Mussolini's
own summary of the Fascist philosophy: "Tutto nello Stato, niente al di
fuori dello Stato, nulla contro lo Stato" (Everything in the State, nothing
outside the State, nothing against the State)
A Leftist
prophet
The ideas of Benito Mussolini (1883-1945),
the founder of Fascism, are remarkably similar to the ideas of modern-day
Western Leftists. If Mussolini was not the direct teacher of modern-day
Leftists, he was certainly a major predecessor. What Leftists advocate
today is not, of course, totally identical with what Mussolini was advocating
and doing 60 to 80 years ago in Italy but there are nonetheless extensive
and surprising parallels. Early in the 20th century, he prophesied that
the 20th century would be the century of Fascism and he got that right
in that most of his ideas are still preached by the modern-day Left.
The
popular view
Popular encyclopedias such as Funk &
Wagnalls (1983) lump together Hitler's German regime, Mussolini's Italian
regime, General Tojo's Japanese regime and Generalissimo Franco's Spanish
regime under the single rubric of "fascist" so it seems clear that it is
the accepted wisdom that all four regimes were basically similar and differed
only in matters of detail. Anyone who knows even a little of the history
of the period concerned, however, must realize how far from the truth this
is. The feudal warlords of Japan, the antisemitic socialist of Germany,
the Catholic monarchist of Spain and the pragmatic socialist of Italy were
in fact really united over only one thing: Their dislike of Lenin and Stalin's
Communism and "Bolshevism" generally. There clearly is some need, therefore,
for us to look at what Mussolini and the Fascists really were and did.
The
reality
In what follows, facts that should be
easily checkable in popular encyclopaedias and textbooks will not be referenced.
Less well-known facts, however, will be referenced. History is of course
written by the victors and most summaries of historical Fascism are therefore
written from a very anti-Fascist perspective so care is normally needed
to tease out the facts behind the interpretations and value-judgments.
That will attempted here.
Unlike many other accounts, considerable
emphasis will be given here to Mussolini's early years. What politicians
say in order to get into power and what they do once they gain power are
notoriously two different things -- with Lenin and Stalin being not the
least examples of that. A major aim therefore will be to see where Mussolini
came from and what he did and said in order to get into power.
To do so, however, is a considerable
trip back in time and one effect of that is that the political terminology
of nearly 100 years ago was somewhat different from today. In reading quotations
from the early days one must keep in mind that those Mussolini refers to
as "Socialists" were in fact Marxists rather than social democrats and
those whom Mussolini refers to as "liberals" were advocates of laissez
faire and would hence be described as conservatives today. Mussolini
started out as a Marxist but eventually devised Fascism as a "third way"
(sound familiar?). He saw it as offering a middle way between Marxism and
capitalism -- Leftist but not Marxist.
In
Mussolini's own words
Let us listen initially to some reflections
on the early days of Fascism by Mussolini himself -- first published in
1935 (See the third chapter in Greene, 1968).
"If the bourgeoisie think
they will find lightning conductors in us they are the more deceived; we
must start work at once .... We want to accustom the working class to real
and effectual leadership".
And that was Mussolini quoting his own
words from the early Fascist days. So while Mussolini had by that time
(in his 30s) come to reject the Marxist idea of a class-war, he still saw
himself as anti-bourgeois and as a saviour and leader of the workers. What
modern-day Leftist could not identify with that?
"Therefore I desire that
this assembly shall accept the revindication of national trades unionism"
So he was a good union man like most Leftists
today.
"When the present regime
breaks down, we must be ready at once to take its place"
Again a great Leftist hope and aspiration.
"Fascism has taken up an
attitude of complete opposition to the doctrines of Liberalism, both in
the political field and in the field of economics".
The "Liberalism" he refers to here would
of course be called "Neo-liberalism" today -- the politics of Margaret
Thatcher and Ronald Reagan. Mussolini opposed such politics and so do Leftists
today.
"The present method of political
representation cannot suffice".
Modern-day Leftists too seem to seek influence
outside the normal democratic channels -- from strikes and demonstrations
to often successful attempts to get the courts to make law.
"Fascism now and always
believes in holiness and in heroism; that is to say in actions influenced
by no economic motive"
He here also rejects the Communist emphasis
on materialism. Leftism to this day is often seen as a religion and its
agitators clearly often long to be seen as heroic and unmaterialistic.
"Fascism repudiates the
conception of "economic" happiness"
Leftists today also tend to regard consumerism
as gross (or say they do as they drive off in their Volvos).
"After the war, in 1919,
Socialism was already dead as a doctrine: It existed only as a hatred".
Socialism has never been a buzzword in
North American Leftist circles but it certainly was for a very long time
in the rest of the world. And to modern day British Leftists too socialism
has a meaning that is more nostalgic and emotional than concrete and many
would be prepared to admit that it is functionally "dead". Mussolini, however
was 70 years earlier in announcing the death. It should be noted, however,
that Mussolini was principally referring here to the policies and doctrines
of his own former Socialist Party -- which was explicitly Marxist -- and
which were far more extreme than the socialism of (say) Clement Attlee
and the postwar British Labour party.
"Fascism ..... was born
of the need for action and it was itself from the beginning practical rather
than theoretical".
Modern-day Leftist demonstrators too seem
to be more interested in dramatic actions than in any coherent theory.
" one would there find no
ordered expression of doctrine but a series of aphorisms, anticipations
and aspirations".
This is how Mussolini described early Fascist
meetings. Modern-day Leftist agitators too seem more interested in slogans
than in any form of rational debate.
"If the 19th century has
been the century of the individual (for liberalism means individualism),
it may be conjectured that this is the century of the State.
This is Mussolini's famous prophecy about
the 20th century in the Enciclopedia Italiana. It came true with
the aid of the modern-day Left and their love of big government. To underline
that, note that in 1900 the ratio of government spending to GDP in Italy
was 10%, in the 1950s 30%, and it is now roughly 60% (Martino,
1998). In this prophecy, Mussolini rejected Marxian socialism because
he disliked the Marxist notions of class war and historical inevitability
but modern-day Leftists differentiate themselves from Marxists too.
But Mussolini was more like Lenin and
Stalin in his overt rejection of democracy: "Fascism denies that the
majority, by the simple fact that it is a majority, can direct human society".
Most modern-day Leftists in the Western world would undoubtedly like to
get rid of democracy too but they are less open about it than Mussolini
was.
"Laissez faire is out of
date"
To this day the basic free market doctrine
of "laissez faire" is virtually a swear-word to most Leftists. Quoted from
Smith (1967, p. 87).
"The paid slaves of kings
in their gaudy uniforms, their chests covered with crosses, decorations
and similar foreign and domestic hardware ..... blinding the public with
dust and flaunting in its face their impudent display".
Here Hibbert (1962, p. 11) reports Mussolini's
youthful contempt for the armed forces. Such anti-militarism would surely
resound well with most student antiwar demonstrators of today.
"The Socialist party reaffirms
its eternal faith in the future of the Workers' International, destined
to bloom again, greater and stronger, from the blood and conflagration
of peoples. It is in the name of the International and of Socialism that
we invite you, proletarians of Italy, to uphold your unshakeable opposition
to war".
This from Carsten (1967, p. 46). It is
from an article that was published by Mussolini in the Socialist Party
organ "Avanti!" of 22 September, 1914 during Mussolini's Marxist
period. So Mussolini's anti-militarism persisted until he was aged 31.
When compared with Mussolini's subsequent career this shows exactly where
anti-militaristic and antiwar sentiments can ultimately lead.
"Our programme is simple.
We want to rule Italy".
As I have argued at length elsewhere,
that is the real program of any Leftist. But Mussolini had the honesty
to be upfront about it. Quoted from Carsten (1967, p. 62).
Mussolini ha sempre ragione
("Mussolini is always right").
This is probably the most famous of the
many slogans that were plastered up everywhere in Fascist Italy. It too
has a resounding echo among Leftists today. I can think of examples where
modern conservative politicians have apologized and retracted their views
but I can think of no example where a Leftist has. In the old Soviet empire
there was virtually no such thing as "negative" news reported in the media.
