Fascism/Antifascism by Jean Barrot (Edmonton: Black Cat Press 1982). Reproduced by Unpopular Books, Box 15, 138 Kingsland High Road, London E8.
This text first appeared in 1979 as part of an introduction to a collection of writings by Italian left
communists (Bordigans) on the Spanish Civil War. Although not recent, the
pamphlet is being reviewed here as it concerns a contemporary issue: the
relation of antifascism to the class struggle. Half the text is taken up
with historical examples (Italy, Germany, Chile, Portugal, Spain, Russia,
the Paris Commune, Mexico). Space does not allow discussion of these cases
here. Instead, the focus will be on the general argument put forward by
Barrot.
The translator's introduction sums up the argument's
weaknesses (which, it is suggested, are the weaknesses of Left communism
itself) as follows: dogmatic Marxism, positivist economics, obsolete class
analyses and contempt for the working class. It is the last of these which
is the most important limitation of Barrot's case. The strength of his
case, however, is its clear-sighted and consistently uncompromising attack
on the state, "an instrument of class domination", which most leftists
still propose to treat as neutral and thus to "use". This theme saturates
Barrot's argument.
Barrot's thesis is very simple; it is that struggling
against fascism (in particular) necessarily entails supporting democracy,
that capitalism will necessarily remain intact if antifascists support one
of its forms against another. All manifestations of antifascism ultimately
strengthen the democratic state at the expense of the class struggle; thus
both fascism and its nemesis antifascism lead to totalitarianism (the
strong state) not communism. Dictatorship, says Barrot, is not a weapon of
capital but a tendency of capital.
But while criticizing antifascists for allegedly
supporting democracy, Barrot also asks: "do we have a CHOICE? Democracy
will transform itself into dictatorship as soon as is necessary ... The
political forms which capital gives itself do not depend on the action of
the working class any more than they depend on the intentions of the
bourgeoisie." (p. 8).
Barrot is clearly emphasizing the logic of the
capitalist state at the expense of the counter-logic of the proletariat.
The picture he paints is of a highly successful capitalist state
continually beating the working class to the first punch so that the latter
are often duped ultimately into supporting rather than overthrowing the
state. Given this, it is no wonder that many of the struggles the working
class engage in (such as the fight against fascism) are at best futile and
at worst counterproductive; the working class themselves may merely be
contributing to the state's tendency to totalitarianism.
But if we abandon the assumptions, first, that it is the
state (capital) that always moves first (with the proletariat as hapless
respondents), and, second, that antifascism is a homogeneous phenomenon
that, by its very nature, takes the side of the democratic state, we
get quite a different picture of this particular arena of struggle. Before
exploring alternative perspectives on antifascism, however, it is only fair
to measure Barrot's account against current antifascist groups.
For example, the Bennite view (which partly informs the
ethos of the Anti-Nazi League) is that 'we' (on the left, broadly
conceived) should forget our differences and concentrate on fighting the
fascists (implicitly: we should unite around the lowest common denominator
and vote Labour). This argument is based in part on the claim that the
reason for the rise of Hitler was that the KPD and SPD (social democrats
and communists) were fighting each other instead of the fascists. But
Barrot points out that the left wing forces (fighting each other) were not
defeated by the Nazis; rather, the proletarian defeat had already taken
place when the fascist repression occurred; the revolutionaries were
defeated not by fascism but by democracy. The Anti-Nazi League are
also criticized (by the Revolutionary Communist Party, for example) for
trying to build a mass movement around the issue of Nazis and fascists,
when it is the (non-fascist and anti-Nazi) racists in power who are the
main problem for (the non-white) working class of Britain. The word "Nazi"
is emotive, so it is easy for people to agree to oppose "Nazism" while they
may continue to condone racism and patriotism. Similarly, at a recent
anti-fascist/anti-Nazi public meeting, I was dismayed to hear a speaker
from Anti-Fascist Action criticize fascists on the grounds that they did
not really support "our" country (implying that patriotism - supporting
"our" bourgeoisie - is desirable).
In these examples we can see how Barrot has pointed
accurately to problems of typical antifascist positions; there is a clear
tendency to oppose fascism on the grounds that it is undemocratic and a
threat to "our" country. In such cases we are in effect, as Barrot says,
being asked to rally to the support of one manifestation of the state
against another. A classic example is the case of the Spanish Civil War, in
which the anarchist strategy for fighting fascism was to join forces with
the republican government.
However, it is not enough to dismiss all the various
contemporary antifascist manifestations on these grounds alone. The point
is that many people become involved in antifascism not to support
democracy but simply because they recognize the need to organize
specifically against the BNP and similar groups who intimidate minorities,
and against racist attacks in general. The issue of racism is not
addressed by Barrot in this pamphlet. In his defence, it is worth stating
that fascism and racism are by no means synonymous (conceptually or
historically); racism is simply a contingent tool of fascism and other
forms of capitalism. But racism is most people's experience of present day
neo-fascism; fascism has almost become a theoretical justification for
racism in many cases.
Barrot's argument is directed at those who are
exclusively fighting fascism; but he also refers to struggles in Italy that
were antifascist without being "specifically antifascist: to struggle
against Capital meant to struggle against fascism as well as against
parliamentary democracy." (p. 13). In other words, not all
antifascist activity entails supporting democracy. The nub of the argument
is this, however: the state transforms itself to suit capital, thus "[t]he proletariat will destroy totalitarianism [including fascism] only by
destroying democracy and all political forms at the same time." (p. 17).
Barrot presents us with a sharp dichotomy in which anything less than his
pre-defined programme for revolution (the attack on wage labour) is worse
than useless. While we would of course endorse an all-out attack on wage
labour, and while we reserve the right to criticize the recent wave of
antifascist groups, it is a necessary part of our support for one class
against the other that we confront all forces which attempt to divide us
along lines of "race", nationality etc. Barrot's pamphlet is important in
that it warns us against the dangers of involvement in popular fronts; but
it should not be taken as providing a theoretical justification for
ignoring the concrete problems which affect particular sections of our
class.