GUEST BLOG: Ian Powell – Fascism and the anti-vaccination protests in New Zealand
The violent nature of the anti-vaccination protests in Aotearoa New Zealand, including the occupation of Parliament Grounds and the nearby streets in February-March, have raised the question of whether this was an example of fascism in action or perhaps in development.
This raises the prior question of what is fascism. One view is that expressed in an article published by Stuff (29 June) by liberal writer Joe Bennett: Supreme Court decision part of fascism rerun in United States.
Authoritarianism and fascism
Bennett is an astute gifted writer who outlines well the liberal understanding of fascism. His focus is on the US Supreme Court’s horrendous and ideologically driven decision to repeal the right of women to abortions and the wider forces behind the attempted coup in January 2021. He was not referring to the anti-vaccination protests.
Correctly noting that fascism is “…an overused word and variously defined”, Bennett then proceeds to summarise fascism. In his words:
It’s a dictatorship. It’s nationalist. It loves guns and uniforms. It preaches a bogus mythology about returning to a better past. It likes traditional religion and traditional religion likes it. It demonises outsiders and subordinates women. It is not frightened to use violence.
Joe Bennett equates fascism with authoritarianism
In other words, fascism is authoritarianism. If this interpretation were to be applied to the world today, fascism would be one of the more dominant political systems in the world governing many countries such as Saudi Arabia, Libya, Brazil, Poland, Hungary and India. Arguably it might also include the Republican controlled states in the United States.
Sorry Joe; you are wrong
I disagree with Bennett. Fascism is authoritarian but authoritarianism is not necessarily fascism, even allowing for overlapping characteristics. Authoritarianism is an anti-democratic government by a strong leader or small elite.
Fascism means more than dictatorship. It also involves a far-right movement that has a strong base in the marginalised; the disempowered and disengaged. But not just among marginalised low paid workers and unemployed; also among those many marginalised people in the ‘middle’ and ‘professional classes’.
Fascism’s philosopher: Giovanni Gentile
Fascism’s philosopher: Giovanni Gentile
The person who most consider to be the ‘philosopher of fascism’ is Giovanni Gentile (1875-1944). He was a major figure in Italian idealist philosophy, politician, educator, and editor. In June 1925 he gave a lecture in Florence on fascism. One of the most revealing quotes was:
How many times has Fascism been accused with obtuse malevolence of barbarity? Well yes: once you understand the true significance of this barbarity we will boast of it, as the expression of the healthy energies which shatter false and baleful idols, and restore the health of the nation within the power of a State conscious of its sovereign rights which are its duties.
But it was another Italian, Benito Mussolini, who developed the term fascism. Building on his personality cult he created the first one-party fascist state in the 1920s. At this time he was an exemplar for Adolf Hitler as he was establishing his Nazi Party in Germany.
Fascism as a movement has always interested me. From a Marxist perspective the earliest to grasp its wider significance were Leon Trotsky and Antonio Gramsci. But the book that really caught my attention was Fascism and Big Business by French libertarian Marxist Daniel Guerin.
This book significantly helped my understanding of fascism
As well as discussing the social dynamic of fascism in the context of the Italian and German experiences, Guerin highlighted its dependence on big business support because of the latter’s fear of capitalism’s vulnerability to collapse.
When capitalism is not seen to be under threat big business is more likely to support formal democratic systems. But when it is seen to be under threat, significant parts of big business are prepared to support fascism in order to prevent a left-wing socialist alternative becoming government.
Anti-vaccination protests
Fascism then is a political movement that embraces far-right nationalism and the forceful suppression of any opposition. When in power it is overseen by an authoritarian government. Fascism is strongly anti-individual rights along with aggressively opposing liberals, socialists and democracy itself.
So where does this fit in with the anti-vaccination protests. I have posted in Political Bytes on these protests. The first was published at the early stages of the occupation of Parliament Grounds (14 February): Rights, responsibilities and far-right agendas.
I drew upon some very good analysis by journalists Charlie Mitchell (Stuff) and David Fisher (NZ Herald). The second post was published just over a month later (17 March): Immorality of moral equivalence.
Matthew Cunningham: an insightful read on the occupation
Subsequently (7 April) The Spinoff published an enlightening article by historian Matthew Cunningham who differentiated between neo-Nazi white supremacist elements and a wider radical (far) right presence: Troubling growth of radical right.
If Bennett’s summary of fascism was correct, then the protests were an expression of fascism. The level of intimidation of and threats towards local residents, workers at neighbouring workplaces, and people happening to be passing by along with the threats of violence including towards politicians and the media.
The far-right activists present were vigorous in their call for the overthrow of an elected government. There was also the attempts to takeover local marae and vigilante-type behaviour towards some schools over vaccination.
As shocking as these actions were, Cunningham’s more nuanced description is closer to the mark. The composition of the protesters did change the longer it went on with the far-right leadership becoming more dominant. This leadership was the main source of ‘information’ at the occupation.
