“And here we have a terrible warning. For when the deadly wounds of the profit system deepen to a point where it can no longer be doctored, it could easily be that we are facing a new phase of fascist counter-revolution – yes even in Britain. Under new names and titles of course. Not Jordan’s or Oswald Mosley’s fascism, for we are familiar with its notes, and we will not be deceived by it, but some new movement that will have plenty of populist-exalting socialist camouflage hiding its malevolence until it blinds the people once more.”
These are the prophetic words of the philosopher JR Jones, as far back as 1963, in his classic essay Yr Argyfwng Gwacter Ystyr [The Crisis of Meaninglessness]. This was a text which traced the fall of Welsh Christian Nonconformity and reflected on its dangers. His concern was that this moral and critical vacuum would leave the Welsh a people prey to a new form of fascism. With the arrival of Nigel Farage’s Reform as the opposition party of the Senedd – a populist would-be demagogue who has cultivated his popularity through xenophobic politics – we must ask, has JR’s counter-revolution now arrived?
Cordon Sanitaire
Back in 2017, when UKIP were settling in the Senedd, I wrote a blog on the question, are UKIP fascists? This was one of a number of pieces during this period trying to warn against the threat of their growing success.
At that time Simon Brooks and I were trying to convince the political class to follow in the footsteps of the continent’s progressive politicians, who traditionally erected a “cordon sanitaire” around far-right parties. Broadly speaking this is the idea of not engaging with their politicians except in terms of what is required in fulfilling democratic responsibilities – partly with the intention of demonstrating in a symbolic way that their attitudes are not to be tolerated within a healthy democratic society.
Simon found some sympathy from within Plaid Cymru. For my part there was little interest within the Labour community.
Let’s not stir the pot, let’s not generate further controversy by reacting in such a heavy-handed manner. Let’s wait for them to make fools of themselves and for the problem will go away. And in no time Hamilton and his clowns were part of the furniture, politicians of the establishment, if a little disorganized and indecisive, shall we say.
Of course little by little that group started to unravel, and I’m sure many would have felt that the laissez-faire tactic had worked – and that the problem had disappeared. But of course, the reasons for the support for UKIP never faded, and indeed the living conditions and frustrations of the masses got worse under the Tories, the failure of Brexit, and Keir Starmer’s insipid Labour Government. And ironically enough, Brexit caused a huge surge in immigration of the very people Farage and his disciples railed against.
You could almost believe that this was deliberate, and the fanning of the flames of hatred that has ensued.
More than one of my essays warned that the counter-revolution would not end, and that there was a danger that this force would come to power, either in the form of a coalition with the Conservatives or by being normalized within mainstream parties.
And so we see today, in their most recent manifestation as Reform UK, Farage and his politics ascending to the point where almost 30% of voters in Wales support him – where the causes of deprivation and frustration are among the greatest in the nations and regions of Britain (and where of course loyalty to their right-wing competitors the Tories has always been at its weakest).
In all this, the question remains, isn’t Farage a fascist?
This is not just an abstract question. Because from the point of view of fighting back, and attracting their electors, we need to understand the nature of what we oppose.
The Basics of Fascism
The analysis I offered in 2017 remains current because the form of politics has not changed between the UKIP of yore and the Senedd’s Reform – both being Farage’s parties. The essence of the argument is that there are enough points of connection between traditional Fascism and his politics – and what is generally labelled as the hard right today – to recognize the latter as an evolution of the former (as JR assumed).
In the same way we are familiar with terms such as neo-conservatism and neo-liberalism to describe current versions of old doctrines, “neo-fascism” is a suitable term for Farage, Trump and the like.
Looking at the textbook definitions of Fascism (in this case Hoffman and Graham, 2006) the continuities are as follows:
- Adherence to a form of ultra-nationalism which claims a semi-divine status for the ethnic state as the core of our identity, supported by xenophobia and racism towards the “other” who do not meet the benchmarks of that ethnic identity (these are necessary conditions for identifying an ideology as fascistic in some sense).
- Attacking the intellectual and political values of the Enlightenment, undermining intellectuals, the truth and liberal democratic concepts such as human rights.
- Tendencies towards authoritarianism, if not totalitarianism, espousing intervention in, and assimilation of, civic society and its institutions on behalf of the state.
- Taking advantage of economic deprivation in order to promote populist politics with a socialist veneer, but in practice working hand in hand with capitalism.
