Retort 'Aufheben'

Fascist/Anti-

Gilles Dauvé on anti-fascism, in response to an Aufheben review of "Fascism/Anti-Fascism", by Jean Barrot

Author
Submitted by westartfromhere on February 14, 2024

Barrot's reply

This letter 1 is about your [Aufheben] 1992 review of Fascism/Antifascism 2 , a pamphlet published in England twice, and then again by Wildcat [UK], under my pen name Jean Barrot, an alias I got rid of a few years ago. (A new revised version of The Eclipse and Re-Emergence of the Communist Movement, first published by Black & Red, Detroit, 1974, has now been published in London by Antagonism Press under my name 'Gilles Dauvé'.)

Although I'm happy to see Fascism/Anti-fascism available in English, it was never intended to exist in that form. In 1979, I wrote a 90-page preface to a selection of articles from the 'Italian left' magazine Bilan (1933-38) 3 on Spain. Years later, I found that comrades then and now unknown to me had edited a much shorter English version, as of course they were perfectly free to do. But what was meant to be a reflection on communization (analysing Russia and Spain among other historical examples, and actually criticizing Bilan), has been narrowed to an anti-anti-fascist stand. Maybe this is why your article regards my views as both valid and unfortunately one-sided.

I'll try to make myself clearer.

1. Can the proletariat prevent capitalist society from periodically turning into a dictatorship?

No.

Class conflict commands modern times, and centres around working class submission [intransigence] and/or resistance, rebellion, insurrection [combativity]... It does not follow that the workers could divert the political course at any time and avoid the after-effects of their own attempts to change history.

For instance, active class struggle determined the birth and life-span of the Weimar Republic. After World War 1, revolution was stifled in Germany by a combination of democracy and fascism (the Freikorps used by the SPD-led government to crush workers' risings in 1919-20 were real fascist groupings, with many future nazis in their ranks). The Weimar system was built out of proletarian assaults and setbacks. Then the workers had a say, albeit a degraded and mystified one: the councils’ movement was reduced to a bureaucratic institution, and the revolution that failed gave way to a left-dominated socialist-orientated regime. Working class pressures, and the conflict between a reformist majority and revolutionary minorities, shaped the post-war period. Even when right-of-centre politicians were in office, even with Hindenburg as president (the SPD called to vote for him in 1932 as a bulwark against Hitler...), workers remained the pivotal force of Weimar's early days, and often its decisive factor.

But the combined and rival weights of SPD and KPD made their own weaknesses. With the 1929 crash, when even the ruling class had to be disciplined, this time capital found that not just radicals but also respectful union leaders could be a burden. The bourgeois-reformist compromise set in motion by the workers 14 years before became more a hindrance than a help.

Hitlerism was not inevitable, with its grotesque and murderous paraphernalia. But on January 30th, 1933, some strong central power was the order of the day, and the only options left to Germany were straightforwardly statist and repressive ones, to be settled out of proletarian reach.

Paradoxically, it's the sheer strength of wage-labour (reformist and radical) that deprives it now and again of any say in the running of affairs.

2. How far can anti-fascism contribute to a revolutionary movement?

Of course, anti-fascism is not a homogeneous phenomenon. Durruti, Orwell and Santiago Carrillo all qualify as antifascists. But the question remains: What is anti-fascism 'anti'? And what is it 'pro' exactly?

I am against imperialism, be it French, British, US or Chinese. I am not an 'anti-imperialist', since that is a political position supporting national liberation movements opposed to imperialist powers. I am (and so is the proletariat) against fascism, be it in the form of Hitler or Le Pen. I am not an 'anti-fascist', since this is a political position regarding fascist state or threat as a first and foremost enemy to be destroyed at all costs, i.e. siding with bourgeois democrats as a lesser evil, and postponing revolution until fascism is disposed of.

Such is the essence of anti-fascism. 'Revolutionary antifascism' is a contradiction in terms—and in reality—anything communist inevitably goes beyond the boundary of antifascism, and sooner or later clashes with it.

When Spanish workers took arms against the military putsch in July '36, they were obviously fighting fascism, but (whatever they may have called themselves) they were not acting as anti-fascists, as their move aimed both at the fascists and the democratic state. Afterwards, however, when they let themselves be trapped within the institutional framework, they became 'anti-fascists', fighting their fascist foes while at the same time supporting their own democratic enemies.

Revolutionary critics of anti-fascism have been repeatedly accused of sabotaging the fight against fascism, of being Franco's or Hitler's 'objective' allies—which soon comes close to 'subjective'... The sad irony is, only the proletariat and communists are fundamental opponents of fascism.

Anti-fascism is always more supportive of democracy than opposed to fascism: it won't take anti-capitalist steps to repel fascism, and will prefer its own defeat rather than risk proletarian outbursts. It was no accident or mistake that the Spanish bourgeoisie and the Stalinists wasted time and energy getting rid of anarchist peasant communes when they were supposed to do everything to win the war: their number one priority was not and had never been to smash Franco, but to keep the masses under control.

