This article stems from the debate we held at the Journal Commission.
Let's clarify its purpose immediately. Our aim was not to form an
anti-fascist front; our positions on this subject were outlined in the
previous issue of Courant Alternatif, and even less to engage in
electoral predictions. Nor was it to revisit the historical period of
fascist movements seizing power. We are talking about the far right,
which cannot be reduced to the historical phenomenon of fascism.
However, we must acknowledge a drift in power, among elites and
mainstream media, toward the far right, sometimes under the guise of the
extreme center, and consider how to oppose it.
Is there a boundary between the far right and the right?
We think so, but first, it's important to note that there's a continuum
between the two, which explains why crossing the border seems so easy.
In short, they both share an authoritarian vision of society and rely on
reactionary values, particularly patriarchal and colonial
ones-fundamentally racist, sexist, homophobic, and extractivist-and
refer to "law and order."
However, there is a significant difference: the rejection of bourgeois
parliamentary democracy and the formal rights and freedoms that come
with it. Certainly, representative democracy is just one form of
bourgeois dictatorship. But yes, it does make a difference to live in a
dictatorship or a democracy. Admittedly, the Fifth Republic isn't
entirely a parliamentary democracy, as François Mitterrand denounced
before he became president. Admittedly, it's not entirely a democracy
when you see how much the results of votes are disregarded when they
don't suit the powers that be (the referendum on Europe, the results of
the last legislative elections, etc.).
But when a minister in the interior openly proclaims himself in favor of
"the end of the rule of law," it's enough to make you shudder. And to
ask yourself again where the line is drawn between the right and the far
right. In any case, it's one of the many signs of the far-right shift in
power, a phenomenon that began several years ago (the use of
colonial-style curfews during riots, the integration of exceptional
anti-terrorist measures into ordinary legislation, the increasingly
intense criminalization of all opposition, the circumvention and
trampling of media, civic, union, and parliamentary checks and balances,
etc.).
A moment in the class war.
Growing authoritarianism is a long-standing trend, decades old, and one
that we have often denounced. This is one aspect of the class war. For
several decades, since the breakdown of the Fordist compromise, the
bourgeoisie has been methodically dismantling hard-won social gains. The
time for distributing crumbs to maintain social peace through mass
consumption that boosts industrial profits is over. The focus is now on
returning to the brutal intensification of exploitation and conquering
the last remaining markets: the privatization of healthcare and all
public services. Trade union and/or democratic freedoms are therefore
increasingly eroded. The bourgeoisie knows it is pursuing a policy that
will spread and worsen poverty. The goal is therefore to control the
population massively, to tighten the screws on the pressure cooker. The
pacification of society and social control now rely on increasingly
repressive tools (see, for example, the reforms to the welfare system,
unemployment benefits, and the treatment of poor women in the US...).
The time for compromise with social democracy is over. It's important to
clarify the meaning of the term "social democrat" here. Originally,
social democrats claimed to be Marxists, but some believed it was
possible to gradually reform capitalism in a progressive direction. They
therefore defined themselves as reformists and rejected the
revolutionary option. In other words, the current Socialist Party (PS)
cannot be considered social democratic; it hasn't implemented any
socially progressive reforms for a long time. On the other hand, La
France Insoumise (LFI) can be described as a social democratic party,
and we can see how this party is being treated right now...
