Page images
PDF
EPUB

I.

2.

3.

THE ORIGINS AND SPIRIT OF FASCISM

Che cosa è il Fascismo. By GIOVANNI GENTILE. Florence: Vallecchi.

1925.

Fra Storia e Politica. By GIOACCHINO VOLPE. Florence: Vallecchi. 1925. Dal Liberalismo al Fascismo. By CARMELO LICITRA. Rome: De Alberti. 1925.

4. The Awakening of Italy. By LUIGI VILLARI.

5.

Methuen. 1924.

The Fascist Experiment. By LUIGI VILLARI. Faber & Gwyer. 1926. 6. The Official Life of Benito Mussolini. By MARGHERITA SARFATTI. Butterworth. 1924.

T is now almost exactly four years since Sig. Mussolini, by a revolutionary action without precedent in Italian history, became Prime Minister of Italy, and in spite of gloomy forebodings that the new régime could not last, the Fascist Government appears to be more firmly consolidated than ever. It may therefore be of interest to examine the spirit of the Fascist movement, of which the present Italian Government is the embodiment, and to try to appreciate its character and the causes of its success.

Fascism and, indeed, the whole recent trend of political evolution in Italy, have to a large extent been misunderstood and misrepresented abroad, owing to a variety of causes. The Socialists and Communists in all countries are naturally prejudiced against a movement which has dealt so serious a blow to their aspirations at a moment and in a country which seemed to offer the most favourable conditions for their triumph. The LiberalDemocratic spirit, too, whose principles Fascism contests both in theory and practice, is opposed to it. But the misunderstanding is also due to the error of regarding Fascism as an isolated phenomenon, as a political bolt from the blue as it were, unconnected with any other phase of Italian political history. It is consequently important, in order to realise the true significance of the movement and understand the hold which it has established over the Italian people, to visualise it in the general picture of Italian historical development since the creation of the kingdom.

In the first place we must bear in mind that Italy as a nation is still young. By this I do not merely refer to the shortness of

the time which has elapsed since the formation of united Italy in 1861, or rather in 1870, but to the comparatively recent growth of national feeling in the country. Great Britain, France, Spain and other lesser countries have been independent nations for centuries: national feeling has grown up imperceptibly among their peoples, and is taken for granted by them, except by small groups of extremists. In Italy it has been otherwise. Apart from the vague ideals of poets and philosophers, dating back to the days of Dante, the sense of nationality, and consequently of independence and unity, was almost totally lacking until the French Revolution, and even then it was a foreign importation appealing to none save a tiny minority. At the end of the Napoleonic régime, which had done so much to promote the principle of national independence, both by direct teaching and indirectly by violating it, only a comparatively small number of intellectuals and military men in Italy accepted these ideas or believed in the possibility of their realization. One of the chief merits of Napoleonic rule was that it revived the fighting spirit so long dormant among the Italians, for without that revival the future wars of independence would have been impossible. The famous proclamation of Rimini in 1815, issued by King Joachim Murat, who embodied the Imperial régime in Italy and in particular its military aspect, was the first call to arms for national independence. Some of the early revolutionary movements in Naples, and in the Romagna between 1815 and 1848 were led by ex-officers of the Napoleonic armies. Another merit of the Napoleonic régime was that it enabled a considerable number of capable men belonging to classes formerly excluded from all share in the Government to learn to play an active part in public affairs and to acquire practical experience in administration.

It was the stupidity and cruelty of the native and foreign governments restored after 1815 which increased the number of persons who yearned, first for independence from foreign rule, then for a greater measure of political freedom, and finally for unity. The heroic struggles of the Risorgimento succeeded in realizing these ideals, but the men who had worked for them, ready to sacrifice life and liberty for them, were still a minority, composed largely of the aristocracy and of the middle classes, with only a sprinkling of the working masses, the great bulk of whom, particularly among the peasantry, had never “felt” the

Risorgimento at all. As soon, however, as independence, constitutional freedom and unity had been achieved, the overwhelming majority of the population took the new régime for granted, and no one, save a few "Black" families in Rome, and still smaller groups elsewhere, dreamed of a return to a past that was for ever dead.

Yet even then those who felt the nation as a living reality, destined to play an important part in the world's history, were still comparatively few. The country was poorer in natural resources than had been previously believed, and the ruling class, composed of the men of the Risorgimento, patriotic and well educated in the humanities, was out of touch with the masses. These honest patriots, chiefly preoccupied as they were with the grave political and financial problems of the day, failed to grasp the equally serious social and economic questions by which the country was beset.

