HOLDS FASCIST SYSTEM CANNOT BE PERMANENT

In the following article, written by William Leonard Langer '15, assistant professor in the Department of History, the writer discusses Mussolini and the revolt against liberalism, a subject on which he recently spoke before the Massachusetts League of Women Voters.

The great social changes of the later eighteenth and nineteenth centuries gave rise to profound political transformations. The industrial revolution radically upset the economic system and established industrial and commercial capital side by side with wealth in land. This in turn involved the decline of the old feudal aristocracy and the rise of a middle class. It was but natural that this natural class, as it became influential should desire some voice in the affairs of government. In time it evolved a political theory known as liberalism and based on the principles of individualism, liberty and free competition. In the countries of Western Europe, like England, France and Germany, it gradually forced itself to the front, either by pacific or by revolutionary tactics. In these countries we see not only the establishment of liberal governments, with constitutional and parliamentary principles, but the evolution, in the second half of the nineteenth century, of the more radical movements of political and social quality.

Taine believed that many of the troubles which confronted France in the nineteenth century were due to the attempts made to import from England ideas and practices which had no root in the traditions of the country. This was even more true of other countries, which were far less prepared for the liberal regime than France. The force of example was so strong, however, that in almost all countries of Europe the power of the absolute monarchy was broken and constitutional systems were instituted before 1914. Two of the most notable examples were Russia and Turkey. It is quite conceivable that under normal circumstances the new systems might have evolved satisfactorily in time, as the country in question developed economically and socially. But the world war proved too great a strain. Even the more advanced countries found the existing system unsatisfactory and introduced war governments, which smacked strongly of dictatorships. In the less advanced countries the war led to total collapse, as in Russia and in Turkey. In 1917 the liberal experiment in Russia proved entirely inadequate and Lenin's success depended in large measure on his realization of the need of a strong hand and a temporary dictatorship. But Italy is certainly the most interesting and instructive example, for there the liberal system, introduced by Cavour, had been in operation for over 50 years. There can be no doubt that it was premature and that the country was not prepared for it. Before long the government had fallen into the hands of a comparatively small group, which frequently utilized its position for selfish ends. Even before the war the opposition to the regime had found strong expression in the socialist movement and in the revival of a nationalist movement which aimed at the consolidation of the national powers for the common good. The trials of war led to a complete debacle of the liberal system and gave rise to the Fascist movement, which, in its essence is a revolt against liberalism. Mussolini, as dictator, is the new state, and his chief aim is the galvanization of the nation's effort for the good of the whole. Hence his hostility to the parliamentary government and his attempt to reorganize the economic and social structure of the country. The movement is certainly a natural one. Whether it is a salutary one is another question. It might have been better for countries like Italy to have passed through a period of conservative rule like Germany from 1870 to 1914. The danger in the dictatorships lies in the fact that everything depends on the person of the dictator and on the duration of his life. It is hard to imagine a Fascist Italy without Mussolini or a nationalist Turkey without Mustapha Kemal Pasha. At the same time it may be doubted whether the immediate accomplishments of the regime are not too dearly bought. The suppression of free expression and the department of the people from the work of government of the people from the work of government is apt to retard rather than further the national development in the long run. If institutions are really the expression of the social organization it is hardly conceivable that the system should continue long after the country has been restored to health. In short, it is difficult to see how dictatorships could have been avoided in most of the countries that now have them, but it is equally hard to believe that they can be more than temporary, provisional and transitional