Fernando Alcoforado*
- The advent of liberalism as an ideology
Liberalism arose from the American Revolution in 1776 and French Revolution in 1789. Liberalism arose in the Middle Ages with the Enlightenment as opposed to absolutism. It was the political ideology of the liberal bourgeoisie that in the nineteenth century managed to gain a dominant position. Throughout history, the Liberal States have emerged as a consequence of the progressive wearing down of the king’s absolute power. While absolutism decays, liberal currents appear, that come together to institute the Liberal State. Liberalism advocated that the state be limited in its powers and functions regulated by general norms, with submission of everybody to the laws and respect for the fundamental and inviolable rights of man, generally recognized through some official document, such as the country’s Constitution.
After the French Revolution, the struggle between conservatives and liberals occurred in all the major countries of the international system between 1815 and 1848. The history of those years is that of a constant intensification of popular dissatisfaction in various ways and in various countries. In this context, the right was represented by the conservatives and the center by the liberals. The left, which had not yet assumed its own identity, was among the liberals as its most radical sector. Immanuel Wallerstein, a North American sociologist, states that “the Revolutions of 1848 constituted the moment of emergence of a third ideology, a leftist ideology that broke ties with what was then considered a centrist liberalism and established itself in opposition to it. liberalism and right-wing conservatism. This leftist ideology had several names, but in general it began to be called socialism” [WALLERSTEIN, Immanuel. Utopística ou as Decisões Históricas do Século Vinte e Um (Utopistics or the Historical Decisions of the Twenty-First Century). Petrópolis: Editora Vozes, 1998].
When it emerged, liberalism contrasted with absolutism (monarchical state) and, later, socialism (socialist state) from the Russian Revolution in 1917. After World War I (1914-1918), liberalism became the force dominant policy in virtually the entire West. Liberalism was fought by the left with socialist and communist doctrines, which they opposed much more strongly than the conservative and traditional currents of the right. Wallerstein states that “the French Revolution opened the Pandora’s Box and raised the aspirations, expectations and popular hopes that all constituted authorities – both conservative and liberal – found it difficult to contain”. For Wallerstein, conservatives and liberals differed in their strategies for containing popular insurrections resulting from non-fulfillment of social demands, the former being in favor of strengthening the authority of institutions and symbolic leaders, while liberals argued that the normalcy of change, sovereignty and citizenship should be granted.
The year 1848 marked the European continent with revolutionary movements that, from Paris, had a rapid spread in the great urban centers. The consolidation of the political power of the bourgeoisie in France and the emergence of the industrial proletariat as a political force were the most important reflections of that year, which was also marked by the publication of Marx and Engels’ “Communist Manifesto”. It was not by chance that in that same year of 1848 rebellions of liberal and socialist trait shaken the archaic structures of Old World. From 1848 onwards the confrontation between the right wing, represented by the conservatives, and the left, represented by the socialists, became more acute throughout the world, while the centrist liberals positioned themselves between the two ideological currents tending more towards the positions of the conservatives. A fundamental difference between left and right is that the former is an uncompromising advocate of equality and the right is not. The left believes that most of the inequalities are social and, as such, can be eliminated, and the right believes that most of them are natural and therefore ineliminable [BOBBIO, Norberto. Direita e esquerda (Right and Left). São Paulo: Editora UNESP, 1995).
The Revolution of 1848 was of great importance for a new political polarization to come alive with the bourgeoisie and the proletariat in opposing camps that would profoundly mark the future political upheavals. The French bourgeoisie realized the dangers of revolutions, realizing that the people’s political aspirations could be mitigated by the granting of universal suffrage that would avoid conflicts and uprisings. According to Wallerstein, in the post-1848 period, “the unleashing of popular passions, and in particular the legitimation of popular goals, forced governing groups to make significant concessions in the medium term through the liberalism program. Of these the most important were suffrage (which eventually became universal) and a partial income redistribution (the welfare state)”. The mechanisms of modern democracy – especially universal suffrage and the right of organization – are fruits of popular struggles and, in a sense, were victories of the left against liberalism.
