‘Liberalism and Fascism’ by Albert Weisbord from Class Struggle (C.L.S.). Vol. 4 No. 1. January, 1934.

The Fascist tendencies within the Roosevelt regime bring sharply to our attention the problem of the relation of Liberalism to Fascism. For here is a man, Roosevelt, and a Party, the Democratic Party, that considered themselves as representing a liberal opinion in this country. And indeed with Roosevelt in power we have certain liberal gestures at the present time. Have we not the social worker, Frances Perkins, as the head of the Department of Labor? Have we not the recognition of Communist Russia? Have we not the end of Prohibition? Have we not the NRA as ‘The Magna Charter of Labor’ magnanimously allowing the workers to `join a union of their own choosing’, forbidding the `yellow dog contract’, and announcing as its purpose the raising of the purchasing power of the `forgotten man’ and the restoration of prosperity.

And yet symptoms are not lacking to show us that the `liberalism’ of Roosevelt is not `pure’ liberalism, but at best `mixed liberalism’, a liberalism mixed with definite fascist characteristics. If we have a Miss Perkins, we have a General Johnson. If we have the recognition of Russia, we have, as a condition to such recognition, the demand for the liquidation of the Communist international. We have the growing tension of war with Japan and the popularization of the very idea of dictatorship. If we have the NRA, we have the low wage slavery codes, the dollar a day and board of the Conservation Camps and the unemployment regiments of labor, the compulsory arbitration, the rise in the cost of living, and the definite increase in company union and fascist union tendencies.

The `mixed’ type of liberalism, in which liberalism begins to show a dual personality (a Dr. Hyde turning into a Mr. Jekyll as it were), must not surprise us. It is the most natural thing in the world. In our generation liberalism can readily turn into fascism, just as in the past generation, it turned readily either into laborism or even into anarchism or socialism. It is no accident that in Europe the liberals of yesterday have become the fascists of today, just as it will be no accident that the liberals in America today will inevitably become the fascists of America tomorrow. To find out why this is sos, we must look behind the history of ideas, which, indeed, is no history, to the real history of men and events.

Liberalism arose hand in hand with the rise of manufacturing and merchant capital and with the Industrial Revolution, in countries where capitalism was in control both economically and politically, and where capitalist society as a whole was on the upgrade. Liberalism was the product of capitalist propertied classes, who were comfortably situated, who had a stake in the given society and who felt that they had a great future before them.

As long as the capitalists were in a life and death struggle with the old regime, it was quite proper that their ideology, liberalism, should take on features in opposition to that of their enemies, the feudal lords. Did the feudal lords stress the social order and society? Then the capitalists who were opposed to this social order stressed individualism. Did the feudal lords stress the need for regulation (for their benefit) by the state? Then the capitalist spoke of liberty, absence of regulation, so that the merchant and industrialist might profit. Thus, against “Society” liberalism set up the individual, against the feudal theory of mutual dependence, the theory of independence; against the hierarchy of feudalism, the slogan of liberty and equality, against the theory of the political control by the few (the elite), the slogan of democracy, against the theory of class lines, the theory of no classes and equality of individuals.

What was behind all these slogans of liberalism? The necessity of the capitalists to rationalize the system of social relations that would guarantee to them their power and their profits. There came a time when the capitalists were successful in defeating the ancient regime and, as the capitalists passed from an opposition class to the class in power and began to dominate the state, themselves, then their ideology and their `liberalism’ began to change. Now, faced with other classes, including the modern working class, which they had created and which was raising its own demands, 19th century liberalism was driven along two lines. First it had to recognize `society’ and the subordination of the rights and wills of the individuals to the social well being, and second, it had to recognize the doctrine of evolution, i.e., of change. With these modifications, Liberalism began to take on a pseudo `scientific’ coloration.

