Two great anti-Liberal movements have arrested the attention of Europe since the armistice of November 1918-Bolshevism and Fascism. Both these great political and social forces are anti-Liberal in that both alike deny the postulates of the idea of democracy enunciated by Abraham Lincoln in the tremendous phrase: "Government of the people, by the people, for the people." Both Fascism and Bolshevism involve the dictatorship of a class-party, and in either case only an advanced and dominant section of the class from which the ruling party is drawn is also enrolled in the party. Perhaps the word party is misleading in describing Bolshevism and Fascism, since each alike claims by its exclusive dictatorship to eliminate the whole idea of party, in the Liberal-constitutional sense of one of several organized groups who take it in turn to direct the State, according to the shifting favour of the electorate, or in other words, the people. Such a claim by any organized body in a nation to exclusive dictatorship can only be vindicated by force, and both Fascism and Bolshevism repose upon an armed and disciplined force (in a sense the party in arms)-in the one case, upon the Fascist militia; in the other, upon the Red Army. The parallels between the two movements are interesting and instructive, but so are the differences. In both cases general public opinion has rightly identified the two movements with two outstanding personalities-Nikolai Lenin and Benito Mussolini. But whereas the party of which Lenin was the founder and dictator, possesses a long and conscious tradition of revolutionary activity and a profoundly meditated and articulated body of doctrine, Fascism was in origin the halfconscious product of post-war reaction and discontent, and to this day has not succeeded in discovering what exactly it wishes to achieve. Therefore to a far greater extent than was the case with the Bolshevik dictatorship, Fascismo was and is dependent almost uniquely upon the life and varied fortunes of one man-Benito Mussolini. And yet just because of the singular opportunism of Mussolini's character, the study of Fascism is by no means the story of his life, but that of a veritable complex of events, influences, parties, forming and directing the blind impulse we know as Fascism which raised Mussolini to power but of which he has never yet been the undisputed master. This sounds like a contradiction in terms, but is justified by the fact that for two years after its founda |