[Militant No. 340, 28 January 1977, p. 5]
Significant gains have been chalked up by the National Front in recent parliamentary and local elections. Exploiting bitter disillusionment with the policies of the Labour government. they use vile racist propaganda to whip up support.
They are generously supported by the bosses’ gutter press with its sensational lies and distortions about immigrant workers. Behind the scenes, the National Front and other fascist grouplets are undoubtedly backed with cash by sections of big business to play on the grievances of those worn down and demoralised by economic difficulties.
The contemptible propaganda of the NF is combined with cowardly threats, intimidations and attacks against labour and trade union activists.
Such is the enormous power of organised labour that these piddling groups of fascist thugs and gangsters pose no immediate threat to the advance of the workers’ movement. But there is no room for complacency. The lesson of Italy, Germany and Spain is that fascism must be nipped sharply in the bud. The activities of the fascists should be regarded as an early warning of the barbarous reaction that will face us unless decisive action is taken to change the present rotten system.
In view of the vital importance of fighting fascism and racialism, it is essential to be armed with clear and decisive policies. Labour activists, however, would have been absolutely astounded – had they witnessed the debate at the recent conference of the National Organisation of Labour Students in December – at the wavering, defeatist position taken by the “Clause Four“ group, which at present controls NOLS.
Dictatorship
In the student field, “Clause Four’ claim to be supporters of ‘Tribune’. But most supporters of ‘Tribune’ would surely reject their policy – which is far to the right of that decided by the last Labour Party Conference.
At the NOLS conference, “Clause Four” actually voted against parts of a resolution, voted on separately, which demanded:
„(3) No section of the Labour or Student Movement to provide a platform for fascists or racialists; organisation of mass action to deny the fascists platforms for speech.”
“(5) No position for fascists and racialists in the Labour or Student Movement.” (Racialism composite 2) This indicates a retreat, under student pressures (which we will come to in a moment), from even their own former position.
On this issue, it is essential lo draw a distinction between reactionary representatives of capitalism who use racialist propaganda, on the one hand, and avowed fascists, on the other.
Fascists stand for the complete destruction of democracy, If they were allowed to grow, they would organise the human flotsam and jetsam washed up by capitalist crisis Into a battering ram for use against the workers. The right to strike, freedom of speech and assembly, would be wiped out. The workers’ organisations would be smashed.
If, as is more likely, the small fascist organisations were used as an auxiliary weapon by big business to prepare the way for military dictatorship, this would have a similar result, as Chile shows.
It is therefore completely contradictory to argue that fascists should be allowed “freedom of speech“ on grounds of democracy Would organised workers in a factory allow scabs the “right” to strike-break? Should workers, then, allow fascists the “democratic right” to prepare to smash the labour movement and annihilate democracy?
We are not in favour of small bands of heroes going out to fight the fascists. With the intervention of the police and the mass media, this only rebounds in the fascists’ favour, Through the labour movement we must mobilise the organised strength of the workers. Through campaigns, fascists and racialist ideas must be shattered, completely destroying any influence they may have among politically backward workers. Sufficient organised forces must be mobilised to keep the fascists off the streets and public platforms.
The Labour Party Young Socialist Campaign Against Racialism which started in 1973, really showed the way. The Labour Party’s own campaign, which followed acceptance by last year’s conference of the YS-inspired resolution against racialism is also an important step forward.
Meanwhile, however, the “Clause Four“ have fallen back to purely liberalistic policies – even to the extent of supporting free speech for fascists! To their credit, a minority of the delegates who generally supported “Clause Four“ refused to go along with them on this, ensuring a majority for the class demands quoted above.
On this, as on other issues, the position of “Clause Four’ is determined by the attitude of the “Broad Left in the National Union of Students. In their anxiety to tag along with the Broad Left, “Clause Four’ have tried to reduce NOLS to a mere appendage of this grouping, fitting their policies to the mood in the NUS rather than starting from socialist principles.
Tory Party
The gyrations of the NUS “Broad Left’ on fascism and racialism, reveal their complete opportunism and lack of perspectives. At the April, 1974, NUS Conference, a Broad Left Executive member moved a motion calling for “ne platform for fascists.“ At the time this slogan way held up as a magic talisman to defeat fascism. But the mood inside the NUS hay changed. At least partly as a result of the Broad Left’s confused policies and bureaucratic methods, their support has waned and Tory opposition grown.
Under this pressure they have retreated, attempting to water down their policies even more. In the vain hope of placating the Tory students, they have tried to sweep controversial issues like fascism under the carpet. At the December, 1976, NUS Conference, the same Broad Left Executive moved a motion supporting free speech for fascists. And “Clause Four’ followed this “lead”.
Unfortunately for the hapless leaders of NUS, their attempts to appease the Tories were completely undermined by the incident involving Sir Keith Joseph. Although the President: later condemned the ultra-lefts who forced Joseph to leave the visitors’ gallery, the Broad Left, with its muddled and wavering policies, cannot be relieved of all responsibility. Joseph’s ejection was a gift for the Tories and the Tory press. It confirmed the correctness of ‘Militant’s’ position that while fascists should be swept away, the best way to counter the influence of reactionaries like Sir Keith Joseph is to let them speak, but then expose their distortions, completely smash their ideas, and pose a socialist alternative. Attempts to prevent them speaking (or in this case observing) only rebound. It is the Tories and the capitalist press that are afraid of open democratic debate, not us.