The "official" far right (National Rally (RN), Zemmour) has become an
option for big business. Meetings have taken place, and they have been
acknowledged and openly admitted. This is also evident in the investment
of leading figures emblematic of the far right in the media, which they
control with an iron fist. All readers of C.A. are familiar with
Bolloré's media empire. Sterin, Charles Gave (Zemmour), and the Bolloré,
Rothschild, and Agnelli families are partners in the John-Henry Newman
Foundation, which finances, among other things, the Catholic University
of the West. Exxon Mobil, Koch Industries, Skaife Foundations, Walton
Family Foundation, and Richard Mellon Scaife fund Kevin Roberts'
Heritage Foundations; Charles d'Anjou and Régis Le Sommier support
Omerta, Iskander Safa supports Valeurs Actuelles, Erik Tégnir supports
Frontières and Furia (the latter also backed by the Proud Boys and Storm
Front), Elisabeth Lévy supports Causeur, and Jean-Claude Godin supports
TV Libertés. This demonstrates the extent of business interests'
investment in far-right propaganda. In fact, the investment of corporate
ideologues in the media is nothing new; it's the infamous "wall of
money," already notorious before the war. It is nevertheless important
to note their far-right stance.
On some specific characteristics of the current far right: First, we
must consider what the widespread adoption of digital technology has
changed. We live in a surveillance society, to which we are more or less
willingly exposed. The internet is an extraordinary surveillance tool,
allowing authorities to track our actions, our movements, and aspects of
our private lives (health, income, purchases, etc.), and enabling the
interconnection of all these files. On the one hand, we are increasingly
forced to use the internet for a range of administrative tasks. On the
other hand, activist groups have seized upon digital technology to
communicate and even organize, making them particularly vulnerable to
control by an authoritarian power. No more need for anonymous
denunciations or vigilante groups; social media is here. And while we
can limit its use, it's impossible to completely disconnect. Without the
internet, there's no way to update your status when you're unemployed,
extremely limited banking options, difficulties with taxes, and if you
refuse Doctolib (a French online medical services platform), almost all
doctors are on it. Students and their parents are forced to use Pronote
(a French online platform for online learning), and so on. And as for
social media, rejecting it entirely means cutting yourself off from a
part of the social fabric and therefore from social movements. The
potential for surveillance has thus reached an unprecedented level
compared to what we've seen in other periods. But let's remember that
surveillance will never abolish revolt. The extreme rightward shift in
power is very clear and can be seen in official statements, the torrents
of propaganda poured out by the mainstream media, the evolution of
legislation, and the hardening of repressive practices. On the other
hand, we are not observing a social dynamic of extreme rightward shift
in society. Contrary to what we are constantly told, racist acts are not
on the rise. What is increasing is the number of times they are
reported, an indication that they are much less tolerated than before.
Furthermore, this includes all reports of antisemitism, which very often
actually concern pro-Palestinian positions. Those of us who are older
remember that in their youth, racist attacks were relatively common
occurrences. This is no longer the case. Racist violence among the
general population has decreased (though not police violence). A
sociological indicator confirms this: mixed marriages are constantly
increasing. And mixed marriages mean blended families, grandparents,
cousins, uncles and aunts, and so on. There are issues on which the
population holds positions largely opposed to those of the politicians
who speak on its behalf: raising the retirement age, sympathy for
Palestine, and especially for the Gazans... Contrary to what it claims,
the far right does not rely on a popular movement and, for the moment,
is not truly capable of organizing large-scale demonstrations.
Certainly, there are a few armed far-right groups that take advantage of
the impunity they enjoy to commit atrocities. There are the militias of
hunters, the FNSEA (National Federation of Farmers' Unions), and the
Rural Coordination, used to intimidate environmentalists, and especially
the members of the Confédération Paysanne (Peasant Confederation) union.
But this does not constitute a social movement, a popular force.
Perhaps the term "democratorship" best describes the current situation.
France has the appearance of a democracy: free elections, parliament,
separation of powers, "independence of the judiciary," a constitution...
But at the same time, the exercise of power is extremely authoritarian.
French police forces are regularly condemned by Europe for their
violence and disproportionate use of weapons. The right to demonstrate
is no longer respected. Neither is the right to free expression, with
the numerous convictions of pro-Palestinian statements, even leading to
the banning of flags in town halls. For the media and the government,
the far left of the "republican arc" ends with the Socialist Party (PS),
while the National Rally (RN) and Zemmour are included without question.