This new liberalism made a great appeal to the lower middle class and to the skilled workers who were being bribed by the special privileges of an imperialistic economy. Instead of talking about `liberty’, it spoke about `happiness’ and the greatest good in the greatest number to be brought about by the judicious legislation of the state. As liberalism became `democratic’, it began to rely more and more upon the state to preserve `individualism’. Together with economic reform, freedom of speech and the press were measures to prevent the bursting forth of fierce class war. Against revolution, the liberals of the 19th century counter imposed `peaceful’ evolution, precisely at a time when the working class was evolving from liberal sentiments to socialism, and when in England, changing from a wing of the liberal party the workers were making the liberals a wing of their Labor Party. Already in the late 19th century we see liberalism tend to disappear as the great forces in the imminent class struggle between Capitol and Labor line up for mastery.

However, we must not imagine that Labor broke with liberalism at once. Certainly laborism (Labor Party-ism) was in one sense the very triumph of liberalism, the victory of liberalism in the camp of Labor. The whole laborite camp was thoroughly corroded by liberalism, with its denial of the class struggle, its ideas of class collaboration, and its illusion of increased social reform through Democracy. Through `Lib-Labism’ (The Liberal Labor Coalition effected in England) a section of liberalism turned 180 degree around. If, earlier, the state was not to interfere, now the State was to be be-sought for social reforms, for nationalization schemes, for taxation of the wealthy, for protection of the weak. Individualism gave place to a theory that social action and social force were decisive, that the individual, for example, can be curbed by the trade union. From this there is only a slight step forward to the assertion that individualism can only be developed through social action. From the shift of emphasis from liberty as the means, to happiness, the end of life, it is but a slight step forward to declare that since the end is important, all means are justified if only the end be reached, even the denial of liberty. And thus Liberalism commits suicide, precisely at a time when the class struggle reaches its final battles.

II

Liberalism arose as a movement in defense of capitalist private property. Fascism is a continuation of this defense. And so there is a direct line of connection between liberalism and fascism. If liberalism appears in those countries where the capitalists are well developed in their struggles against the feudal regime, historically, fascism appears as a dominant movement in those countries which, next to the Soviet Union, were the weakest links in the chain of capitalist imperialism, which the masses were breaking. Fascism thus is a post war movement basically directed against Communism and formed by the capitalists in order to liquidate the proletarian revolution threatening its power.

If fascism arose first in countries predominantly agrarian (though with a well developed and considerable industry), later, as the crisis of capitalism grew more decisive, fascism moved from the secondary states to the primary, from the outskirts in the very center of world capitalism. it has established itself in Germany and industrial Europe. It is advancing even in England and the U.S.

Fascism is the violent development of corporate and state capitalism (with its semi-public and public property) creating its own governmental forms. Fascism is the open dictatorship of the bourgeoisie, with the aid of the petty bourgeoisie, against the workers. It arises at a time when capitalism had no further use for its classical parliamentarism, when democracy as a bourgeois class state has become thoroughly exposed to the masses. Imperialism, i.e., reactionary, monopolistic, capitalism, had already taken away the economic base for the `checks and balance’ system of 19th century democracy, with its `talking shop’ parliaments and many independent parties. The world war had emphasized the complete bankruptcy of political liberalism.

Fascism openly replaces the “democratic” slogan “Liberty, Equality, Fraternity” with the slogans of “Responsibility, Hierarchy, Discipline.” Fascist theory openly calls for violent action by the propertied minority. Fascism, then, builds up a complete theory of nationalization of capital, of the untrammelled corporate `totalitarian’ state, of compulsory class collaboration and of the dominant role of religion in state and life.

In all of this, it is easy to see just where fascism differs from liberalism. However, it is the primary task of this article to show the tools of fascism within liberalism itself, to show the intimate connection of liberalism and fascism and how the ideology of one can easily spring from the other.

III

In the first place it is clear that both liberalism and fascism are a defense of private property in the means of production. When capitalism is going up, liberalism is fitting for the capitalist; when capitalism is going down throughout the world, then he betakes himself to fascism. Both liberalism and fascism have the same roots—defense of private capitalist property. And what is more, both liberalism and fascism get their supporters from the same class—the petty bourgeoisie. The fascist is the desperate petty bourgeoisie harnessed to the chariot of imperialism.