Instead of universal suffrage, the liberals were advocates of census suffrage – based on income – and of qualified suffrage – based on formal education and / or social functions of command. The two forms of suffrage would have the purpose of excluding the popular classes from the political game. Democracy, understood as popular sovereignty, would be almost synonymous with “mass despotism” for liberalism. Contrary to the thinking of the workers and bourgeoisie in the nineteenth century, political democracy has shown that it could also be beneficial to capitalism. For this very reason, the bourgeois resistance against universal suffrage and the state of social welfare was gradually reducing. Reduced, but not completely eliminated. Political democracy is not and will never be a universal value for capitalism and its ideologues. This was evidenced by the affinities of liberalism with fascism that would arise in the early twentieth century.
- Liberalism’s support for fascism throughout history
Fascism represented a reaction of the conservative forces of Europe against the rise of the workers to the power in several countries after the victory of the socialism in the Soviet Union in 1917 and was based on strongly nationalist conceptions and the totalitarian exercise of the power, therefore against the democratic system and liberal, and repressive to social-democratic, socialist and communist ideas. Fascism implanted during the twenties and thirties of the twentieth century was based on a strong, totalitarian state which claimed to embody the spirit of the people in the exercise of power by a single party whose authority was imposed through violence, repression and of political propaganda. The fascist leader is a figure who was above ordinary men. Mussolini was denominated like Il Duce, that derives from the Latin Dux (General) and Hitler de Fuehrer (Conductor, Guide, Leader, Boss). Both were messianic and authoritarian leaderships, with a power that was exercised unilaterally without consultation to anyone.
The affinities between liberalism, which is supposedly a defender of democracy, and its opposite, the dictatorship, manifested itself in 1795, after the French Revolution, when the Jacobins overthrew the power of the Girondists and a dictatorial government was installed in France. General Napoleon Bonaparte was placed in power after the Thermidorian Reaction with the coup d´état of 18 Brumaire (November 9, 1799) in order to control social instability in France. Napoleon assumes the position of first consul of France, establishing a dictatorship. The maxim always widespread, whose meaning states that “the greatest enemy of fascism is liberalism” is false. In the same way that there was an affinity between liberalism and dictatorship, as happened in France with Bonaparte, the same happens between liberalism and fascism, which are not strictly the same, but there is no insurmountable wall among them either. Among them, there are more points of convergence than of divergence. This was evidenced by the rise of fascism in Italy in the 1920s and Nazism in Germany in the 1930s that were supported by liberals. Liberals legitimized both fascism and Nazism with liberal-inspired policies in their dictatorships.
In Italy, for example, a liberal in the genesis of Fascism was Vilfredo Pareto, a liberal economist and Italian sociologist of French origin, born in the mid-nineteenth century, who was a mortal enemy of any kind of socialism, contrary to any form of interventionism in the market and defender of the domination of the elites, was one of the theoreticians who produced the precursory ideology of fascism. Pareto argued that democracy was an illusion (just as ultraliberal and neoliberal say today) and that a ruling class will always subsist enriching itself more and more. Like every liberal, he believed that social inequalities were part of a natural order. He claimed a drastic reduction of the state and defended the fascist regime of Benito Mussolini as a transition to the minimum state, in order to free the economic forces.
In the early years of his rule, Mussolini literally carried out the policy prescribed by Pareto, destroying the existing political freedom. But at the same time, it replaced state management by private management, reducing property taxes, favoring industrial development, and imposing a religious education on dogmas (BORKENAU, Franz Pareto, New York: John Wiley & Sons, 1936). Pareto considered Mussolini’s triumph as a confirmation of some of his ideas, especially as the fascist leader of Italy demonstrated the importance of force and shared his contempt for an egalitarian system. He later accepted his appointment to the Italian Senate of Mussolini and died less than a year after the establishment of the fascist regime.
From 1922 to 1925, Mussolini and his fascist government adopted laissez-faire economic policy through the coordination of a liberal finance minister, Alberto De Stefani. Its administration reduced taxes, regulations, trade restrictions and sought to promote greater competitiveness among companies. In addition, the rise of Fascism (such as Adolf Hitler’s Nazism in Germany) was only possible with the collaboration and financial support of big corporations still powerful today: BMW, Fiat, IG Farben (Bayer), Volkswagen, Siemens, IBM, Chase Manhattan Bank, Allianz, and other media groups who funded these schemes with the goal of slowing the advance of Soviet socialism in Europe. Nazism also had many points in common with economic liberalism, a flag traditionally on the right.
