I have published this video this morning. In it, I argue that centre-right parties – like Labour is now – have always facilitated fascism by promoting neoliberalism that deliberately ignores the needs of most people. The result has been a political vacuum that the centre-right created, which the far-right and fascism is now trying to fill.
The audio version of this video is here:
The transcript is:
Centre-right parties enable fascists.
That's a big and bold claim, I admit, but I am talking right now about the Labour Party in the UK.
I think they could enable fascism in this country.
If you want to know what I mean about fascism, watch the video I've recently put out on that subject, in which I explain what it means and how it works, and for whose benefit it is run.
But at the moment I'm worried about why we end up with a risk from fascism. And the reality is that over the last 40 years we have had governments who have not served the interests of the people of this country.
Margaret Thatcher introduced the idea of neoliberalism into British politics. And she delivered it very effectively.
I remember the 1979 general election when she swept to power. It was the first general election I could vote in. So I, at the age of 66, have only lived under neoliberal governments that I have had the opportunity to choose. That's kind of scary.
Because it means that most people in this country have never chosen anything else but neoliberal governments that have always existed to serve the interests of wealth and the powerful elite in this country.
They have never cared about ordinary people.
They have never delivered the types of programmes that existed from 1945 to 1975 in this country, aimed at delivering universal well-being and an increase in income for everyone in society.
Instead, they've been indifferent to increases in inequality.
They've been indifferent to regional suffering.
They've been indifferent to the way in which the regions of the UK have become remote from the interests of London and the Southeast.
They just don't care. And the consequence is that they have left open an enormous part of the population who are totally alienated from the political process - and with good reason, because the political process has not served those people's interests.
As a result, a vacuum has been created. And politics, as well as everything else in life, abhors a vacuum. Something has to fill it. And the far-right are trying to fill it.
The Conservatives have moved further and further right wing.
Nigel Farage has always been there trying to exploit the situation, and has successfully on occasions. Remember, he was very good at winning European Parliamentary elections, and Reform looks likely that it will have a presence in Parliament after July the 4th.
But the fact is, that could not have happened if the centre right parties - originally the Conservatives and ever more so the Labour Party to the point now where the Labour Party has taken over the centre-right ground that used to be occupied by, for example, David Cameron's Conservative Party - those two have facilitated this move by abandoning the left and all the commitments that the left of centre parties in the UK, mainly Labour, used to have to working people, people who couldn't work, the young, the elderly, those left behind.
Those people have nowhere to go.
They're left aside now.
And the consequence of that is that we have seen them move to fascism because others have not tried to address the needs of ordinary people.
Those ordinary people are alienated. Fascism is for them the answer, or at least it's sold to them as the answer, even though it never will actually solve any problem that they know of, as fascism never has for anybody but the ultra-rich.
I am worried.
I'm worried that the Labour Party will not transform this country, will not deliver for the ordinary people of this country, will not make the changes that are necessary to ensure that the UK's regions are genuinely leveled up in a way that the Tories never meant to do: I'm worried that if none of those things happen, then we will still see the rise of fascism in this country.
It's real, it's a risk, we have to challenge it and we've got five years to do so.
Thanks for reading this post.
You can share this post on social media of your choice by clicking these icons:
You can subscribe to this blog's daily email here.
And if you would like to support this blog you can, here:
Benito Mussolini said that ‘Fascism should more appropriately be called Corporatism because it is a merger of state and corporate power.’
We see:
The sell-off of public companies (energy, rail) to various corporations
The privatisation of the NHS to private healthcare companies
The law favouring companies over people
It would be interesting too see how Labour and the Conservatives define Fascism.
Apparently the quote that links Mussolini’s fascism directly with corporatism is fabricated.
