I posted this tweet this morning:
It is the latest suggestion that I have made that Johnson is a fascist, with reasons noted.
I also suggest that this is true of many of his MPs.
And because Johnson's views are those of his government I have suggested that those who support the Tories are also supporters of fascist policies.
In the face of evil I think it important to say so. I can, of course, justify the arguments made using academic sources if required but my actua logic for saying this is simple. I suggest that it is true that “The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing.” And I do know that this was not apparently said by Edmund Burke, although it is routinely attributed to him. That is irrelevant: the statement is true whoever might have first said it. And I object to evil happening.
Despite this, the objections roll in, regularly. Yesterday this was posted on the blog:
Is it really the case thst professional bodies such as the ICAEW and academic institutions such as the Sheffield University Management school and Anglia Ruskin University don't have any controls over their members / professors?
I know that, regardless of it being outside of my professional work, I would certainly be in trouble with my professional body if I was to make the fanatical, abusive and offensive claims that you publish on a regular basis.
Do they not monitor the content on your blog?
Let's just consider that for a moment. First, this person (and almost certainly a false name was used) wants my universities and professional bodies to limit my political freedom of speech.
And they want them to do so in order that fascism might happen.
What they suggest is that I make fanatical, abusive and offensive claims. In their opinion deporting people to Rwanda illegally is acceptable, but to call out for what motivates this poliucy is fanatical, abusive and offensive.
As a result they suggest that my blog should be monitored to prevent me doing this. Well, at least we now know where cancel culture is happening.
It took me a long time and a lot of thought before I called Johnson and the Tories fascists. But that is what they are. And unless we describe them as such they will still con some people into believing they are John Major style Conservatives - when he is horrified by what they are doing, as are those MPs of more moderate mind that Johnson expelled from the Tory Party to let this happen.
So report me to whoever you like. I know full well that whoever you might report me to knows what I am doing: I hardly hide my opinions. And I reserve the right to call fascists what they are, without fear. That is what is necessary to oppose evil.
Thanks for reading this post.
You can share this post on social media of your choice by clicking these icons:
You can subscribe to this blog's daily email here.
And if you would like to support this blog you can, here:
The price of freedom is eternal vigilance. So said Voltaire. And in today’s world of gaslighting soundbiting and trolling, we are encouraged to accept lazy thinking and indulge in irrational ideological culture wars. Vigilance is hard work. Our freedom is at risk. You are helping us fight the good fight. Keep it up!
Thanks
I will
I know you to be a person of integrity who would not use the f-word lightly. I wish I could diagree, but the actions you describe are hard to see in any other way. Nonetheless, people can change what they do far more easily than what they are. Voting Tory is indeed supporting fascist government actions, but it unnerves me to see further polarisation of a with us/against us kind. Democracy is only as good as the information it’s based on, and while many people are duped by their algorythmic bubbles, most have the capacity for compassion, fairness and decency when they have a chance to see more than one viewpoint. One danger in labelling those on the margins as fascists is that they may become more entrenched, and less likely to see beyond their own bubble. I would encourage you to continue calling out fascist actions, and also to remember your faith in people’s ability to change
Thanks Lesley
I am aware of Quaker principles on this
I am aware too that people do change their minds
My fear is that for many this is already their identity
Many Tory MPs set the tone for this
That is my concern
Richard
Everyone knows (or they should) that silence is seen as consent especially by those with agendas.
Those with agendas seldom like others to join in do they? I even see this in management meetings on difficult topics.
This is why speaking out about things is good.
And then we create debate and understanding.
However, in these Fascists times, that is going to bed difficult. The Fascist mono-cultural mindset does not tolerate ‘the other’. We see it in Left and Right and now – even Centre views – on politics.
And Fascists – who when you think about it, are NOT rational people – are as you say always quick to claim victimhood.
I would be surprised if any of the orgs’ you are associated with censure you in some way because you actually have some things in common which is why you are working with them in the first place.
Whoever wrote the above knows the value of fear in supressing debate – a typical Fascist if I ever saw one.
Good luck.
Hear hear, Richard.
My belief in Scottish Independence goes back to 1964, thus predating the current run of Westminster Tory Governments since 2010. However, over the last 12 years I have seen such a change in Tory policy towards right wing authoritarianism that it can only be described as fascist.
I cannot help England, only English voters (and activists) can do that. Scotland relegated the Tories from power in the 1950s but we still suffer the consequences of being a minor partner in this unequal union.
England needs people like you, Richard, who have the courage to speak out and not just supinely answer the dogwhistles of the bigots and racists.
I have an ongoing debate with various friends of mine about whether Boris Johnson should be described as a fascist or not. My view is that he should, even though Johnson (and other right-wing authoritarian leaders such as Orban in Hungary, Bolsonaro in Brazil, Trump in the USA, Modi in India and Putin in Russia) are not exactly the same as 1930s fascists like Hitler and Mussolini. They do use many of the same techniques and their contempt for democracy is similar. We could call Johnson et al “new fascists”, “21st century fascists” or “new authoritarians”; I think they are certainly a variant of fascist political organisation.