In short, beneath the veneer of democracy, practices are increasingly
resembling those of a dictatorship.
Fighting the Far Right
Of course, the fight against the far right is more relevant than ever.
But we can easily conclude from the above that it will not be achieved
through elections, nor through an anti-fascist front. The "republican
vote" in the last elections is a true caricature: it allowed the
election of politicians whose first concern was then to ally themselves
with the RN. Moral anti-fascism has proven its ineffectiveness since its
inception. For all these questions, we refer you to the previous issue
of Courant Alternatif.
The far right relies on reactionary values, and it is these values that
we must fight. We are not talking about morality or purity here. If we
fight racism, it is not simply because it is unpleasant. We fight racism
because it is opposed to our ideal of universal emancipation. We also
fight it because it is a weapon of division in the hands of employers,
like nationalism, for example. And it is very easy to show how employers
first attack those who are most vulnerable before turning on others. Let
us recall, for example, that the mass layoffs in the steel industry were
preceded by mass layoffs of immigrants. The treatment suffered by Greece
when it harbored leftist leanings was the exact application of what had
been experienced previously in Third World countries for decades. When
oppression rages against our fellow immigrants and foreigners, if we
stand idly by, we are accepting everyone's future.
There is, in particular, a great deal of work to be done within the
national education system. School is already a place for learning
discipline, competition, hierarchy, and nationalism through civic
education (whatever name we give it). Reactionary interference is
rampant. There are the political dictates regarding the curriculum
(teaching the benefits of colonization, avoiding certain historical
events, not addressing certain topics or only doing so in a very
controlled manner, secularism in its increasingly Catholic version,
etc.). There is also the problem of "vigilant parents." Their influence
is all the more difficult to combat because it's not a question of
playing teachers against parents, but rather of addressing the
fundamental issues of education itself. Social media plays a significant
role here: it's a place where some people can whip each other into a
frenzy without any safeguards (like reminders of reality, for example),
until the rumor takes hold. We also remember the "day without school" a
few years ago, when the far right demonstrated its ability to reach a
huge number of parents individually via text message.
There's also the perennial question of the influence of mainstream
media, a question as old as propaganda itself. How can we fight it when
we don't have their clout? In fact, their strength lies in their control
of the agenda, their ability to ignore certain events and sensationalize
others. It's on the battleground of activism that we can respond to
them. It's when society participates in movements that it can observe
that the media either fails to report on them or reports them falsely.
This doesn't, however, give us access to the information we need, nor
does it allow us to disseminate what we would like beyond our small circles.
Generally speaking, as we have written on numerous occasions, it is
through struggles that we fight the far right. Or more precisely, it is
through social struggles. When there is a large-scale movement against
pension reform, there is radio silence from the far right, thoroughly
embarrassed by the contradiction between its demagogic rhetoric and its
staunch support for big business, as well as its love of order. On the
other hand, hurling anathemas in the name of moralistic antifascism is
the best way to pave the way for them. We won't win by excluding a
segment of the population from the struggles from the outset. Let us
remember that at the beginning the Yellow Vest movement, now
mythologized by the entire far left, was disqualified in the name of a
supposed proximity with the far right. And let's remember the lessons of
September 10th. Things were handled well to prevent any possibility of a
dangerous slide. And there was no movement stemming from September 10th
beyond the week of the 10th to the 18th. It is participation in a social
movement that fosters political awareness, not the other way around. Of
course, we must combat reactionary ideas within movements. But neither
through exclusion nor through class contempt.
Finally, one last question remains. Are we prepared, in our practices
and ways of life, to resist a far-right government that has come to
power, which could still happen soon, all without succumbing to
paranoia? It seems to us that this is far from certain...
