We publish an account of the ICC’s recent online international English-language public meeting, written by a close sympathiser. We think the comrade has approached the discussion in a very clear way and we support his contribution.
The subject of this online public meeting marked a change from recent ICC meetings that have focussed on current events, including the wars in Gaza, Iran and Lebanon. This was deliberate given the salience today of questions of fascism, democracy and the situation of the working class.
Following the brief presentation made by the ICC the discussion first considered the significance of events in Spain in 1936 and then the lessons for today.
On Spain 1936
With no interventions directly defending the Republic, ant-fascism, or the idea that the ‘revolution’ in Spain went beyond Russia in 1917, the discussion focussed on understanding the method that enabled a minority of the proletarian movement to analyse the events leading to the Second World War and drawing out elements of that analysis.
In the maelstrom of events that marked the rise of the revolutionary wave in Russia in 1917, the defeat of the revolution in Germany in 1919, and the isolation and degeneration of the revolutionary wave leading to the counter-revolutionary victory of Stalinism, the majority of the revolutionary forces of the working class were profoundly disoriented with many lapsing into defence of the USSR, a position that would end in their active support for the Second World War. Foremost of those struggling to remain true to the working class were the militants grouped around the journal Bilan. It maintained the internationalist and proletarian traditions of the Bolsheviks and the Zimmerwald left in its defence of the historical interests of working class and, as a result, suffered not only isolation but also condemnation and physical threats from Stalinists, anarchists and ‘socialists’ alike. Several participants emphasised that it was the method developed by Bilan that lies at the heart of the communist left today and the ICC in particular. “Reading the texts of the Italian Left and MC [Marc Chirik, a militant of the communist left and one of the founders of the ICC] reinforces the momentous work to reestablish this link with the workers’ movement, clarifying lessons in a period of counter-revolution… a method of long patient work against the tide.”
An essential expression of this method was the importance of understanding the context in which the events in Spain happened. It came after the defeat of the revolutionary wave of 1917-26. As the ICC noted in one of its interventions: “We have to analyse the balance of class forces on an international scale and across an entire historical period.” This defeat did not preclude outbursts of determined struggle, such as those by workers in France. Spain also saw such outbreaks in 1936 and again in 1937, but these were derailed by the forces of the republic and its enablers in the POUM, the CNT and the Socialists. Class autonomy was replaced by the dictates of the Republic and class struggle by the defence of democracy. Spain ’36 was part of the trajectory of the defeat of the working class and the revolutionary wave that started in 1917. The workers’ struggles in Spain were the dying gasp of this dynamic. The diversion of the working class in Spain from the defence of it class interests against the bourgeoisie as a whole to the defence of one faction of the ruling class, obscured by clouds of rhetoric about revolution and collectivisation, was one of the last acts in sealing the trajectory towards 1939.
The discussion was able to point to some of the main players in this defeat and the process through which it happened. At its heart was the failure by the working class to challenge the state in all its forms. This is what happened in Russian 1917 when the Soviets confronted the Provisional Government, creating a situation of dual power and then the seizure of power by the working class. In Germany in 1919 the workers’ councils were betrayed by the SDP into handing power to the bourgeoisie. In Spain this reality was disguised by the myth of the collectives and performative actions against expressions of the ruling class such as the church. The establishment of collectives in factories and farms did not challenge state power but kept the working class contained both physically and politically, easy prey to calls to defend what they had ‘gained’ against the fascist menace and thus to leaving the class front for the military fronts. Ultimately, collectivisation led to mobilisation for war. The anarchist CNT, the POUM and the Stalinists all played their part in the betrayal and defeat of the working class. As one comrade remarked with reference to the CNT: “In essence they were fooling the workers into their defeat.”
The lie that the anti-fascist struggle would lessen the oppression and slaughter of the working class resulted in its greater oppression. The pursuit of the lesser evil helped open the door to the greatest evil to befall the working class and humanity until that point.