Even plane crashes were ignored. And as Amis (2002) notes, even though
the reality of the vast, destructive and brutal tyranny of the now collapsed
Soviet regime is undeniable, Leftists to this day are almost universally
unapologetic about their past support for it and may even still claim that
Lenin was a great man.
And Mussolini's "Fascist Manifesto"
of 1919 (full translation by Vox Day here)
includes in Fascist policy such socialist gems as (I quote):
The nationalization of all the arms and
explosives factories.
A strong progressive tax on capital that
will truly expropriate a portion of all wealth.
The seizure of all the possessions of the
religious congregations and the abolition of all the bishoprics, which
constitute an enormous liability on the Nation and on the privileges of
the poor.
The formation of a National Council of
experts for labor, for industy, for transportation, for the public health,
for communications, etc. Selections to be made from the collective professionals
or of tradesmen with legislative powers, and elected directly to a General
Commission with ministerial powers.
A minimum wage.
The participation of workers' representatives
in the functions of industry commissions
Mussolini
as described by historians
"For the proletariat must
consider itself anti-patriotic by definition and necessity and made to
realize that nationalism was a mask for rapacious militarism that should
be left to the masters and that the national flag was, as Gustave Herve
had said, a rag to be planted on a dunghill"
This is a summary of Mussolini's attitudes
when he was aged 25 by Hibbert (1962, p. 14). So although in his 30s Mussolini
become an ardent nationalist, in his youth he was as anti-nationalist as
any America-hater among the American "liberal" youth of today.
"He was coming to the belief
which was soon to dominate his life -- that the existing order must be
overthrown by an elite of revolutionaries acting in the name of the people".
This summary of Mussolini's developing
beliefs in his 20s by Hibbert (1962, p. 17) could hardly be a more quintessentially
Leftist outlook.
"It contained several demands
that were decidedly radical: A progressive tax on capital and a tax of
eighty-five percent on war profits, universal franchise for men and women,
a national militia, a minimum wage, nationalization of the munition industries,
worker's participation in the management of industrial enterprises, the
confiscation of all eccelesiastical property".
This is Carsten's (1967, p. 50) summary
of Mussolini's June, 1919, political program, already mentioned. There
would be very little in that which would not strike a chord with modern-day
Leftists. Note that Mussolini was even a feminist by the standards of his
day -- agitating for equal rights for women.
"He had a profound contempt
for those whose overriding ambition was to be rich. It was a mania, he
thought, a kind of disease, and he comforted himself with the reflection
that the rich were rarely happy"
Here Hibbert (1962, p. 47) is describing
a lifelong attitude of Mussolini that continued right into his time as
Italy's Prime Minister -- when he refused to take his official salary.
Given the contempt for the rich so often expressed by Leftists almost everywhere,
Mussolini was clearly a Leftist paragon in that regard.
"There was much truth in
the comment of a Rome newspaper that the new fasci did not aim at
the defence of the ruling class or the existing State but wanted to lead
the revolutionary forces into the Nationalist camp so as to prevent a victory
of Bolshevism..
Here Carsten (1967, p. 50) also reports
on not mistaking the rivalry between the Fascists and the Communists as
being pro-establishment.
"Mussolini, however, declared
that he was fighting the Socialists, not because or their socialism but
because they were anti-national and reactionary".
This is again from Carsten (1967, p. 50).
So Mussolini retained his socialist loyalties even though he had also become
a nationalist.
"In the summer of 1919 crowds,
indignant about recent price increases, invaded the shops, looted goods
and insisted on price reductions. Mussolini and his fasci proclaimed
their solidarity with the rioters. The "Popolo d'Italia" suggested
that it would set a good example if some profiteers were strung up on lamp-posts
and some hoarders smothered under the potatoes and the sides of bacon they
were hiding".
So Mussolini was far from being an instinctive
supporter of law and order (Carsten, 1967, p. 52). The "Popolo d'Italia"
was Mussolini's own newspaper.
"There Mussolini was still
following a distinctly radical line. he asserted that his programme was
similar to that of the Socialists, that Fascism was helping their cause,
that it would carry through the agrarian revolution, the only one that
was possible in Italy. He even welcomed the occupation of the factories"
This is again from Carsten (1967, p. 56)
-- summarizing Mussolini's speeches of 1920. Pledging revolution and welcoming
worker occupation of the factories is still of course a wet dream of the
more "revolutionary" Left today.
"On 16 November the new
government presented itself to Parliament.... received an overwhelming
vote of confidence ... Only Mussolini's old enemy Turati, the spokesman
of the Socialists rejected the government ... but not even all the Socialist
deputies voted against."
So when he finally came to power, Mussolini
and the "Reds" of his own former party were still bitter rivals but he
was still Leftist enough for some "Reds" to vote for him! (From Carsten,
1967, p. 65). Much later, Hitler too received some parliamentary support
from Germany's Socialist party.
"Mussolini in March 1936
told the council of corporations that he did not wish to bureaucratize
the entire economy of the nation but in practice the extension of government
activities everywhere brought with it a top-heavy organization, slow and
unresponsive, and quite out of touch with ordinary people".
This is from Smith (1967, p. 80) and describes
a picture that is all too familiar to us today as the outcome of ever increasing
cries for government regulation and intervention from Leftists. And Mussolini's
disclaimer about bureaucratization is distinctly reminiscent of US President
Bill Clinton's declaration that the era of big government is over. No doubt
both Clinton and Mussolini crossed their fingers as they said it!
"Mussolini set the example
in his revival of pagan rites, and in October 1928 instituted a ceremony
in which patriotic citizens presented their national savings certificates
as a burnt offering on an ancient altar of Minerva specially brought out
of its museum for the purpose"
So do modern day Leftists find a superior
spirituality in pagan pre-Christian religions such as the religions of
the American Indians? Mussolini was there before them (Smith, 1967, p.
100).
And perhaps the ultimate comment by
others on Mussolini is what Muravchik (2002) reminds us of at some length:
Leftists of the prewar era worldwide very often praised and admired Mussolini
as a great socialist innovator. It was once as fashionable among Leftists
to praise his regime as it later became to praise Soviet Communism.
Horowitz (1998) also quotes historical
summaries showing that many modern Leftist intellectual stratagems have
precedents in prewar European Fascist thought generally.
Mussolini's
Marxist Roots
So, how many people today are aware
that Mussolini, that great Fascist ogre, was in his youth an incandescent
revolutionary socialist, a labor-union agitator who was jailed for his
pains (Hibbert, 1962)? He was as radical as any student radical of today.
Even in his childhood, he was expelled from two schools for his rebellious
behaviour.
After that he became one of Italy's
most prominent Marxist theoreticians and an intimate of Lenin. He in fact
first became well-known as "Il Duce" (the Leader) when he was a
member of Italy's (Marxist) Socialist Party and between 1912 and 1914 he
was the editor of their newspaper, "L'Avanti". After his split with
the Socialist Party he started his own Leftist newspaper "Il Popolo
d'Italia" ("The people of Italy").
When he broke with the Socialist party
in 1914, it was over whether or not Italy should enter World War I. Following
Marx's internationalist doctrines, the "Socialist" (Marxist) party was
neutralist and anti-patriotic but Mussolini soon became uncomfortable with
that for two reasons: 1). It had already become fairly clear even before
the war that the workers were nationalistic and patriotic rather than class-conscious
-- so the Marxist vision of the workers of the world uniting regardless
of nationality was just not going to happen. And all that was thoroughly
confirmed when the mainstream Leftist parties of the various European countries
lined up behind their respective national governments in World War I. So
it was nationalism and patriotism rather than class-struggle that would
most move the workers. And, as the aspiring leader of the workers, Mussolini
had to follow that! 2). Mussolini correctly foresaw that the Austro/German
forces would not win the war and therefore wanted Italy to join the Allied
side and thus get a slice of Austrian territory at the end of the war.
Italians had suffered many humiliations at the hands of the Austrians and
there must have been very few Italians who did not share Mussolini's desire
to seize historically Italian territory from them. Like many Leftists then
and since Mussolini did not have any principles that he allowed to stand
in the way of a grab for power.
