By: John J. Ray
FrontPageMagazine.com | Tuesday, October
22, 2002
A Leftist prophet
The ideas of Benito Mussolini, 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 amazing parallels.
The popular view
Popular encyclopedias such as Funk
& Wagnalls 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 Conservative Catholic
monarchist of Spain and the pragmatic socialist of Italy were in fact 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 are 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 in the
present article.
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.
In his 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).
"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. 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.
As described by others:
"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. 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 a lot of 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 was in fact
first dubbed "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 not over any dissatisfaction with socialist ideology but rather
because the Socialists were neutralists in the First World War whereas 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. 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 history. 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.
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"). 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?
The environmentalist
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?
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.
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.
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 still 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.
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 in 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. 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.
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.
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. Further, there is something odd about the way
people tend to look at how much Mussolini did for the workers, conclude that it
was not much, and then conclude that he was not much of a Leftist. 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?
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 Winston
Churchill (Hagan, 1966, p. 474). He was plausible to an amazingly wide range of
people — not the least to the people of Italy.
Summary
There is practically no feature of
modern-day Leftism that was not prefigured by Mussolini. It is clear from the
many quotations and reports that are available (only a fraction of which are
reproduced here) that Mussolini was very much a kindred spirit of modern-day
Leftists. It is therefore hilarious that Leftists now use the name of his
movement as their routine term of abuse! Ignorance of history does indeed lead
to some strange follies.
He started out as such a radical
unionist firebrand and Marxist agitator that he was often jailed for his pains.
But as he matured he moved towards somewhat more moderate politics which saw him
win power by political rather than by revolutionary means. Modern day Leftists
seem to be the same. The young go out demonstrating against globalization and
the like while older Leftists exert their efforts within the framework of
conventional democratic politics — via the major Leftist political parties.
And no-one was a more ardent advocate
of government provision of basic services than Mussolini was — and he actually
put those ideas into practice on a large scale as well. And he also instituted a
"welfare state" that was very advanced for the times.
In his "corporate state", Mussolini
was the first to create that very modern phenomenon constantly now being
advocated by Leftists everywhere — a system of capitalism under tight government
control. And his corporate state was one where the workers had (at least in
theory) equal rights with management. He actually put into full-blown practice
what is still a great but rather misty ideal for most Leftists.
And he was the first socialist ruler
to turn to pragmatism in deciding economic policy, thus anticipating China's
Deng, Russia's Gorbachev and Britain's Prime Minister Blair by 60 years or more.
Europe has still not entirely moved away from direct government participation in
industry so Mussolini's influence has stretched far forward right into our time.
So to have listened to Mussolini in
the 1920's or even earlier would be to have heard most of the Leftist ideas that
are still being preached today. Intellectually, the 20th century was largely
Mussolini's, strange though that may at first seem. He substantially
foreshadowed not only Lenin, Stalin and Hitler but even Gorbachev, Deng and Tony
Blair. If any one man therefore has a claim to embody the Leftist politics of
the 20th century, it is surely Mussolini.
The Fascist origins of modern-day
Leftist ideas should then help to alert us to the authoritarianism and potential
for tyranny that lurks beneath their supposedly "compassionate" surface.
REFERENCES
Amis, M. (2002) Koba the Dread : laughter and the twenty million.
N.Y.: Talk Miramax
Carsten, F.L. (1967) The rise of Fascism.
London: Methuen.
Funk & Wagnall's New Encyclopedia (1983) Funk
& Wagnall's
Galbraith, J.K. (1969) The affluent society.
2nd ed. Boston: Houghton Mifflin.
Gilmour, I.H.J.L. (1978) Inside
right. London: Quartet.
Greene, N. (1968) Fascism: An
anthology. N.Y.: Crowell.
Gregor, A.J. (1979) Italian Fascism
and developmental dictatorship
Princeton, N.J.: Univ. Press.
Hagan, J. (1966) Modern History and its themes. Croydon,
Victoria, Australia: Longmans.
Hibbert, C. (1962) Benito
Mussolini Geneva: Heron Books. Herzer, I. (1989) The Italian
refuge: Rescue of Jews during the holocaust. Washington, D.C.: Catholic
University of America Press
Horowitz, D. (1998) Up from
multiculturalism. Heterodoxy, January. See: http://www.cspc.org/het/multicul.htm
Lenin, V.I. (1952) "Left-Wing"
Communism, an Infantile Disorder. In: Selected Works, Vol. II, Part 2.
Moscow: Foreign Languages Publishing House.
Martino, A. (1998) The
modern mask of socialism. 15th John Bonython lecture, Centre for Independent
Studies, Sydney. See
http://www.cis.org.au/Events/JBL/JBL98.htm
Muravchik, J. (2002) Heaven on
Earth: The Rise and Fall of Socialism San Francisco: Encounter
Books.
Smith, D.M. (1967) The theory and practice of Fascism. In:
Greene, N. Fascism: An anthology N.Y.: Crowell.
Steinberg, J.
(1990) All or nothing: The Axis and the holocaust London:
Routledge.
No comments:
Post a Comment