Are Far-Right groups like Britain First really fascist - Do they satisfy a fascist minimum?

It is abundantly clear that despite the best efforts of anti-fascist groups, far-right extremism in the UK continues to prosper, albeit that electorally their performance in recent years can only be described as abysmal. This is not to say to suggest they do not have a small, but dedicated group of ‘, but despite this they remain unable to achieve any noticeable in-roads towards gaining power.

 Even a simple analysis reveals how their membership has been fluid over the years and people who were once members of the National Front chose to move on to the British National Party as it declined, then, as that also failed they found new homes in ‘Britain First’. ‘Patriotic Action’, ‘British Democrats’ or the recently formed ‘Homeland Party, or within extra-Parliamentary organisations such as ‘Casuals United’, the ‘Football Lads Alliance’, ‘North West Infidels’ or ‘Generation Identity’. This is to name only a few of the dozens of options available to them as the far-right movement generally is so badly fractured that it is often impossible to keep up with the creation and dissolution of groups as they rise and fall.

 Most of these are often labelled online as ‘fascist’, although the popular press tends to be more circumspect and prefers to refer to them as ‘far-right’, probably taking a more cautious route, not because of some desire for accurate use of terminology, but from fear of possible litigation.

 

“Fascist thugs from Britain First were lambasted today for storming a Midlands hotel that was temporarily housing refugees and directing a torrent of abuse at terrified residents.”

(Morning Star Online).

 

“Patriotic Alternative (PA) is a British far-right, fascist, neo-Nazi and white nationalist hate group which states that it has active branches nationwide.”

(Wikipedia).

 

“A shadowy neo-Nazi mob which wants to remove all non-white people from the UK has been organising outdoor gatherings in the Scottish countryside. Patriotic Alternative staged an event last week, bragging online that it was operating in defiance of lockdown rules.”

(Daily Record Online accessed 13^th June, 2023).

 Equally, anti-fascist organisations are happy to bandy the term ‘fascist’ when referring to far-right movements. Take the following:

“In 2021, Patriotic Alternative (PA) consolidated its place as the dominant force in UK fascist politics.” (‘State of Hate Report, 2022 – Hope not Hate)

 

“No surprise but despicable that fascist Britain First head goon, Paul Golding, posts such inflammatory bile ….” (Unite Against Fascism – Twitter account)

 

Few would argue that many of these far-right groups are annoying, a nuisance, and in some cases dangerous, but this does not answer the question of whether these groups are actually. In fact, most of these groups go out of their way to deny any links with fascism and instead try to present themselves as patriots and fervent supporters of the democratic process.

 

“Britain First is a movement of patriotism, nationalism, conservatism and traditionalism.

We reject the false, misleading and outdated labels of ‘right-wing’ or ‘left-wing’ ... We fight for traditional moral values, for genuine representative democracy, for a patriotic revolution in national priorities and the promotion of our indigenous British history, culture, traditions and customs.”

(Britain First website accessed 12^th June, 2023)

While Britain First use this argument to counter accusations of any links to fascism, it is worth noting that it was Paxton (20040 who argued this response to the Right-Left political map was also rejected by fascist movements, who argued their policies and actions made it obsolete as they transcended such outdated divisions. Given this, the attempt by Britain First to extricate itself from being linked to fascist ideology must be seen as weak.

 

Paul Golding

Leader of Britain First

Other far-right groups have attempted to rid themselves of any association with fascist ideology:

 

“The BNP exists to give the British people that choice, and thus to restore and defend the basic democratic rights we have all been denied. We favour more democracy, not less, at national, regional and local levels.”

(British National Party website accessed 12^th June, 2023)

 

“We are committed to government of the people, by the people, for the people. Those with power to affect our way of life must be answerable to the people. Democracy is much more than the ability to choose, from time to time, between broadly similar parties which compete amongst themselves for power. Real democracy is measured by the ability of the people to manage their political, economic, physical, and cultural environment.”

(English Democrats website accessed 12^th June, 2023)

What is clear from their propaganda is that these parties and movements want to appear as though they are willing to operate within and continue to maintain a liberal democracy with Parliament and the rule of law as its head. Of course, this has never been tested as none of them have achieved sufficient electoral success to achieve power.

