Italian Fascism: An Economic Historical Summary
by Zoltanous and Judas
Italian Fascism, when unpacked and placed in its historical framework, exhibits a nuanced structure that is steeped in a dialectical approach to economic evolution. A cursory glance might yield perceptions of inconsistency and illogical tenets, yet a meticulous scrutiny uncovers a strategic progression within its economic policies. To decode the essence of Italian Fascism, it is essential to dissect its timeline and delineate the distinct phases through which it evolved.
The initial phase, termed the Heroic Capitalism Period (1922-1932), found Benito Mussolini navigating a complex political landscape marked by the presence of various ideological factions. This era witnessed the ideological tug-of-war between Syndicalists like Alceste De Ambris and Edmondo Rossoni, who favored a more worker-oriented approach, and the Pro-Capitalists like Filippo Marinetti, alongside Traditional Monarchists like King Victor Emmanuel III. Mussolini likened this period to "Heroic Capitalism," a notion reflecting a parallel to Lenin's New Economic Policy (NEP) in Russia. Despite its relative economic underdevelopment, Fascist Italy was determined to industrialize and modernize, with ambitions to catalyze significant industrial expansion, thereby laying the groundwork for an Organic Corporate Society. This time served as an intermediary stage, transitioning from Italy's preexisting economic structure towards the systematic "fascistization" of the economy.
Following this was the Corporatist Period (1932-1943), where the shape of the Fascist economy began to crystallize, though not without its constraints. Mussolini envisioned this interval as a preamble to a fully-fledged revolutionary corporatist society, which would later be imposed more forcefully during the years 1943-1945. Nevertheless, reactionary and pro-monarchy elements repeatedly exerted their influence on economic matters to further their own agendas. Mussolini would later concede that the state's efforts to arbitrate class interests were curtailed by the entrenched capitalist class, which co-opted the mechanism of equity as a tool of control. Italian society was reorganized into Corporations, with the state playing the role of mediator, balancing the interests of capitalists and workers. The state steered these entities towards the collective national objectives, regulating industrialists and large industries to prevent the concentration of excessive influence. Yet, this corporatist arrangement fell short of the anticipations held by some Fascist ideologues.
The culmination of these developments unfolded during the State Socialist Period (1943-1945), which marked a pivotal transition in the trajectory of Fascism. The regime extricated itself from the clutches of the conservative forces that had previously impeded substantive reform and had privileged the elite. Mussolini forged alliances with the more radical, left-wing elements of Fascism, including figures like Nicola Bombacci, who were instrumental in steering governmental reforms towards the total socialization of the economy. With industrial growth and profitability on the rise, the focus shifted toward a model of economic management that prioritized the workers, advocating for an economy of self-management under the state's directive to ensure the welfare of its citizens. Although this final push could be interpreted as a desperate bid by Fascism to recover popular support and articulate a sense of remorse, historians suggest that it was, in fact, a consistent extension of Fascist ideology's foundational objectives.
Rutilo Sermonti's work, On Socialization from Europa Magazine, provides further context regarding the development of Fascist economic periods.
“The fundamental canon of the Fascist revolution was that of gradualism, both so as not to provoke a tragic crisis and because truly profound innovations cannot be made by striking left and right, but only allowing the popular “forma mentis ” to evolve in the desired direction. Whoever speaks of a breakdown, or of substantial change, or of regret or even of a return to the origins is unknown, can only do so due to lack of information, superficiality or taking sides. It is clear that the socialization of 1944 is nothing more than pure and distilled corporatism and corporatism is synonymous with fascism. In this sense, the path to socialization had different progressive stages:
1st phase: Trade union law (Law of April 3, 1926 Number 563). With this law, trade union associations, both employers and workers, were entrusted with the delicate public function of establishing with legislative effect the conditions of work and remuneration that were the object of secular conflict.
2nd phase: Carta del Lavoro, published on April 21, 1927 as a pragmatic declaration of the PNF and converted into a State law thirteen years later. It’s important because it solemnly sanctions that both work, in all its forms, and private initiative, in the field of production, are national duties and functions that must be regulated and supervised by the State. Labor is, therefore, an instrument of the nation (as well as capital), not an instrument of capital.
3rd phase: Corporations (Fundamental Law of February 3, 1934 Number 136) They were organs of the State established by productive branches and guardians of their demands. They were made up equally of representatives of the trade union associations, of the two “parties” interested in each branch. Therefore, the workers’ representatives thus formulated, together with the business community, the production directives that the companies had to obey. The exaltation and responsibility of the “work factor” had taken a good leap forward.
4th phase: The reform of political representation (Law of January 19, 1939 Number 129) This was the decisive move to “organic representation”, that is, by functions and not by unqualified generic consensus. For the problem that concerns us, the National Councilors (who replaced the deputies) were half members of the National Council of Corporations. It means that the workers’ representatives sat as such and as such in the highest legislative body. Thus, in public law, any subordination of work to capital was definitely abolished.
5th phase: The reform of the civil codes of 1940 (Law of January 3, 1941 Number 14) It is truly unique that none of the commentators refer to it, as if the idea of socialization was a cricket that jumped at Mussolini’s head as he flew out of Campo Imperatores alongside Otto Skorzeny. However, in that code there was already socialization. There we find the responsibility of the employer (or who represents him if he is anonymous) defined as “head” of the company and not owner or employer. There we find the responsibility of the employer to the State for his management of the company.”
— Rutilo Sermonti, On Socialization from Europa Magazine
Conclusions
Italian Fascism, under the leadership of Mussolini, was far more than a mere autocratic regime; it represented a transformative project aimed at reshaping Italian society from its core. To unravel the complexities of Italian Fascism, one must delve into its dialectical underpinnings—an approach heavily influenced by Giovanni Gentile, one of the key intellectual architects of Fascist ideology. Gentile, in a pivotal address on June 24, 1943, depicted Fascism as a system grounded in a pursuit of justice, hinged on the conviction that labor constitutes the foundation of value. His outreach to the left revealed a nuanced perspective, suggesting that those in Italy who clamored for communism were essentially corporatists yearning for acceleration. This interpretation of Fascism is inextricably linked to the economic strategies pursued by the regime. Mussolini himself persistently proclaimed that Fascism represented a unique form of socialism tailored to the realities of proletarian nations in the 20th century—a practical realization of socialist principles.
The initial aspirations of Fascism were always tethered to social progression. A. James Gregor, in his seminal work Italian Fascism and Developmental Dictatorship, reinforces this view, positing that Italian Fascism can be regarded as a tangible expression of Marxism, albeit one that is permeated by Sorelian influences. This interpretation suggests that Fascism was not merely a reactionary force but sought to forge a new type of society characterized by its emphasis on the role of producers. Fascism's ambition was to mount a formidable challenge against the capitalist dominance of the Anglo-American establishment, leveraging the dialectical mobilization of productive capabilities to cultivate a society of plenty. The Fascist regime aspired to a sophisticated understanding of history's materialistic forces and endeavored to apply these insights in a scientific manner. In this context, the socialism of Italian Fascism is envisioned as an ongoing journey—a dynamic process of becoming that was continually evolving and adapting to the circumstances of its time.
Additional historical evidence of this transformative intent can be seen in the regime's policies and actions. For instance, the Labor Charter of 1927 codified the corporatist vision of Italian society, where the state sought to harmonize the interests of workers and employers within a unified national framework. Furthermore, the Battle for Grain and the subsequent Battles for Land and Births were initiatives aimed at self-sufficiency and demographic expansion to reinforce the notion of a strong, independent Italian state.