The standard Republican/Tory after-dinner speech is a two-part affair, in which part one celebrates the virtues of unimpeded competition and dynamic strucural change, while part two mourns the decline of the family and community 'values' that were eroded precisely by the forces commended in part one. Thus at the present time the core of Republican/Tory beliefs is a perfect non-sequitur.
Edward Luttwak, Why Fascism is the Wave of the Future, in London Review of Books, 7 April 1994

On economic policy, the extreme Right is not a tougher version of the mainstream Right; it is usually the opposite of the mainstream Right.

The populist backlash

In 1994 the flamboyant American writer Edward Luttwak published the famous article from which I quote above. He argued that the insecurity of economic life in the global free market would lead to a widespread popular backlash against libertarian economic policies and 'turbo-charged capitalism'. Angry voters would desert the main political parties for a 'product-improved Fascist party', as he put it.

In 1999, Luttwak enlarged (1) on this theme and spelled out what he meant by the dreaded word 'fascism'. If the social-democratic governments of Europe failed to tackle turbo-capitalism, they would be thrown out and replaced by populist, protectionist and xenophobic parties. You would get leaders prepared to act out the people's emotional impulses - emotion versus reason, and will versus analysis, which is the essence of fascism. In other words: crude, thoughtless reactions to complex and difficult problems.

Today, Luttwak's prophecy shows signs of being all too accurate. Too many votes are going to parties which might jib at calling themselves 'fascist', but which are clearly a long way to the 'right' of normal politics.

Many people are disillusioned with the free-market dream first offered by Thatcher and Reagan, later touted around the world by their imitators; weary of their strategies' nasty consequences; of unemployment and fragile employment, of wholesale takeover of national assets by foreign investors, of widening inequalities, of deteriorating public services, of pervasive greed, of increasingly stressful, frenetic, uncivil ways of life.

The free-market mainstream

If these are the outcomes of the policies of the orthodox Right, why not escape to the orthodox Left? That is hardly an answer, because the mainstream parties have all been more or less bitten by the libertarian bug. Compare the Democratic party with the Republicans, the British Labour Party with the Conservatives, the German Social Democrats with the Christian Democrats: clearly, on economic matters, mainstream Left is little different from mainstream Right except that it has swallowed the panacea of free-market dogma in slightly smaller doses.

So, if you want a real change of air, it seems that the only way is to leave the centre and move towards the outer extremes. The extreme Left? Not bloody likely, after the clearly miserable experience of the former Communist world. The extreme Right? That looks, on the face of it, more promising. It appeals to people with strong patriotic feelings, frustrated by the modern obsession with globalism fostered by free-marketeers.

On economic policy, the extreme Right is not a tougher version of the mainstream Right; it is usually the opposite of the mainstream Right. That is because Conservatives in Britain, conservatives in America, and others like them, have perversely denied their own nature by deliberately adopting economic strategies that are unconservative. Turning the market loose is a recipe for ever-faster change and upheaval. Can anyone honestly call that conservative?

Far-Right policies have one merit: they are generally opposed to the unrestricted free market. They also have major demerits; they are too often reactionary, obscurantist and racist.

In Britain...

we have the British National Party, whose policies include the repeal of laws against racial discrimination and against incitement to racial hatred; encouragement of private citizens to own guns (this appears to mean, preferably, military assault rifles); and absolute prohibition of immigration from many parts of the world.

This party's economic policy, described as an antidote to globalism, includes favouring as much national self-sufficiency as is practically possible, renationalizing some public services and encouraging the development of workers' co-operatives. Well, it is one thing to restrain excessive imports at prices that radically undercut our industries; quite another to aim at maximum self-sufficiency. If nations generally pursued such a strategy, the shut-down of huge swathes of international trade and consequent disruption of all countries' economies would lead to massive international recession.

The BNP's policies do not commend themselves to enlightened and educated people. But they very clearly contradict free-market orthodoxy. That is one of their attractions for voters who know little about economics, but are simply fed up with watching our industries being destroyed by the indiscriminate imports that free-traders demand.

In France...

Jean-Marie Le Pen's Front National attracts considerable support. This party's programme displays an attitude akin to that of the architects of apartheid; it explicitly denies the possibility of people of different races living together peacefully. It therefore proposes to ban almost all immigration, to expel all clandestine immigrants and to discriminate in employment and housing against foreigners resident in France.

On economic matters, it complains about destruction caused by free trade and proposes a return to reasoned protectionism in order to safeguard our industries and to defend them against the pretensions of the World Trade Organisation.

In Germany...

the Nationaldemokratische Partei Deutschlands (NPD), generally considered the most radical of the German right-wing parties, has recently attracted many votes in Mecklenburg-Vorpommern, one of the more impoverished parts of former East Germany. This party's manifesto declares that free enterprise must accept social obligations. It would make it a criminal offence to delocalise industrial and service activities to low-wage countries.

In Poland...

the League of Polish Families (Liga Polskich Rodzin or LPR) has recently joined the governing coalition. This party has links with Radio Maryja, the right-wing radio station which is often accused of anti-semitism. Leaders of the LPR have advocated the teaching in schools of "creationism" (rejection of the Darwinian theory of evolution). Creationism is widely favoured by American Protestant fundamentalists; it is perverse in a party that claims to be ultra-Catholic, since it is out of step with Vatican teaching.

The party, though regarded as belonging to the extreme right, pursues largely "left-wing" economic policies. This might seem paradoxical, but is not really surprising given that Catholic economic and social doctrine is well to the "left" of the free-market line. Thus the LPR favours universal state healthcare and wants to ban acquisition of Polish real estate by foreigners.

In Italy...

the most prominent far-right political movement is Azione Sociale, the small party led by Alessandra Mussolini, glamorous grand-daughter of the late dictator and niece of Sophia Loren. She publicly defends her grandfather's record (apart from his alliance with Hitler); she quarrelled with Gianfranco Fini, leader of the Alleanza Nazionale, and left his party, after he had described fascism as an "absolute evil".

On the economy, her party's programme includes the following:

clear opposition to communism and to libertarian capitalism, joint causes of the present economic and social crisis; and

an economic and social policy which opposes the logic of precarious employment, which protects citizens against usury and over-costly credit, which defends the purchasing power of wages against the euro and also by protecting Italian products, which establishes a fairer tax structure favouring the poorer social classes.

Thus, though Azione Sociale is regarded as an extreme right-wing party, its economic strategy is clearly on the left.

A new alternative needed

It is paradoxical that people who want "left-wing" policies are turning to parties of the "far right" to get them. But this paradox reflects the failure of the mainstream "left" to offer a convincing alternative to the mainstream "right". I use inverted commas because, in today's confused political world, the old party labels have largely lost their meaning.

The "far right" does indeed offer an alternative to the laisser-faire economic policies of the mainstream parties. But it is not a good alternative; choosing it is likely to mean getting involved with racists and reactionaries.

What we need are moderate, civilized, progressive parties that are prepared to challenge the current economic orthodoxy. Such parties are thin on the ground at present because the orthodoxy of the economic ideologues has become so prevalent, and is argued so forcefully, that it seems invincible. If you tell a lie often enough, people believe it: thus said that notorious far-rightist, Josef Goebbels. The libertarian economists have so saturated us with their dogma that many people have given up trying to argue against it. They have resigned themselves to putting up with it. But that does not mean that the dogma is good.

* * * * *

Email a comment, criticism or question

Return to Table of Contents

Return to Home Page

Reference

(1) Edward Luttwak, interview with Christian Tyler, Financial Times (Weekend FT), 17 July 1999, page viii