There was also a definite weird presence at the occupation such as those who believed that they were being attacked by electromagnetic transmission and therefore tin foil was required to protect them.
My electrician neighbour was most forthright in advising me that, first, electromagnetic transmission does not work that way and, second, even if it did, tin foil would be totally ineffective as protection.
An embryo?
A major characteristic of the broad mass of protesters was a complete distrust in science and the mainstream media, especially over vaccines. Consequently their main information came from the Steven Bannon linked far-right Counterspinwhich was regularly streaming in. This was a receptive audience for right-wing extremism, including fascism.
But the protest was not fascism in action. It was not a popular movement of anything like the magnitude of those movements that have brought fascism into power in earlier times. It was not of the magnitude that helped enable the military to overthrow the elected left-wing government and install a fascist dictatorship in Chile nearly 50 years ago. They were well short of the numbers needed to replicate this in Aotearoa.
Nor was it backed by big business interests of note. There was some business support but miniscule given the number and sized of businesses in New Zealand. In fact, most of the funding came from far-right groups in the United States.
For fascism to come to power in Aotearoa it would require a significant number of big businesses to believe that capitalism was under threat and consequently prepared to support a fascist movement.
So were the anti-vaccination protests, including the occupation of Parliament Grounds, fascist? No. Were they fertile territory for authoritarian far-right (including fascist) ideas to disseminate? Yes.
Were they the embryo of a fascist movement? Potentially yes; but much more would be required for such an embryo to develop into a threat to democracy.
Ian Powell was Executive Director of the Association of Salaried Medical Specialists, the professional union representing senior doctors and dentists in New Zealand, for over 30 years, until December 2019. He is now a health systems, labour market, and political commentator living in the small river estuary community of Otaihanga (the place by the tide). First published at Political Bytes
Nonsense on stilts, as they say. It was a wide range of political support, as evidence by multiple surveys – lots of Green and Labour supporters. Did right-wing agitators seek to influence? Sure, but it had little impact except a very small, core mob at the end.
This is how unhinged NZ public debate is – a protest against extraordinary state power literally banning people from working and living and a hegemonic media narrative is FASCIST!! The protest against mass state coercion is fascist! Fark a duck, we live in a world of men are women and lies are truth.
Ian’s pre-determined bias is clear from the first sentence description:
– violent (despite being overwhelmingly peaceful before the police heavies went in)
– anti-vaccine (actually majority focus is anti-mandate)
– occupation (not protest of course).
And of course, let’s rely on Stuff’s unbias assessment. What a joke.
Lost in all this is an actual assessment of the justification of mandates. Covid exploded in NZ anyway – we are now mid-range in per capita death and cases.
The vaccines had no impact on transmission of the Omicron variants onwards and their protection wanes literally after several weeks Call it original antigenic sin or whatever.
The vaccine was useful to minimise serious illness in its immediate aftermath, but sweet little else and more boosters fail even quicker. This the clear conclusion the rest of the world are reluctantly accepting.
The reality is the NZ Govt panicked, and in its panic relied on the only tool it knew – control and coercion. It so badly wanted the vaccine to be a panacea, to signal to all that it cared and we’d exclude those dirty ferals that didn’t want to show they cared. But the vaccine wasn’t a panacea and the mandates were political enforcement of our twisted desire to be seen to care.
And for this, we ran over the rights and freedoms beyond any previous Govt, demonising beyond belief our fellow Kiwis and dividing NZ.
We don’t need any dickheads like Counterspin to point out how morally repugnant NZ’s response was – they can get fucked.
What we is need is that rare of rare ability – to admit we got it wrong, and to apologise.
Well put.
Well said Geoff, since Antonio Gramsci is getting a bit of air time on TDB today I’d add that he is the great grandfather of modern identity politics.
Further, and I’m a leftist and didn’t support the protest, BUT I’m not convinced by the scary spectre of alt-right fascism. They are a fringe group at best, I’m far more concerned with the woke left + neoliberal marriage of convenience that has already co-opted many western institutions. If you want to point out creeping authoritarianism look there.
This piece is erudite spin, a very obvious slight of hand where we don’t question how those who have power use it. Instead we focus on a protest of people, mostly without power, and characterise the who thing by it’s worst elements. Classic rhetorical distraction.
The 1918 flu epidemic was far stricter in the controls used.
Labour camps were established in the depression of 1932.
Human rights were virtually suspended.
Take a
Look at the water Sixers strike of1951.
The Sringbok tour… but wait there’s more.
While freedom is essential to a strong democracy there are times when freedom is suspended for the “common good”.
That’s why the Sirector General of Health has the right to suspend our liberties in times of epidemic.
Your attitude clearly pits individual rights against those of the whole society.
This country followed the science to slow down the progress of a world wide epidemic and, it succeeded in buying time for a vaccine to be developed saving many lives then and now.