With the fall of the Right in 1876, the older generation of political men was succeeded by the Left, which comprised some able statesmen, but also not a few adventurers. As the philosopher Professor Gentile writes,* the change certainly involved a decay of political and administrative methods. Politics came to be more and more a game of party groups, centering round this or that politician, often nothing more than an unseemly wrangle for place and power among men oblivious of the real needs of the country. The essential problems of the day were either ignored by these politicians, or considered only in the light of their effects on a particular political combination. But the same period also marked the beginning of the policy of summoning larger numbers of citizens to take part in public life, and should therefore be regarded as a form of progress.

This state of affairs explains the early and rapid successes of the Socialist movement; its leaders at least professed to have the interests of the working classes at heart and to be determined to improve them. But with success even Socialism degenerated into an electioneering bourgeois party like the others, and the Socialist deputies became more anxious about their own ambitions and the favours which they could wrest for themselves and their friends from timid Ministers, than about the real good of the workers. Socialism did succeed in getting some useful social

*"Che cosa è il Fascismo," p. 129.

legislation enacted, and it also further increased the number of citizens who took an interest in public affairs. But it was unfortunate that the masses should have been introduced into political life by men who openly professed the most cynical contempt for patriotism and indeed for every kind of idealism, and taught them nothing but the crude materialism of the belly, and the division of society into two separate classes-the " exploiting" capitalists and the "exploited" proletariat. These leaders also conducted a systematic campaign against authority and discipline among a people that above all things needed to be taught respect for both.

Political life became ever more divorced from the essential life of the country. No Government, no Minister, enjoyed any real popularity, and it was the fashion to decry the honesty of every prominent politician, although as a matter of fact the really dishonest were surprisingly few. Crispi was one of the rare statesmen who succeeded in arousing enthusiasm among any considerable section of the public, but he had come before his time and was crushed by the parliamentary machine of which he was himself a product. The one man who was universally esteemed for his absolute sincerity and honesty was the late Sidney Sonnino; but, save among those who knew him intimately, he was personally unpopular and enjoyed no real authority in the Chamber. His two cabinets lasted but one hundred days each. Most cabinets indeed were very short-lived.

Materially the country at the beginning of the twentieth century was progressing, in spite of many handicaps. Thanks to the untiring efforts of men like Sonnino, Sella and Luzzatti, and the admirable sacrifices of the humble taxpayers, the financial situation had been restored. Agriculture was improving and manufactures, through the skill and industry of employers, engineers and workers, and the utilisation of hydro-electric power, had undergone a remarkable development. These results had been achieved in spite of incomprehension on the part of the Government and its lack of interest in economic problems. But in the field of foreign affairs, where individual initiative could do nothing, Italy remained in a position of great inferiority. She was on bad terms with France, and even with her ally, Austria, who persecuted the Italian-speaking Irredenti, and from the Trentino and the Carso threatened the Italian frontiers. Italy's colonial possessions were inadequate and unsuited for her emigration. Internal dissensions and the constant changes of ministry

made it difficult for her to conduct a continuous foreign policy or to develop her armed forces in proportion to the importance of her interests or in view of the strength of her dangerous rivals in the international field; while her weakness abroad was a handicap to every form of progress, because there was no security against the danger of aggression, nor always adequate means for protecting her foreign trade and the very lives of her citizens in foreign lands. Such episodes as the lynching of Italians at New Orleans and the Aigues-Mortes massacre would never have occurred if Italy had been respected and feared.

Italy's last European war had ended unsatisfactorily at Custoza and Lissa, and her most important colonial campaign in the unavenged disaster of Adowa, the memory of which hung like a millstone round her neck for many years. A considerable section of public opinion was indeed content that Italy should adopt an attitude of humility towards all other countries, avoid any show of resentment and keep out of all foreign complications -this was the attitude of more than one of her premiers and ministers of foreign affairs. Italy was regarded in these sceptical milieus as a land of art and poetry, unfit for the hard struggles of the modern world, while the older men, the last survivors of the Risorgimento, were disappointed and almost without hope.

Among the younger generation, however, born in the 'eighties and the 'nineties, new hopes and aspirations began to arise, and a new determination to realize higher and more virile ideals for the nation. On the one hand among the Socialists themselves we find the Syndicalist movement re-acting against the opportunism and insincerity of the official leaders. It was a movement led by an obscure schoolmaster named Benito Mussolini. On the other hand a group of energetic young men―thinkers, poets, journalists— inspired by Risorgimento ideals and filled with a burning desire to see their country and people freed from the crude materialism of the Socialists and the cynical scepticism of pusillanimous bourgeois politicians, advocated a courageous foreign policy with rigid national efficiency, and were not afraid to challenge the "immortal principles " of democracy. The late Alfredo Oriani, with his thoughtful essay, "La Rivolta ideale "the revolt against the degeneration of democracy-led the beginnings of the movement. But its real founder was Enrico Corradini, who, in his review Il Regno and in various novels and articles, gave

« PreviousContinue »