“Fascism should more appropriately be called Corporatism because it is a merger of state and corporate power”
http://www.publiceye.org/fascist/corporatism.html
The Fascist conception of the State is all-embracing; outside of it no human or spiritual values can exist, much less have value. Thus understood, Fascism is totalitarian, and the Fascist State–a synthesis and a unit inclusive of all values–interprets, develops, and potentiates the whole life of a people. (p. 14)
Fascism is definitely and absolutely opposed to the doctrines of liberalism, both in the political and economic sphere. (p. 32)
The Fascist State lays claim to rule in the economic field no less than in others; it makes its action felt throughout the length and breadth of the country by means of its corporate, social, and educational institutions, and all the political, economic, and spiritual forces of the nation, organised in their respective associations, circulate within the State. (p. 41).
Benito Mussolini, 1935, The Doctrine of Fascism,
The corporate State considers that private enterprise in the sphere of production is the most effective and useful instrument in the interest of the nation. In view of the fact that private organisation of production is a function of national concern, the organiser of the enterprise is responsible to the State for the direction given to production.
State intervention in economic production arises only when private initiative is lacking or insufficient, or when the political interests of the State are involved. This intervention may take the form of control, assistance or direct management. (pp. 135-136)
Benito Mussolini, 1935, Fascism: Doctrine and Institutions,
All these suggest that Mussolini wanted total control of the corporate sector in the service of his totalitarian state, rather than to free the corporate sector from all regulation.
Yet the Nuremberg trials included a number of prominent German businessmen, although the theory that German corporations underpinned the rise of Nazism has been disproved.
That lack of ideological commitment did not mean strong relationships between corporations and Nazis did not exist.
There is definitely a strong association between German corporations with slave workcamps – IG Farben built a concentration camp adjacent to Auschwitz which had 11,000 prisoners in 1944. Wiki has a list of 60+ companies involved with Nazi slave work camps.
Here and now in the 21stC, the corporate sector has effectively captured the state in many if not alll industrial economies, and we live more in a plutocracy than democracy. (as is the EU)
Shame about the quote allegedly attributed to Mussolini, I thought it summed up fascism quite nicely.
Many say they don’t understand the term neoliberalism, that it’s a meaningless term. For me this tells me they simply don’t recognise that any economic activity whether by state or private agents always has the potential for being flawed because it’s controlled by individuals who are at the uni end of the spectrum of caring. By this I mean don’t put much effort into balancing the needs of others against those of themselves and become bi-caring. So you have amongst human beings a spectrum stretching between uni-carers and bi-carers and the labels of communism, neoliberalism and fascism obfuscate or hide the uni-caring personality flaw which largely derives from the way individuals were treated as children. Darcia Narvaez’s 2014 book “Neurobiology and the Development of Human Morality: Evolution, Culture, and Wisdom” fully covers this phenomenon. The issue before us (as ever) is how do we make human beings more caring of each other as opposed to just their individual selves.
Both neo-libism and fascisim are utopian in what they offer. In the former case, small-state (proven to not work over the past 45 years) in the latter case: do as you are told cos we know better – coupled to nostagia for an age that never was. Both are fantasies packaged to appeal to voters who have been groomed to accepted neo-libism and it is only a short step from that to fascism (if Farage’s rabble does well – I anticipate the Dail Heil swinging behind him).
What do most people really want? functioning public services (health), a transport system fit for purpose, energy fairly priced and a good education system. Once upon a time these societal goods were delivered. The neo-lib project could never deliver on this, failure was inevitable and built in. The fasicst likewise, detached from reality will make their own mess of things – with a population perpetually the guinea pigs of the latest imbecilic set of delusions and beliefs (our market which art in heaven) – all helped by a cretinous media.
The UK, run by deluded children for 45 years – LINO about to continue this “legacy” and Reform waiting in the wings. & they are so very certain – arn’t they.
Pathetic.
Much to agree with
Neoliberalism is politically embedded. It is conventual wisdom. It is so obvious lying working so badly it is now incapable of explaining or justifying itself credibly. The answer for neoliberals defending the indefensible failure of neoliberalism is to say that the left stole neoliberalism and demand real neoliberalism – more extreme right wing ideas – be introduced. This is exactly what Hayek did after he fled Vienna and the Nazis. He defined Fascism as Left wing Communist extremism. In neoliberalism there is no Right, because neoliberalism is always right, even when it’s wrong. It’s a zero sum game.
