Anti-Fascism: Capitalist or Socialist?

_{Neville Chamberlain, Prime Minister of the United Kingdom, with Italian fascist leaders, Benito Mussolini and Galeazzo Ciano, at the conference in Munich in 1938 where the UK and France agreed to let Nazi Germany annex part of Czechoslovakia}

From ‘Spain and the World’, December 23, 1938, London, UK

A problem for all Socialists and which is attaining ever greater proportions is that of a clear definition of the terms “anti-fascist” and “anti-fascism.” These two words during recent months have been flaunted with the same generosity and facility as the Communists who group all opposition to the Communist Regime as “Trotsky-Fascist.” A very comprehensive term, it is true.

Anti-Fascism as understood today means a person who is not in agreement with Hitler or Mussolini’s dictum on certain points. We stress the fact that to be “anti-fascists” they need only disagree on certain points. They may deplore the persecution of the Jews and ignore the persecution of the Socialists; they may deplore the concentration camps but admire the “discipline” under fascism.

And at home, we have people like the Duchess of Atholl, generally known as the “Red Duchess,” which implies that she is “anti-fascist.” She is an “anti-fascist” because she has shown deep sympathy for the Spanish children and is campaigning for more food for them.

She is also an “anti-fascist” because she opposes Chamberlain’s foreign policy. And because of these two facts she has the official (or unofficial) support of the Communist, Liberal and Labour Parties! The fact that she is a diehard; or that she declared against better nutrition of the men, women and children in this country, is of secondary importance!

The Perthshire elections are of no interest to us, in that they will not contribute in any way to change the present state of things. They are of interest, however, in order to illustrate in a concrete form the way the term “Anti-fascist” has developed in “democratic” countries.

“Forward” the Glasgow weekly, has been publishing the opinions of prominent citizens on the forthcoming elections, and one reads such opinions as that of the Dean of Canterbury (another Communist Party and Left Book Club protege) who declares that he would vote for the Duchess, for her

“honesty and humanity make me feel, as many more do, deeply indebted to her. I think it would be disastrous if through any split in the anti-Fascist forces she were to be deprived of the victory that might be hers, and Parliament would be sadly weaker without her at this juncture.”

Thus, there is no doubt as to the fact that the Dean considers the Duchess an “anti-fascist.”

But another definition of “anti-fascism” is given by the Communist Party mouthpiece, Gallacher.

“If I ever at any time, anywhere, have the opportunity of casting an effective vote against the National Government I shall certainly exercise it.”

WHY THE DUCHESS IS “ANTI-FASCIST”

Given more space we could add to these definitions of anti-fascism, (see Forward Nos. 30-32). More useful perhaps would be a quotation from the Duchess’s book Searchlight on Spain (Penguin Series). Her conclusions, we believe explain her “anti-fascism:”

“ . . . in the Mediterranean lie Malta, Cyprus, Palestine and Egypt which, though now an independent country, we are pledged to defend as it commands the direct route to the East by the Suez Canal. From Haifa in Palestine, moreover, comes our main supply of the oil, on the possession of vast quantities of which the waging of modem war increasingly depends . . . There is . . . military authority for the view, that, important as is the defence of our cities against air attack, even more vital to our existence as an Empire, indeed as a nation, is the maintenance of our trade routes. Thus the importance to us of Spain not falling into hostile hands cannot be exaggerated. A friendly Spain is desirable, a Spain which is at least neutral is essential.”

In other words the Duchess’ “anti-fascism” is motivated by the fact that Fascism in Spain will undermine the Empire, the life-line of the wealthy British Isles and its parasites. If she knew that a Fascist Spain would not close the Mediterranean route to the Empire . . . then Fascism in Spain would do!

OBJECTIONS TO FASCISM

What are the objections put forward by honest (but often short-sighted) anti-fascists, excluding the Duchess, Mr. Eden, or Mr. Churchill and other “anti-fascist” fungi which have grown overnight. They claim that Fascism means control of the Press and suppression of opposition. It implies concentration camps and racial persecution; military discipline and the desire to dominate the world. This is the essence of public opinion judging by correspondence published in the radical National Press. But whilst seeing clearly the faults of the German or Italian systems they fail to see the faults which underlie so called “democracy.”

