class murder’ not the logical and factual predecessor to the Nazi ‘racial murder’? … Did Auschwitz not, perhaps, originate in a past that would not pass away?”

Nolte was also known for published works including “Three Faces of Fascism,” “Germany and the Cold War” and “The European Civil War 1917-1945: Nazism and Bolshevism.”

Born in the university city of Witten, in North Rhine-Westphalia, Nolte did his doctorate on Karl Marx and was a professor at the Free University of Berlin.

Written by Andrew Coates

August 19, 2016 at 1:30 pm