“…neoliberalism is always right, even when it’s wrong”.
A schoolfriend of mine wrote a play, a political satire ostensibly about a disfunctional family. It was rather drab but it did have the father say at one point “We are right; we are always right; even when we are wrong we are right!”
Over the years I have often imagined putting those words into the mouths of prominent politicians. But, of course, few politicians are honest enough to actually say such a thing. Instead they often cultivate a superficial reasonableness, they are open to “constructive criticism”, the structures they put in place do “make mistakes” and do “learn lessons” from said mistakes, or, at least, so we are told. However when you look at how their ideas are actually implemented, at how their will is actually enforced, that is a totally different story.
As Sun Wukong, the monkey king, says in ‘Journey to the West’, “The Emperor can be wrong and the magistrate can be wrong, but the man who comes to get you is never wrong.”
Well Ian after reading about Streeting’s plans for the NHS I don’t think you will get so much as a fag paper between their ideas
The conditions for fascism are being laid in front of our eyes
I fear for the future
Thank you, Pat.
A fortnight or so ago, Justin Webb said the same on the Today programme. The Labour interviewee, whose name I did not catch, did not disagree. At the time, I posted a comment. Richard thought it could have been Darren Jones.
Readers associate Tufton Street with the Tories and even Reform. Their US associates are close to Labour and hosted them a few weeks ago.
I should have added that I do, too, and suggest to young people and families that they should consider emigration if the opportunity presents itself.
What a load of nonsense. farage is popular with the white working class because they feel no other party represents their interests. The far left and the working class have never being more polarised. You need to reflect on why that is.
Have you noticed that I have been criticising you call the left and I call the centre right?
Do you actually understand what you’re saying?
I’m sorry to have to say this, Dave, but the level of political debate those and those like you engage in bring to mind Auden’s poem “August 1968”:
The Ogre does what ogres can,
Deeds quite impossible for Man,
But one prize is beyond his reach,
The Ogre cannot master Speech:
About a subjugated plain,
Among its desperate and slain,
The Ogre stalks with hands on hips,
While drivel gushes from his lips.
“What a load of nonsense. farage is popular with the white working class because they feel no other party represents their interests.”
This is the exact reason Trump was able to form his all volunteer MAGAt army. In the USA the white working class does not even know how to achieve what they want.
Just substitute “Trump” for “farage”.
Nowt like a good stereotype, viz “the white working class”. There are lots of ways to stratify the populace, and of all of them that is the most revealing. “White” speaks for itself, “working” excludes those not working (pensioners, disabled, long-term ill, children etc) and “class” assumes a degree of homogeneity. What’s even weirder is that many that “speak for” this group seem to be much more comfortably off, come from rather different backgrounds, although they are largely white men (viz Farage – privately educated, didn’t have to apply for a job (by his own admission) or do much for a living as a commodity trader, has his private company as his party with thousands of people handing over cash into the accounts…..gizza job Nige!).
Chantal Mouffe’s argument is that extremes are actually facilitated by the lack of differentiation between centre left and centre right, with the latter now dominant in LINO.
The idea of politics is that differing positions outline their underlying values, analysis of societal needs, and then argue their case for a set of policies that match their belief system.
What happens when political PR style marketing dominates, , is that the policy formers are led by focus groups. These groups tend to reflect rather than imagine, so policy is based on what has happened already, not what might be. Things then converge.
This behavioural inertia then merges the policy offerings of those relatively centrist parties.
The aim for broadly homogeneous centrist parties then becomes to secure power for its own sake, rather than to deliver a set of policies based on a well expressed set of values and fundamental beliefs.
The argument that we can’t deliver our programme without power might be a truism, but concealing agendas or spouting platitudes avoids telling electors what each party will do in power, and what differences they are offering.
There are underlying assumptions here that are highly authoritarian, and more based on Sun Tzu’s “All war is deception”. That is not much use to the electorate wanting a genuine debate.
