BOOKS
245
Why then was this book of an outright critic of present-day American
democracy so badly received by the good people of America? Why does
the American public run away from a serious and straightforward discus–
sion of an urgent problem while it shows itself much more receptive to the
sugarcoated form in which a smaller dose of the same poison was recently
presented by the hooklet of Mrs. Lindbergh? What is it running away
from? The answer, for the present reviewer, is to he found in the fact
that
the American democratic and anti-fascist intelligentsia runs away
from its own had conscience.
There is practically no answer to Mr. Dennis' case for Fascism from
the standpoint of present day American "democracy" as
r~presented
by
the two political parties, by the hulk of the press, the collegec;, and the
bureaucracies of big business, government, and organized labor. Why
should the D.A.R. quarrel with Dennis' statement that capitalist society in
this country, just as in all other countries, has originated from a veritable
revolution? How could they object to his identification of Fascism and
Communism, and of both with American New-Dealism? Why, Dorothy
Thompson herself has recently discovered the truly "revolutionary" char–
acter of Nazism and described the current Nazi war in terms of a "world
revolution."
Once having conceded the revolutionary nature of totalitarianism, it
does not matter whether one uses that epithet for blame or praise. The
very admission of its revolutionary significance implies a complete aban–
donment of the cause of present-day democracy by its professional defend–
ers. There are many other forms in which the same sentiment of defeatism
manifests itself in the very language of the most important spokesmen of
present day democracy. There is, for example, a widespread belief in an
intrinsic superiority of the fascist methods for solving the problems aris–
ing from chronic mass unemployment and the ensuing waste of resources
and man power. There is a tacit agreement that such methods will he
necessary in times of war.
Bourgeois "democracy," it would seem from such evidence, today i!'
divided within itself. It is secretly convinced of the several material
advantages that could be derived for the so-called "elite" and, to a lesser
extent, for the mass of the people as well, from an acceptance of the fascist
methods for peace and war, in the fields of economics, politics and, may he,
even for the promotion of the so-called "higher" cultural and ideologies!
interests.
It
is apt to regard the very institutions and ideals for which it is
prepared to "fight," as a kind ot "faux frais" of production, and of con–
ducting the business of an efficient modern administratiorJ, and of fighting
amodern war. It never seriously considered "democratic" methods as an
adequate means of running an important private business or, for that mat–
ter, a businesslike trade union. It would prefer, on the whole, to have its
cake and to eat it too, that is, to apply those amazingly successful new
methods to the fullest advantage and "yet in all this/' "yet at the same
