Austria: Rote Fahne on the Attempt to Create Relative Stability

We publish an unofficial translation of an article by Rote Fahne, Austria:

FPÖ as chancellor’s party? The factions of capital and their attempt to create relative stability

It has been around a week since Federal President Van der Bellen gave FPÖ Chairman Herbert Kickl the task of forming a government. A wave of outcry went through the international (especially the German) and national monopoly media, the likes of which are otherwise only known from major corruption scandals or similar. The industrial association and the Chamber of Commerce are not dissatisfied and are hoping for a stabilization of the Wirtschaftsstandort[Translator’s note: that means the stabilization of Austrian economy] while at the same time calling for austerity targets. Now the population should be kept in line with various party banter: Who was to blame for the collapse of the planned three-party coalition? Will “liberal democracy” now be abolished in Austria? … What position should the working class and the progressive, democratic and revolutionary-minded forces take?

Attempt at stabilization and the disintegration of Austrian imperialism.

Some forces in the extra-parliamentary left-wing movement primarily speculate about the reason why those in power “don’t want the SPÖ in government” and sometimes go astray in the process. One of the theses is that the ruling class in Austria, the bourgeoisie, does not want to make any reforms or concessions. On the one hand, this is not wrong, especially since the SPÖ would find it difficult to agree to certain deteriorations or savings in order not to lose further influence and position (although the government negotiations have already shown how many of the election promises would have been quickly ignored). For example, increasing the retirement age to 67, or the further, comprehensive dismantling of social partnership and the associated loss of importance of the trade unions. The fundamental “mistake”, however, is that the SPÖ is not seen as a party of Austrian monopoly capital, but as a “workers’ party on the wrong path”. The ruling class, the bourgeoisie, is not a unified “bloc” but also exists here Gradually different interests that are expressed in the various parliamentary groups and in the parliament. For a long time in recent history, the SPÖ was the leading faction of the Austrian bourgeoisie, the key industries (nationalized industry, etc…) were most heavily represented by the SPÖ. In the 50 years between 1970 and 2020 alone, the SPÖ hold the Federal Chancellorship for 40 years. In the last decades it was mainly the SPÖ that determined the political course of Austrian capital and represented the leading faction of the capitalist class. Since the 1990s, however, a change has taken place and social democracy, which is strongly linked to large industry and especially its formerly nationalized part, is now in a deep crisis. This political crisis of social democracy, which coincides with an economic crisis, particularly in the industrial sector, is also an expression of the decomposition of Austrian imperialism. This means that Austrian capital (especially the traditional key industries) can no longer continue as before. This is also reflected in the “alarm reports” of the last few weeks, such as those from the President of the Industrial Association, Georg Knill: We are no longer taking part in world growth. We have priced ourselves out of the market.” He goes on: Many of the people involved have not personally experienced the market economy (…) They have always been in protected markets or protected areas.” The dreams of a three-party coalition of ÖVP, SPÖ and NEOS have failed not because of the “government of the economy against the SPÖ”, but because of the enormous instability of this possible government for the needs of capital. On the one hand, there is the factor of a three-party coalition, which overall harbors more instability than a two-party coalition and, in Germany, for example, did not manage to complete an entire legislative period. On the other hand, there is also the factor that it is mainly made up of the “looser parties” ÖVP and SPÖ, which face great discontent within the population, and would therefore have had far more problems pushing through billions in cuts and deteriorations in a grand coalition style. Now political factions are emerging that at least have a tendency to try other options to get out of the political and economic crisis. It is, so to speak, an “emergency exit” for those in power, an attempt to stabilization within a broader national and international crisis. The FPÖ is not a “new force” within the parliamentary parties. What is completely new, however, is that the ruling faction represented by the FPÖ is becoming the chancellor’s party and can dictate the conditions for coalition negotiations.

Crisis of social democracy and its “left-liberal” followers.