Leadership is all about ‘us holding power’, not us serving well defined, argued and expressed policies. That is an individualistic theory of political leadership that then justifies the populists on the margins.
With managerialism, it can get even worse, as the appeal to electors is that we will do things better than the incompetent alternative, without actually offer a substantially different prospectus at all.
Thus SKS continues with Tory policies, but offers better outcomes.
More of the same with bunting.
Aye, right.
Folks wanting genuine change, and not just a new crew on the same ship, are then alienated and then disenfranchised from the mainstream, and are then vulnerable to the cults of populist leaders, often reliant on ‘othering’ and nationalism as core features.
‘Us against the world’ is a very familiar trope on the far right, but has also been present in class war politics on the far left.
The word “neoliberalism” like “libertarian” deceives people into thinking that the policies are “liberal”. Language is all we have to communicate (I know, I know – stating the obvious) so the voting public are unaware of the dangers. That, needless to say, is the intention.
It’s pointless to assume that said voting public will educate themselves and suddenly have a Road to Damascus experience. It’s been beaten out of us by – you guessed it – the neoliberals in power from Thatcher onwards. As an example, by far the most searched for question on Google in the UK the day AFTER the Referendum vote was “What is the EU?”
US (libertarian) pollster Frank Luntz has been behind much of this for many years. He’s an expert in the language of persuasion. He suggested to Bush the idea of altering “global warming” to “climate change”. Look how successful THAT has been – costing us 30 years of delay in climate mitigation. Funded by fossil fuels, of course.
Luntz is behind “independent providers” instead of “private healthcare companies”. Equally successful. His next suggestion to the Tories, who he advises, is to dump the word “capitalism” and replace it with “economic freedom”.
He also, incidentally, wrote the “Israel Project’s 2009 Global Language Dictionary” – a 112 page instruction manual on how to shift the narrative in favour of Israel’s interests in every circumstance. You’ll hear our politicians using it all the time, probably without the slightest idea of how they’re being manipulated.
Thanks
“It’s pointless to assume that said voting public will educate themselves and suddenly have a Road to Damascus experience.”
@Hannah – I found in my USA experience volunteering at the local Democratic Party Office in “working the phones” that most of the “voting public” are really one or two issue voters.
@ BayTampaBay So sorry that Americans have now reversed their 18th century revolution with today’s Supreme Court ruling and now laid themselves open to the “tyranny of kings!”
As it’s said the price of democracy is eternal vigilance but many Americans have now taken their eyes off the ball!
Seconded
Yes I agree with your prognosis. [Of a similar age!] Quite a lot of people feel left out and will turn to anyone who offers a solution. Another side effect of the feeling of being left out is that ‘others’ then get the blame, whether its immigrants or the older generation So the anger is directed against these groups rather than the parties espousing neo-liberalism. Blaming the latter has been promoted by David Willetts who when in Govt supported the neo-liberal project and also voted against support for younger people These days (and being a pensioner himself) he has the gall to blame older people – not many of whom have a pension from being an MP plus a number of probably well paid directorships and positions, oh and being paid for being a peer. The populist right often also promise better benefits and lower taxes for people so that gives them extra support. We have been let down by the parties supporting neo-liberalism and the choice of sensible alternatives is limited.
Worse than the reality that the Social Democrats/ Centrists REFUSE to somehow improve the lot of the working class is the fact that many far-right governments are happy to buy support by spending state cash on struggling voters.
Orban in Hungary has been enormously generous in expanding the level of pension payments. Erdogan in Turkey is well known for extending paved roads as well as water,electricity and sewage services far out from the centre of Istanbul, providing such benefits for the poor people living in the remote suburbs.
We can imagine the response of Kier Starmer,s crew to the idea that government money should be used very specifically to improve the lot of the poorest in society. “We can’t afford it……..credit card maxxed out.etc ”
The far-right don’t seem to face these problems when in power. For opportunist reasons of their own, maybe they can see through the deficit myth. (To be honest, I can’t recall any efforts by Trump to improve working class life when he was in power,though.)