It should be noted that Mussolini's
views in this matter did not at all disqualify him from continuing as a
Marxist. Like many other Marxists of his time (See Gregor,
1979), Mussolini tempered his view of the importance of class-solidarity
with the recognition that both Marx and Engels had in their lifetimes lent
their support to a number of wars between nations (Engels
in particular was a pretty virulent German nationalist!). He looked, in
other words, not only at broad Marxist theory but also at how Marx and
Engels applied their theories. Such "pragmatism" was, of course, a hallmark
of Mussolini's thinking. And, like the Communists, Mussolini had no aversion
to war.
As further commentary on Mussolini's
Marxist credentials, it may be worth noting that, long before the Bolshevik
revolution, Mussolini had supported the orthodox Marxist (cf. the
Mensheviks) view that backward States like Italy and Russia had to go through
a capitalist or bourgeois democratic stage before evolving into socialism.
It was this, as much as anything, that led Mussolini to collaborate with
the Italian establishment when he eventually gained power.
Mussolini's disagreement with Lenin
in this matter therefore meant that Mussolini and his Fascist friends greeted
with considerable glee the terrible economic disaster (with national income
at one third of the 1913 level) that emerged in Russia after the Bolshevik
takeover. They saw both the Bolshevik disaster and their own eventual successes
as proving the correctness of Marx's theory of historical evolution. When,
in 1919, Lenin began to speak (in language that could have been Mussolini's)
of the need to hold his country together with "a single iron will" (Gregor,
1979, p. 124) it put him belatedly but rather clearly in Mussolini's
camp.
It should also be noted that Mussolini
was the son of an impoverished and very Leftist father who worked mainly
as a blacksmith. Mussolini was very proud of these working-class roots
and it was a great recreation of his, even after coming to power, to take
drives in the country with his wife and stop at various farmhouses on the
way for a chat with the family there. He would enjoy discussing the crops,
the weather and all the usual rural topics and obviously just liked the
feeling of being one of the people. His claim to represent the people was
not just theory but heartfelt. And he never gave up his "anti-bourgeois"
rhetoric.
Another formative influence on Mussolini's
thinking was Italian "Futurism". The Futurists were well-known around the
time of World War I, when Mussolini was in the trenches with the Italian
army. Mussolini adopted much of their thinking wholesale. Note how quite
a lot in the following quote from their manifesto foreshadows Mao Tse Tung
and Pol Pot. And if Mao and Pol Pot were not Leftists, who would be?
'We shall sing the love of
danger, energy and boldness!" the Futurist Manifesto shouted from the rooftops
in 1909. "We declare that the world's splendour has been enriched by a
new beauty: the beauty of speed. There is no more beauty except in strife,
no masterpiece without aggressiveness, a violent onslaught upon the unknown
forces, to force them to bow to the will of man ...
"We wish to glorify war -- the only
hygiene of the world -- militarism, patriotism, the destructive arm of
the anarchist, the beautiful ideas that kill!"
The futurists also set out "to destroy
the museums, the libraries", adding: "It is in Italy that we launch this
manifesto of violence, destructive and incendiary, by which we this day
found futurism, because we would deliver Italy from its canker of professors,
archeologists, cicerones and antiquaries ... free her from the numberless
museums which cover her like so many cemeteries."
Source
And Mao's "Cultural Revolution" and Pol
Pot's attempts to kill off Cambodia's educated classes show that Marxists
carry out such ideas too. And, perhaps surprisingly to some, such ideas
were far from alien among Marxists of Mussolini's day. Marx and Engels
expressed quite similar ideas from time to time. The following is from
Marx, for instance:
"Even with Europe in decay,
still a war should have roused the healthy elements; a war should have
awakened a lot of hidden powers, and surely so much energy would have been
present among 250 million people that at least a respectable battle would
have occurred, in which both parties could have reaped some honor, as much
honor as courage and bravery can gain on the battlefield."
Source
(In the original German ).
And if Marx was not a Leftist, who would
be? Mussolini's "Fascist" ideas were in fact Marxist, and hence Leftist.
Mussolini
gaining power
After 1918, Italy was in chaos, with
Communist upheavals everywhere. Mussolini initially expressed his sympathies
for these upheavals but soon saw that they were reducing Italy to a form
of anarchy that was helping no-one. He therefore formed his "Fasci di
combattimento" -- mainly comprised in the beginning of fellow ex-servicemen
-- to help restore order. This they did by force, breaking up the Socialist
and Communist rallies, strikes and organizations. Internecine feuds between
Leftists have always been common, however.
Nonetheless, Fascism was subversive
in that it fought against the traditional Italian ruling elite -- who were
essentially still 19th century liberals (what would nowadays be called
"neo-liberals" or just "conservatives"). It was also subversive because
of its desire to innovate in many ways and to replace the existing ruling
class with a new Fascist ruling class.
So, while in Italy, as elsewhere in
interwar Europe, individual Communists, Fascists, anarchists and others
fought fierce street battles with one-another in a way that is reminiscent
of nothing so much as the turf wars between rival black gangs in Los Angeles
today, many of the Leftist brawlers eventually went over to the Fascists
--- showing how slight the real differences were between them.
When he did gain power, he implemented
economic policies that would endear him to many of the Left today. His
policies were basically protectionist. He controlled the exchange-rate
of the Italian currency and promoted that old favourite of the economically
illiterate -- autarky -- meaning that he tried to get Italy to become wholly
self-sufficient rather than rely on foreign trade. He wanted to protect
Italian products from competing foreign products. The Leftist anti-globalizers
of today would approve.
And he even had some success. By 1939
he had doubled Italy's grain production from its traditional level, enabling
Italy to cut wheat imports by 75% (Smith, 1967, p. 92). As with all autarkist
nonsense however, the price was high. The extra grain could be produced
only at high cost so Italians now had to pay twice as much for their grain.
But what anti-globalizer would worry about that?
But socialism was of course not the
only string to Mussolini's bow. He was also a strident Italian nationalist
with an avowed aim to restore the Roman empire. He certainly offered Italians
a new pride in themselves that was clearly welcomed by many Italians.
Nationalism
as an exciting novelty
Something that seems generally to be
overlooked is that the three countries with the most notable Fascist movements
in the early 20th century (Germany, Italy and Spain) were all in countries
with fragile national unity. Germany and Italy had become unified countries
only in the late 19th century and Spain, of course, is only nominally unified
to this day -- with semi-autonomous governments in Catalonia and the Basque
country. Right up until the end of the Prussian hegemony in 1918, Germans
saw themselves primarily as Saxons, Bavarians, Prussians etc rather than
as Germans and the contempt for Southern Italians among Northern Italians
is of course legendary.
So the fierce nationalism of the Fascists
(though Franco held himself above the Spanish Falange to some extent) appears
to have been at least in part the zeal of the convert. Nationalism was
something new and exciting and was a gratification to be explored vigorously.
And the Fascists/Nazis undoubtedly exploited it to the hilt. The romance
of the new nation was an important asset for them.
So if we regard the creation of large
nation states as a good thing (a fairly dubious proposition) the small
silver lining that we can see in the dark cloud of Fascism is that they
do seem to have had some success in creating a sense of nationhood. A German
identity, in particular, would seem to be the creation of Hitler. There
was certainly not much of the sort before him.
There are of course differences between
the three countries but in all three an acceptance of their nation-state
now seems to be well-entrenched. This acceptance seems to be strongest
in Germany -- probably in part because modern Germany is a Federal Republic
with substantial power devolved to the old regions (Laender) so
that local loyalties are also acknowledged. Spain has moved only partly
in the direction of federalism and there is of course a strong political
movement in Northern Italy for reform in that direction also.
It is perhaps worth noting that it took
a ferocious war (the civil war) to create an American sense of nationhood
too.
Was
Fascism middle-class?
