Chapter 25 Chapter 4 The Decline of Liberalism 5

5 The rise of the above-mentioned various movements is part of the phenomenon of the decline of liberalism in the era of catastrophe.Although the retreat of the liberal camp led to the emergence of fascism at its most dramatic climax.But if fascism is used to explain the decline and decline of liberalism, this view, even in the 1930s, is debatable.So, before we close this chapter, we must find out the real reasons for the decline of liberalism.But first, let’s clear up a point that is often confused: Mistaking fascism for statism. It is obvious that fascism tends to pander to the passions and prejudices pursued by statists.But after careful consideration, semi-fascist unified countries, such as Portugal and Austria (1934-1938), although their main inspiration comes from the Roman Catholic Church, they have to make a little mention of other alien or godless nations.Looking further, for fascist activities in the territories occupied by Germany and Italy, it is difficult to implement primitive nationalism.When applied to those who rely on outsiders to conquer their own country and sell their national wealth, nationalism is naturally even more unfeasible.If the conditions are right, some of these countries can still identify with Germany, and each other is under the banner of the Great Teutonic nation (such as the Flanders region of Belgium, the Netherlands, and the Nordic countries).But from the standpoint of fascism, there is another more convenient and effective point of view (this view was once vigorously promoted by Nazi Propaganda Minister Goebbels), but it is the theory of "internationalism" that contradicts nationalism.From the perspective of internationalism, Germany is seen as the core of the future European order, and it is the only guarantee of this order.Of course, the glory of Charlemagne and the demands of anti-communism are indispensable.In the process of establishing and developing a series of concepts in Europe, the so-called "European order" was once tainted with a strong fascist atmosphere.It is no wonder that after the war, historians of the European Union did not like to spend much time on this term.And the non-German forces that fought under the German flag in World War II also often cite a supra-international component as an excuse.

From another point of view, nationalists are also uniformly supportive of fascism.Hitler's ambitions (Mussolini can be counted to a certain extent) can not help but be alarmed, which is of course a reason (eg Poland, Czech Republic).But on the other hand, as we will see in Chapter 5, multinational anti-fascist movements often create a patriotic leftist force.Especially during the Great War, most of the underground anti-enemy organizations were led by the "National Front" or the government. This anti-axis force penetrated into all levels of the political system, but only fascists and their fellow travelers were missing.In a broad sense, the biggest determinant of whether nationalism in various places will fall to the fascist camp depends entirely on the degree of gain or loss when the Axis forces gain the upper hand.In addition, it also depends on whether their hatred of other countries and ethnic groups (such as Jews, Serbs) is more severe than their hatred of Germany or Italy.So the Poles, despite their extreme dislike of the Russians and the Jews, were not always on par with Nazi Germany because of what Lithuania and parts of Ukraine (occupied by the Soviet Union from 1939-1941) were doing.

Why, then, did liberalism fade away between the two world wars, even in countries that had never embraced fascism?In Western countries, extremists, socialists, and communists who lived through this period saw it as a sign of capitalism's dying struggle.They argue that capitalism can no longer afford a political system based on individual liberty and democratically enforced through Congress.For it was an unintentional coincidence that liberal rights also created a strong mass base for the moderate reformist labor movement.Faced with insoluble economic problems, coupled with an increasingly powerful revolutionary working class, the bourgeoisie can only revert to the old way and resort to high-handed methods, that is to say, to resort to something similar to the fascist line.

Beginning in 1945, capitalism and democratic freedom revived and flourished again.Under the halo of victory, the world tends to forget that there were many inflammatory rhetoric in the gloomy rhetoric of the year, but there is still some truth in it.Within a country, if the citizens lack a basic consensus on the acceptability of the state and social systems, it is bound to be difficult for democratic politics to exert its real effects.At least among citizens, there should be a consensus and preparation for consultation and agreement on the direction of society.Consensus and preparation, however, require economic prosperity before they can be realized.To put it bluntly, most countries in Europe between 1918 and World War II did not have such conditions.In Europe at that time, a social upheaval was either imminent or imminent.The people were extremely afraid of revolution. In the entire Eastern and Southeastern Europe, plus parts of the Mediterranean region, it was difficult for the Communist Party to obtain legal status. The ideological gap between the left and the right was so deep that there was no communication between the right and moderate left. - In 1934, Austrian democracy suffered a serious blow and collapsed.But from 1945 to the present, the same two-party system—Roman Catholics and Socialists—has allowed Austrian democracy to bloom brilliantly (Seton Watson, 1962, p. 184).The Spanish democratic regime also came under the same pressure in the 1930s.In contrast, in the 1970s, Spain was able to peacefully transform the dictatorship left by Franco into a pluralistic democracy through consultation and negotiation. It cannot but be amazing.

