Lessons from Germany

Scan page 8

Today, the number of outright Na­ zis and fascists remains tiny. But the deeply deteriorated social conditions that could set a fascist movement into motion may well arise in the coming period.

The tactics of the fascists were de­ scribed by Malik Miah, writing in the August 1975 International Socialist Review (“Free Speech and the Fight Against the Ultra-Right”): “Fascists try to turn the anger of all those threatened with ruin by the capital­ ist crisis against the oppressed racial minorities and organized labor. In this country, the approach of fascist organizations in the l930s and l940s was to claim to be the representatives of the ‘little man’ against both the big capitalists and the ‘communists,’ di­ recting their fire especially at Blacks, Jews and ‘big labor.’ In his book ‘Fas­ cism and Big Business,’ Daniel Guerin points out that ‘fascism’s game is to call itself anti-capitalist without seri­ 8 SOCIALIST ACTION JUNE 2017 (Above) Nazis urge boycott of Jewish-owned shop in 1933.

ously attacking capitalism.’”

As a contribution to the discussion on how to fight fascism today, Wladek Flakin, writing in Left Voice (“The Ori­ gins of Antifa”), evaluated the experi­ ence of Germany in the 1930s: “A uni­ fied resistance among workers could have defeated the Nazis. We must not forget that in the 1933 elections, the SPD [Social Democratic Party] and KPD [Communist Party] together re­ ceived more votes than Hitler.

“But coordinated anti-fascist ac­ tion was absent. The SPD called the KPD ‘fascists painted red’ and ‘Kozis.’ The KPD called the SPD ‘social fas­ cists. And both parties gave no quar­ ter: linking up with fascists in order to fight other fascists was out of the question.

“So how did they think they could defend themselves from the Nazi KPD, on the other hand, actively fought the gangs of the Sturmab­ teilung (the brownshirts, or SA)—un­ der the impression that they alone, as a radical minority, could stand the Nazis down.

“Both parties were wrong. A real united front against fascism was needed. A united front would mean: ‘March separately, strike together!’ In other words, everyone can stick to and promote their own program, but when it comes to action, you work in concert.”

The sectarian refusal of the Social­ ists and Communists to build a unit­ ed front paved the way for Hitler’s rise to power. Together, the Socialist and Communist workers could have crushed the Nazis. In a context where there was mass unemployment and high inflation, the masses needed de­ cisive leadership, which the leaders of both parties failed to provide.

The social base of fascism is the pet­ ty bourgeoisie (“middle class”). In the struggle for power, fascism uses anticapitalist slogans, but its paymasters are the ruling class. They use the pet­ ty bourgeoisie as what Trotsky called a “battering ram” against the working class.

Fascism in power in Germany spelled the demise of the unions and any other workers’ organizations in­ dependent of the state. The regime of fascism is, in the final analysis, the government of finance capital. Hav­ ing masked their intent under anticapitalist rhetoric, the Nazis quickly subordinated all of German society to the needs of the capitalist class. —J.L.

Scan page 9

... Trump spurns Climate Accord (continued from page 1: “Trump spurns Climate Accord”) a military band swung its way through “Summertime” and other jazz tunes. Many on Twitter later compared the scene to the moments after the collision with an iceberg when a band had played on as the Titanic sunk to its doom. Indeed, on the same day as Trump’s address, sci­ entists announced that ocean warming is causing the Larson C ice sheet to break off from Antarctica and to form an iceberg the size of the state of Delaware.

But a good proportion of Trump’s allies felt they had reason to celebrate. It was a victory for the most reactionary wing of the Trump forces—from fascistic ad­ visor Steve Bannon to arch-conservative Vice President Mike Pence—as well as for a section of the capitalist class in­ vested in coal mines and other extractive industries.

In the months leading up to the Rose Garden announcement, a number of coal executives and politicians from coal-pro­ ducing areas of the country had strongly urged a pull-out from the climate pact. In a May 23 letter to Trump from Attorney General Patrick Morrisey of West Virginia and nine other state attorneys general, Morrisey wrote, “Withdrawing from the Paris agreement is an important and nec­ essary step toward reversing the harmful energy policies and unlawful overreach of the Obama era.”

Now, after four months of hemming and hawing on the issue, their man in the White House had finally decided to fulfill a key promise of the populist America First platform that Trump had promoted during his presidential campaign. And as in his campaign rallies of last year, the president pitched his June 1 speech ostensibly toward a sec­ tion of the working class, particularly in the decayed industrial areas of the “Rust Belt,” who have been hard hit by unemployment.

Of course, it was all a charade, a cover-up. Neither the coal barons nor Trump himself have any sympa­ thy for the social problems of the working class— and much less for its unemployed members, who will be hard hit by the administration’s budget rec­ ommendations to cut nutritional, medical, and hous­ ing aid to the poor.

Many critics of Trump also played their role in the cover-up. Thus we heard protestations of Trump’s announcement from a segment of corporate indus­ try, including major polluters like Exxon, which after decades of suppressing information about climate change and delaying action to stop it, now profess­ es to favor a “clean” and “green” economy—based mainly on fracked gas, in which the company is a major investor.

Similarly, much of the U.S. capitalist press—gener­ ally tied to the Democratic Party—blasted Trump’s decision as being “shortsighted” in ignoring the dire effects of climate change while isolating the U.S. from sharing in the burgeoning market for renew­ able energy products. The Washington Post took the occasion, on June 4, to extend the criticisms to Trump’s America First policy as a whole, stating that it “substitutes selfishness for realism. It implies that nations can go it alone.”

In a similar manner, newspapers gleefully report­ ed that the “realistic” pro-Wall Street grouping as­ sociated with Ivanka Trump and her husband, Jared Kushner, had counseled President Trump to main­ tain “a place at the table” in climate negotiations.