Sylvie
http://oclibertaire.lautre.net/spip.php?article4577
_________________________________________
A - I N F O S N E W S S E R V I C E
By, For, and About Anarchists
Send news reports to A-infos-en mailing list
A-infos-en@ainfos.ca
Let's clarify its purpose immediately. Our aim was not to form an
anti-fascist front; our positions on this subject were outlined in the
previous issue of Courant Alternatif, and even less to engage in
electoral predictions. Nor was it to revisit the historical period of
fascist movements seizing power. We are talking about the far right,
which cannot be reduced to the historical phenomenon of fascism.
However, we must acknowledge a drift in power, among elites and
mainstream media, toward the far right, sometimes under the guise of the
extreme center, and consider how to oppose it.
Is there a boundary between the far right and the right?
We think so, but first, it's important to note that there's a continuum
between the two, which explains why crossing the border seems so easy.
In short, they both share an authoritarian vision of society and rely on
reactionary values, particularly patriarchal and colonial
ones-fundamentally racist, sexist, homophobic, and extractivist-and
refer to "law and order."
However, there is a significant difference: the rejection of bourgeois
parliamentary democracy and the formal rights and freedoms that come
with it. Certainly, representative democracy is just one form of
bourgeois dictatorship. But yes, it does make a difference to live in a
dictatorship or a democracy. Admittedly, the Fifth Republic isn't
entirely a parliamentary democracy, as François Mitterrand denounced
before he became president. Admittedly, it's not entirely a democracy
when you see how much the results of votes are disregarded when they
don't suit the powers that be (the referendum on Europe, the results of
the last legislative elections, etc.).
But when a minister in the interior openly proclaims himself in favor of
"the end of the rule of law," it's enough to make you shudder. And to
ask yourself again where the line is drawn between the right and the far
right. In any case, it's one of the many signs of the far-right shift in
power, a phenomenon that began several years ago (the use of
colonial-style curfews during riots, the integration of exceptional
anti-terrorist measures into ordinary legislation, the increasingly
intense criminalization of all opposition, the circumvention and
trampling of media, civic, union, and parliamentary checks and balances,
etc.).
A moment in the class war.
Growing authoritarianism is a long-standing trend, decades old, and one
that we have often denounced. This is one aspect of the class war. For
several decades, since the breakdown of the Fordist compromise, the
bourgeoisie has been methodically dismantling hard-won social gains. The
time for distributing crumbs to maintain social peace through mass
consumption that boosts industrial profits is over. The focus is now on
returning to the brutal intensification of exploitation and conquering
the last remaining markets: the privatization of healthcare and all
public services. Trade union and/or democratic freedoms are therefore
increasingly eroded. The bourgeoisie knows it is pursuing a policy that
will spread and worsen poverty. The goal is therefore to control the
population massively, to tighten the screws on the pressure cooker. The
pacification of society and social control now rely on increasingly
repressive tools (see, for example, the reforms to the welfare system,
unemployment benefits, and the treatment of poor women in the US...).
The time for compromise with social democracy is over. It's important to
clarify the meaning of the term "social democrat" here. Originally,
social democrats claimed to be Marxists, but some believed it was
possible to gradually reform capitalism in a progressive direction. They
therefore defined themselves as reformists and rejected the
revolutionary option. In other words, the current Socialist Party (PS)
cannot be considered social democratic; it hasn't implemented any
socially progressive reforms for a long time. On the other hand, La
France Insoumise (LFI) can be described as a social democratic party,
and we can see how this party is being treated right now...
The "official" far right (National Rally (RN), Zemmour) has become an
option for big business. Meetings have taken place, and they have been
acknowledged and openly admitted. This is also evident in the investment
of leading figures emblematic of the far right in the media, which they
control with an iron fist. All readers of C.A. are familiar with
Bolloré's media empire. Sterin, Charles Gave (Zemmour), and the Bolloré,
Rothschild, and Agnelli families are partners in the John-Henry Newman
Foundation, which finances, among other things, the Catholic University
of the West. Exxon Mobil, Koch Industries, Skaife Foundations, Walton
Family Foundation, and Richard Mellon Scaife fund Kevin Roberts'
Heritage Foundations; Charles d'Anjou and Régis Le Sommier support
Omerta, Iskander Safa supports Valeurs Actuelles, Erik Tégnir supports
Frontières and Furia (the latter also backed by the Proud Boys and Storm
Front), Elisabeth Lévy supports Causeur, and Jean-Claude Godin supports
TV Libertés. This demonstrates the extent of business interests'
investment in far-right propaganda. In fact, the investment of corporate
ideologues in the media is nothing new; it's the infamous "wall of
money," already notorious before the war. It is nevertheless important
to note their far-right stance.
