Bounced from Owen Jones

[Louis Proyect <lnp3@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Comrade,

         George, please cut the crap. I'm really sick of downloading my
email to find a silly one-line question with little explanation, which
comrades then attempt to patiently explain, followed by a short
ultra-leftist diatribe from yourself.

The two main interventions in Austria came from America and Europe. Now,
Western Europe has long been the principle foreign base of American
imperialism. With the exception of a few vaguely nationalistic regimes such
as those in France, most regimes here have been proxies or at least strong
allies of US imperialism, in particular Britain and Germany. There was a
particular reason for this during the Cold War - the US was determined to
defend its interests in Europe from the USSR; the fall of Western Europe to
the Soviet Union would have been devastating to US imperialism. Governments
here always had to pledge loyalty to, or at the very least co-operation with
US imperialism. Any regime here the US would fear would align itself with
the USSR would have met the same treatment it gave to those regimes in its
backyard, Latin America - it would be deposed by any means the US could
muster.

The Cold War is over, but the hold of US imperialism over Europe has not
really loosened. It has been challenged to an extent by the ruling classes
of Europe gradually uniting through the European Union as the world reverts
to a pre-1914 inter-imperialist rivalry state; but the regimes across Europe
are unswerving allies of the US. This is, in particular, true of Britain,
whose regime is certainly nothing less than a US proxy, which happily allies
itself with any US imperialist venture whether it be in Yugoslavia or Iraq,
and even when the US bourgeoisie threatened that of Britain in a threatened
trade war, the government refused to resist.

Western Europe is vital to US interests - being the most high developed and
industrialised bloc in the world, it is the most important foreign market
for the US to export to. A Western Europe with hostile regimes would
threaten it as an American market; for this reason it attempts to maintain
the friendliest regimes possible. If we think back to a couple of days
before the war against Yugoslavia, Clinton spoke of maintaining a friendly
Europe to sell American products to. At any and all costs American
imperialism will defend its markets in Europe,

With the collapse of Stalinism, US imperialism is moving East and
surrounding Russia. It has replaced Russia's sphere of influence in Eastern
Europe - firstly, by ensuring regimes friendly to American imperialism are
in power and hostile in varying degrees to Russia. This mainly includes the
Ukraine, Poland, the Czech Republic and the ex-Yugoslav States with the
obvious exception of Serbia. The only regimes in Eastern Europe hostile to
US imperialism and friendlier to Russia are those of Yugoslavia and
Byelorussia. The biggest boost to US imperialism since the collapse of
Stalinism was the Kosovo war; this sucked in more states of Eastern Europe,
hastening the inclusion of three countries into NATO; gaining stronger
support from the regimes of nations like Montenegro, Albania, Macedonia and
Hungary; exposing the weaknesses of Russian power and breaking Eastern
European regimes further from its control; and enforcing its dominance in
the area with a display of imperial force and a permanent base in Kosovo, as
well as warning off other potentially resistant regimes with its reaction to
that of Milosevic.

US imperialism has achieved almost absolute dominance in Europe. It has
established and protected markets in Eastern Europe. Nascent Russian
imperialism has been almost demolished.

What has this got to do with Austria? Well, I don't believe anybody
believes American imperialism really gives a damn about the preservation of
bourgeois democracy in Austria. Despite this, it is commonly agreed by
Marxists that the general trend with the collapse of Stalinism is US support
for bourgeois democracy to ensure the opening of markets and imposition of
neo-liberalism, the absence of any real organised threat from the working
class meaning no requirement for the bourgeoisie to use authoritarian
regimes to smash them down. However, regimes similar in character to the
party of Haidar have been supported recently by the US - notably, that of
Tudjman in Croatia which displayed Nazi sympathies. However, this regime was
definitely supportive of American imperialism, chiefly because it looked for
US aid to maintain itself in power and carry out the restoration of
capitalist counter-revolution.

It must also be noted that, in 1996, the descendant of Mussolini's fascist
party became part of a coalition in Italy with minimal condemnation from
anybody then.

The point is, with the case of Austria, the Freedom Party has much larger
support - over quarter of people who actually voted crossed its box. It has
the very real potential to come to power. Haider has stated that it is his
ambition to be chancellor by 2002. Yet the coming to power of such a party
in Europe could cause tremendous instability. It could bolster far-right
parties across Europe. Its policies would spark immense opposition, to the
point of polarising the population - potentially many could be radicalised
in reaction to it. But even more worrying to American imperialism, it could
further destabilise Germany, the two being linked culturally and
historically. Because fascism is the party of despair, its banner is already
rising in ex-East Germany, whose workers have been impoverished by the
re-introduction of capitalism. Germany is the most powerful nation in
Europe, and it is in the interests of American imperialism to maintain its
stability.