But going back to the various political regimes of the past, which one can be as stable as Mount Tai, and safely escape the attack of the Great Depression?The reason why Germany's Weimar Republic could not sustain itself was that under the impact of the Great Depression, the republic could no longer maintain the tacit understanding it had always maintained with employers and organized workers.And this kind of tacit understanding is the main reason why the Republic has survived for more than ten years and has not sunk.With the gale of depression, the industry and the government have nothing to do but implement the worst policy of economic and social downsizing, which will naturally lead to massive unemployment.By the middle of 1932, the National Socialist Party and the Communist Party alone had won the vast majority of all votes in Germany.The rest of the party, which supports the republican position, has only slightly more than a third of the votes.On the contrary, the prosperity of democracies after World War II was undeniably based mainly on the prosperity of the economic miracle in these years, and the emerging Federal Republic of Germany after the war was certainly no exception (see Chapter 9).As long as the government has enough capacity to allocate and meet the needs of all parties; at the same time, the living standards of most citizens have been rising steadily, the temperature of democratic politics will remain at a moderate degree, and will not rise to a hot spot.Under such circumstances, they are generally willing to compromise and make concessions to reach agreement on opinions.Even the most ardent revolutionary fighters who believe that capitalism must be overthrown may find the status quo less unbearable in practice than in theory.The most stubborn elements in the capitalism base camp, in addition to pursuing their beliefs, should also agree with the necessity of a social security system, and think that it is only natural for trade unions to negotiate regularly with employers to adjust wages and benefits.

However, the Great Depression itself shows every indication that it was only one of the reasons for the collapse of liberalism.Because the same situation—the refusal of organized workers to accept the layoffs caused by the depression—caused the collapse of the Reichstag government in Germany and eventually led to the nomination of Hitler to power; A (conservative) "nationalist government".However, this transformation is still operating within the original British political system, a parliamentary system that is so stable that it is almost unshakable.It can be seen that depression does not automatically lead to the suspension or miscarriage of representative democracy.The adaptation of politics to depression in the United States and the Nordic countries also confirms this thesis (Roosevelt's New Deal in the United States, the victory of social democrats in Northern Europe).Only in Latin America does the vast majority of government finances depend on one or two major export revenues, once the relentless clutches of the depression drive prices into the abyss (see Chapter 3), no matter what form the local government takes - most of them are military rule - they will immediately fall of their own accord.Similarly, the political situation in Chile and Colombia has also embarked on a completely opposite path from before.

In the final analysis, liberal politics has its weaknesses.Because the government organization in it, the democratic regime of the ceremony, is fundamentally not always a persuasive way of governing the country.However, the economic and social conditions of various countries in the era of catastrophe are not even sufficient to ensure the survival of liberal democracies, let alone allow them to work. The first condition of democratic politics lies in the recognized legal status.Democracy, though founded on this recognition, cannot produce it by itself.The only exceptions are those in well-established democracies where the very act of regular voting has conferred on voters—even minor groups—a "election is the process of legitimizing the elected government." consciousness.But in the interwar years, few democracies took root; indeed, until the early twentieth century, there were few democracies in the world outside of the United States and France (see "The Empire of Empires"). Chapter IV).Besides, after the end of the First World War, at least ten countries in Europe were either newly established or newly re-established.Therefore, none of these regimes has a specific legal status for the residents.As for a stable democratic regime, it is even more rare.In short, in times of catastrophe, the political situation of countries is usually perilous.

The second important condition of democratic politics is that there is a considerable degree of compatibility among the various constituents of the people.The votes of the electorate will determine the government by universal suffrage.The theory of liberal capitalism does not actually regard "voters" as individual groups, communities, and various groups with specific interests.Although anthropologists, sociologists and people involved in actual politics, the view is quite the opposite.In liberal formal terms, "the electorate" is a theoretical concept rather than an entity composed of real people combined.These self-sufficient and complete individuals form the totality of the People's Assembly.The votes cast by them add up to determine the majority and minority in representative politics. The majority acts as the government and the minority acts as the opposition party.If a country's democratic elections can transcend the divisions between different populations, or at least can coordinate and communicate conflicts among them, this democracy has the conditions for survival.But going back to the era of revolutionary upheaval, class struggle, not class harmony, is the rule of the political game. Consciousness and class intransigence can completely destroy democratic politics.Another thing is that the clumsy method of the peace treaty after 1918 forced the establishment of countries according to different races or religions (Glenny, 1993, pp. 146-148), which further deepened the scourge of ethnic sectarian conflicts in the future.We who are standing at the end of the 20th century today know that this method of establishing national boundaries in a uniform manner is a virus that seriously damages democracy.The continuous wars in the former Yugoslavia and Northern Ireland today are caused by the legacy of that year.In Bosnia, people of three different nationalities and religions voted according to their ethnic background and religious beliefs.In Ulster, Northern Ireland, there are two groups of residents who are at odds with each other.Somalia in Africa, 62 political parties, representing 62 different tribes or tribes, naturally cannot provide any basis for democratic politics, this is a well-known fact - what Somalia can hope for is endless strife and civil war.Only when one of the competing forces is surprisingly strong, or an external force establishes a (non-democratic) dominant position, can a moment of "stability" be achieved.The collapse of the three ancient empires (Austro-Hungary, Russia, and Turkey) made the three superpowers that originally ruled multiple races and had a detached government stand disappear.Instead, more diverse small countries emerged, each of which identified with at least one—up to two or three—ethnic communities beyond the borders of the country.