“Clause Four’s“ complete lack of a socialist, class approach was further revealed by one of the key sections of their own resolution (Racialism, composite 1)
“Broadly based anti-racist campaigns and local committees should be established in all parts of Britain (not only those with black populations). These should involve Labour Parties, Trade Unions, Trades Councils, LPYS branches, Labour Clubs, Student Unions and other political groups and individuals prepared to oppose racialism (including Tories, Youth Organisations, Community Organisations, and religious organisations). The aim should be to isolate and minimise the potential support for racists by propaganda and other methods designed to gain public support and expose the racists and fascists who are currently skillfully manipulating “the fears of ordinary people over jobs, housing and living standards.”
They denounced opposition to this “broad” approach ay “dogmatic” and “sectarian”. But one of its implications was revealed by a “Clause Four“ speaker, who argued that in elections we should campaign, not for the Labour Party, but for “all democratic parties, including the Tory Party against fascist candidates.
“Clause Four’ are completely blind to the fact that it is the working class who are the only real upholders of democratic rights, which historically are the fruit of struggles and pressure by the labour movement.
Immigration Law
They correctly mention the “fears of ordinary people over jobs, houses, and living standards.” But will the Tories, who uphold the system which has produced these fears. provide solutions to the problems? How can they? Only the labour movement can defend the economic position of the workers and more importantly, carry through a fundamental change to provide a new, socialist basis for democracy.
If it fails, the labour movement will be smashed and the workers reduced to slave-like conditions to allow the survival of capitalism. Then no amount of high-minded support for democracy, whether from Tories, liberals, pious church-goers, or anyone else, will be to any avail as far as the defence of democratic rights is concerned.
We are not opposed to winning the support of members of community and religious organisations – but it must be won for the labour movement and socialist policies, In reality, however, those who adopt the approach of the “Clause Four“ resolution start out by casting aside socialist policies in favour of a watered-down, emasculated “common” programme in the hope that this will ensure ‘*broad“ support, In other words, they throw away the key to success before they have begun.
The confusion and compromise to which this approach leads is also shown by the position taken by “Clause Four” on immigration, The last section of their composite calls for: “Repeal of the 1971 Immigration Act and its replacement by a non-racialist immigration policy together with non-racialist citizenship laws.”
Nation State
The vague “non-racialist immigration policy, as the debates at both NOLS and NUS conferences showed, actually means non-racialist laws to restrict immigration. This shows how far the “Clause Four“ and the Broad Left have succumbed to the pressure of middle clays liberals and Tory minded students. The whole history of immigration laws, whether in Britain, the United States, or elsewhere, shows that it is completely utopian to believe that under capitalism immigration can be restricted in a fair, non-discriminatory manner. At the same time, any support whatsoever for the restriction of immigration gives credence to the argument that Britain’s social problems are due to Immigration.
The ‘Militant’ has explained many times, with detailed facts and figures, the complete falseness of the argument that immigration is the cause of Britain’s economic crisis. For most of the post-war period there has in fact been a net emigration of about 30,000 every year.
National antagonism, racial prejudice, and tensions arising from unplanned migrations forced on masses of people by poverty and political upheavals, are themselves signs of the breakdown of the world capitalist system. Despite enormous tectnological advances, which cry out for international planning, capitalism is still tied to rival nation states.
Planned socialist production on a world scale, which would provide everyone with the necessities of life, and more, would for the first time foster the development of harmonious interaction between the different nationalities and races. All the old racial myths and prejudices would be rapidly washed away.
Migrations made by conscious choice would become a new stimulus to economic and cultural development, as they were in a distorted way at certain stages of capitalism’s development. But in the existing economic and political situation, any call for immigration restrictions unavoidably takes on racialist overtones.
Mosley
The contradictory liberal approach of the „Clause Four“ is also shown by other clauses in their (composite 1), for example:
“(2) All marches which are liable to incite racial hatred should be banned; (3) Those who produce racist speeches and leaflets should be prosecuted for incitement to racial hatred under the Race Relations Act; (4) Labour councillors would vote for local authorities to prevent their premises being let to fascist and racist organisations; (5) No council should allow racist speakers in the schools.“
The experience of the labour movement has always been that laws against fascist activities or racial prejudice are invariably turned against the left. The 1936 Public Order Act, for instance, supposedly aimed against fascists, was not used against Mosley’s gangsters, but against the workers fighting them.
Reactionary prejudice and discrimination, rooted in the oppression and exploitation of the system, cannot be eradicated by laws – which actually means the existing legal institutions which are far from standing, pure and neutral, above class society. No one could object on principle to laws which ban discrimination, incitement to racial hatred, and so on, But they will have a beneficial effect only under the pressure of action by the labour movement.
Local councillors should use their authority to combat racialism. But why are “Clause Four“ so ready to call for pressure on institutions like councils and schools to bar fascists and racialists when they are against the NUS or the student movement (and labour movement) taking the same action in their own ranks?
Confidence
We can only conclude that the confusion and wavering of “Clause Four’ reflects a complete lack of confidence in the ability of the working class to change society. As their position on other questions also showed, they do not really foresee the possibility of socialism being achieved in practice. That is why they fall back to the “defence of democracy“ in alliance with middle class elements who have no power to defend democracy, instead of basing themselves on the struggle of the working class, the real bearers of democracy and culture, who alone can provide the forces to take society forward.
Lynn Walsh
Schreibe einen Kommentar