http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=4087
Left-wing Fascism: An Intellectual Disorder
By John J. Ray
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.
--
Atheism teaches that there is no God, hence no God-given rights. That
ideology coupled with a system that believed in the superiority of the state
at the expense of the individual was murderously synergistic.
FAQ
Profile
Private Messages
Log in