The third important condition of democratic politics is that democratic governments do not do too much governance.The reason why Congress exists is not to govern; it is to check and balance those who govern. The relationship between the U.S. Congress and the President clearly illustrates this point.Democracy government was designed to be used as a brake, but it turned out to take the burden of starting the engine.Since the revolutionary era, the number of sovereign parliaments has gradually increased. Although only a few people had the right to vote at the beginning, suffrage has gradually become common.However, the bourgeois society of the 19th century assumed that the life and actions of most citizens were not within the jurisdiction of the government, but in a self-regulating economic society, in unofficial private associations (civil society).Of course, it is not easy to manage the government solely by the representatives of the elected parliament. There are two ways for democrats to avoid this difficulty: one is not to have too high expectations for the government, or even the legislation of the Congress; —How grotesque, but still ensure that his unique business continues to operate.As we have seen in the first chapter, a group of civil servants who control you from power to power, always exist independently, and have been appointed through appointment have become an indispensable management tool for modern national governments.The opinion of the so-called majority in Congress is necessary only when major and controversial administrative policies are being decided.The first task of the head of government is to organize and maintain an appropriate support force in the Congress, because apart from the American countries, the leaders of the Congress-style regime at that time were usually not directly elected.As for countries that implement restricted suffrage (that is, only a few rich and famous people, or special people can have suffrage), mobilization and integration to seek majority approval is more convenient.Because these "people" with special identities hold a common and consistent view on their collective interests (the so-called "national interests"), not to mention the amazing financial strength of the electoral class.

The advent of the 20th century has made the function of government governance more and more important.The old government's role was limited to providing basic rules for the operation of enterprises and civil society, and providing military and police prisons to maintain domestic law and order against external aggression.There used to be a wonderful phrase in the old political circles, using the duty of "night watchman" to describe the functions of the government. However, with the evolution of the times, this phrase, like the profession of "night watchman", has begun to become outdated.

The fourth important condition of democracy is prosperity. Democracy collapsed in the 1920s, either because of unbearable tension between revolution and counter-revolution (Hungary, Italy, Portugal), or because of state conflicts (Poland, Yugoslavia). The overthrow of democratic politics in the 1930s was due to the inability to withstand the blow of the Great Depression.We only need to look at Germany in the Weimar Republic and Austria in the 1920s, and compare the German Federation today with Austria after 1945.Once the country is prosperous and strong, even the conflicts among the various ethnic groups in the country will not be so difficult to deal with, as long as the politicians of each weak group can get a spoonful from the big bowl of the country.At that time, among the Central and Eastern European countries, there was only one real democratic regime, that is, the Czech Republic where the Physiocratic Party was in power, and the strength of the party lay in the principle that everyone had a share of the pie: according to the equal distribution of interests among all ethnic groups.But by the 1930s, even it could no longer hold on, could no longer keep all the nationalities in its borders—Czech, Slovak, Germanic, Hungarian, Ukrainian—on the same boat. Under these circumstances, democracy has instead become a tool for formally dividing groups that are otherwise uncompromising.What's more, even under the best of circumstances, if the various groups cannot coexist, it is difficult for a democratic government to maintain long-term stability.If we go further, which country implements the theory of democratic representation with the strictest representative ratio system, the situation will be even more difficult.Once there is a crisis, when there is no majority in Congress to follow, the temptation to find another way to solve it is great, as in Germany (the UK is completely the opposite).Even in stable democracies, most citizens see the political polarization implied in a democracy as a cost of democracy rather than a benefit.Campaign advertisements are often hyped, showing that candidates' political views are not based on party lines, but on the national interest.Once the crisis is imminent and the cost of democracy is too high, the benefits of democracy are even more difficult to see. Thus, in the new countries that have succeeded the old regimes, and in most of the Mediterranean and Latin American countries, democracy is nothing more than a weak sapling, struggling to grow in the barren soil full of rocks.This point is really not difficult to understand.The great defense of democracy is that, while less than ideal, it is better than any other system.This rhetoric is actually extremely weak, and between the two wars, these words sounded even more unbelievably vain.Even the fighters who have always supported democracy are speechless at this time.The decline of the democratic trend seemed irreversible. Even in the old democratic country of the United States, observers expressed serious pessimism: "Even the United States may not be spared." (Sinclair Lewis, 1935) At that time, no one predicted or expected that democracy would have The post-war revival, not to mention the early 1990s, saw democracy become, for a while, the dominant form of government in the world – albeit for a brief period.Looking back on the years between the two wars, the decline of liberal political institutions seems to have been only a small setback on the way to conquer the world.Unfortunately, as the year 2000 approached, the future of democracy began to look less certain.The merits of the democratic system were once very obvious in the 1950s and 1960s.But the world may once again enter a period in which the advantages of democracy are not so obvious.