So the point is, not that there are lots of ways of being an anti-fascist, and that non-revolutionary anti-fascist individuals can turn revolutionary, as of course many will, but that anti-fascism as such, in order to avoid a dictatorial state, submits to the democratic state. That's its nature, its logic, its proven past, and all the 'yes buts' about it got drowned in the Barcelona May '37 blood of those workers who'd hoped to outsmart moderate anti-fascism. Anti-fascism is not like a meeting one bursts into and forces to adopt a new programme. It's not a form: it has a content and a political substance of its own. It's not a 'bourgeois' shell wherein subversion could put proletarian flesh.

Needless to say, I am not suggesting die-hard communists should only take part in 'pure' anti-wage-labour attacks and keep clear of all anti-fascist groups 4 , waiting for them to catch up with us. No doubt the rejection of everything fascism 5 stands for (ethnicism, racism, sexism, nationalism, law and order, outright reactionary culture, etc.) is often a first step to rebellion. In fact, quite a few young wo/men take part in demos against the French National Front because they realize it asks for even more submission to a social order they hate, not so much because it is a threat to a parliamentary democracy they don't care about all that much. Then politics comes along trying to channel this into a support for democracy. These spontaneous gestures will develop into a critique of the roots of this world if they reject the basis of anti-fascism: a respect for democratic capitalism. Only by pointing out the issues at stake can we contribute to this maturation.

Beating off fascism means destroying its pre-conditions, i.e. its social causes = capitalism.

3. How can we defeat one of the worst divisive forces within proletarians: racism?

Certainly not by treating racism as another issue to be added to anti-capitalism.

Racism stresses a difference. Anti-racism does the opposite: it emphasizes something in common between those that racism divides. This common element is usually humankind or humanity. Now, when a bourgeoisie also appeals to that in relation to his workers, what will revolutionaries object? Obviously, this common factor can't be the same for those who manage this world and those who'd like to change it.

Actually, what we often tend to do is replace 'We're all humans' by 'We're all proles'. We say: (a) a black worker is the same as a white worker (b) both aren't the same as a black boss or a white boss 6 . The snag is, this does not attack racism; it supports solidarity, as indeed we must, but solidarity is precisely what's lacking because of racism. So we're just substituting a proletarian anti-racism for a humanist one. Yet both contend with racism in its visible form and miss its causes.

In '68, though there were racists around, including among wage-earners, the French bourgeoisie could not use racism as a major dividing weapon, because of the unifying effect of mass class struggle. Later, as workers' militancy subsided, divisions appeared. To mention just one important landmark, the Talbot 1983 strike revealed a growing split between so-called national and foreign car-workers. Such a rift was more a result than a cause. Is it mere coincidence that 1983-4 also witnessed the rise of the National Front? It's not the lack of adequate anti-racist campaigns that helped Le Pen 7 get now as much as 15 per cent of the votes. It's the decline of collective resistance among the workers. Racism manifests itself as an ideology, but is not first ideological. It's a practical phenomenon, a social relation: one of the most vicious aspects of competition between wage-labourers, a consequence of the decay of living and fighting communities. The 'racialization' of the working class goes along with its atomization.

The proletariat is not weak because it's divided: its weaknesses breed division. So anything that makes it stronger strikes a blow at racism. While avoiding organized humanistic anti-racism, one can combat racism when one comes across it in real life, as many non-racist proles spontaneously do in a pub, on the shopfloor or in a picket line, recreating some form of autonomous community. For example, the December '95 movement silenced Le Pen's rhetoric. Likewise, a number of estate riots have brought together people from north Africa, black and 'white' origins.

The communist movement has both a class and a human content. An interesting question is: which class struggle activity gets proletarians together, and practically tends to do away with racism?

Workers can be militant and racist at the same time.

In 1922, South African bosses lowered white miners' wages and opened a number of jobs to blacks. 'White' riots ended in a blood-bath: over 200 miners killed. As in strikes against female or foreign labour, this was wage-earners' self-defence at its worst.

On the other hand, while Holland was occupied by nazi Germany, Dutch workers went on strike against the way Jews and Jewish workers were being deported and discriminated against. The key to South African labour's reactionary stand, or to Dutch solidarity, does not lie in racist/non-racist minds. Minds are moulded by past and present social relationships and actions. The more open, global, potentially universal and therefore 'human' a demand or an action is, the least likely it is to be narrowed to sexist, xenophobic or racist lines.

Imagine a workplace. Fighting to save jobs could more easily bring the workforce closer to racism than, say, asking for a flat £20 per week increase for every single employee on the premises. The former encloses people within defensive gestures, confines them to 'their' plant, isolates them from other workplaces and eventually divides them, between themselves (Who'll get the sack? My work-mate, I hope, not me!) However small, the latter demand unites proles irrespective of gender, nationality or professional skill, and can link them with workplaces outside their own, since many other people can take it up and start asking for the same increase, or for something that's even more unifying.