However, even though they indicate a willingness to operate with a democratic system this does not mean these groups may not be fascist. After all, both Hitler and Mussolini during their early years campaigned politically within a liberal democratic system and once they had achieved some representation within it, each used their association with other conservative forces to ultimately achieve power. It was only then that both fascist leaders implemented laws that eliminated democracy and the supremacy of parliament.

Furthermore, few theorists see the denial of liberal democracy as the essence of a fascist minimum, if indeed such a phenomenon exists. After all, it was Rauschning (1938) who argued that fascism lacks any clear ideological base other than a commitment to nihilistic violence. On the other hand, Kitchen argued that fascist ideology was characterised by irrational concepts such as authority, obedience, honour, duty, the fatherland, or race (Kitchen, 1976).

Undoubtedly there is evidence of these elements in early National Front propaganda, particularly while under the leadership of John Tyndall. His commitment to fascism and National Socialism was made explicit when he joined Colin Jordan in the National Socialist Movement and while they had personal and political agreements, There can be little doubt of how Tyndall hero worshipped Adolf Hitler and saw in the political behaviour of Nazism a way for him to achieve power in this country. Speaking at a meeting at NSM Headquarters shortly before his departure, Tyndall said:

 “Hitler roped in the riff-raff and put them in camps. Some of them may have died from starvation, but there was a food shortage ... We want to see the whole democratic regime come crashing down ... we shall get power with whatever means are favourable ... the Conservatives are degenerate, the greatest betrayers of our nation, utterly decadent.”

(cited in Walker, M. 1977 p.68)

Further inspection of his later writings soon reveals that fundamentally he remained committed to those same fascist values and beliefs throughout his life (see Tyndall, 1988)

In order to understand the nature of modern far-right politics and determine whether they are indeed ‘fascist’ it becomes critical to identify whether any of these groups or parties satisfy a ‘fascist minimum’. In other words, the minimum conditions that a certain political movement must meet in order to be considered "fascist".                                                                                                               

In many of the more recent far-right parties like For Britain, Britain First and the recently formed Homeland party the notion of a ‘fascist minimum’ is unclear, especially as opinion is divided on what it is and what are its constituent parts. For example, Nolte (1968) argued some of the more common aspects found within fascist groups that may be deemed a fascist minimum include:

•  NationalismMilitarism
•  Imperialism
•  Corporatism
•  Violence

 While Milza (1987) suggested a four-stage model that included:

 ·  Authoritarianis

 ·  Nationalism

 ·  Militarism

 ·  Hierarchy and elitism

 While violence is a common theme among many far-right groups as has been seen recently at some of the demonstrations outside asylum seeker hostels, it is not universal. Certainly, post-war far-right politics has had a strong association with violent Behaviour as has been since in their links to Combat 18, Column 88, North West Infidels and, of course, National Action. 

Additionally, few of the established far-right groups show evidence of any commitment to militarism (excluding small fringe groups like the New British Union), imperialism or corporatism. Indeed, the latter has (with the exception of early National Front propaganda) largely been dropped from the agenda of most far-right groups.

 Against this, nationalism (or indeed ultra-nationalism) – a key defining aspect of fascism (Griffin, 1991) remains an important mainstay of most far-right thought. Indeed it is within the parameters of nationalism that we may see answers as to whether these political movements are, in fact fascist. Eatwell (1992) argued that nationalism is crucial to fascism and analysis of the political ideology of most 21^st century far-right groups reveals how it is also central to all of their political platforms.

 

“The BNP will protect our unique and precious British identity from Mass Immigration, multi-culturalism, health’n’safety killjoys and globalisation.”

(British National Party Ibid.)

 

“Britain First is committed to the maintenance of British national sovereignty, independence and freedom. Our people must enjoy full self-determination, free from the interference and meddling of foreign organisations …”

(Britain First. Ibid)

 However, this notion of ‘nationalism’ has been interpreted by the far-right, like it was for various fascism movements throughout Europe in at least two ways. For some, it symbolises something that has already existed, a return to earlier values and traditions. For others it has a more radical/ revolutionary theme where there is a need for the nation, with the party as its political vanguard to create something new out of the ashes of the old.