(Some whose “Anti-fascism” did not go beyond criticism of Hitler’s persecution of the Jews, failed to see the relationship between Italian and German Fascism until Mussolini brought into force decrees which struck down the Jews from participating in the public life of the country.)

Englishmen always boast of the Freedom of the Press in this country. An article “They are trying to muzzle us” in the December issue of Controversy contains some illuminating examples of the pressure brought by the Government on the Press in this country and should be an eye-opener to those optimistic Englishmen who still accept tradition and do not face actual facts. In the World Press News the editor protests that “not a day passes without official requests for silence on one subject or another.”

“Opposition” in this country has not been suppressed as yet, because it is not sufficiently militant to offer real opposition. Two years’ “agitation” on behalf of Spain with its negative results; confidence in parliamentary action (Vernon Bartlett and the Duchess! ) as opposed to direct action (strikes, etc.) besides the absence of a really revolutionary movement (the Communists are respectable, the I.L.P. [Independent Labour Party] is split, conscious Anarchists are few in number) to direct the masses towards their only goal: Socialism, gives the Government very little to worry about.

Otherwise the opposition here too would be suppressed in the same way as the French “Democratic” Government is suppressing the French workers and showing very little respect for their organisations.

BRITISH IMPERIALISM

As to the point that Hitler and Mussolini want to dominate the world, our “anti-fascists” forget that they are living in a country which has a vast Empire (as has “democratic” France). Yet whether a Labour or Conservative Government is in power the condition of the Empire workers remains the same.

Repression is the order of the day. The recent bloody repressions in Jamaica (from which some titled “anti-fascists” draw fat dividends); the continual cleaning-up operations in India (which during the last two years have cost £1,747,500 and 1142 casualties amount the pacifiers): the savage repression of the Arabs in Palestine . . . all these are symbolic of British Imperialism.

Now that Germany and Italy are clamouring for colonies the “anti-fascists” protest because “they know” that the colonial peoples prefer democratic masters to Fascist masters. To these unfortunate people in the colonies one master is as bad as another.

Franco has the Moors killed to further his ideas. In North Africa, French democracy has the Arabs (the Spahi regiments for instance) killed in order to strengthen “democracy”! In Palestine British Imperialism kills the Arabs as enemies and in India has Indians killed in defending British interests on the North West Frontier. Meanwhile Mussolini has the Askaris killed in Abyssinia to further his Imperialist ambitions, whilst in “civilizing” Libya, that ruthless soldier Graziani killed off thousands of Askaris!

All the foregoing, and much more which could be added, space allowing, merely brings one to an obvious conclusion: Anti-fascism, besides being International, must be ANTI-CAPITALIST. Within the framework of Capitalism nothing will ever be achieved by the workers in the “democratic” countries, both for themselves as well as for their brothers living under fascism, whether in Germany or Italy or in the colonies.

SPANISH WORKERS EXAMPLE

The Spanish people have shown the way in that their struggle was not just for a forty-hour week, or the bread-and-butter question pure and simple (this is surely proved by the fact that today they are physically worse off than before) but for something more revolutionary: the overthrow of a rotten and inhuman System. For they knew that by completely changing the present state of things, only then could they look forward to a new life.

It is this example (and it is an example in spite of the setbacks which may finally destroy the revolutionary achievements in Spain) which must be followed by the International Proletariat.

To elect a “Red” Duchess or a Vernon Bartlett to Parliament are mere petty consolations for the new “anti-fascists.” Nay, to elect a Labour Government is to elect merely another group of politicians (vide French Popular Front Government 1936-1938).

Yes, fight Fascism, but not with arch-reactionaries who merely oppose the present Government for personal reasons or for fear that under Fascism their political careers will be at an end. Fascism will be combated effectively only when a militant proletariat will refuse to be the dupes of the ruling class, that is, will refuse to manufacture arms destined for their own destruction and will refuse to be enslaved by the idle class or by their own Union leaders.

The moment the workers understand their role, and realise that isolated victories (such as could have been achieved in Spain) can be achieved only on condition that real International Solidarity exists (refusal to transport any material to the Fascist powers, and assure the workers all they require by legal or extra legal means), headway will be made.

This will be real ANTI-FASCIST Solidarity, and the first step towards Free Socialism.

V.R.