Elections and the anti‑fascist struggle

First published at Anti*Capitalist Resistance.

The road to power of both the Nazis in Germany and Mussolini in Italy depended on successive electoral breakthroughs, and today an anti-capitalist electoral bloc can be crucial in barring the way to Reform’s Nigel Farage and fascist demagogue Tommy Robinson.

Why are electoral politics crucial in fighting the extreme right and fascists? The new fascists have used elections to propel themselves into power in many countries. The United States and Italy are obvious examples. Once the extreme right is in power, it tries to use the structures of the state to limit and then frontally attack democratic rights, including regular elections.

As we have seen in numerous American cities, most spectacularly the assassinations by ICE agents in Minneapolis, extreme right governments can use the repressive apparatuses of the state to terrorise immigrants and other minorities.

In the 1930s and ‘40s, it took war and revolution to shift fascists from power, once they had brought every part of the state apparatus under their control.

In March 1933, Hitler used the dominant Nazi position in the Reichstag (parliament) to pass the Enabling Act, which gave all power to the Nazis. In Italy, too, the Fascists entered parliament in 1922 as part of a right-wing “National Bloc.” Once in parliament, the fascists sponsored their own form of Enabling Act — the Acerbo Law — which gave the largest minority a majority of seats, provided that this minority had at least 25 per cent of the vote.

In 1922, the Italian king shocked the conventional right wing by asking Mussolini to form a government; in 1926, parliament was dissolved, and the Communist Party was banned. Of course, the first period of Mussolini’s government was marked by growing fascist violence against the workers’ movement and radical peasant struggles. Fascist violence and intimidation went hand in hand with Mussolini’s growing dominance in the electoral field.

In the United States today, we see an ultra-right president at the head of the neo-fascist MAGA movement. Neo-fascism has replaced jackboots and swastikas with the Union Jack, Stars and Stripes, and stylish blue suits. Modern fascism concentrates all reactionary prejudices and combines them into a new confection aimed at the “others” — Muslims, LGBTQ+ communities, and immigrants.

The hue and cry against trans people is pernicious in this process because the issue of trans rights divides both the left and feminists. The ideological rightist push includes fictitious ‘radical leftist’ street violence, dystopian levels of racism, a witch hunt against pro-Palestinian activists, and a long-term project to drive leftists and liberals out of universities.

The threat to critical free speech is chilling, and it uses an array of state agencies to bring universities and media to heel. Trump has lawsuits against the New York Times and the Wall Street Journal, as well as a $10bn lawsuit against the BBC.

Trump threatens to close US TV channels that criticise him. University principals have been hauled in front of Congress committees to explain why they have allowed pro-Palestinian sit-ins and protests, and allow criticism of Israel. The message of all this is be careful what you write or publish; self-censorship is the order of the day.

The example of the United States massively strengthens the far right internationally. The decades-long fight of the French left to bar the way to Marine Le Pen’s Rassemblement National is under enormous pressure. Across Europe, the far right is either in power or waiting in the wings. And now, in the UK, we face the threat of Nigel Farage’s Reform UK.

Behind him, for the first time since the 1930s, stands a fascist-led mass movement — demonstrated by the approximately 150,000 mobilised by Tommy Robinson on 13 September. Frighteningly, the left-wing counter-mobilisation — between five and ten thousand people — was much smaller.

All of this means the left must answer the question of whether the anti-fascist tactics of an earlier period make sense today. To take one example, at the largest ever Marxism (SWP summer school) event in 1985, a ‘workshop’ of over 500 on anti-fascism heard the principal speaker argue that at the way to beat fascism was to “crush the fascist core of broader far-right parties” by following the line of “no platform for fascists” — especially in the streets — while also politically isolating them.

In the wake of the 1970s street fights against the Nazis at Lewisham, Birmingham Handsworth, Red Lion Square, Southall, and Hornsey, and many others, the idea of “crushing and isolating” the Nazis was almost a common cause on the radical left. These street battles fed into, and went alongside, the mass mobilisations of the Anti-Nazi League and Rock against Racism — movements that seemed to provide a realistic left-wing model for fighting fascism.

The 1970s fascists — mainly the National Front, but also an earlier iteration of the British National Party in the North West — were a real and present danger as far as Black and Asian communities were concerned. Their members, and thugs inspired by them, carried out hundreds of racist attacks. But they were no challenge on the electoral front. As far as government and parliamentary elections were concerned, the time was not yet ready for mass fascism. The NF leader John Tyndall had been photographed in full Nazi regalia — political death in an era when many still remembered the Second World War and the atrocities of Hitler.

No matter how many Union Jacks the NF carried at the front of its demonstrations, it could not shake the “Nazi” label. Nigel Farage and Tommy Robinson, by contrast, are something much more threatening. A far-right party that could elect more than one hundred MPs — at least — in the next general election poses huge challenges to the militant left.