The commonest Marxist analysis of Fascism
seems to be that it was "bourgeois" -- the last gasp of a failing middle
class in its desperate struggle to hold onto its position against the rising
tide of the working class. Since the leading Marxists themselves -- from
Marx and Engels, through Lenin to Pol Pot have themselves always been middle
class, this analysis has its amusing side. The perennial Leftist tactic
of accusing others of what is in fact true of themselves would alone account
for that characterization of Fascism. But is the characterization nonetheless
true? There is much to say that it is not. The breadth of Mussolini's appeal
is in fact one of the most remarkable things about him. The Fascists certainly
included many middle class people but they included workers and aristocrats
as well. Even Jews were prominent among them!
I cover the class composition of both
Italian Fascism and German Nazism in some detail here.
Mussolini
the environmentalist
As well as being an "anti-globalizer",
there were several other ways in which Mussolini would have appealed to
modern-day greenies. He made Capri a bird sanctuary (Smith, 1967, p. 84)
and in 1926 he issued a decree reducing the size of newspapers to save
wood pulp. And, believe it or not, he even mandated gasohol -- i.e. mixing
industrial alcohol with petroleum products to make fuel for cars (Smith,
1967, p. 87). Mussolini also disliked the population drift from rural areas
into the big cities and in 1930 passed a law to put a stop to it unless
official permission was granted (Smith, 1967, p. 90). What Green/Left advocate
could ask for more?
Mussolini
the pragmatist
Although Mussolini never ceased preaching
socialism in some form, his actions when in power were like those of most
politicians: Many unrealistic promises were broken and policies were adopted
that in fact hurt the workers (such as wage cuts). The important point,
however, is that the policies he in fact adopted once in power were not
adopted for mere ideological reasons but because they were the policies
that he thought would work best for Italy and, thus, ultimately for all
Italians. As "Conservative" political parties tend to think in this way
also (Gilmour, 1978), it is presumably in part this that causes Mussolini
to be referred to as a Rightist. His appeal to Italians, however was as
a socialist and a nationalist.
For all his pragmatism, however, it
should also be recognized (contrary to what many of his critics say) that
Mussolini did have a well-publicized and coherent economic strategy mapped
out before he came to power and that policies that are sometimes seen as
merely "pragmatic" were also theoretically grounded in his old Marxist
ideas. He was well aware of both Italy's poverty and the inefficiency of
its bureaucrats and blamed much of the former on the latter. Following
the Marxist theory of developmental stages, he argued that the only alternative
to the bureaucrats that would mobilize Italy's limited resources was the
fostering of private enterprise and capitalism. He even advocated privatization
of telecommunications and the post office! This coincides, of course, with
the way modern-day Leftists (particularly in Britain) have abandoned the
idea of State-run enterprises and acknowledged the benefits of privatization.
Mussolini was, however, far from being
any sort of free-marketeer. Just like most modern-day Leftist politicians,
he advocated private enterprise within a strict set of State controls designed,
among other things, to prevent abuse of monopoly power (Gregor,
1979, Ch. 5).
So we see that Mussolini again had remarkable
prescience. Deng Xiaoping of China and Gorbachev of Russia seem now to
be generally seen as the first Marxists to have discovered pragmatism and
private enterprise. Mussolini, however, did it all 60 or more years before
them.
Mussolini's
socialist deeds
One major "socialist" reform of the
economy that is still a misty ideal to modern-day Leftists Mussolini actually
carried out. He attempted to centralize control of industry by declaring
a "Corporate State" which divided all Italian industry up into 22 "corporations".
In these corporations both workers and managers were supposed to co-operate
to run industry together -- but under Fascist guidance, of course. The
Corporate State was supposed to ensure social justice and give the workers
substantial control of industry.
And in 1933 Mussolini even promised
that the National Council of Corporations would eventually replace the
Parliament! Surely the ultimate unionist's dream! And the Chamber of Fasces
and Corporations created in 1939 largely fulfilled that promise. Since
Mussolini had dictatorial powers by then it was largely tokenism but it
nonetheless showed how Leftist his propaganda was.
In reality the Fascist appointees to
the corporations tended to take the side of the management and what resulted
was really capitalism within a tight set of government controls. Since
most of Europe and much of the rest of the world moved in that direction
in the post-war era, Mussolini was in this also ahead of his times. And
if the waning of the "Red" influence on Western economies in the post-Soviet
era has led to some deregulation of business, the rise of the "Greens"
has added a vast new area of government regulation. The precedent set by
Mussolini is still being followed!
Some other clearly Leftist initiatives
that Mussolini took were a big expansion of public works and a great improvement
in social insurance measures. He also set up the "Dopolavoro" (after
work) organization to give workers cheap recreations of various kinds (cf.
the Nazi Kraft durch Freude movement). His public health measures
(such as the attack on tuberculosis and the setting up of a huge maternal
and child welfare organization) were particularly notable for their rationality
and efficiency and, as such, were rewarded with great success. For instance,
the incidence of tuberculosis dropped dramatically and infant mortality
declined by more than 20% (Gregor, p. 259). Together with big improvements
in education and public infrastructure, such measures gave Fascist Italy
what was arguably the most advanced welfare State in the world at the time.
And if influential American "liberal"
economists such as Galbraith (1969) can bemoan the low level of spending
on public works as "private affluence and public squalor", Mussolini was
well ahead on that. As Hibbert (1962, p. 56) says, Mussolini
"instituted a programme of public
works hitherto unrivalled in modern Europe. Bridges, canals and roads were
built, hospitals and schools, railway stations and orphanages, swamps were
drained and land reclaimed, forest were planted and universities were endowed."
Given the modern-day Leftist's love
of government provision of services, it would seem that Mussolini should
be their hero in that respect. He actually did what they advocate and did
it around 70 years ago.
Mussolini
and religion
For most of the 20th century, most Leftists
were deeply antipathetic to religion. In recent decades, however, that
has changed so much that the old mainstream churches are now very often
major founts of Leftist thinking and propaganda. Leftists have now largely
got the major churches onside. Mussolini did the same over 70 years ago.
In 1929 Mussolini and Pope Pius 12th signed the Lateran treaty -- which
is the legal basis for the existence of the Vatican State to this day --
and Pius in fact at one stage called Mussolini "the man sent by Providence".
The treaty recognized Roman Catholicism as the Italian State religion as
well as recognizing the Vatican as a sovereign state. What Mussolini got
in exchange was acceptance by the church -- something that was enormously
important in the Italy of that time.
It should also be noted that Mussolini's
economic system (his "corporate State") was a version of syndicalism --
having workers, bosses and the party allegedly united in several big happy
families -- and syndicalism is precisely what had been recommended in the
then recent (1891) "radical" encyclical De rerum novarum of Pope
Leo XIII. So that helped enormously to reconcile Mussolini to the church.
Economically, Fascism was more Papal than capitalist (though in the Papal
version of syndicalism the church naturally had a bigger role).
Syndicalism was of course a far-Leftist
idea (with Sorel as a major prophet) long before it was a Papal one but
the Holy Father presented a much more humanized and practical version of
it and thus seems in the end to have been more influential than his Leftist
rivals. Mussolini was of course acutely aware of both streams of syndicalist
thinking and it was a great convenience to him to be able to present himself
as both a modern Leftist and as a supporter of the church.
Mussolini
a racist?
Despite recent upsurges of antisemitism
among extreme Leftists in the Western world in connection with the Arab-Israeli
conflict, most Leftists today probably continue to deplore antisemitism.
The early Mussolini would have had no argument with them over that. He
was a most emphatic Italian nationalist but it is perhaps important here
to distinguish patriotism, nationalism and racism. These do to some extent
tend to slide into one-another but there are differences too. Most notable
in the present case is the contrast between Hitler's persecution of the
Jews and Mussolini's reluctance to have any part in that.
Under Hitler's prodding, Mussolini did
eventually put antisemitism on his agenda and did in 1938 pass generally
unpopular antisemitic laws but it was no part of his own original program.
He had never expressed any antisemitism prior to his alliance with Hitler.
In fact, Italian Jews had been prominent as leaders in some of the early
Fasci
di combattimento (Fascist bands) and the antisemitic laws were largely
ignored by Italians -- so much so that one of the safest places in Europe
for Jews to be during the second world war was undoubtedly Fascist Italy.