And even while Trump was still in the Rose Gar­ den trying to explain his decision, former President Obama issued a warning that the U.S. would risk missing out on the economic benefits of adhering to the Accord. He said, “The nations that remain in the Paris Agreement will be the nations that reap the ... Far right (continued from page 8: “Mass mobilization can defeat the far right”)

the fascists’ ideas ideologically and their actions through counteractions. The “no platform” ap­ proach blunts our effectiveness. It means that the struggle against racism and fascism is turned “inside out.” Instead of coming across for what it really is—a struggle in defense of the democratic rights of the working class and oppressed minori­ ties—the struggle is turned into a sterile dispute over the “rights” of the fascists. That is advanta­ benefits in jobs and industries created. I believe the United States of America should be at the front of the pack.”

It should be obvious, however, that Obama and the Democrats, who expanded fossil-fuel production in the United States to an unprecedented extreme, are hardly ones to lecture on the benefits of renewable energy.

Attorney and environmentalist Carol Dansereau, in a recent article in CounterPunch, points out: “Obama and his Party have not been climate heroes. They’ve been climate destroyers.

“Throughout his two terms in office, Obama avidly served the fossil fuel industry. He opened up vast new offshore areas for drilling, even in the wake of the BP nightmare. He delivered giant leases to coal corporations. Obama’s fracking rules were designed to reduce pollution at fracking sites ‘without slow­ ing natural gas production.’ And as fracking prolif­ erated in the U.S., Secretary of State Hillary Clinton vigorously promoted it in other countries. Tens of thousands of miles of pipelines were constructed in the U.S. with Obama’s enthusiastic blessing....

“As a result of all this, vast quantities of green­ house gases were pumped into the atmosphere un­ der Obama’s Democratic administration, bringing us closer to environmental catastrophe.”

Other political leaders of the capitalist world, whose countries compete in trade and investments with the U.S., also expressed their displeasure with Trump’s pull-out. Of course, Trump made it easy for the European leaders to mock him, with his disingenuous protests that the United States—the wealthiest and most domineering country in the world—has been victimized by less powerful eco­ nomic competitors. With little doubt, the major capitalist powers will try to take advantage of the fissure with the Trump administration over the cli­ mate issue in order to put forward their own eco­ nomic interests more assertively.

If any of the pro-capitalist critics of Trump’s pullout had really cared about the climate, they would have made sure that the Paris Accord had some teeth in it. They would have insisted on massive and con­ certed measures that allowed each country, rich and poor, to attain 100 percent renewable energy within little more than a decade. And steps to achieve a re­ geous to them, not to the antiracist movement.”

The task ahead is to mobilize the largest number of people against the agenda of the racist far right and the economic system that holds us down. All of our strategic and tactical choices should be made with this in mind. Our goal has to be to decisively shift the balance of class forces against these reactionaries.

Workers’ organizations and organizations of the oppressed are key to a mass action orientation. Left forces acting alone cannot defeat the right. The unions, with millions of members, have the social weight to drive these goons off the streets. n duction of world temperatures would be mandatory, not voluntary.

The recommendations contained in the Paris Ac­ cord—while arguably better than nothing at all— will not stop the world from heading toward climate catastrophe. In fact, the treaty serves as a convenient cushion for world leaders and the capitalist econo­ mies that they serve. It is a means for them to pre­ tend that business as usual, with non-binding prom­ ises and sluggish “market mechanisms,” can some­ how avoid the worst effects of climate change—or at least push them off into the far future.

This attitude is rife in U.S. ruling circles and in the media. It is seen not only among Wall Street conser­ vatives but even in the proposals of the most liberal section of the Democratic Party.

Thus, a supposedly “progressive” bill in the U.S. Senate sponsored by Bernie Sanders, Jeff Merkley, and Corey Booker would delay the attainment of 100 percent renewable energy to the year 2050— when it would be too late. Moreover, the proposed law specifies waiting four years until the miniscule first steps toward that goal would be mandated.

The liberal Senators’ “100 by ’50” Act would al­ locate merely $150 billion per year, less than one percent of the GDP, as the maximum to be spent in attaining their goals—nowhere near enough for the monumental task that the country faces. It is unfor­ tunate that leading environmental leaders, like Bill McKibben, have decided to stand behind this weak Senate bill.

To be sure, Trump’s withdrawal from the climate pact, and the other anti-environmental measures taken by his administration, are crippling blows. But what are the alternatives? The world cannot afford the consequences of the ineffectual nibbling at the problem of climate change by allegedly “concerned” political leaders.

The U.S. certainly can move toward the “front of the pack” (in Obama’s misplaced words). It needs to do so by launching a massive emergency proj­ ect to put the country immediately on the road to achieving 100 percent renewable energy. The means are potentially at hand, but it will take utilizing the entire budget and resources now wasted on the military and on perks for billionaire investors. The project also will require a massive reorganization of production and of society itself. Legions of work­ ers must be retrained and given employment and a clear voice in repairing the earth from the ravages of capitalism and in rebuilding society in a fully equi­ table, democratic, and sustainable manner.

Many in the environmental movement are com­ ing to understand that the present world rulers, the corporate titans and their political representatives, who consistently put the striving for capitalist prof­ its above human needs, are incapable of carrying out such essential measures.

The working-class worldwide, which suffers the worst effects of climate change, must look to taking the reins of power into its own hands, and to sup­ planting the capitalist system with a system that can fulfill the needs of human society. That system will be a socialist one. n SOCIALIST ACTION JUNE 2017 9

Scan page 10

bringing in $9 billion . c) Eliminate corporate stock options as a benefit, with a net savings of $600 million. d) Cut Justin Trudeau’s “middle class tax cut” and en­