There is no doubt that action on the streets still has its place, especially when it mobilises local communities in a defensive role, as happened following the 2024 attacks on refugee hotels. But now the electoral front is where the far right is more dangerous. History shows that electoral success — not just street fighting — was key for the Nazis in Germany and the Fascists in Italy. On 23 March 1933, the German Reichstag (parliament) held its last session. Hitler made a ranting speech demanding full powers “for four years.” Only the leader of the Social Democratic Party (SPD), Otto Wels, spoke against him.

It was personally courageous for Wels to stand before several hundred baying fascists; he defended the SPD and the workers’ movement in their defence of democracy, living standards, and workers’ rights. But his speech was full of nationalist rhetoric and failed to mention the absent deputies — the 81 elected Communists (KPD) and some of his own members, either imprisoned or in hiding following the Reichstag Fire witch hunt. Wels did not want to be associated with “terrorists.”

The disunity in the workers’ movement was not just the product of the sectarianism of the Communist Party, which called the SPD “social fascists.” It was also caused by the deep hostility to communism and workers’ power in the leadership of the SPD, which had played a decisive counter-revolutionary role in the post–First World War turmoil in Germany. By remaining silent about the absence of the KPD deputies, Wels sanctioned the witch hunt against them.

Only the 94 SPD deputies voted against the Enabling Act. The centre and right-wing parties all voted for Hitler, hoping for lenient treatment. They soon got their comeuppance for this piece of stupidity. Within a week, Wels was in exile in Paris. He later said he had underestimated Hitler — as had the Communists. He never believed that President Hindenburg would appoint Hitler as chancellor.

If we look at the curve of Nazi electoral success, their share of the vote rose from 6.6 per cent and 3.0 per cent in the two elections of 1924 to 43.9 per cent in March 1933. The Nazi vote exploded after the 1929 economic crash; their gains came mainly at the expense of the centre and other right-wing parties.

Disunity between the Communists and the SPD was a crucial factor in the fascists’ victory. The Communists’ accusation that the SPD was “social fascists” made unity next to impossible — or rather, it played into the hands of SPD leaders who did not want unity.

There are many differences between Germany in 1933 and Britain today. But complacent fantasies that the anti-democratic hard right could not take power here are liberal daydreams. Keir Starmer’s rightward shift on immigration, welfare, and democratic rights only plays into the hands of Nigel Farage, implying that Reform UK is correct on these crucial issues.

Starmer is backing down to the authoritarian right, with threats against the right to protest and plans to deport people who have lived here for decades. All this — along with denouncing pro-Palestinian student protests as “un-British” — comes straight out of the Trump playbook (he recently denounced pro-Palestinian marchers as “un-American”). A strong similarity between Germany in 1933 and the present-day situation is the decline of the main centre-right parties.

This is exactly what is happening in Britain. The present Tory leadership is very weak, and the Conservatives are hemorrhaging support and members to Reform UK. Much is made of the working-class support for Farage and Robinson, but there were plenty of middle-class accents on the streets on 13 September as well. The pro-Farage Tory right is organising under the banner of “Unite the Right.”

This could lead to anything from a formal electoral alliance in 2029 to a pro-Reform split from the Conservatives. If Labour suffers badly in the local elections (probable) and loses the Gorton and Denton by-election, a challenge to Starmer is still possible. If a way were found to smuggle Manchester mayor Andy Burnham into the Commons, a left challenge might emerge. With or without Burnham, if Starmer were forced to resign, a right-wing challenge in the form of Wes Streeting might also emerge.

Either way, without a left turn to bail out Labour, a socialist left electoral presence is vitally needed. But Your Party is not the only radical force in town. With the Green Party now boasting more than 170,000 members, scores of local councillors, four MPs, and a radical and articulate leader in Zack Polanski, there is more than one way in which a left alternative might be expressed.

This points to the need for an electoral bloc between Your Party and the Greens, potentially dividing seats between them to challenge the right. It would be a difficult sell to the Greens, who have traditionally been hostile to standing down for left-wing Labour or other left-wing candidates.

Either way, a national electoral presence for the radical left is essential. Which party will become the custodian of radical anti-capitalism remains unclear. Your Party needs to act quickly to become an electoral force. If it does not, people infuriated by declining living standards may turn to the extreme right.

The radical left, while establishing a national presence, would do well to heed the advice of James Schneider, former spokesperson for the Your Party leadership team. He argued that the initial base of Your Party could be built among the asset-poor working classes, multi-racial communities, and downwardly mobile graduates. There are millions ready for a radical alternative to the Keir Starmer-Rachel Reeves Labour regime. This must be addressed on the electoral terrain.

Phil Hearse is a member of the National Education Union and a supporter of the Anti*Capitalist Resistance.