Jews were in fact routinely protected by both Fascist and non-Fascist Italians
(including the clergy) and many Jews to this day have grateful memories
of wartime Italy. At a time when Jews had very few friends anywhere in
the world, they had friends in Fascist Italy (Steinberg, 1990; Herzer,
1989). Contrast this with the way in which Eastern Europeans and even the
French actively co-operated with Hitler's round-up of Jews. It should also
be noted that, unlike Hitler, Mussolini did not set up any concentration
camps for the Jews.
It must of course be conceded, however,
that the Ethiopians suffered considerably at the hands of their Italian
invaders but most human societies make a distinction between war and murder
and Mussolini certainly did. Nazis and revolutionary Leftists, on the other
hand, do not seem to.
Attitude
to Hitler
Ideologically, Mussolini and Hitler
were broadly similar. And when I point out how far to the Left most of
Hitler's policies were, a strong reaction I get from many who know something
of history is to say that Hitler cannot have been a Leftist because of
the great hatred that existed in prewar Germany between the Nazis and the
"Reds". And the early Fascists battled the "Reds" too, of course.
The reply I always give to such doubts
is to say that there is no hatred like fraternal hatred and that hatreds
between different Leftist groupings have existed from the French revolution
onwards. Such hatreds do not make any of the rival groups less Leftist
however. And the ice-pick in the head that Trotsky got courtesy of Stalin
shows vividly that even among the Bolsheviks themselves there were great
rivalries and hatreds. Did that make any of them less Bolshevik, less Marxist,
less Communist? No doubt the protagonists concerned would argue that it
did but from anyone else's point of view they were all Leftists at least.
Nonetheless there still seems to persist
in some minds the view that two groups as antagonistic as the Nazis and
the Communists or the Fascists and the Communists just cannot have been
ideological blood-brothers. Let me therefore try this little quiz: Who
was it who at one stage dismissed Hitler as a "barbarian, a criminal and
a pederast"? Was it Stalin? Was it some other Communist? Was it Winston
Churchill? Was it some other conservative? Was it one of the Social Democrats?
No. It was none other than Mussolini, who later became Hitler's ally in
World War II. And if any two leaders were ideological blood-brothers those
two were. So I think it is clear that antagonism between Hitler and others
and between Mussolini and others proves nothing. If anything, the antagonism
between Hitler and other socialists and between Mussolini and the "Reds"
is proof of what typical socialists both Mussolini and Hitler were.
In Mein Kampf, Hitler expressed
great admiration for Mussolini and did in the early days regard Mussolini
as his teacher so at least part of Hitler's National Socialism is traceable
to Mussolini's innovations. As noted, however, Mussolini did NOT reciprocate
Hitler's regard and correctly divined and loathed Hitler's murderous personality
from the beginning (Andriola, 1997). Hitler's mania about the Jews was
also one reason why Mussolini derided Nazism as a doctrine of barbarians.
Few modern-day Leftists would argue with that judgement.
Mussolini remained neutral in 1939 and
1940 and only joined in Hitler's war when France had collapsed, Hitler
already bestrode Europe and his overtures to Britain had been rejected.
In such circumstances it seemed wise to be on the winning side. That was
Mussolini's one big mistake and it was, of course, ultimately a fatal one.
True to his pragmatism, in both wars Mussolini simply tried to side with
the winner.
Another major difference between Hitler
and Mussolini would seem to flow simply from the fact that Mussolini was
Italian: Mussolini was much less brutal. I grew up in Innisfail -- a place
that was 50% an Australian country town and 50% an Italian village. Since
then I have always had an affection for Italians. Italian was even one
of my matriculation languages (Ho studiato Italiano a scuola ma ho quasi
tutto dimenticato). So I have always thought it in keeping that Mussolini's
Italian Fascism appears to have been the mildest of all the many Leftist
dictatorships of the 20th century. The Italian Fascist response to political
rivals was not to torture them to death but simply to give them a large
dose of Castor oil! Almost funny! Here is a link
about another instance of Italian humaneness in the Fascist era: It was
OK to criticize Il Duce if you were drunk!
This
also rings true to me:
"Mussolini's widow, who died
in 1979... described grand state dinners, including a banquet given by
King Victor Emmanuel III for Hitler on the Nazi dictator's visit to Rome
in May 1938. "Donna Rachele said Hitler, who was a vegetarian, found all
the dishes unacceptable, while Mussolini, who was clearly bored to tears,
complained that the menu was in French and kept muttering that Italian
regional cooking was more appetising than 'all this pretentious and indigestible
French stuff'."
Ms Scicolone said Mussolini was not
much of a bon viveur. Domestic rituals were important to him, and
despite his government duties and assignations with mistresses, he always
had lunch and dinner with his wife and children, "like any Italian man".
He never drank alcohol, and instead drank "litres of herbal teas and tisanes".
Other
Leftist nationalists
Those who know of the Leftist themes
in the election campaigns of both Hitler and Mussolini often say that neither
was a real Leftist because they were also vehement nationalists. The thought
seems to be that nationalism can only be Rightist. But that shows no knowledge
of Leftist history generally.
From the days of Marx onward, there
were innumerable "splits" in the extreme Leftist movement but two of the
most significant occurred around the time of the Bolshevik revolution ---
when in Russia the Bolsheviks themselves split into Leninists and Trotskyites
and when in Italy Mussolini left Italy's major Marxist party to found the
"Fascists". So from its earliest days Leftism had a big split over the
issue of nationalism. It split between the Internationalists (e.g. Trotskyists)
and the nationalists (e.g. Fascists) with Lenin having a foot in both camps.
So any idea that a nationalist cannot be a Leftist is pure fiction.
And, in fact, the very title of Lenin's
famous essay, "Left-wing Communism, an infantile disorder" shows that Lenin
himself shared the judgement that he was a Right-wing sort of Marxist.
Mussolini was somewhat further Right again, of course, but both were to
the Right only WITHIN the overall far-Left camp of the day.
It should further be noted in this connection
that, as Horowitz (1998) reminds us, the various European Socialist parties
in World War I did not generally oppose the war in the name of international
worker brotherhood but rather threw their support behind the various national
governments of the countries in which they lived. Just as Mussolini did,
they too nearly all became nationalists. Nationalist socialism is a very
old phenomenon.
And it still exists today. Although
many modern-day US Democrats often seem to be anti-American, the situation
is rather different in Australia and Britain. Both the major Leftist parties
there (the Australian Labor Party and the British Labour Party) are perfectly
patriotic parties which express pride in their national traditions and
achievements. Nobody seems to have convinced them that you cannot be both
Leftist and nationalist. That is of course not remotely to claim that either
of the parties concerned is a Nazi or an explicitly Fascist party. What
Hitler and Mussolini advocated and practiced was clearly more extremely
nationalist than any major Anglo-Saxon political party would now advocate.
And socialist parties such as the British
Labour Party were patriotic parties in World War II as well. And in World
War II even Stalin moved in that direction. If Hitler learnt from Mussolini
the persuasive power of nationalism, Stalin was not long in learning the
same lesson from Hitler. When the Wehrmacht invaded Russia, the
Soviet defences did, as Hitler expected, collapse like a house of cards.
The size of Russia did, however, give Stalin time to think and what he
came up with was basically to emulate Hitler and Mussolini. Stalin reopened
the churches, revived the old ranks and orders of the Russian Imperial
army to make the Red Army simply the Russian Army and stressed patriotic
appeals in his internal propaganda. He portrayed his war against Hitler
not as a second "Red" war but as 'Vtoraya Otechestvennaya Vojna'
-- The Second Patriotic War -- the first such war being the Tsarist defence
against Napoleon. He deliberately put himself in the shoes of Russia's
Tsars.
Russian patriotism proved as strong
as its German equivalent and the war was turned around. And to this day,
Russians still refer to the Second World War as simply "The Great Patriotic
War". Stalin may have started out as an international socialist but he
soon became a national socialist when he saw how effective that was in
getting popular support. Again, however, it was Mussolini who realized
it first. And it is perhaps to Mussolini's credit as a human being that
his nationalism was clearly heartfelt where Stalin's was undoubtedly a
mere convenience.