Some claims and tactics reinforce trade, local or 'race' differences. Others involve the interplay of an ever larger community, open up new issues, and break 'ethnic', etc. divisions.

The only way to defeat racism is to address it on a general and 'political' level, showing how any division between proles (and racism even more viciously than xenophobia) always ends in them (all proles) being worse off, more degraded, more submissive.

Racism is to be addressed, not as a separate question, and never as an obnoxious ideology to be smashed by a warm-hearted one.

Gilles Dauvé, 1997

  • 1Letter from Dauvé earlier published in issue 7 of the Aufheben journal with an editorial introduction.
  • 2 [Aufheben] 1992 review of Fascism/Antifascism
  • 3'90-page preface to a selection of articles from the "Italian left" magazine Bilan'
  • 4why not, it only adds to false polarity, infighting, enmity within the class?
  • 5i.e. capitalism. None of the attributes listed are specific to any form of capitalist governance.
  • 6'black' and 'white' are fiction; why reify fiction?
  • 7'Le penis de Le Pen a peine il', Saïd. This joke is from the film/movie, La Haine. One of the main characters, Saïd, is a bit of a Situationist. In one scene he subverts an advertising poster, "The world is yours", by scrubbing out vous, "yours", and scribbling over, nous, "ours". The joke he makes that is added as a side note in this text of ours goes as follows, 'Le penis de Le Pen a peine il', which translates to, The penis of [Jean-Marie] Le Pen is barely there.

Comments

darren p

10 months 2 weeks ago

Submitted by darren p on February 14, 2024

This is already here I think?
Yep, this a duplicate - and the article was never a part of 'Eclipse and Re-emergence' either.

Submitted by Fozzie on February 14, 2024

westartfromhere wrote:

Fozzie wrote: This is already here I think?
https://libcom.org/article/intakes-fascismanti-fascism-barrot-replies

That version appears to contain an introduction written by the object of the retort and does not contain the side notes by Proletarian Revolution, with a different choice of frontispiece.

OK. It's probably worth linking between the two versions then. (Which I can do). Also Darrenp raises a good point which is that the image is a bit misleading maybe? I..e this article is not the book "Eclipse" but a conversation about it. For articles like that I would generally use a different image, such as a photo of the book (like on a table or something) rather than a straight image of the cover.

It's cool you have added this, but does all that make sense to you westartfromhere?

westartfromhere

10 months 2 weeks ago

Submitted by westartfromhere on February 14, 2024

If you are to make a link it should be to the article by Aufheben that Gilles is responding to, not their reaction to his response.

The image is of a book referred to in his letter.

Hope this is acceptable.

westartfromhere

10 months 2 weeks ago

Submitted by westartfromhere on February 14, 2024

1992 review of Fascism/Antifascism, a pamphlet published in England twice, and then again by Wildcat

One wonders whether Gilles Dauvé is making a wry, sly comment on the use-value of the triplicate publication of this little review by our friends in Sussex?

Red Marriott

10 months 2 weeks ago

Submitted by Red Marriott on February 14, 2024

He's stating that the original pamphlet was triplicated, not the Aufheben review. The UK pamphlet reprints were years apart, iirc each time after it became unavailable.

westartfromhere

10 months 2 weeks ago

Submitted by westartfromhere on February 14, 2024

One wonders whether Gilles thought the re-view of the pamphlet was justified in triplicate at such a late juncture.

With the prevalence of anti-fascism and its flip-side, republishing this accessible letter certainly is justifiable.

Fozzie

10 months 2 weeks ago

Submitted by Fozzie on February 14, 2024

OK I have linked to the original Aufheben review and added a footnote about their version of this page. The Aufheben version of this page now has a footnote referring to this page too.

I've also changed the image to a photo of the Antagonism edition of the book which is the one that was available when this letter was published originally.

Fozzie

10 months 2 weeks ago

Submitted by Fozzie on February 15, 2024

Thanks WSFH. You have me at a disadvantage as your jokes sometimes go way over my head... :-)

westartfromhere

10 months 2 weeks ago

Submitted by westartfromhere on February 15, 2024

Note on Saïd's joke added at foot of text.

Fozzie

10 months 1 week ago

Submitted by Fozzie on February 20, 2024

Thanks, that's good and I like the photo too. :-)

westartfromhere

10 months 1 week ago

Submitted by westartfromhere on February 20, 2024

Cheers Mac

westartfromhere

9 months 1 week ago

Submitted by westartfromhere on March 22, 2024

One of many crucial lines omitted from the version of this text published by the English "communists" is its final line:

Theoretical communism can only exist as a positive affirmation of the revolution.