p Let us consider another aspect of what is happening to liberalism today. Liberalism flourished at a time when there were strong political parties which adopted it as their banner. Today the political arena in the USA, for instance, is dominated by two parties, whose platforms differ little from each other, if at all. They have a tight grip on political life in a country which has not only a big bourgeoisie, but also a middle and small bourgeoisie, and which also has a working class which is not uniform in composition, and also a sizable farming section. All these classes and social groups have their own interests. Meanwhile, only two political parties—the Democratic and the Republican Parties—have vast capital, which means overriding power. In West Germany, France and Italy, the efforts of big business are also concentrated on establishing a monopoly in the political arena. In this way, political life in the capitalist countries is deformed under the impact of the growing rule of the monopolies, and there are no liberal parties in the USA.

p The two powerful political concerns, having taken over the political scene, have in effect substituted for political struggle a duel between the Republicans and the Democrats, the difference between which is marginal. Clinton Rossiter, a specialist in US political life, tried to characterise its “special spirit" and reached the conclusion that there was a lack “in our behavior, as a nation and as individuals, of a deep commitment to politics as a way of living and of doing the public business. Some writers call this ‘apathy’, others ‘indifference’."  [341•10  Such is the outcome of the “bipartisan” system. As a result of the noise raised during the presidential elections, says the French analyst Georges Lavau, there is a “slight shift in the voting patterns, which results in a win of a hundred or so electoral ballots”.  [341•11  Rossiter adds that what either 342 American party wants of its adherents is their vote. Add to this that the parties give nothing at all to the rank-and-file adherent, while the leader can expect to obtain a sinecure in the event of a victory at the polls, and that is the root of the “apathy”.

p Political life under monopoly capitalism is organised like a market dominated by mighty monopolies on which the consumers are offered a “range” of products turned out by one or more corporations—-frequently only one, because the various brands are turned out by subsidiaries. Is this in any way similar to the political setup under bourgeois liberalism in the period of premonopoly capitalism?

p In other capitalist countries the development of monopoly capital and its political power has yet to reach the US level, but the monopolies seek similarly to organise society’s politics on the same lines. In Italy, monopoly capital has been trying hard to install the Christian Democrats as the ruling concern in political affairs. There was the same tendency in France but it was expressed in somewhat different concrete conditions in view of the president’s increased personal powers. These tendencies have not prevailed entirely in these countries only because of the high level of organisation and consciousness displayed by the working class in rallying broad masses of people,in opposing the rule of the monopolies. This situation is not reminiscent of political life under big bourgeois liberal parties either.

p In the past, bourgeois liberalism was a political trend with a political platform. Today some bourgeois observers believe there is much danger in the fact that the monopolies have in effect stifled political life in the USA. Rossiter admits, for instance, that the time has come to inject a new dose of ideology into US political life. The present political ideology of both parties is extremely poor. “The conservatism of the one has been entirely visceral, the liberalism of the other has been a mockery of the idealism of Jefferson and Wilson."  [342•12  The fact that Jefferson, the political leader of the 18th century and Wilson, who was president during the First World War, are being brought together under the umbrella of liberalism is merely an indication that the concept of liberalism in the USA has become extremely vague. “What we need from both is a little less group diplomacy and a few more ideas about the American future."  [342•13  Group diplomacy is struggle for domination in the state apparatus between various groups of monopoly capital. The bourgeoisie has failed to produce any ideas about the American future, and here Rossiter puts his finger on the weakest aspect of bourgeois ideology today.

p There is good reason why in discussing the prospects opening up before the Soviet Union the British Conservative weekly, The Observer, wrote on the eve of the 22nd Congress of the CPSU on October 15, 1961: 343 “That so ambitious a programme can fire the popular imagination and ‘mobilise’ Soviet strength need not be doubted; and that the statesmen of the West are offering their peoples no vision of the future comparable in attraction is also true.”  [343•14  What the capitalists fear most is that socialism has made men look into the future and think about the prospects of social development.

p In bourgeois writings in Britain we find remarks about Labour taking over from liberalism to develop the liberal traditions in opposition to Conservatism, just as at one time the Whigs opposed the Tories, and later the Liberals the Conservatives. Consequently, liberalism has slightly shifted to the Left. Robert McKenzie, who wrote a lengthy work about British political parties, quoted a turn-of-the-century leader, Lowell, who said this about the Liberals and the Conservatives: “Both are shams, but with this difference, the Conservative organisation is a transparent, and the Liberal an opaque, sham.” McKenzie added that if the word “Labour” were substituted for “Liberal”, there would be “a sense in which Lowell’s remark is equally appropriate today".  [343•15 

p The Conservatives and the Right-wing Labour leaders are agreed on the main thing, namely, the principles of the bourgeois system. It is true to say, in a sense, that the Right-wing Labour leaders now perform the old liberal function of leading the working class and the working-class movement in the wake of bourgeois policies. But Labour does not extol the old premonopoly capitalism with its competition, “free market”, etc., but serves to conduct the influence of state-monopoly capital, and suggests to the petty bourgeoisie and the working people various illusions about a transformation of contemporary capitalism, which has allegedly lost its exploitative substance and has turned into a “welfare state”.

p Lenin wrote in 1920 that the Liberals were either friends of the Labour leaders “or [their] new masters".  [343•16  The Labour Party leaders have shown again and again that they “prefer their close relations with the capitalists to the unity of all the workers".  [343•17  The tactics of the Right-wing Labour leaders, together with those of the Conservatives, was to push the Left, revolutionary elements of the working class and the Communists out of the political arena. The role of both parties—that in office and in opposition—amounts to occupying the arena of political struggle and making use of the vast material advantages in electoral campaigns and propaganda media, to prevent any other force, especially the party that is the vanguard of the working class, from moving into that arena.

p But such a “bipartisan” system ultimately tends to keep some of the voters away from the polls and makes the masses lose confidence in political activity.

p In the recent period, an attempt has been made in Britain to restore the Liberal Party to the political arena in Britain, in view of the general tendency for a revival of liberalism. The Labour Party, which has a growing Left wing and whose candidates are supported by the working class, is still a source of apprehension for the bourgeoisie. An important aspect here is the hope of recruiting the white-collar workers, that is, the sections of the employees and the technical specialists who become a part of the working class or represent the intermediate sections close to it.

p The political organisation of bourgeois society in the general crisis of the imperialist system has become a key issue in the struggle for progressive development, and against the forces of reaction. It is possible to mount a broad democratic struggle against the monopolies, to recruit to the working-class side various anti-monopoly elements of bourgeois society. The monopolies have to manoeuvre and use every means to bolster their influence on the middle and petty bourgeoisie. The monopolies are afraid to provide any real outlet to allow the interests of the middle bourgeoisie,to say nothing of the petty bourgeoisie, to emerge in the political arena, because these elements could become a political force in opposition to monopoly capital. That being so, the monopolies seek to control the attitudes among these social sections in their own interests, stubbornly preventing them from any independent political action, thereby converting liberal slogans into mere talk and deception.

The old liberalism, which stood for private property, competition, free enterprise and individualism, was the taproot for the systems of Comte and Spencer with their positivist schemes and theories. Contemporary neoliberalism is either a barren reactionary Utopia about a return to the premonopoly stage, or a screen for state-monopoly capitalism. In either case, neoliberalism leads bourgeois social thought to nothing but degradation.