H.G. Wells's ‘Liberal Fascism’

Journal of Contemporary History, Vol. 35, No. 4, 541-558 (2000)



 

Philip Coupland (drpm66@ntlworld.com)

 

Abstract

During the 1930s H.G. Wells's theory of revolutionary praxis centred around a concept of ‘liberal fascism’ whereby the Wellsian ‘liberal’ utopia would be achieved by an authoritarian élite. Taking inspiration from the militarized political movements of the 1930s, this marked a development in the Wellsian theory of revolution from the ‘open conspiracy’ of the 1920s. Although both communist and fascist movements evinced some of the desired qualities of a Wellsian vanguard, it was fascism rather than communism which came closest to Wells's ideal. However, in practice, despite the failure of approaches to parties of the left and centre as possible agents of revolution, Wells rejected the British Union of Fascists. The disparity between Wells's theory and his actions when faced by the reality of fascism echoes the unresolved tension between ends and means at the heart of the concept of ‘liberal fascism’.

 

Note

 

 

 Jonah Goldberg, Liberal Fascism: The Secret History of the Left from Mussolini to the Politics of Meaning (2008)

 

‘I wonder if Mr. Bucketpants got Dr P Coupland’s permission to use Liberal Fascism as the title of his book. Because it would be beer-out-the-nose funny if he got sued for plagiarism’.[i]

 

Prior to the publication of my article in 2000 there were few extant references to the term ‘liberal fascism’; web searches at that time produced few, if any, hits and the term was relatively little used, even in writing on Wells. However, the phrase ‘liberal fascism’ has recently been seized on by the journalist Jonah Goldberg for his best selling and much reviewed and discussed book of the same name (Liberal Fascism: The Secret History of the Left from Mussolini to the Politics of Meaning (London: Penguin, 2009; first published 2008).

 

A Title

 

It isn’t too much to say that ‘liberal fascism’ as the title of Jonah Goldberg’s book has been, at the very least, the catalyst of its success. When I first read those two words in Wells's work ten or more years ago I found it a controversial, provocative and eye-catching coupling and it remains so now that it has the enormous force of the mass media behind it.

 

As to its origins of ‘liberal fascism’ as the title of this book, asked by an interviewer ‘[w]here does the term Liberal Fascism come from…?’ Goldberg replied: ‘Well, HG Wells is the man who coined the phrase "Liberal Fascism."  … in 1932, Wells was invited by the Young Liberals to speak at their summer school in Oxford. His lecture was intended not only to point toward the  "Phoenix rebirth of liberalism" and a far more radical form of socialism than his fellow Fabians advocated, but also to summarize his entire lifelong philosophy. The label he came up with for his vision? "Liberal Fascism.[ii] As I suggest briefly in the paragraph below, this final point is wrong (see below). As to the specific origin of the title of Goldberg’s book, the author states in an interview with Hugh Hewitt that he got ‘the title from H.G. Wells’.[iii] Similarly, he unambiguously made the same point in his response to a critical treatment of the book: ‘the title "Liberal Fascism" comes from a speech delivered by H.G. Wells’.[iv] These statements flatly contradict the implicit claim for originality in the book itself: ‘I did not get the title of this book from Wells’s speech, but I was delighted to discover the phrase has such a rich intellectual history’.[v]

 

Setting aside the apparent contradiction of Goldberg’s statements on the origins of the title of the book and accepting his statements that it came from Wells’ there is the question as to whether he found it in the original or through my article in the Journal of Contemporary History (2000). He makes clear that it came from this article, which he cites as the basis for his claim in the introduction that Wells was ‘first to use the term’ .[vi]

 

Fascist Liberals and Liberal Fascists

 

Returning to the author’s comments quoted above, Wells did not label his ‘entire…philosophy’ liberal fascism, not in fact and not by implication. Liberal fascism was the name which he (and I) gave to his theory of praxis, that is his method of achieving his utopian goal, not the goal itself. Although the pattern of thought signified by ‘liberal fascism’ in my article was a long established and extensively developed part of his work, Wells explicitly coupled fascism and liberalism on only a few occasions and then spoke most often about the need for a ‘liberal fascisti’ rather than 'liberal fascism'. This was significant inasmuch that it indicates that he was concerned not with changing the content of his utopia but rather the means by which he sought to realise it. We might add that what he was actually seeking were ‘fascist liberals’. The difference between the two is considerable and essential: Wells hoped for activists who would use what he considered to be ‘fascist’ means (technocratic authoritarianism and force) to achieve a liberal social end. In contrast, a ‘liberal fascist’ would pursue fascist ends but in a ‘liberal’ or at least more ‘liberal’ way. Despite assumptions to the contrary, there have been many of these, in fact if not in name.