Thus Liberalism, Democracy, and Socialism, appear to be, as they are in reality, not only the offspring of one and the same theory of government, but also logical derivations one of the other.  Logically developed Liberalism leads to Democracy; the logical development of Democracy issues into Socialism.  It is true that for many years, and with some justification, Socialism was looked upon as antithetical to Liberalism.  But the antithesis is purely relative and breaks down as we approach the common origin and foundation of the two doctrines, for we find that the opposition is one of method, not of purpose.  The end is the same for both, viz., the welfare of the individual members of society.  The difference lies in the fact that Liberalism would be guided to its goal by liberty, whereas Socialism strives to attain it by the collective organization of production.  There is therefore no antithesis nor even a divergence as to the nature and scope of the state and the relation of individuals to society.  There is only a difference of evaluation of the means for bringing about these ends and establishing these relations, which difference depends entirely on the different economic conditions which prevailed at the time when the various doctrines were formulated.  Liberalism arose and began to thrive in the period of small industry; Socialism grew with the rise of industrialism and of world-wide capitalism.  The dissension therefore between these two points of view, or the antithesis, if we wish so to call it, is limited to the economic field.  Socialism is at odds with Liberalism only on the question of the organization of production and of the division of wealth.  In religious, intellectual, and moral matters it is liberal, as it is liberal and democratic in its politics.  Even the anti-liberalism and anti-democracy of Bolshevism are in themselves purely contingent.  For Bolshevism is opposed to Liberalism only in so far as the former is revolutionary, not in its socialistic aspect.  For if the opposition of the Bolsheviki to liberal and democratic doctrines were to continue, as now seems more and more probable, the result might be a complete break between Bolshevism and Socialism notwithstanding the fact that the ultimate aims of both are identical.

Fascism as an Integral Doctrine of Sociality Antithetical to the Atomism of Liberal, Democratic, and Socialistic Theories

The true antithesis, not to this or that manifestation of the liberal-democratic-socialistic conception of the state but to the concept itself, is to be found in the doctrine of Fascism.  For while the disagreement between Liberalism and Democracy, and between Liberalism and Socialism lies in a difference of method, as we have said, the rift between Socialism, Democracy, and Liberalism on one side and Fascism on the other is caused by a difference in concept.  As a matter of fact, Fascism never raises the question of methods,