Other formats

    Adobe Portable Document Format file (facsimile images)   TEI XML file   ePub eBook file  

Connect

    mail icontwitter iconBlogspot iconrss icon

Salient. An Organ of Student Opinion at Victoria College, Wellington, N.Z. Vol. 14, No. 3. April 5, 1951

Fascism and Anti-Fascism

Fascism and Anti-Fascism

Much of the argument centring round the I.U.S. and its constitution involves this question of fascism and what it is. Why is this? The sections of the constitution which we have already quoted in our previous section, and indeed the whole tenor of the constitution, confirm that the I.U.S. directly owes its origin to the unity that was forged between the peoples of the victorious allied nations in the 1939-45 war. The student sections of these peoples came together in 1946 and formed the I.U.S: with the declared objective of continuing, in student circles at least, for the future peace of the world and the development and wellbeing of humanity, that unity which had so successfully, though not without many difficulties and differences, been created to win the war.

Of course there was then, and there still are, many for whom fascism means little more than something foreign with flags, and for whom that war was just another struggle between two great blocs of nations of which the one on which they happened to find themselves was animated by vaguely good, and the enemy by vaguely bad, motives. But, for the vast majority of students at this and other I.U.S. assemblies, most of them are still living with the aftermath of war and enemy-occupation, that war was fought besically against a welldefined type of political and economic organisation rather than against a group of nations or peoples. That organisation they know as "fascism," of which a typical definition is that given by President Roosevelt in his message to Congress on the 29th April, 1938. He said: "Unhappy truths abroad have retaught us two simple truths about the liberty of a democratic people. 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 the 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 . . . Among us to day, a concentration of private power without equal in history is growing . . . "

The views of the majority of delegates and of the I.U.S. Executive at this Congress were: that fascism in this sense did not altogether die with the defeat of Germany, Italy and Japan in 1945; that, apart from countries like Spain where it has openly continued to exist throughout, there is grave danger of its rebirth in several countries to-day, particularly in the U.S.A. itself; and that such a state of affairs involves many grave dangers for the rest of the world, including the strong possibility of a suicidal third total war.

Speakers from the minority group, and particularly the observers for the National Students Association of America, dismissed with scorn any suggestion that fascism was even possible in the U.S.A.

Mr. West, the leader of the group of observers for the N.S.A. of America (which, as far as we know, has never been affiliated to the I.U.S.), made two speeches. He mentioned that, like a number of other students present, he was a veteran of the Second World" War, and his speeches seemed to express substantial agreement with the opinions of the I.U.S. Executive and the majority present. His statement on Korea, for instance, was sympathetic to people of that country in the agonies which they fee now suffering, and included several concrete suggestions substantially along the lines envisaged by the majority of delegates for the settlement of the armed conflict there. (See later under Korea).

In his main intervention, claiming to speak on behalf of a membership of 800,000 in the United States, Mr. West gave a speech which impressed your observers by its apparent reasonableness and sincerity. Unlike Mr. Jenkins of B.N.U.S., he did not engage in bitter recriminations against the I.U.S. Executive. His organisation, he said, endorsed the principles and aims of the I.U.S. constitution, re-affirmed its support and solidarity with students struggling against colonisation, and firmly supported any action likely to contribute to the maintenance of world peace. Their attitude, he said, was not that of Marxism-Leninism, but of Democratic Liberalism. They were, for instance, strongly opposed to the Kuo Min Tang regime in China and welcomed the liberation of the Chinese people from Chiang Kai Shek. He claimed that the I.U.S, should not necessarily be a political in outlook, but rather non-political, making purely student problems the centre of its activities and taking political actions only to the extent that those problems demanded it.

Turning to the question of peace, he said that U.S. students to-day were veterans of the fight against fascism and believe that war is needless and avoidable, claiming that peace can and will be achieved. His organisation strongly supported U.N.O. and had turned its full energies to the work of U.N.E.S.C.O. He expressed the strongest possible support for the statement of the Bureau of the World Committee of the Defenders of Peace which had been read from the tribune the previous day (see later under Peace). He also stated that the opinions of this Congress on the Stockholm Appeal would be carried back and presented in all sincerity to the students of the United States.

Turning to the quetsion of civil liberties in the United States, with reference to educational institutions, he referred with some pride to his organisation's Students Bill of Rights and claimed that the N.S.A. has lost support in the Southern Universities due to their attitude on these questions. He fully endorsed what had been said by Dr. Ralph Spitzer, an American scientist who addressed the Congress about his dismissal from the post of Associate Professor of Physical Chemistry at Oregon State College for having written a letter to a scientific periodical in connection with the biological theories of the Soviet scientist Lyssenko, Dr. Spitzer having supported the latter. In his address to the Congress Dr. Spitzer had given the full history of his own case and had factually and at some length gone into the increasing lack of academic freedom in the United States. It was presumably with these remarks that Mr. West was expressing agreement.