The Social Democracy, and with it the ÖGB as one of its most important institutions, still seems paralyzed by the end of the coalition negotiations and the possibility of Herbert Kickl as the next chancellor. And with it, the bubble of “left-wing liberalism” also seems to have been paralyzed. What they have in common is that they acted as the vanguard of a kind of “kickl prevention campaign” and ultimately achieved one thing above all else: further strengthening the FPÖ. The so-called “left-liberalism” and its various organizations and “revolutionary” representatives have appeared in recent years as defenders of a certain faction of the bourgeoisie in the state apparatus on numerous issues (e.g. by helping Van der Bellen and Babler to be voted, or also by defending their anti-democratic Corona measures, …). In doing so, they isolated themselves from the anger and justified demands of the masses and left the political field of criticism of anti-democratic and warmongering measures to the Freedomly Party. Continuing this kind of “Kickl-Prevent campaign” without directing the main blow against the main political agendas of the EU and those in power in Austria, the warmongering and the attacks on social and democratic rights, will further this isolation. For all those who actually want to fight for social improvements and the interests of the working class and the people, this experience must be a lesson. Defending that faction of the bourgeoisie, represented by the SPÖ and the Greens (and partly also the ÖVP), against the FPÖ ultimately weakens the progressive forces of the people, isolates them and sacrifices the interests of the oppressed for dwarfing participation in the faction and direction struggle within the bourgeoisie.

When it has woken up from its paralysis, the SPÖ, in its opposition role, will try to present itself as a “defender of social rights” and a “champion of the workers” on one issue or another. It may succeed in this in individual cases, but overall it cannot be assumed that social democracy (also due to its own deep crisis and the increasing loss of hegemony) will develop longer-lasting and broader political mass activities. But above all they will try to keep their own sheep safe and take a stand against the loss of importance of social-partnership. For the progressive forces of the people, this means that they must also take a stand against these attempts at orchestration by the social democrats, because it is sometimes the social democrats who, as the ruling faction, are responsible for this situation.

The FPÖ has primarily through its opposition recorded major gains in voters, to the EU’s main political program and its strong democratic and social demagoguery. Not to be forgotten is the crisis of the “grand coalition” parties, which once again boosted the flow of voters. Now, if this government comes into being, the FPÖ as the chancellor’s party will certainly be tested on its promises, which will promote the instability of this possible government constellation. For example, the FPÖ has campaigned for lower energy prices, for improving the situation of small and medium-sized businesses, as well as social security (e.g. maintaining hospitals). However, even the bourgeois economic forecasts assume that energy prices will rise massively in 2025, bankruptcies will continue to increase and unemployment will rise. With only “budget restructuring on the expenditure side” and a billion-dollar savings plan for the next seven years, a large part of these promises will not be kept, which will also lead to an intensification of the contradictions between the masses and a potential FPÖ-ÖVP government. The progressive forces must, above all, address reactionary attacks on social rights, in particular cuts and further erosion of working class rights. At the same time, it is necessary to consistently represent all those demands that were also part of the FPÖ campaigns, such as withdrawal from Sky Shield, defense of neutrality, lifting of the imperialist sanctions policy, no further rapprochement with NATO, etc… consequently – depending on the political non or implementation – expose the frothing and demagoguery of the FPÖ.

An attempt to generate relative political stability for reactionary measures: Defend yourself and fight!

In summary, it must be stated: The aim of those in power in the last National Council election in September 2024 was to create relative political stability for the interests of capital. After negotiations for a three-party coalition collapsed, a potential FPÖ-ÖVP government should now achieve this goal of a more stable coalition in order to implement austerity measures and give Austrian capital new scope for action or win back old ones. In the first attempt to form a new government, a three-party coalition would have been set up for the first time in the history of Austria; in the variant that has now been implemented, for the first time in the history of Austria, none of the old factions of the bourgeoisie (SPÖ, ÖVP) will be the chancellor party . This shows a change in the composition and weighting of the factions of the bourgeoisie and this change apparently initiates a change in how the factions of the bourgeoisie in Austria are strategically composed. Wanting to oppose an “FPÖ chancellorship” is legitimate, but not as an appendix to the SPÖ, but in the struggle to mobilize and strengthen the forces of the people, in the struggle against the interests and rule of capital.

Previous post Brazil: Peasants take Lands from Usina São Fernando in Mato Grosso do Sul – Siege by Military Police and Eviction
Next post Ecuador – Do not Fall in the Electoral Ambush. The Way is: NOT TO VOTE!