Italian Fascism: An Economic Historical Summary

By Zoltanous & Judas

Italian Fascism and the history around it involves a series of policies, ideas, and actions, that if seen superficially can come off as contradictory and irrational. But when analyzed in proper depth we see a dialectical application of developmental economics. Italian Fascism for this reason is far more difficult to comprehend, given that the regime itself needs not only historical context to be comprehended, but it also needs to be seen in distinct periods in which it could be divided. This also adds more nuance to contradictory statements made by Mussolini regarding capitalism. Therefore to fully understand this, what were these distinct periods? They were as follows:

The Heroic Capitalism Period (1922-1932)

From the start, Mussolini was faced with Syndicalists like Alceste De Ambris and Unionists like Edmondo Rossoni in one camp while being faced with Pro-Capitalists like Filippo Marinetti and Traditionalists like Emmanuel III in the other camp. Here you would find what Mussolini dubbed as “Heroic Capitalism”.

This period can be compared to the New Economic Policy proposed by Vladimir Lenin under the USSR. The attempt of Fascist Italy at industrializing and making it so, despite its backwardness in the economic field, it would seek to modernize Italy, generate a good amount of Industry, and through it, get to a new field of exploration for its economic goals, which were envisioned since the very early manifestos from the Italian Movement.  This is the creation of an Integral Organic Corporate Total Society. That is to say, this period was nothing else but a transitional period between the old Italian Economic System and the beginning of the “fascistization” of the Italian economy.

(Corporatism is understood by Italian Fascism as seeing society as a “corpus”: the “body” of society is divided by several articulations that belong to the body, making it work if set together and properly coordinated to make such an entity be able to function. In a Fascist Society, society must be divided in branches which complement its functioning, and once put together and coordinated by the State, it works in an organic way to constantly improve the soul and strength of the body.)

The Corporatist Period (1932-1943)

This period could be summarized as the proper beginning of the Fascist Economy to a degree. According to Mussolini, this wasn’t the “objective” but only “the beginning” of the Italian advance towards the complete revolutionary Corporatist society which would eventually happen (in a forceful manner) during 1943-1945. This period was characterized by the constant intervention of reactionary and monarchist forces inside the economy to make its way for their own benefit. It was an issue that later on would be recognized by Mussolini himself:

“Twenty years of experience taught Fascism that the state cannot limit mediation functions between classes because the substantial strength of the Capitalist class is able to transform inoperative legal equity upon which equality was preached upon. These higher forces allowed the Capitalist Class to dominate and turn it to their advantage in every state action.”

During this period, Italian Society and its productive forces would be divided into Corporations in which the state would mediate the interests of both the Capitalist and the Proletariat Class, keeping an eye on both of them—especially the first one, considering they had to lead them around in order to fulfill the amount of social demands Italian Fascism was seeking—and to direct them towards goals of National Interest. Industrialists and Big Industry was regulated under the overview of the state, which made sure it couldn’t surpass certain limits, and was working on an ethical basis likable to Fascism, which as stated before, it wouldn’t fully work as expected by the Fascist Leaders of the time.

The State Socialist Period (1943-1945)

During this period, Fascism got freed from many forces inside the government, that in one way or another, were interfering in the actions of the State in the benefits of certain high class elements and limiting the amount of reforms Mussolini was able to consolidate, which has been recorded by several historians specialized on that period of Italian History. It is in this way in which Mussolini allies himself with a higher number of Left Wing Fascists, among them the former friend of Lenin, Nicola Bombacci, who would take a big role in the reforms of the government aimed at the complete Socialization of the economy, turning the control of industry to a more worker oriented program as the size of the industry and of profit grew. This program aimed for a self-gestion type of economy in which the State would still have a role in directing it and ensuring welfare for its citizens. This final action could be seen as Fascism trying to bring back support and regretting its previous actions, but as understood by historians, this was nothing but the legitimate progress of Fascism from the very beginning. 

Rutilo Sermonti in On Socialization from Europa Magazine, provides much more context to 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.”

Conclusions

The complexity of the topic has shown that Italian Fascism was not merely a straightforward dictatorship of a single man. What Fascism actually went through was the reform of Italian society gradually. In this true essence Italian Fascism on the state level is an application of dialectics. On June 24, 1943, Giovanni Gentile delivered a speech in Rome, asking Italian workers to resist the Anglo-Americans, he expressly addressed leftist circles by presenting Fasxism as "an order of justice founded on the principle that the only value is work". And Gentile  specified: "Whoever speaks of communism in Italy today is an impatient corporatist." 

This revelation was found in the reality of Fascist economy. Mussolini always insisted that Fascism was the only form of ‘socialism’ appropriate to the ‘proletarian nations’ of the twentieth century such as Italy. He always argued it was the only aplicable version of Socialism in reality. The original intention was always Socialism and focused on development for social ends. Adding to the clarity of the misconceptions of those who twist reality. A. James Gregor makes this argument in Italian Fascism and Developmental Dictatorship. Fascism in essence was a practical application of Marxism as Gentile would argue via Sorelian praxis leading to a new society of producers. Fascism was an attempt to overturn Anglo-American capitalist hegemony. It was a dialectical application of productive forces for a society of abundance. And it was the attempt to create a society that understood the Scientific application of historical nuances and material reality. Meaning the socialism of Fascism is a process of becoming.