A-Infos (en) France, OCL CA #355 - Facing the Far-Right Shift in Power - FAR-RIGHT DOSSIER: A LOVE AFFAIR WITH CAPITAL (ca, de, fr, it, pt, tr)[machine translation]

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
Subscribe/Unsubscribe https://ainfos.ca/mailman/listinfo/a-infos-en
Archive: http://ainfos.ca/en