It must be said it is hard to call Haider's Freedom Party a "fascist" party
exactly. Its policies are thoroughly reactionary - with what a bourgeois
paper this morning called "quasi-Thatcherite", with policies such as cutting
welfare spending, increasing the age of retirement, cutting public sector
jobs, privatising industries, etc... Simultaneously, as it is common for
far-right parties to do, it masquerades behind a social-orientated programme
- to give every Austrian a job, to stand up for the workers, as being more
radical than the Social Democrats, and so on. It does include extreme
reactionary nationalistic policies such as stopping immigration because
supposedly Austria is being "swamped" by foreigners and there is too much
foreign "influence" in the country.

It is more than enough to cause instability in Europe. Instability would
damage US interests in the continent; at all costs will it maintain a stable
Europe which means a stable market.

The European Union also has its motives...it could be plunged into crisis
by an extreme nationalistic party in Austria. The EU can be seen as the
union of the ruling classes of Europe, and the general trend is for the
union to become even closer, such as with the introduction of a European
currency. Bourgeois papers here in Britain have been talking about a looming
crisis in the EU because of this party.

If we think back a bit as well, the British ruling class was very hostile
to German re-unification because it feared a strong German imperialism in
Europe. It is said that Haider is a pan-German who would gladly unite
Austria and Germany, further strengthening German imperialism to the fear of
the other European states.

I am expecting a nationalist backlash in Austria against what may be seen
as the US and the EU conspiring against the Austrian masses. That is
precisely the sentiment the Freedom party could indeed capitalise on, and
allow it to get away with becoming even more reactionary.

I have been hearing quite a lot of other speculation in the bourgeois
press. A BBC correspondent stated that insider information had revealed the
president of Austria had actually demanded other European rulers threaten
the country so he could gain more concessions out of Haider - if that is
true, it seems to have backfired. I have also read that Haider's party is
secretly hoping the coalition will fail so that it will seize power.

Whatever is the case, fascist and semi-fascist parties appear to be on the
rise in Europe - in particular in Eastern Europe, such as in ex-East
Germany, Yugoslavia (that of Sesijl), Romania, and Russia. This is no doubt
a reaction of despair (rather than a hopeful alternative) to the devastation
caused by the re-establishment of capitalism, and imposition of
neo-liberalism. Now it appears it is spreading to Austria. But I think it is
too early to state that bourgeois liberal democracy in Europe is threatened
by the spectre of fascism, as it was in the 1920s; its support base does not
allow this. Yet if as some are speculating we are leading to a catastrophic
capitalist collapse, and the workers' movement becomes a threat again to the
bourgeoisie, there is certainly the groundwork for another emergence of
fascism. Except that's so potentially distant it would be silly to start
making predictions.

The only thing we can do is attempt to rebuild the workers' movement, or at
least prepare it through international regroupment and unification, to build
a defence to any future re-emergence of fascism in Europe. George's
suggestion appears to sit at home and chat about it otherwise we'll be
supporting the EU. The EU is terrified about its stability; we should be
worried about the consequences this will have on the Austrian working class
and the workers of Europe at large. Already trade unions are preparing
protests in Vienna against the extremely reactionary economic policies this
new regime will implement.

And really, I'm no supporter of the "bosses' club" that the EU is, but to
state that it is becoming fascistic because it is intervening despotically
in the political affairs of Austria is pretty absurd. That is not a
characteristic of fascism, no. This is not the European ruling class
directing its fire against the Austrian working class, or violently
suppressing their movement, or enforcing bourgeois rule against a potential
working class uprising and rooting out all workers' organisations in
Austria...then we could start talking about fascism. This is a quarrel
between two capitalist camps...the federation of European capitalists and
the Austrian regime.

Perhaps you should learn more about fascism before you start chucking it
around as though it was a convenient insult to merely throw at something you
don't particularly like.

Cheers

       Owen


> The only correct way to fight fascism in Austria is by fighting against the
> source of
> fascism --monopoly capitalism. Ranting and raving outside Austrian
> embassies simply plays
> into the hands of both fascism and the EU.
>
> The EU have mobilised against Austrian fascism joining the government. They
> are simply
> doing this to protect the imperialist EU. This represents a new turn by the
> EU to control
> domestic politics more directly. This indicates the growing danger of the EU
to the
> democracies of individual countries. If a very radically left party wins
> power they may
> just as likely mobilise against that government too. The more success the EU
has in
> controlling and even dictating the politics of individual countries the
> more despotic it
> becomes --thereby sharing some of the characteristics of fascism.
>
> As I said the best way to fight fascism is by fighting imperialism  --not
> assisting it by
> going along with the imperialist EU. Indeed it is the EU that has helped
> create conditions
> for the emergence of fascism.
>
> Simply protesting against a fascist element existing in the Austrian
> government as many of
> these protesters are is mere liberalism. It wants capitalism but a
> respectable capitalism.
>
> Warm regards
> George Pennefather


Louis Proyect
Marxism mailing list: http://www.marxmail.org/