And last but not
least we have the original Leftist nationalist: Napoleon. Napoleon Bonaparte
was the child and heir of the very first Leftist revolution, the French
revolution and he is to this day lauded as the man who took the "ideals"
of the French revolution to the rest of Europe. Like all Leftist dictators,
he preached the central Leftist myth of equality -- but did not practice
it -- and built up around himself a cult of the leader that was very much
the same as that built up around themselves by Mussolini, Hitler, Stalin,
Mao, Kim Il Sung etc. And, again like other Fascists, he took French nationalism
and love of gloire to new heights. During his rule -- police state
though it was -- he made the French feel that they were the greatest nation
on earth. And the French died in their droves in furtherance of that myth
-- just as Germans later died in their droves for Hitler. Mussolini may
have invented the term but it was really Napoleon who was the first Fascist.
Arthur
Silber has put up some excerpts from the recent biography of Napoleon
by Paul Johnson that show how very Fascist Napoleon indeed was. Since Napoleon
is still a French national hero, it is no wonder that the Germans found
it relatively easy to get the French to "collaborate" in World War II.
Leftist
or Rightist?
We should now by this stage be able
to evaluate better whether Mussolini's Fascism was Right-wing, Left-wing
or neither. As already outlined, its rhetoric certainly had strong Left-wing
elements. The 1919 election manifesto, for instance, contained policies
of worker control of industry, confiscation of war profits, abolition of
the Stock exchange, land for the peasants and abolition of the Monarchy
and nobility. Further, Mussolini never ceased to inveigh against "plutocrats".
As has been mentioned, however, Mussolini's
nationalism is undoubtedly the major feature of Fascist ideology that gets
it labelled as Rightist. Nationalism is most easily associated with the
Right because it is antithetical to the "equality" gospel that characterizes
most Leftism. If all men are equal, then all nations should be equal too.
And Mussolini's nationalism did endear him to the Right and gain their
co-operation and support on many important occasions. His nationalism also
made him eventually reject the divisive "class-war" notions of Communism
and the revolutionary activities of the "Reds". He wanted a harmonious
and united Italy for all Italians of all classes and was sure that achieving
just treatment for the workers needed neither revolution nor any kind of
artificially enforced equality.
And his nationalism is the one thing
that clearly separates Mussolini from the Leftists of today. It seems routine
today, for instance, for American Leftists to hate America. Or at the least
they rarely have a good word to say for their country. But one swallow
does not make a summer and there have always been many varieties of Leftism
(Muravchik, 2002). Mussolini's was a nationalist variety. And as any Trotskyite
will tell you, both Lenin and Stalin were nationalists in their own way
too. Nonetheless, Mussolini was undoubtedly to the Right of Lenin and the
Communists -- but so too are most modern-day Leftists.
Another feature of Mussolini's message
that today looks inconsistent with his Leftism is the way he glorified
war, strength and obedience and was explicitly anti-democratic. These ideas
might seem very much at variance with modern-day Leftism but are in fact
quite similar to what Lenin advocated in his famous essay on "Left-wing
Communism -- an infantile disorder":
"I repeat, the experience of the
victorious dictatorship of the proletariat in Russia has clearly shown
even to those who are unable to think, or who have not had occasion to
ponder over this question, that absolute centralization and the strictest
discipline of the proletariat constitute one of the fundamental conditions
for victory over the bourgeoisie" (Lenin, 1952).
So both Lenin and Mussolini simply made
explicit certain ideas that modern-day Leftists usually feel the need to
deny but often still practice when they get into power (e.g. Pol Pot).
Unlike the Communists, however, Mussolini did not make any truly revolutionary
changes or carry out any great "purges" so again was undoubtedly to the
Right of Stalin -- but that is not saying much, of course. Mass "purges"
(murders of whole classes of people) and revolution are not generally advocated
by modern-day Leftists either.
Despite his being much more upfront
about his authoritarian ideas than any modern-day Leftist would be, Mussolini's
Leftism was, like modern-day Western Leftism, in fact comparatively mild
compared with Stalin's. This made Italian Fascism a much more popular creed
than Stalin's Communism. This is perhaps most clearly seen by the always
persuasive "voting with your feet" criterion. Mussolini made no effort
to prevent Italians from emigrating and although some anti-Fascists did,
net emigration actually FELL under Mussolini. Compare this with Stalin
and the Berlin wall. One notes that modern-day Leftists in the Western
world today also never seem to feel the need to emigrate -- for all their
swingeing criticisms of contemporary Western society.
It should also be noted that, like many
modern-day Leftists Mussolini gained power through political rather than
revolutionary means. His famous march on Rome was only superficially revolutionary.
The King of Italy and the army approved of him because of his pragmatic
policies so did not oppose the march. So this collusion ensured that Mussolini's
"revolution" was essentially bloodless.
One rather amusing consequence of the
way
Mussolini made use of the existing power structures was that when Hitler
(who in Germany was by that time both head of State and head of the government)
first arrived in Italy on a State visit, he was greeted, not by Mussolini
but by the King. As protocol requires, the head of government (Mussolini)
was on the sidelines. This both confused and annoyed Hitler. It is a good
illustration, however, of how Mussolini put pragmatism before ideology,
as his 1919 manifesto was explicitly anti-Monarchist.
Some people claim that Mussolini was
not really Leftist because he in fact did not do much for the workers of
Italy. But how many Leftist politicians would qualify as Leftist by the
criterion of whether they were of net benefit to the workers when in office?
The common economic failures of Leftist regimes tend to affect all the
population, with no exemption for the workers. To judge politicians as
they are normally judged (by their ideology), therefore, Mussolini was
very much an extreme Leftist. Was Stalin of net benefit to the workers?
Given the very poor standard of living in the Soviet Union that the Gorbachev
reforms revealed, it seems unlikely. Do we for that reason say Stalin was
not really a Leftist?
Although everything
that I have said so far is readily available in the history books, practically
none of it ever reaches public consciousness. Given that Hollywood, the
media and the educational system are overwhelmingly Left-leaning, that
is hardly a surprise. The Left cannot AFFORD to have the public at large
realize that the great tyrannies of the 20th century were all socialist.
On those rare occasions when Leftists are confronted with the facts, however,
a common and very amusing "excuse" that is offered is to say that "they
were all doing it". In other words socialism was somehow in the air of
interwar Europe. It was just something that everyone had to advocate who
wanted to get elected -- whether they believed in it or not. Obviously,
however, someone failed to tell the British Liberal and Conservative parties
that. Both of those parties were rather more in favour of free trade and
laissez
faire economic policies than modern-day conservative parties usually
are so I suppose that their election victories in 1918, 1922, 1924, 1931
and 1935 just did not happen!
To return to the historical Mussolini:
Without his necessarily being insincere about either, both Mussolini's
Leftism and his nationalism seem to have been, however, in the end mainly
tools for getting people on-side. His No. 1 priority was simply to rule
-- a good Leftist goal. His considerable popularity for many years among
a wide range of Italians shows how effective his recipe for achieving that
was. Unlike Hitler, he was even popular with Britain's arch-conservative
Winston
Churchill (Hagan, 1966, p. 474).
And much less surprisingly, F.D.
Roosevelt, found in Mussolini's policies part of his inspiration for
the semi-socialist "New Deal" and referred to Mussolini in 1933 as "that
admirable Italian gentleman". Mussolini was plausible to an amazingly wide
range of people -- not the least to the people of Italy.
And Roosevelt and his political allies
practiced what they preached. As UPI financial journalist Martin Hutchinson
has pointed out, the USA in the 1940s was a place "with price controls,
government licensing of transportation, state intervention in the steel
and auto industries, interest rates that were set by Treasury fiat and
a capital market in which banks were not allowed to operate. Also a "democracy"
in which electoral districts were wildly unequal and 15 percent of the
population was denied the vote." By modern-day standards the USA of that
time had considerable Fascist elements too. American Leftism was Fascist
even then. As Stromberg
also notes:
"In 1954, Hofstadter chided
those who had worried about "several close parallels" between FDR's N.R.A.
and fascist corporatism. There are more than "several" parallels. In 1944,
John T. Flynn made the case in As We Go Marching, where he enumerated
the stigmata of generic fascism, surveyed the interwar policies of Fascist
Italy and Nazi Germany, and pointed to uncomfortably similar American policies.