The similarities are too significant to bother with the distinction, IMO
But I am glad we otherwise agree
Howard
May I put forward the idea that the only homogeneity between Fascist leaders is in their TECHNIQUES and TOOLS – not their stated enemies, policy aspirations, political outlook which can be manifestly heterogenous even.
This is what makes Fascism so difficult to look out for and a real threat to democracy.
Trust you will never report anyone else to their employer for anonymously expressing fiery opinions.
For the record, I never have reported anyone to their employer
But it’s true that the ICAEW did sack a senior member of staff for gross misconduct for abusing me when they discovered his identity
You are challenging confirmation biases and those being challenged do not like it – they hate it – so they want to shut you down.
It is interesting that there are those who scream that their right to free speech is being denied yet seek to deny that same right to others.
Please keep going – it’s a long, long road but hopefully we get to the desired locatiob.
Craig
Also worrying that BBC news is infected – ‘there is only one narrative’ – cutting across EU or Irish politicians if they are being too coherent getting across the point that ‘the EU wont negotiate’ is a lie . They tend to end the interview by parroting the govt’s latest lie instead of asking whether or not it is true.
But what is the most effective way to characterise the govt? Almost gives them too much credence to call them fully fledged fascists?
Craig Hall shows this comparative list of the Nazis actions in the thirties side by side with this government’s parallel legislation – without comment – sort of speaks for itself
https://twitter.com/w41gy/status/1536967372254453760
Perhaps what we have is proto-fascism, and need to ridicule them as part of drawing attention to the very real danger that all our main institutions are being undermined and are collapsing and that we may be approaching a key ‘post war’-type turning point as with Aditya Chakrabortty
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2022/jun/10/britain-political-housing-health
I wouldn’t worry about it Richard. One of the peculiarities of political debate is that the far-right constantly hurl terms of abuse at anybody whose views differ from theirs but are absolutely outraged by any language that accurately describes their own behaviour in less than complimentary terms.
If they were a person they would be classic psychological rhino/butterflies. Totally insensitive to the feelings of others but unable to bear the slightest hurt of their own self-regard.
Past far-right favourites have included, the enemy within, wets, do-gooders, the loony left, the Liberal elite, experts, etc, and currently we have the weaponization of terms such as woke, political correctness and cancel culture. Only this morning they were at it again with accusations that the debacle of the flights to Rwanda was down to “Lefty Lawyers” rather than their own dishonesty and incompetence.
In such circumstances describing this government as Fascist is not only accurate but is a model of restraint compared with the relentless abuse coming from the opposite direction.
Thanks
“If they were a person they would be classic psychological rhino/butterflies. Totally insensitive to the feelings of others but unable to bear the slightest hurt of their own self-regard.”
Oh, absolutely. Poor little snowflakes, when their lies and BS are confronted by nasty liberals and ‘lefties’ and ‘do-gooders’. See the DM’s whining about the media coverage of Johnson’s various misdemeanours; it’s all a lefty plot coup.
Whereas the Brexit campaign wasn’t?
I’m not sure if it helps to describe the government or its members as fascists – “fascist” is a term of abuse often hurled by the political left against the political right, whether or not it is justified – but I’m not going to criticise you for it in this case.
We don’t have violent uniformed paramilitaries marching in jackboots , or racial purity laws and concentration camps. But, as the saying goes, history does not repeat but it often rhymes.
There is a nice FDR quote: “The first truth is that the liberty of a democracy is not safe if the people tolerate the growth of private power to a point where it becomes stronger than their democratic state itself. That, in its essence, is fascism — ownership of government by an individual, by a group, or by any other controlling private power.”
Fascism is hard to define, but there are common threads, and the sorts of behaviour we have seen in the last few years have taken a dramatic tilt towards a nationalist populist authoritarianism. A government with a strong charismatic leader, that does not feel bound by the usual conventions, such as the Nolan principles of honesty and integrity, and does not consider itself to be subject to the law, and so can do whatever it likes, allied with a very individualistic, take-what-you-can, devil-take-the-hindmost ideology.
I already feel like I don’t recognise my country any longer. God forbid this Conservative party winning the next general election.
As I said, I took a long time to adopt this position
I did so only with care
I think we are pretty much in agreement
Might Umberto Eco’s practical list for identifying Fascists be relevant?
https://www.faena.com/aleph/umberto-eco-a-practical-list-for-identifying-fascists
Richard, the poster may have a valid point.
In any profession, we have a responsibility to ensure that our behaviour in and out of the workplace is consistent with the standards and ethics of our employers. If our behaviour in the “real world” or on social media represents a reputational or real risk to our employers they can and do act. So it is perfectly reasonable to expect an academic institution to monitor the activities on their staff on social media and/or personal websites and also a reasonable question to pose.