 It is within the latter that we see aspects of Patriotic Alternative’s (PA) approach to nationalism when they call for a ‘New Britain’ and their aim to create:

• Physical communities in geographical terms where patriots are living in close proximity to one another;
• Community activists in positions of influence in neighbourhoods
•  A nation where no immigrant-descended person should ever be allowed to take decisions regarding the ethnic composition of the UK

For PA, as with some other far-right groups, nationalism means a revolutionary rebirth of the state where laws would be created to make it free from mass immigration and where those of immigrant descent, even though they have British citizenship, would have no right to take part in any decision making process with the ‘democracy’ they would create.

 This type of approach (referred to by Griffin as palingenetic ultra-nationalism) demands a “… populist drive towards mobilising the energies of all those considered authentic members of the national community …” (Griffin, 2012 p. 6).

Mark Collett - Leader of Patriotic Alternative

with his ex-girlfriend

It is not difficult to see that in many ways the recent anti-immigration campaigns organised by groups like Britain First, Homeland Party and Patriotic Alternative are part of this revolutionary mobilisation and are aimed at creating a mass movement that would challenge the current political system and is motivated by a set of ‘mobilising passions’  (Paxton, 2004) that include:

 

Paxton’s Mobilising passions	21st Century far-right groups response
A sense of overwhelming crisis beyond the reach of ordinary solutions	Evidence of unabated mass immigration resulting in a loss of nationhood and culture
The primacy of the group towards which one has duties superior to every other right	Ultra-patriotism and nationalism establishing the supremacy of the British people
The belief that one’s group is a victim	During 47 years of membership of the EU, British nationalism was eroded. Add to that the impact of international bodies (UN, European Court of Justice etc) unabated immigration, and the decline of ‘law and order,
Dread of the group’s decline under the effects of liberalism and alien influence	The two-party system and the electoral system have facilitated the deterioration of British identity
The need for clear integration of a purer community	Mass repatriation of all immigrants/ non-British citizens

Within this analysis there are certain failings that fail to establish whether the fascist minimum has been realised when aimed at modern far-right groups. In particular, Paxton’s thesis assumes a fascist movement is led by a charismatic, or natural leader who is capable of understanding and achieving goals that will secure the advance of the British people. However, what we see in the present leaderships is a largely narcissistic, unskilled hierarchy with a lack of direction or purpose. Unlike the ‘ideal type’ of fascist natural leader their government is essentially reactive rather than active.

 As an example of this, Mark Collett’s empire in Patriotic Alternative is collapsing as more members haemorrhage from the party and turn to Kenny Smith’s new Homeland party. Meanwhile, Paul Golding continues to oversee Britain First and looks likely to fill the void created by the demise of both the British National Party and the National Front. Despite this, his position is not secure as he has a history of violence and criminal convictions, so one has to wonder whether he will face any future ‘holidays’ at His Majesty’s pleasure. In broad political terms the party has a miniscule membership and with evidence reported by HOPE not Hate of the party scamming supporters for money his tenure as leader many be coming to an end. .

National Front in Action

The early successes of British fascism in the 1930s were held in part by the poor economic position of this country (something that seems unlikely to be repeated) and the presence of a charismatic fascist leader in Oswald Mosley, who could attract huge crowds, some of whom would go on to support him for the rest of their lives. Mosley, and many of the fascist leaders of that time were politically astute, experienced and talented orators as well as skilled writers who could deliver cogent (albeit distasteful) political solutions. The present cohort of far-right leaders in this country (thankfully) are unable to offer any of those skills and as such are unlikely to ever achieve any political, or electoral success.

 What is more clear is that this country appears to have moved into an era of post-fascism where many of the old ground rules that could be applied so readily to parties like the British Union of Fascist or the Imperial Fascist League no longer apply. The Public Order Act no longer allows political parties to parade in militaristic style uniforms and indeed, it is questionable as to whether the electorate would welcome such a display if it were presented. While the war and memories of Nazism fade into history and despite awareness of the Holocaust declining year by year, the ongoing battle between antifascists and the far-right shows there remains an underlying disquiet amongst people regarding a re-emergence of fascism and Nazism.

 Furthermore, since the war there has never been any sign of a charismatic ‘fuhrer’ emerging from within the far-right. It could be argued that for a very short time, Nick Griffin offered them some hope but despite his re-emergence with groups like Liberty Defenders and the British Freedom Party, his own bankruptcy and political ineptitude became his ultimate downfall.