For Flynn, the hallmarks of fascism were: 1) unrestrained government; 2)
an absolute leader responsible to a single party; 3) a planned economy
with nominal private ownership of the means of production; 4) bureaucracy
and administrative "law"; 5) state control of the financial sector; 6)
permanent economic manipulation via deficit spending; 7) militarism, and
8) imperialism (pp. 161-62). He proceeded to show that all these were alive
and well under the wartime New Deal administration (pp. 166-258). Pragmatic
American liberalism had produced "a genteel fascism" without the ethnic
persecutions and full-scale executive dictatorship seen overseas. Flynn
found this insufficiently cheering. Some may call Flynn's catalogue of
fascist traits arbitrary. Perhaps, but Flynn listed things he found; he
did not make them up."
See Trifkovic
for
more detail on the affinities between FDR and Mussolini.
But if the American Left of the "new
Deal" era learnt from Mussolini, it is also true that Mussolini learnt
from America. Those ideas of Mussolini which were not clearly Marxist were
in fact generally American. Where did Mussolini learn his glorification
of war, his imperialism, his stiff-armed "Fascist" salute, his emphasis
on military-style obedience and his worship of action? They were all ideas
from his predecessors among the "Progressives" (Leftists) of America in
the late 19th and early 20th century. And a remarkably similar predecessor
to Mussolini in both word and deed was in fact a President of the United
States -- Theodore Roosevelt. So ALL of Mussolini's ideas can be traced
to the Leftists of his day. I have set out details of the American contribution
to Fascism elsewhere.
A knowledge of the American roots of
Mussolini's Fascism helps to explain a puzzle: That, aside from its basic
nationalism and Leftism, Fascism was something of a hodge podge of ideas.
This feature of Fascism (noted, for instance, in
an article by Beichman) is commonly used by Leftists to dismiss the
idea that there is anything worth studying or describing in Fascism at
all. As it says here:
"Fascism has traditionally been characterized as irrational and anti-intellectual,
finding expression exclusively as a cluster of myths, emotions, instincts,
and hatreds". But if it was so loose, unsystematic and illogical, how come
it was so popular? How come it had major branches in most of Europe (including
England), much of South America and even in China (Sun Yat Sen and Chiang
Kai Shek)? For an incoherent set of ideas it certainly inspired a lot of
copycats and generally did a remarkable job of tipping the world on its
ear!
The initial level of explanation is
simple: The ideas that Mussolini and his colleagues put together as constituting
Fascism were very little more than the set of ideas that were already popular
among European and American Leftists in the early 20th century. The ideas
concerned may seem strange now but they were not strange then. So as the
limitations of Marxist ideas became apparent to Europeans, American Leftist
ideas rushed in to fill the gap. And to a considerable extent they rushed
in via Mussolini. Fascism could thus be seen as Mussolini's amalgam of
European and American Leftist ideas, with the American ideas ending up
superseding most of the original Marxist thinking. So Fascism was coherent
to the extent that Leftism of the time was coherent. And that also explains,
of course, the very large similarities between Italian Fascism and Soviet
Communism during the 1920s and 1930s -- a convergence in both rhetoric
and practice. And no-one has ever denied the influence or importance of
Leftist thinking. Why Leftist thinking is as it is, however, is a very
large topic in its own right that I have covered at great length elsewhere.
Is
Fascism warlike and aggressive?
It may seem strange to ask if Fascism
is warlike in view of Mussolini's rhetoric glorifying war and empire and
in view of the invasions he mounted in Ethiopia, Albania etc. And Hitler
too was the same on a much grander scale. But even two swallows do not
make a summer and we have also to ask about the other Fascists of history.
Ancient Sparta and Napoleon were also exceedingly warlike but what about
Mosley in Britain, Salazar in Portugal, Franco in Spain, Peron in Argentina,
and Pilsudski in Poland? And what about nationalistic Fascist fellow-travellers
such as Horthy in Hungary, Antonescu in Romania and Pavelic in Croatia?
And what about clearly non-socialist nationalists such as the 19th century
British Empire and the Tokugawa shogunate in Japan? I think the obvious
comment has to be that the matter is rather moot. Salazar, Franco, Pilsudski,
Horthy, Antonescu, Pavelic, Peron and Mosley had primarily domestic concerns
and did not go in for foreign adventures at all except in some cases to
regain lost territory. So, on balance, I think we have to characterize
Fascism (broadly defined) as NOT in general expansionist and warlike.
The case is also not entirely clear
for non-socialist nationalists. The British Empire of the 19th century
was primarily acquired "in a fit of absence of mind" rather than by a deliberate
policy of expansion, though the South African ("Boer") war was a disgraceful
episode. And the Tokugawas were terminally nationalist and great control
freaks yet have the distinction of giving Japan one of the longest periods
of peace any country has ever had -- with NO foreign adventures at all.
So nationalism would not on the whole seem to be nearly as warlike or aggressive
as might be supposed. It is perfectly compatible with a pacific foreign
policy.
Peron:
The Argentinian Fascist
Argentine dictator Juan Peron, is less
well-known and understood than Mussolini but he was a disciple of Mussolini
so his example is worth a special mention for the way it helps confirm
what Fascism is.
Most people would not be aware that
historians and political commentators often describe Peron as what Latin
Americans sometimes call a "Fenomeno" (paradox). The paradox or
puzzle is that he first came to power in Argentina as part of a military
coup, so should have been "Right-wing" -- yet he became the champion and
hero of working class Argentines, and to this day the major Leftist political
grouping in Argentina (the "Peronistas") is named after him. How come?
Anybody who has read what I have so
far written about the strongly Leftist nature of both German Nazism and
Italian Fascism will not have far to seek for the answer. Both Nazism and
Fascism won power largely through claiming to be the champions and glorifiers
of the ordinary worker and both Nazism and Fascism are routinely described
as "Right-wing" too. Peron was just another one of that fraternity. Peron
in fact soon got kicked out by his fellow participants in the military
coup and finally gained power -- as did Hitler and Mussolini -- through
primarily political means.
And that is only the beginning of the
resemblance: The doctrines Peron preached (e.g. giving the workers and
managers equal say in running industry) were almost exactly what Peron
had learned from Mussolini when he lived in Italy for some years in the
1930s. Peronism is Fascism. Also like Hitler and Mussolini, Peron was a
great patriot and nationalist who got the foreign business interests out
of Argentina and tried to make Argentina independent of foreigners generally.
With the able help of his wife Evita, Peron made the Argentine people feel
special and persuaded them that he was on their side and would lead them
to greatness. And they loved him for it!
The only major difference is that Peron
was clever enough to stay neutral instead of joining Hitler's war. As already
mentioned, Mussolini stayed neutral for a couple of years too but finally
made the fatal mistake of joining in.
So what Hitler, Mussolini and Peron
all show is what most modern-day Leftist intellectuals passionately deny:
That you can be an extreme Leftist and an extreme nationalist too. And
it shows something very troubling too: That the combination of Leftism
and nationalism is POPULAR! The popularity of that combination is also
shown in the way Germans fought to the end for Hitler. Perhaps we should
be thankful that modern-day Leftists (who are often anything but patriotic)
have not learned all that their Fascist brethren might have taught them.
So the only puzzle or paradox of Peronism
is one that modern-day Leftist intellectuals have artificially created
for themselves. They refuse to accept that you can be BOTH a Leftist and
a nationalist so are basically just lost for words (or sensible words anyway)
when confronted with great historical figures such as Peron who prove by
their living example that you CAN be both.
And Peron was of course almost as bad
for Argentina as Hitler, Stalin, Mao and Mussolini were for the countries
that they led down the extreme Leftist path. Before Peron came to power,
Argentina was one of the world's richest countries but Peron sent it broke
and it has never recovered -- largely because, although Peron is dead,
Peronism (Fascism) is still the strongest single force in Argentine politics.