Your posts are a mix of articles that would match the standards of any academic institution (eg, on money, on MMT, on the critique of Melvyn King etc) and absurd, if amusing, political hyperbole that do not (eg, fascism, fascists etc). Does that represent a reputational risk for your employer(s)? Quite possibly. Are they likely to monitor this? Most certainly.
It is also difficult to reconcile the claim about limiting freedom of speech with the approach that you have to moderating/censoring comments (on your website) that point out inaccuracies and/or express different views. But that’s a different story altogether…
Oh dear John-Paul, you really give yourself away in the last comment
Apparently I am not allowed freedom of speech but anyone who likes is apparently allowed to come on here and offer abuse
Politely, stop being stupid. Of course I have the rough to edit what comments get on here
“In any profession, we have a responsibility to ensure that our behaviour in and out of the workplace is consistent with the standards and ethics of our employers.”
What tosh.
Any professional, employed by Johnson, has a responsibility to ensure they are NOT consistent with his standards or ethics.
It is completely ethical – indeed our ethical duty – to call out fascism
I will happily defend that right
Interestingly, the Guardian has carried a story about some civil servants in the Home Office resisting Patel’s grotesque policy.
John-Paul,
You accuse RM of “absurd…political hyperbole” without providing any evidence to support your opinion. Richard has provided examples over weeks, if not months, of this government’s actions that have, at the very least, moved us in the direction of fascism. If we wait until we all agree that we have a fascist government it will be too late! As you can see, most commentators on his blog appreciate his warnings.
I applaud your stance, Richard, agreeing wholeheartedly with the points you make.
One figure in relatively recent history who had to deal with fascism in it’s most dangerous and specious form was Dietrich Bonhoeffer. He consequently became one of it’s most famous individual victims.
Bearing in mind some of the hostile comments on your earlier post on this subject, today, it is worth considering his Theory of Stupidity. It explains much about how and why too many are currently thinking in our much-misled society.
https://sproutsschools.com/bonhoeffers-theory-of-stupidity/
Food for thought, I think.
You mention a real hero
Please, please stop calling this government Tories or Conservatives. They are not, they have long gone….
Richard, I used to think you were a mild-mannered accountant with interesting things to say about money, finance and government.
But over the past few years, you have become increasingly outspoken and party political. Thank you; it has become impossible to remain calm in the face of this fascist government.
It’s always worth remembering Michael Rosen’s words.
“Fascism arrives as your friend. It will restore your honour, make you feel proud, protect your house, give you a job, clean up the neighbourhood, remind you of how great you once were, clear out the venal and the corrupt, remove anything you feel is unlike you….
It doesn’t walk in saying, “Our programme means militias, mass imprisonments, transportations, war and persecution.”
But if Brexit represented the first sentence, we are now moving on to sentence two.
Thank you for speaking out.
I do noit consider myself party political
Given time and place there are at least eight parties I could consider voting for in the UK at present
Given where I am that is reduced to three
But I do not see myself in any way as party political – but political, definitely. We all are. Coinfessing to not be so is political choice, after all
“When Injustice becomes Law, Resistance becomes Duty “. that is what you are bravely and expertly doing Richard and i thank you for your Duty .
I agree with you totally regarding the march of the UK towards a fascist state and hope that people like you and myself to a lesser extent speak out loudly and call this government and other political parties and groupings to account in the desire to call a halt to this evil political movement.
As we all know disinterest and acquiescence allow the fascists to grow unless there is a strong opposition them.
The Conservative Party may profess to be not fascist but they are moving steadily in that direction and as you say probably now are, at least in their upper echelons. After Thatcher smashed the trade unions in 1984 at Orgreave using police violence for blatant political suppression as per Mussolini and Hitler they have been emboldened (except for the John Major interlude you cite). Cameron and Clegg imposed the most brutal system of social security cuts and demonising whether unemployed or disabled claimants with the vicious sanction regime of Universal Credit. Now Priti Patel with the blessing of the Mail, Sun, Express, Times and Telegraph are praising the illegal forced deportations to Rwanda of migrants fleeing persecution or starvation. Declaring people coming over in boats “illegal” is clearly fascist as there is no such concept in international law. A person may be stateless but this does not mean they can be bereft of human rights under the UN Charter, so this policy is definitely fascist, especially as all “legal” means for migrants to enter the UK are shut off except for a few from Afghanistan, Hong Cong, and Ukraine.
Hi,
The difference between fascism and communism comes down to who owns the economy [oversimplified, but essentially trus if my reading of history is correct] . They both point at outside and inside enemies, both are militaristic, both dictatorial. The differences betwenn Hitler and Stalin were not that great.
Calling the current right wing fascist is [almost] a badge of honour for them and one they can dismiss by asking people ‘you think we’re going to kill people in concentration camps?’.
Calling them communists is still accurate regarding their dicatatorial nature, while having the handy attribute of forcing them to defend their position more. They may be able to point to gulags, though they can come unstuck when you point to asylum detention centres as a comparison
Not perfect, but it does work a little better than calling them fascists.
Martin
Sorry – but let’s stick to what they are
It really does help