We have seen that liberalism believed in free competition but free competition means the spoils belong to the winner and that the stronger can knock out the weaker. Free competition means individualism. But individualism can lead to hero worship and to caesarism, the victory of the strong individual, of the strong Napoleon. Has not the liberal worshipped the strong individual, the strong capitalist who could win in free competition? Can he now object to the worship of a strong political hero, of a Hitler or a Mussolini? If the liberal never objected to the dictatorship of the capitalist in the shop, can be object to the dictatorship of the capitalist agent in the state, especially when shop and state are more and more becoming one?

If the liberal believes in seeing “both sides”, will he not also see the side of the fascist and give them `due credit’? If the liberal believes abstractly in free speech, will he not fight for the free speech even of the fascist? We have seen how hard the `American Civil Liberties Union’ in the name of liberalism, has fought for the Ku Klux Klan and for the German Fascists in America. If we must always see `both sides’, then is there not a `good side’ to Hitler and the Fascists, especially when they are protecting you and yours from the bad Bolsheviks? After seeing both sides then we choose and the liberal in the 20th century has to choose and does choose—now Communism, now fascism—depending upon who has the power in the see-saw struggle.

The liberal is ready to recognize the rights of society. Very well, then, since the liberal was not opposed to the capitalist state, but indeed, latterly, stood for its extension, can he now be opposed to the `totalitarian’ state? Let us not believe that the fascist “totalitarian” state (everything for the state, nothing outside the state) would do away with the individualism of the capitalist. Indeed, it is the only way for the capitalist to preserve his individualism, because it preserves his property. Fascism does not crush the “liberty and independence” of the capitalist. It only enhances them.

The demand of the liberal for “liberty” very often meant “cheap government”. Cheap government is one of the principle reasons for the victory of the Nazis in Germany. The fact is that, under the Weimar constitution, the German state was becoming bankrupt, it could not meet the interest on its debts. It could not meet the demands for social insurance and for a living wage without disrupting its whole capitalist life entirely. The victory of fascism has brought to a successful realization the dream of the liberals—the cheap state—at the expense of the workers and poor toilers generally.

The liberal is against all class struggles. At first he tries to deny the existence of classes. Then to harmonize the interests of the opposing classes. In this opposition to classes the liberal is at one with the fascist. The fascist also preaches class fusion. Just as the liberal did in the past, so the fascist today fights Marxism and the doctrine of class war. The class peace of the fascist, however, is the peace of the cemetery. If the liberal is for inaction and the fascist for action, this will not separate them. The liberals try to keep the workers from action; the fascists aim to physically destroy the action of the workers whenever it arises.

Finally, in the philosophic field, let us not forget that the `liberal philosopher’, Wm. James, is the direct inspirer of Mussolini and rightly so. Pragmatism, eclecticism, fits in exquisitely well with a movement that is born of desperation, that breathes through demagogy, that knows not what will happen from day to day, and that moves convulsively to avoid the ever increasing conflicts overwhelming capitalism in its last death throes. Pragmatism, what is that but another word for `No Perspective’? Pragmatism, what is that but action without theory, motion without movement? Wm. James, inspirer of Mussolini and of John Dewey and the latter’s bootblack, `Professor’ Sidney Hook—here is the philosophic link that may yet connect American Liberalism with Fascism.

The Communist League of Struggle was formed in March, 1931 by C.P. veterans Albert Weisbord, Vera Buch, Sam Fisher and co-thinkers after briefly being members of the Communist League of America led by James P. Cannon. In addition to leaflets and pamphlets, the C.L.S. had a mostly monthly magazine, Class Struggle, and issued a shipyard workers shop paper,The Red Dreadnaught. Always a small organization, the C.L.S. did not grow in the 1930s and disbanded in 1937.