The neoclassical liberals who gave rise to the ideological current that became hegemonic today, neoliberalism, also defended fascism and its Nazi variant as political projects necessary to maintain the capitalist order. This is what can be said in this statement by Friedrich Hayek, a member of the Austrian School of Economics, about his impression of Nazism: “Hitler did not need to destroy democracy; he limited himself to taking advantage of his decadence and at the critical moment he got the support of many who, although they hated him, considered him the only man strong enough to get things going”.[HAYEK, Friedrich. O caminho da servidão (The Road to Serfdom). Rio de Janeiro: Instituto Liberal, 1990]. Contrary to what Hayek said, Hitler destroyed democracy in Germany.
The complacency of neoclassical liberal theorists with regard to Fascism continues with Ludwig von Mises. Another icon of the Austrian School of Economics, Mises acted as economic adviser to the fascist government of Engelbert Dollfuss in Austria. In his book “Liberalism – According to the Classical Tradition”, he reiterates that Fascism was a political movement that had as one of its main objectives the fight against Bolshevism. Ludwig von Mises stated: “The actions of the fascists and other parties that corresponded to it were emotional reactions, evoked by the indignation of the actions perpetrated by the Bolsheviks and Communists. (…) Against the weapons of the Bolsheviks, one should use the same weapons in reprisal, and it would be a mistake to show weakness before the murderers. Never a liberal put this in question “[Von Mises, Ludwig. Liberalismo – Segundo a Tradição Clássica (Liberalism – According to the Classical Tradition). Sao Paulo: Instituto Ludwig von Mises Brasil, 2010]. Mises said no liberal questioned the use of violence by fascists and Nazis.
In this work, Mises also did not hesitate to legitimize, praise and even praise Fascism: “It cannot be denied that fascism and similar movements, aiming at the establishment of dictatorships, are full of the best intentions and that their intervention until now saved European civilization. The merit that, for this reason, fascism obtained for itself will be inscribed in history. However, although his policy has provided momentary salvation, it is not the type that can promise continued success. Fascism is an emergency expedient”. Mises, one of the ideologues of neoliberalism, stated the absurdity that fascism and Nazism saved European civilization.
The totalitarian origin of Neoliberalism resulted from the collusion between liberals and fascists in the fight against socialism. In the contemporary era of economic and financial globalization, modern fascism emerges, encompassing the entire planet. The dominant neoliberal capitalist system is defined by the omnipresence of its mercantile ideology that occupies all space and all sectors of life at the same time. This ideology has reduced all human relations in mercantile relations and considers our planet as a mere commodity. The only right that the neoliberal capitalist system recognizes is the right to private property. The only god he loves is money. The omnipresence of neofascist neoliberal ideology manifests itself in the cult of money, in the single party disguised as parliamentary pluralism, in the absence of visible opposition, and in all forms of repression against the will to transform man and the world. This is the true face of modern fascism, which must be called by its true name: the totalitarian capitalist system. Man, society and the whole of our planet are at the service of this neo-fascist ideology. The totalitarian capitalist system has accomplished what no totalitarianism has been able to do before: to unify the world in its image. Today there is no possible exile.
Thus, the affinity between liberalism and fascism is demonstrated with the historical experiences of Fascism in Italy, Nazism in Germany and contemporary globalization. In present-day Brazil, the totalitarian capitalist system is represented by Bolsonaro’s neo-fascist government that manifests itself with its neoliberal economic policies and repression against social movements.
* Fernando Alcoforado, 79, awarded the medal of Engineering Merit of the CONFEA / CREA System, member of the Bahia Academy of Education, engineer and doctor in Territorial Planning and Regional Development by the University of Barcelona, university professor and consultant in the areas of strategic planning, business planning, regional planning and planning of energy systems, is the author of 14 books addressing issues such as Globalization and Development, Brazilian Economy, Global Warming and Climate Change, The Factors that Condition Economic and Social Development, Energy in the world, The Great Scientific, Economic, and Social Revolutions that Changed the World and Inventing the Future to change the World.
Site Title 