 Add to that the fact that modern Conservativism and the Radical Right have ‘stolen’ some of the core beliefs previously held exclusively by the far-right. Historically, some Tory MPs have unashamedly retweeted Tommy Robinson, include Bob Blackman and Nadine Dorries and Tom Hunt, MP for Ipswich, was accused last year of fuelling racism after appearing to blame crime in his constituency on “certain communities”.

 More recently, Suella Braverman’s approach to dealing with asylum seekers is something that thirty years ago would have sat well within the far-right political play book. There is nothing new in this approach – while publically uncomfortable with his analysis there was considerable private support within the Conservative for Enoch Powell and his attitude towards immigration. While the majority of the Conservative party distance themselves from the ‘Great Replacement Theory’, there are many MPs who, in their speeches are not far removed from current far-right thinking. In doing this, they have effectively normalised anti-immigration and, in so doing, indirectly taken the powder out of the far-right’s guns.

In all this, what becomes clear is that the far-right have been forced to ‘cherry pick’ aspects of fascism so that instead of presenting themselves as unashamed fascists in the traditional sense, they have been forced to present an image that is socially acceptable.

 Conclusion,

If fascism is little more than revolutionary ultra-nationalism with the aim of creating a national rebirth then it is not difficult to argue that many of Britain’s far-right groups are fascist. However, it is quite clear that fascism, or indeed fascisms are far more complicated and are comprised of many different elements, some of which were easier to see in historical fascism than in current far-right groups. In part this is because some of those elements (militarism) are prohibited by law, while others (superiority of the natural leader) have never presented themselves to any of the existing movements.

 Add to this the realisation amongst members of the far-right of the necessity to work within a liberal democratic system and with it came the realisation that a manifesto burdened with promoting an authoritarian or corporate state would fail to achieve any kind of mandate.

 With all this in mind we must conclude that in broad terms, most of the existing far-right groups like Britain First and Patriotic Alternative cannot be described as ‘fascist’ within the traditional meaning of the word, or when compared with historical fascist parties. However, if we see post-war fascism has, of necessity evolved into something new then it changes things. What then becomes evident is there are some elements of fascist ideology present in modern far-right thought, but equally others, like the refutation of liberal democracy that have been dismissed.

Despite this, I think it is reasonable to say there is sufficient evidence to argue that most of far-right groups are, at least for the most part, fascistic (in the traditional sense of the word) and simply because they have never discovered a ‘natural leader’ does not mean they would not embrace one should he appear. Given this, we must assume this element cannot be denied, but can only be described as untested.

 What we do know is that all political parties often change direction and it is therefore not inconceivable that any, or indeed all, of these groups might renege on their commitment to the democratic principle. Indeed historical evidence has shown how this has happened in the past (for example the Patriotic Party in the 1960s  that originally described themselves as ‘True Tories’ then went on to commit to traditional extreme right-wing politics).

 With all this at the front of our thought, we can only conclude that many of the existing far-right parties should be seen as fascist in principle, if not in practice

 REFERENCES:

Britain First website https://www.britainfirst.org/ accessed 12^th June, 2023

British National Party website https://bnp.org.uk/policies/british-culture/ accessed 12^th June, 2023

Eatwell (1992)Towards a new model of generic Fascism. Journal of Theoretical Politics. 4(2) 161-194

Griffin, R. (1991) The Nature of Fascism London. Pinter. Journal of Comparative Fascist Studies 1(1) p. 1-17

Griffin, R. (2012) Studying fascism in a post-fascist age: from New Consensus to new wave.

Kitchen, M. (1977 Fascism. London, Macmillan.

Milza, P. |(1987) Fascisme francaise: pásse et present Flammarion. Paris

Nolte, E. (1969) Three Faces of Fascism. New York. Mentor

Paxton, R.O. (2004) The Anatomy of Fascism. London. Penguin

Rauschning, H. (1938) Die revolution des Nihilismus. Zurich. Europa Verlag.

Tyndall,  J.(1988) The Eleventh Hour: A Call for British Rebirth. London: Albion Press.

Walker, M. (1977) The National Front. London. Fontana