One comrade, Mario, asked whether democracy or fascism was preferred by the bourgeoisie: “Leftists say that fascism is preferable for them… I think that bourgeois democracy is more stable and better for business than fascist oscillation,” supporting this by pointing to countries such as Spain, Greece, Chile, South Korea and Taiwan that have transitioned to democracy. This was echoed by another participant who argued: “Democracy seems to be the lesser evil here. Under a democratic state it is much more sustainable for the bourgeoisie.” In response Karl stressed the ideological role of democracy in disorienting the working class: “An important aspect on the question of democracy is that you are supposed to be part of decision-making in the state… I think the important aspect is not what is preferable for the ruling class – democratic or fascist state – but the way they can use the democratic ideology to get people to adhere to and support the state… that was one of the main recruiting arguments in WW1 and WW2 when everyone thought they were supporting the democratic state against threats.”
The ICC argued that democracy was the classic form of the way the bourgeoisie organises but distinguished between its use in the 19th century, when it was an effective tool to manage the differences within the bourgeoisie, and its use in the period of decadence when it is central to the organisation of the economy and preparation for war. Above all, democracy has been central to defeating the working class. “The comrades of Bilan portrayed democracy as the most cunning weapon as it pulls workers from their economic and political interests and disarms them politically in order to enrol them for the defence of democracy.” (ICC intervention).
On the lessons for today
This part asked whether participants saw fascism on the rise today and the reasons for their position. Overall, there was agreement that fascism was a product of specific historical circumstances, principally that it was based on the defeat of the working class’s revolutionary efforts of 1917-26; the conditions for it do not currently exist because the class has not been defeated.
However, an important difference was expressed by Carter, who argued that the Trump administration is moving towards fascism in its disregard for democratic norms and open deployment of force: “Not full authoritarian rule but several authoritarian measures without being challenged. Redefined terrorist identification to target people on the left. I’m not saying the working class is defeated but normal legislative checks failed in stopping Trump as he is able to engage in fascist repressive actions in and outside the US.”
Another participant, Mario, responded by arguing that it is necessary to distinguish between the form and content of fascism: “The form can look similar, but fascism historically has been based on the defeat of the working class with the state employing its authoritarian measures against it; crushing the unions, free speech, assembly, universal suffrage and all aspects of bourgeois democracy in favour of authoritarian rule by the state accompanied by other mystifications such as chauvinism, racial superiority of one group… What Trump is trying to do is limited by the working class not being defeated….”
The ICC pointed out that the type of measures imposed by the Trump regime are far from unique, giving the examples of repressive measures by the European Union forcing migrants to live in squalor inside the EU or facing imprisonment and torture at the hands of states outside, but paid for by the EU. Trump has simply been more open about what he is doing. In response Carter maintained his argument: “If he [Trump] is not fascist, he is building up to be fascist very soon.”
Other participants who rejected the argument about the current possibility of fascism pointed to the development of populism and how its irrationality gives impetus to the calls to defend democracy: “Despite similar rhetoric, today’s rise of populism occurs not in the context of a bourgeoisie united with a perspective towards total war, but of a bourgeoisie which cannot organise itself for even the most basic regulation of its economy and state. We think this is an important distinction, but clearly we should not be caught off guard; the situation is in many ways more dangerous today than in the past.” This was echoed in another intervention: “Today’s populist movements, which are often presented as fascist, are a product of the current situation and specifically the decomposition of capitalism with its consequences of incoherence, irrationality and often incompetence.”
Conclusion
This was a useful discussion with a high level of engagement by a large number of participants showing that the subject remains relevant. At its core was the question of the nature of democracy and its relationship to fascism. They are presented as polar opposites but, by considering the history of the ‘Spanish revolution’, we can see that the one was the condition for the other. By drawing the working class from its fight against the whole of capitalism and bourgeois society, the democratic myth and the forces of the left that called for its defence helped defeat the working class and open the road to fascism and global war.
In understanding how the ideology of democracy has been used against the working class and by showing how ‘revolutionary’ posturing by the forces of the left of capital, whether under the mask of socialism, Trotskyism or anarchism, reinforced this ideology, revolutionaries can arm themselves against its use today and tomorrow. Today the campaigns against Trump, and populism generally, are drawing on this ideology, seeking to pull the working class into defending democracy, and with it the whole edifice of obsolescent, decomposing capitalism. This cannot be halted by united fronts, popular fronts or any compromise with ruling class but only by the independent, self-organised struggle of the working class across the globe. If this seems a distant prospect today it is not brought nearer by compromise with any part of the class enemy. In seeking to clarify this, the meeting was a small moment in an essential process.
PW 21/06/26