On some specific characteristics of the current far right: First, we
must consider what the widespread adoption of digital technology has
changed. We live in a surveillance society, to which we are more or less
willingly exposed. The internet is an extraordinary surveillance tool,
allowing authorities to track our actions, our movements, and aspects of
our private lives (health, income, purchases, etc.), and enabling the
interconnection of all these files. On the one hand, we are increasingly
forced to use the internet for a range of administrative tasks. On the
other hand, activist groups have seized upon digital technology to
communicate and even organize, making them particularly vulnerable to
control by an authoritarian power. No more need for anonymous
denunciations or vigilante groups; social media is here. And while we
can limit its use, it's impossible to completely disconnect. Without the
internet, there's no way to update your status when you're unemployed,
extremely limited banking options, difficulties with taxes, and if you
refuse Doctolib (a French online medical services platform), almost all
doctors are on it. Students and their parents are forced to use Pronote
(a French online platform for online learning), and so on. And as for
social media, rejecting it entirely means cutting yourself off from a
part of the social fabric and therefore from social movements. The
potential for surveillance has thus reached an unprecedented level
compared to what we've seen in other periods. But let's remember that
surveillance will never abolish revolt. The extreme rightward shift in
power is very clear and can be seen in official statements, the torrents
of propaganda poured out by the mainstream media, the evolution of
legislation, and the hardening of repressive practices. On the other
hand, we are not observing a social dynamic of extreme rightward shift
in society. Contrary to what we are constantly told, racist acts are not
on the rise. What is increasing is the number of times they are
reported, an indication that they are much less tolerated than before.
Furthermore, this includes all reports of antisemitism, which very often
actually concern pro-Palestinian positions. Those of us who are older
remember that in their youth, racist attacks were relatively common
occurrences. This is no longer the case. Racist violence among the
general population has decreased (though not police violence). A
sociological indicator confirms this: mixed marriages are constantly
increasing. And mixed marriages mean blended families, grandparents,
cousins, uncles and aunts, and so on. There are issues on which the
population holds positions largely opposed to those of the politicians
who speak on its behalf: raising the retirement age, sympathy for
Palestine, and especially for the Gazans... Contrary to what it claims,
the far right does not rely on a popular movement and, for the moment,
is not truly capable of organizing large-scale demonstrations.
Certainly, there are a few armed far-right groups that take advantage of
the impunity they enjoy to commit atrocities. There are the militias of
hunters, the FNSEA (National Federation of Farmers' Unions), and the
Rural Coordination, used to intimidate environmentalists, and especially
the members of the Confédération Paysanne (Peasant Confederation) union.
But this does not constitute a social movement, a popular force.
Perhaps the term "democratorship" best describes the current situation.
France has the appearance of a democracy: free elections, parliament,
separation of powers, "independence of the judiciary," a constitution...
But at the same time, the exercise of power is extremely authoritarian.
French police forces are regularly condemned by Europe for their
violence and disproportionate use of weapons. The right to demonstrate
is no longer respected. Neither is the right to free expression, with
the numerous convictions of pro-Palestinian statements, even leading to
the banning of flags in town halls. For the media and the government,
the far left of the "republican arc" ends with the Socialist Party (PS),
while the National Rally (RN) and Zemmour are included without question.
In short, beneath the veneer of democracy, practices are increasingly
resembling those of a dictatorship.