Like other
Leftists, Fascists may or may not be antisemitic. Hitler's Fascist
regime was of course enormously antisemitic but one swallow does not make
a summer. And one of the other swallows was Peron. As I have already mentioned,
Mussolini was not initially antisemitic until he was virtually forced into
adopting some antisemitic measures by his alliance with Hitler -- and Italy
was even then one of the safer places for Jews to be in World War II Europe.
And Peron followed Mussolini. Although
Jews were subjected to some attacks under his rule Peron was only marginally
interested in them. He certainly had no interest in a "final solution".
That this made him a typical Fascist
rather than an atypical one can be seen if we add in the British example.
Most people have probably forgotten that prewar Britain had a large Fascist
movement too -- under Sir Oswald Mosley. And Sir Oswald initially used
to EXPEL from the British Union of Fascists anybody who made antisemitic
utterances! When his meetings came under constant attack from Jewish Leftists,
however, he had something of a rethink.
And Peron's Fascism does of course explain
why so many former German Nazis found a safe haven in Argentina after World
War II. Peron was simply helping out his old friends.
Sweden:
Fascism in slow motion
Although it is a commonplace that Hitler
got good co-operation from Sweden both before and during the war, the idea
that Sweden was itself in any sense Fascist must seem like one of the most
absurd suggestions ever made. Has not Sweden been the great icon of the
Democratic Left in the postwar period? It has indeed, though these days
conservatives
have better reasons for mentioning the Swedish experience than Leftists
do. Nonetheless, little-recognized though it might be, there are substantial
reasons for seeing interwar Sweden as Fascist. Whether or not Sweden was
Fascist is however something of a sidetrack with no important implications
either way so I have looked at the matter in
a separate article.
Other
20th century Fascists?
To modern-day Leftists anybody they
disagree with is a "fascist" so in their discourse the term is essentially
devoid of meaning, but, aside from such childishness, it remains of interest
to ask what other prominent Fascists there were in the 20th century? Were
there other influential Leftists in the 20th century who were also nationalists
and who might hence broadly be described as Fascists?
Such were the differences between the
regimes usually called fascist that a really adequate answer would be a
book-length enterprise so let me just list my conclusions followed by a
few explanatory notes: In addition to Hitler, Mussolini and Peron, the
true Fascists of the pre-war period were Dollfuss in Austria, Pilsudski
in Poland, Mosley in Britain and Chiang Kai Shek in China. They were all
clearly both socialists and nationalists and to varying degrees had many
other trappings of Mussolini's Fascism too -- such as militarism and a
liking for uniforms. Franco in Spain and Salazar in Portugal were only
semi-Fascist. Tojo in Japan, Horthy in Hungary, Antonescu in Romania, Pavelic
in Croatia were simply nationalists rather than Fascists. In more recent
times Papadopoulos in Greece, Pinochet in Chile and Suharto in Indonesia
were just common or garden variety military dictators. Military government
is of course the rule rather than the exception throughout history. It
was even the rule rather than the exception in ancient Greece. Pinochet,
Suharto and Papadopoulos are sometimes mentioned as Fascists purely because
they had significant far-Left opponents. It may be noted that their cultural
backgrounds are quite different: Catholic, Muslim and Orthodox.
Some explanatory notes:
Mosley in Britain and Pilsudski in Poland
were certainly both Leftist nationalists. Pilsudski was an unabashed socialist
and Mosley's starting point in politics was to agitate for better government
treatment of World War I veterans. He broke with the British Labour party
in 1930 and subsequently formed the "British Union of Fascists" (BUF) because
he found Labour to be not socialist enough! Mosley is also interesting
in that he lived into relatively recent times so could comment on the prewar
period from a modern perspective. So note what he wrote in a letter to
The
Times of London on 26th. April 1968: "I am not, and never have been,
a man of the right. My position was on the Left and is now in the centre
of politics".
(LEFT)
One of his typically Leftist "Peace" posters (from the 1930s)
Franco in Spain and Salazar in Portugal
were Catholic syndicalists first of all, and Franco did keep himself above
the Falange (the Spanish Fascists) but both were nationalist to the point
of autarky and both ran an overpowering State apparatus so I think they
can broadly be categorized as Fascists too. The major objection
is probably that neither were as welfarist as Mussolini and Hitler, though
syndicalism is of course allegedly welfarist. Both regimes must however
be regarded as outliers rather than as embodying what is central to Fascism.
They were Leftist (certainly not conservative) in their implementation
of pervasive State power but not Leftist in rhetoric of representing the
worker or in implementing extensive welfare systems. The most accurate
description of Franco would probably be "a military dictator with Fascist
and Catholic allies". It may be noted that the Spanish Falangists ("Falange"
means "Phalanx") were initially anti-Catholic and that they were in any
case eased out of power in the latter part of Franco's rule in favour of
the intensely Catholic Opus Dei movement.
Tojo and his clique in Japan, Admiral
Horthy in Hungary, Antonescu in Romania, and Pavelic in Croatia co-operated
with Hitler and Mussolini out of self-interest but were basically just
patriots and nationalists rather than also being socialists.
A lesser-known case and therefore one
of some interest is that of Chiang Kai Shek. He was much more like Hitler
and Mussolini than Franco and Salazar were in that he very clearly came
from the Left. Throughout the prewar period, Chiang had close ties with
the Soviets and first gained substantial power with an explicitly communist
message (see here).
After he had consolidated his power, however, he attacked communism in
China but retained some links with the Soviets. That he was a great nationalist
is undoubted but was he also a Leftist? As with Mussolini, his later opposition
to communism normally gets him labelled as a rightist but, as we have already
seen, this is facile. From the French revolution on, Leftists have been
very prone to murderous sibling rivalry -- arguably hating one-another
more than they hate conservatives. So Chiang's falling out with Mao does
not prove much. Given Chiang's thoroughly authoritarian management of Taiwan
after his expulsion from the mainland, given the large State industries
he created in Taiwan and given his significant welfarist policies -- his
relatively peaceful land-to-the peasants reforms in particular -- I think
it is clear that Chiang was just as much a national socialist as Hitler
and Mussolini -- and his unabashed militarism rather completes the similarity.
So Peron and and Chiang were two Fascists who survived the war with substantial
power intact -- as of course also did the semi-Fascist Franco and Salazar.
And of the three most significant Communist
regimes to survive into the 21st century, two had degenerated into Fascism
-- China and North Korea. Both these were heavily nationalist as well as
allegedly socialist. Only Castro's Cuba did not seem to be strongly reliant
on nationalist themes, though there is a site here
that begs to differ. The Ho Chi Minh regime in Vietnam was Fascist (both
nationalist and Leftist) from the beginning and the post-Ho arrangements
there are remarkably like those of Mussolini.
And after an initial flirtation with
democracy, Russia under Vladimir Putin seems to have moved towards Fascism
too. And there is no doubt that, like Hitler, Mussolini and Peron, Putin
is personally popular with his people. So the personality cult that tends
to characterize all authoritarian regimes (whether Fascist or Communist)
would already seem to be developing again in Russia. As a much more modern
regime than Mussolini's however, we cannot expect Putin's Russia to have
all the features of Fascist Italy. Mussolini's regime was a product of
the ideas that were popular in his time and Putin's regime will undoubtedly
gain approval in a similar way. As was pointed out at the beginning of
this article, all Fascist regimes have features peculiar to themselves
so in the end the only really common components of Fascism are nationalism
combined with the paternalistic and authoritarian
"we will look after you" undertaking that is basic to Leftism. Russia already
has the national pride so just a bit more paternalism will make Russia
clearly Fascist too. Fascist regimes do however allow considerable economic
liberties and the example of China has shown that even a little liberty
in the economic sphere can have remarkably transformative effects. So a
Fascist Russia should be capable of considerable economic advancement for
its people and thus will almost certainly be a much more relaxed regime
than Soviet Russia. If economic progress in Russia is stifled under Putin,
however, we could see the more dismal future outlined here. |