- Advocating violence, against those who either stand in the way of nationalist objectives abroad, or who represent alleged internal threats (immigrants, asylum seekers, minority groups, the elite, ‘traitors’).
Characteristics of Neo-fascism
Despite the consistency in terms of themes, and the xenophobic, racist essence of the new fascism, there are obvious, fundamental differences that need to be recognized in order to understand it properly, and in order to avoid comparing the two as like for like – a tendency which minimizes the horrors of the original fascism and which too easily allows some to dismiss the comparison altogether.
The most fundamental difference appears in the first instance to be with respect to violence and especially militarism. Farage and Trump at first blush have been far from characters who seek to don military uniform, glorify war or foster such a culture in civic society through various organizations. A good thing too.
But of course, that does not mean that there is no undertone of violence related to their politics, indeed it is a tone that is becoming ever more audible.
It can be suggested that this aspect is manifested in more hidden ways, through the camouflage of the businessman, and informal links with quasi-autonomous groups and individuals, extremists such as Tommy Robinson and the QAnon crew in the USA who attacked Capitol Hill. Farage and Trump project the vibe of mobsters with a mass group of heavies shadowing them, there to cause mayhem and destruction when the need is there.
With Trump gaining power a second time, however, we have seen the explicit manifestation of violence through the hands of the state in the form of ICE forces, which recall former totalitarian police forces. Furthermore, where there was rhetorical opposition to foreign war by both, a tinge of the traditional fascist approach in the field of international politics, and its imperialist aspects, have manifested themselves in the case of Greenland and Iran. The concern is that the original camouflage is being dispensed with and that the jackboot is being donned.
The ‘business’ aspect also presents itself as another fundamental difference that may lead people to assume we are not facing some form of fascism. Because Farage and Trump are driven by money, the nationalist, semi-sacred, prophetic attitudes that drove the original fascism have been limited to accessories such MAGA hats worn with a shiny suit, and rather vague ideas about national and cultural superiority.
Furthermore, the “socialist camouflage” is only somewhat visible in their case. There are occasional appeals to the idea that the elite (the elite other than them, that is) make life difficult for the many, but the truth is that they do not make much effort to maintain any shades of populist economic policies (despite them appealing directly to the working class, such as Farage’s latest pitch to the unions).
In their case the underlying link between fascism and capitalism is never far from sight. Indeed the move towards what is called Corporatocracy is obvious – namely governance for the benefit of the corporations and a moneyed elite such as Musk and those who finance Farage. Indeed, what is impressive is how little camouflage is needed, apparently, to blind the masses to the interests that Farage and his ilk represent.
Finally their petitions in support of the freedom of the individual, or libertarian freedom to be precise (for example the right to deplete the earth’s resources, or aim hatred at others) can create the impression of an anti-authoritarian attitude. However, in practice we see an intermittent authoritarianism that suits them to adopt occasionally, usually in the face of the challenges from the press or academia, or for example in proposals such as those from Reform in Wales to interfere with our museums.
Again, we must be clear that, as worrying as these developments are, they are currently far from the totalitarian aspects of the 20th century which saw the complete assimilation of society (under Hitler and Stalin) by government and their secret police.
Overall, then, it seems clear to say that it is not the fascism of Hitler or Mussolini – or Jordan or Moseley for that matter – that we see in the figure of Farage or Trump today. However, the points of connection and essential characteristics are sufficient to hold that we are facing what is apt to be known as a neofascist counter-revolution, in the form of a new, less extreme, populist-exalting movement.
Killing Me Softly
To turn to arguably the more important question, then, what are the practical implications of all this? Well, firstly I don’t believe endlessly shouting that Reform are neofascists is so helpful. By now it is difficult to see that this will be an effective tactic as many are so inured to the idea they are somehow not. It is nevertheless important to remember what kind of party we are dealing with, in terms of being firm in our principles, and in our understanding of the nature of the threat.
In that respect recognizing Farage as a neofascist, and being vocal about the fact from time to time, can be important, and not allowing his supporters to deny this (nor the organizations that offer him a platform). Secondly, it must be accepted, especially considering his position as the leader of Reform (which is effectively a company without any democratic internal structures) that the Party itself is therefore – in terms of its corporate personality and brand – necessarily neofascist. All this is clear enough.
However, it is far more complex from the point of view of understanding the position of members of the Senedd and ordinary members of the Party, and supporters among the electorate. The important, simple point is that they will all vary, and I suspect many will have no conception of themselves as aligning themselves with the fascist tradition. There will be those who themselves are consciously neofascist in their point of view – if not more traditionally fascist – but those will be in the minority, and it is extremely important to remember that in order to avoid vilifying everyone.
