Finland: On the Basics of Antifascism
We share an unofficial translation of an article from Punalippu.
On December 6, the dictatorship of the bourgeoisie celebrates its independence in Finland, and due to the significance of the day, it has become an important day for demonstrations, particularly an antifascist demonstration day for the left in recent years. In light of this, we want to briefly recap the current basic teachings of Marxism regarding fascism.
Firstly, Marxism emphasizes the difference between the class nature of the State and the prevailing form of government within it. In the current era of imperialism and proletarian revolution, there are three types of States: States of the dictatorship of the bourgeoisie, States of the dictatorship of the proletariat, and States of the joint dictatorship of revolutionary classes. In a bourgeois dictatorship, the form of government can be civilian or military, with or without elections, liberal-democratic or fascist. If the State is not viewed in this way, but rather, for example, if it is thought that only fascism is a dictatorship or that only fascism is terror, one ends up trailing behind the liberal democratic faction of financial capital, supporting it with rhetorics about “defending democracy” or “opposing authoritarianism.” Ultimately, this leads to a position that, instead of advocating for the destruction of the old order, actually supports its defense.
This question is relevant in Finland, as the current prevailing tendency in the bourgeois dictatorship is liberalism, not fascism. Elevating the antifascist struggle to a primary focus would, under these conditions, mean a shift towards defending the old order. This is problematic from an antifascist perspective, as this old order’s liberalism is decaying, reactionary liberalism that, in the era of imperialism and proletarian revolution, has already come into conflict with prevailing social conditions and is therefore in crisis. The dominance of monopolies has distorted the liberal ideal of free competition, leading to a transition of capitalism to a higher form, in which the proletariat’s revolutionary class struggle is advancing, and thus the liberal order is also threatened by the socialist revolution. The bourgeois dictatorship, beset by this crisis, prepares and promotes fascism as an important means of defense. Therefore, the solution to the threat of fascism cannot come from defending the liberal order, but rather from opposing it.
It’s clear that mixing up fascism and communism doesn’t reflect the truth. Instead, it shows the fear of dedicated liberals who see that their long-standing beliefs no longer match the current social conditions and are at risk of being replaced.
Secondly, fascism must be defined precisely and correctly. “For us, fascism is the negation of the demo-liberal principles, is the negation of the demo-bourgeois principles developed in 18th Century in France; these principles have been abandoned by reaction, by the bourgeoisie throughout the world, this is how already the First World War showed us the crisis of the old demo-bourgeois order.” as Chairman Gonzalo has defined, also noting the central role of corporatism as part of fascist doctrine: “Corporatism refers to the establishment the State on corporations, which means the abolition of parliamentarism; this is a fundamental issue… the crisis of bourgeois democracy is clearly reflected in the crisis of parliamentarism.”
One of the most notorious figures of Finnish fascism, Svinhufvud, once considered the destruction of communism to be the main question of fascism: “Exploiting our liberal state system, communists conducted vigorous propaganda for their revolutionary ideas under the protection of freedom of press, speech, and assembly.” He considered as a secondary but important issue, that “all over the world, parliamentarism lives a kind of a crisis period, and also we” criticizing the relative electoral system in bourgeois democracy for weakening the power of governments. Svinhufvud’s words serve as a good illustration of the Marxist understanding of fascism.
In the current moment, revolution does not threaten the old order as immediately as it did in Svinhufvud’s time, but the crisis of the old order creates a tendency to move away from liberal democratic ideals. The crisis of the bourgeois economy has worsened significantly, especially since around 2008. President Niinistö lamented that there has been no growth for 16 years. A few years ago, the Ministry of Finance noted that “Finland has fallen behind relevant competitors.” Risto Murto, CEO of the financial services company Varma, identified the fundamental reason as stagnant productivity.
Despite the vigorous actions of various governments, including the current one, the problem has persisted and worsened. Thus, Murto suggested in August of this year a cross-parliamentary consensus to develop economic policy. Notably, Niinistö has made similar suggestions in a speech that was recently deemed fascist by Punalippu. At the same time, there are concerns about “polarization” or “blockage,” which complicate such cooperation.
It is not difficult to recognize Svinhufvud’s complaints about how “party interests take precedence,” weakening the government’s “leadership position” in relation to the parliament, which “becomes increasingly important as both the government and Parliament face broad and difficult economic issues that need to be addressed and resolved.” The bourgeoisie desperately needs strong governments to push through the necessary reform programs, making the transition to wartime conditions even more pressing.
Only with such an analysis can we properly understand the context in which fascism develops. Without this, it is impossible to see the struggle between the liberal and fascist tendencies of the old order clearly, leading to a situation where one ends up trailing behind the reactionary liberalism.
Thirdly, the struggle against fascism primarily raises the question of the necessity to struggle for the reconstitution of the Communist Party of Finland (Suomen Kommunistisen Puolueen – SKP), advocating for a revolutionary line against a revisionist line. In November 1930, the Executive Committee of the Communist International summarized the reason for the SKP’s inability to struggle against the fascist upheaval: “During the entire second phase of post-war capitalism, instead of systematically working to uproot these social-democratic remnants, the SKP opportunistically adapted its practical actions to the conditions of the relative stabilization of capitalism and the corresponding legal forms of bourgeois class rule, often in fact applying the tactical and organizational methods of social democracy condemned by the Comintern, thereby reinforcing the social-democratic legacies within the Finnish revolutionary working class movement.”
In addition, we must emphasize the question of communist mass work, as petty-bourgeois antifascist activism ignores this necessity. The PCP has emphasized: “The masses are eager for politics, and it is the duty of communists to organize and lead them. The masses have concrete problems everywhere, and we must take care of them and participate in a solution, mass work is done in the midst of class struggle, not on its periphery. If we do not engage in mass work, reactionaries and revisionists will exploit it for their own purposes, whether it involves the development of fascism and the corporatization of the masses or the surrender of their struggles to another imperialist master. These are two objectives that are distinct and opposed to each other.”
In summary, the condition for the correct course of the antifascist struggle is the struggle for the reconstitution of the SKP by going to the deepest and broadest masses to mobilize them for the revolutionary struggle to crush Finnish imperialism and to shift towards socialism. Today, bourgeois democracy prevails in Finland, nurturing fascism in various ways, and the main focus of the antifascist struggle must be on the nurturing of fascism by bourgeois democracy; anything else would lead to trailing behind it, which seriously hinders the struggle against fascism. The united front is essential for leading revolutionary struggle, and its construction must be must be understood in this context.