A small price to pay to ensure that the majority were protected.
That is democracy in action.
I’m afraid I must correct you in one regard- tinfoil can, indeed, be quite useful for attenuating electromagnetic radiation in the testing of certain vehicular tracking devices. I can’t warranty it against 5G though.
Too much concern over semantics and not enough to link growing concerns about if democracy is going to prevail or sink down into (foreign and local billionaire funded) division over identity and civil war.
As for Nationalism being linked to Fascism – pretty easy these days to own multiple citizenships. Billionaire Peter Thiel, born in Austria, US citizen and NZ citizen – Trump supporter and funder. What is his nationality?
New nationalism is about global money and power acquisitions while suppressing local community identity, under the guise of globalism, identity politics and buying political favours – “2 Chinese is more valuable than 2 Indians”. Many of the Russian Oligarchs have EU, British (and NZ) citizenship and links to Conservative UK politicians leading/supporting Brexit, undermining a growing EU and beneficial science lost.
The rise in inequality is linked to higher populations and the world’s consumers and low waged around the world being traded as cheaper skills, billionaire political interference, and public assets sold/given by governments to ‘lease’ back or buy with taxpayers money, for private profit and control. AKA, water, social bonds (growing with all the disruption and poverty) and land.
And it can be far left as well as right…. China and Russia not exactly known as being far right…. but similar tactics.
The least fascist spot is the centre, but apparently they are too privileged to be allowed to exist by the woke and in decline.
Cancel yourself bro, while war reigns and people feel the need to stab and shoot their communities, the woke are still worrying about that Trelise dress being racist and Hairy McClairy not being diverse enough. (Funny enough the woke and media, target woman the most for cancellation – some clues who is behind it!)
This idea that they were this label, or that, or Russian troll farmed or misinformed is so out of touch with how people were feeling.
They were protesting the impacts of the covid response on their own lives.
All walks of life, impacted in differing ways, but again, they’re maligned, ignored and labelled.
This outcome was a given when a published document showed the expert advice was recommending not to mandate as a whole but, for events only, citing impacts on social cohesion.
They said they wouldn’t mandate and then they did.
Knowing this impact on social cohesion was likely, why would they go ahead and do so any way?
There was a survey conducted showing who these people were, simply ignored.
This was handled badly before and during the protests.
There should be a royal commission of Inquiry, laws were retrofitted, vaccines slow, RATS banned, people hounded, lost jobs, lost homes, lost business, locked out of their country, unable to say goodbye to dying relatives, pregnant woman weren’t deemed urgent, but for a lottery.
Tens of thousands probably more were affected personally, they didn’t need “misinformation” to see the impacts they were living under.
They were dehumanised.
Hey, oh well, maybe the protestors will receive an apology in 50 years?
I’m not even going to bother reading this the headline has triggered me beyond redemption.
A weak. poorly written and, as per previous comments, easily refuted argument.
By way of contrast; some seriously good writing and thinking from Paul Kingsnorth.
Excerpt:
“Perhaps we could say that the levelling instinct is the West’s gift to the world. It’s a complicated offering, to be sure, but at its noblest it is one to be proud of. Without some levellers around, a culture is in danger of becoming ossified, abusive and top-heavy. Power always needs to be kept on its toes. Leaders and systems should always be prepared to justify their existence.
But what happens when levelling is the only instinct left? When the culture is so empty, so purposeless, so uprooted, that it has forgotten how to do anything but deconstruct itself? More to the point: what happens when levelling is the instinct not of the poor, but of power? What happens when the destruction of borders, limits and boundaries benefits big tech, big money and those who drink from their spigot, rather than the small voices left thirsting in the fields? And what happens when big money uses the language of the small voices — the language of levelling — to tie up its work in pretty bows?
This is where we are. The post-modern Left, which has seized the heights of so much of Western culture, is not some radical threat to the establishment: it is the establishment. Progressive leftism is market liberalism by other means. The Left and corporate capitalism now function like a pincer: one attacks the culture, deconstructing everything from history to “heteronormativity” to national identities; the other moves in to monetise the resulting fragments.”
And the kicker:
“Maybe this is a pipe-dream: but sometimes we see it carry the day. The Zapatistas are still there, after all, and still fighting. NAFTA is gone, too — though it wasn’t the EZLN, in the end, that did for it. The treaty that drew their ire as a symbol of all that was wrong with the imperial project of corporate globalisation was eventually torn up, not by indigenous guerrilleros or a socialist Mexican government, but by a reality TV star-turned Republican US president, who believed that globalisation was a con-job which empowered transnational capital at the expense of nations and their people. Whatever else he may have been wrong about, he was right about that. Unfortunately, most of the Left were too busy calling him a Nazi to notice the irony.”
https://unherd.com/2022/07/how-the-left-fell-for-capitalism/