For example, it seems fairly obvious that in terms of his background and his language that Dan Thomas is no neofascist by instinct. And yet it must also be emphasized in his case and everyone else who adheres to Reform’s politics, that they necessarily contribute to the continuation and spread of neofascism, especially through the relentless emphasis on turning immigrants into a collective scapegoat.
This ambiguity in terms of belief is a tactical consideration in terms of opposing them in the Senedd, especially because they are so numerous. Where there is a difference of opinion there are always opportunities to create divisions, especially among a relatively new entity without a fixed culture, and which appears to be a motley crew that varies from friends to extremists to respectable former Tories with a Cambridge education behind them (and one of them, Sarah Cooper-Lesadd, seems extremely capable; her fellow alumnus Cai Parry Jones seems to be acting his age, shall we say).
In that respect it was very interesting to see Gwyn Williams the Plaid Cymru Member for Gŵyr Abertawe offering to stand alongside Francesca O’Brien Reform in the face of any toxic consequences of severing her ties with the extremists Voice of Wales. It is not to question the sincerity of the proposal to point out that it would have effective strategic consequences either way: seeing Reform distance itself from the type of connections which in the eyes of many makes them attractive and more anti-establishment, or on the other hand, reinforcing a relationship which is going to be a cause of unease if not outright unhappiness among fellow members.
Questioning Reform’s extremity is key to highlighting and taking advantage of the fundamental tensions that exist (in the same way that all major parties have their internal contradictions, in the case of Plaid Cymru between the left, centre and right); in time it can create problems among their supporters, but more pertinently force an internal breakdown. So rather than disparagement and condemnation, this is a matter of killing them softly by forcing them to soften their stances, to the extent that they evolve beyond their neofascist tendencies, become more traditional conservatives, and thus probably lose a number of their more extreme members.
Of course, it is possible that another external factor will force the issue rather sooner than any such tactic. I refer to Restore Britain. We have already heard a rumour from leader Rupert Lowe that at least 5 members of Reform have been toying with the idea of defecting to his party (which is lamentably more or less possible, in an indirect way, under the new rules).
At first sight this may be a very positive result for Plaid Cymru and those who oppose Reform. However, this must be weighed against the effect of a small group of unfettered neofascists getting a platform in the Senedd to draw the discourse further towards the extremes, Moreover – looking ahead to the next election – there is the possibility of a further surge to the extreme right, if the two parties can somehow come to terms sufficiently not to destroy each other. In that scenario, such a vicious coalition in government is a distinct possibility.
That possibility will, of course, depend to some extent on Plaid’s approach in the next four years. Which brings us back to the basic point that the threat of neofascism will not recede until the profit system has been tamed, to the extent that it can provide sufficient comfort to our communities. In order to do that, it is necessary to practically improve the circumstances of the poorest, while also creating a transformative vision of a communitarian socialist politics that can inspire and take hold, so that the majority are convinced that destroying the ‘other’ is not the real solution to our problems.
In this respect, it is worth remembering that when J.R. Jones predicted the counter-revolution as a response to the crisis of the profit system (i.e. capitalism), he was in effect drawing on several explanations of fascist politics as a defense against the failures of the capitalist system.
Fascism in this regard must be seen as method for the moneyed class to solve the capitalist crisis: it is a ‘release valve’ that diverts the anger of the people towards the scapegoat of the ‘other’, offering up the myth of national identity rather than the destitute capitalist dream of wealth; by supporting fascism the capitalist elite can tame unions, freeze wages, and use violence (or the threat of violence) to maintain the system in the face of protest; it protects the profits of corporations through state intervention and the destruction of the liberal democratic aspects of the capitalist system; and as anti-colonial thinkers such as Aimé Cesaire have argued, it is a matter of turning the violence, racism, theft and colonial extraction inward. when international territories and markets have been exhausted or collapsed.
No further comment is required to highlight the relevance of all this to our current situation (although it is too tempting not point out the last point rings Brexit bells). In this respect, what is needed today becomes even more evident.
To set us on the path to salvation, Plaid Cymru will have to be prepared to deal with their own internal divisions, where the more cautious among them must accept that in a period of capitalist crisis, JR’s Fascist counter-revolution means we are galloping towards barbarism – unless the reins are handed over to socialism, and the power of its vision.