When considering the threat of fascism in Britain, the left repeated the familiar arguments they had had regarding Italy and Germany, and divided over the nature of the democratic state, as well as the potential of reaction to emerge from within it. This was especially true concerning the National Government, which the parliamentarians of Labour and the Trades Union Congress saw as a legitimately elected government that could only be defeated at the polls. Talk of extra-parliamentary action was not only inimical to Labour's creed, but would, the party felt, increase the danger of fascism by provoking a backlash from the right. British revolutionaries, however, looked on the National Government as a dangerous step towards, or a precursor of, fascism, feeling that the necessary response to this was the radicalisation of the labour movement and a move away from constitutional methods. To do otherwise, which they felt had happened in Italy and Germany, had left workers weakened and demoralised in the face of the fascist threat.
In the years between the two world wars, fascism triumphed in Italy, Germany, Spain and elsewhere, coming to power after intense struggles with the labour movements of those countries. This book analyses the way in which the British left responded to this new challenge. How did socialists and communists in Britain explain what fascism was? What did they do to oppose it, and how successful were they? In examining the theories and actions of the Labour Party, the TUC, the Communist Party and other, smaller, left-wing groups, the book explains their different approaches, while at the same time highlighting the common thread that ran through all their interpretations of fascism. The author argues that the British left has largely been overlooked in the few specific studies of anti-fascism which exist, with the focus being disproportionately applied to its European counterparts. He also takes issue with recent developments in the study of fascism, and argues that the views of the left, often derided by modern historians, are still relevant today.