Fighting the Far Right
Of course, the fight against the far right is more relevant than ever.
But we can easily conclude from the above that it will not be achieved
through elections, nor through an anti-fascist front. The "republican
vote" in the last elections is a true caricature: it allowed the
election of politicians whose first concern was then to ally themselves
with the RN. Moral anti-fascism has proven its ineffectiveness since its
inception. For all these questions, we refer you to the previous issue
of Courant Alternatif.
The far right relies on reactionary values, and it is these values that
we must fight. We are not talking about morality or purity here. If we
fight racism, it is not simply because it is unpleasant. We fight racism
because it is opposed to our ideal of universal emancipation. We also
fight it because it is a weapon of division in the hands of employers,
like nationalism, for example. And it is very easy to show how employers
first attack those who are most vulnerable before turning on others. Let
us recall, for example, that the mass layoffs in the steel industry were
preceded by mass layoffs of immigrants. The treatment suffered by Greece
when it harbored leftist leanings was the exact application of what had
been experienced previously in Third World countries for decades. When
oppression rages against our fellow immigrants and foreigners, if we
stand idly by, we are accepting everyone's future.
There is, in particular, a great deal of work to be done within the
national education system. School is already a place for learning
discipline, competition, hierarchy, and nationalism through civic
education (whatever name we give it). Reactionary interference is
rampant. There are the political dictates regarding the curriculum
(teaching the benefits of colonization, avoiding certain historical
events, not addressing certain topics or only doing so in a very
controlled manner, secularism in its increasingly Catholic version,
etc.). There is also the problem of "vigilant parents." Their influence
is all the more difficult to combat because it's not a question of
playing teachers against parents, but rather of addressing the
fundamental issues of education itself. Social media plays a significant
role here: it's a place where some people can whip each other into a
frenzy without any safeguards (like reminders of reality, for example),
until the rumor takes hold. We also remember the "day without school" a
few years ago, when the far right demonstrated its ability to reach a
huge number of parents individually via text message.
There's also the perennial question of the influence of mainstream
media, a question as old as propaganda itself. How can we fight it when
we don't have their clout? In fact, their strength lies in their control
of the agenda, their ability to ignore certain events and sensationalize
others. It's on the battleground of activism that we can respond to
them. It's when society participates in movements that it can observe
that the media either fails to report on them or reports them falsely.
This doesn't, however, give us access to the information we need, nor
does it allow us to disseminate what we would like beyond our small circles.
Generally speaking, as we have written on numerous occasions, it is
through struggles that we fight the far right. Or more precisely, it is
through social struggles. When there is a large-scale movement against
pension reform, there is radio silence from the far right, thoroughly
embarrassed by the contradiction between its demagogic rhetoric and its
staunch support for big business, as well as its love of order. On the
other hand, hurling anathemas in the name of moralistic antifascism is
the best way to pave the way for them. We won't win by excluding a
segment of the population from the struggles from the outset. Let us
remember that at the beginning the Yellow Vest movement, now
mythologized by the entire far left, was disqualified in the name of a
supposed proximity with the far right. And let's remember the lessons of
September 10th. Things were handled well to prevent any possibility of a
dangerous slide. And there was no movement stemming from September 10th
beyond the week of the 10th to the 18th. It is participation in a social
movement that fosters political awareness, not the other way around. Of
course, we must combat reactionary ideas within movements. But neither
through exclusion nor through class contempt.
Finally, one last question remains. Are we prepared, in our practices
and ways of life, to resist a far-right government that has come to
power, which could still happen soon, all without succumbing to
paranoia? It seems to us that this is far from certain...
Sylvie
http://oclibertaire.lautre.net/spip.php?article4577
_________________________________________
A - I N F O S N E W S S E R V I C E
By, For, and About Anarchists
Send news reports to A-infos-en mailing list
A-infos-en@ainfos.ca
Geen opmerkingen:
Een reactie posten