-THE DISCUSSION CONTINUED
429
. down of the bourgeois-capitalist order on the one hand and the
inability of the revolutionary socialist forces, on the other, to
;replace capitalism with a new and equally consistent and conscious
program. Whether fascism develops into a new form of class rule
as historically enduring as capitalism was-a form combining
many of the worst features of slavery, feudalism and capitalism–
or whether it yields to a democratic socialist world order, this
depends on how successfully the world workingclass takes advan–
tage of the many 'revolutionary situations' which may be expected
to arise in the next decade or two of transition. For one thing at
least seems certain: the social forces of Europe will not forever
remain in their present frozen state, and when the thaw hegins we
shall see how solid are the dikes-now so imposing-of fascism.
Answering {3) I should agree with Burnham that bureau–
cratic collectivism is an international, not merely a German
phenomenon. In the present article I limited myself, for clarity in
demonstration; to German fascism, since in Germany these ten–
dencies have reached their most extreme development. But the
same tendency can be seen on a world scale. There is no space here
to go into the 'Russian question,' but I must indicate clearly that I
consider the Stalinist bureaucratic regime of essentially the same
politico-economic nature as the Nazi regime. In Italy, although
Mussolini took power a decade before Hitler, the process of
bureaucratic collectivization is much less advanced than it is in
Germany. The old social classes, especially the big bourgeoisie
and the aristocracy, retain much more of their independence and
power, and the 'Corporate State,' as Salvemini and others have
amply demonstrated, has never been much more than an imposing
paper plan.* Finally, and most important, what of the two remain-
•This fact-that Italian fascism is less complete than German fascism-is one
answer to those who point to Mussolini's sad experiences in' the current war and ask
why, if fascism is economically superior to democratic capitalism, the Italians aren't
doing better. The other, and main answer, is that fascism is no magic panacea, that it
cannot create silk purses out of sows' ears or powerful nations out of poor and back–
ward countries. For historical, geographic and
miner~logical
reasons, Italy has long
been a second-rate power, poor in both money and resources and predominantly agri–
cultural. The difference between Italy and Germany is easily grasped by looking at
the statistics of their mutual trade. Italy exports to Germany almost wholly farm
products-hemp, rice, wine, fruits, vegetables-and she imports from Germany almost
wholly industrial raw materials (1,000,000 tons of coal a month, iron ore, chemicals)
and finished goods (machinery, cameras, tools). To gauge the degree to which fascism
may be said to be economically superior to democratic capitalism, one needs to com–
pare the effectiveness of the war economies of democratic nations of equal or greater
(compared with Germany) industrial and raw material resources (England, the United
States) with the effectiveness of the German
Wehrwirtschaft.
