Refuting Umberto Eco’s Ur-Fascism

by Judas

Introduction

“Fascism has had an equal fate in its external history. On the one hand the democracies, scandalized by authoritarianism, the end of liberty, statism, autarchy; on the other Bolshevism, which viewed Fascism as a bourgeois and capitalist regime, indeed as the most bourgeois and the most capitalistic of all regimes. And, just as internally liberals and communists have only anti-fascism in common, so externally democracy and Bolshevism have found themselves united together only by anti-fascism. But if Fascism were overthrown at the national and international levels, what would tomorrow be? The answer to this question is now becoming evident, because with the end of Fascism the only thing that could happen is a renewed clash between liberalism and communism, and therefore a new fatal Fascism...

They continue to deny that Fascism has succeeded in fulfilling the proposed task and insists on the necessity of pursuing the same aim in another way, and in a very different effective manner. Thus in Fascism they see not a synthesis but a misunderstanding of liberalism and socialism, a hybrid combination, that is, in which the needs of both are mortified, without any positive result. And thus, even if on the same plane as Fascism, they have begun to suggest here and there a recipe for a truer and more comprehensive synthesis, in which the best of the two opposing regimes is saved and its defects and limitations are denied. No longer Fascism, therefore, nor Corporatism, but any other name they can come up with to designate that political and social principle that Fascism supposedly would not have been able to implement....

Fascism knows its insufficiencies, the dangers that loom over it, the distance that still separates it from its proposed aim; it knows the forces that have often rendered its tasks difficult and ambiguous; it has known, above all, active and passive resistance, both internal and external, which has altered and exhausted it. All of this Fascism knows and confesses, but precisely because of this, it denies with all its strength that the objection can be pronounced by others who are not Fascists. Because Fascism is not an abstract ideology that can be judged on the level of abstractions, it is not a utopia that can aspire to the perfection of a formal logic; it is a political movement that is inserted and operates within a specific historical reality and cannot be separated from it. Thus the only ones authorized to object would be the participants of another political movement that is able to translate into reality the same ideal principle while avoiding the errors of Fascism.”

— Carlo Alberto Biggini, Truth and Lies About Fascism

The ongoing debate surrounding the definition of Fascism has been a subject of academic inquiry, particularly since its defeat in World War II. Various theories and interpretations of the ideology have emerged, leading to a multitude of works and intellectuals claiming to hold the proper definition. This has resulted in an ongoing and seemingly endless discussion.

A lineage of historians, including Zeev Sternhell, A. James Gregor, Stanley G. Payne, Roger Griffin, and Emilio Gentile, have contributed to a more objective interpretation of Fascism as a philosophically-rooted ideology. Their works have responded to different claims and assertions about Fascism, ranging from the left-wing view that it was a reaction of capitalists against a potential proletariat revolution, to the perspectives of historians like Robert O. Paxton. Despite the international renown and academic recognition of these historians, their existence and contributions have often been overlooked or disregarded.

It is unfortunate that opponents of Fascism often attempt to position the ideology on the left or right wing of the political spectrum. However, it is more accurate to understand that Fascism creates its own spectrum of ideologies, constituting a Third Position. Just as different anarchists have various divisions and approaches to dismantling hierarchies, different Fascists have their own methods based on the cultural context of their respective nations.

In a broader sense, a Fascist nation can align itself with or oppose certain ideals, but agreement is primarily based on the fundamental principles of the ideology. Beyond that, the specifics depend on the nation in question. Giovanni Gentile, a prominent philosopher of Fascist thought, referred to Fascism as a way of life and a method for politics, rather than a political ideology in and of itself.

When an ideology loses its main influence and becomes relegated to secondary or tertiary status, it must accept that there will be slander and misinterpretation, particularly in proportion to the opposition it has faced, such as the atrocities committed during the Holocaust. Therefore, alongside honest interpretations of Fascism, there are also dishonest interpretations from those who identify as anti-Fascists.

It is important to acknowledge that the descriptions and conceptions of Fascism presented here lack academic integrity and intellectual honesty. These characterizations serve as forms of slander, aimed at justifying preconceived notions of Anti-Fascism and the struggle against perceived tyranny and abuse within Capitalism. They often come from biased sources and rely on preconceived pejoratives, making it difficult to obtain a fair or scholarly understanding of Fascism.

One such example is the work of Umberto Eco, a favored author among left-wing individuals. While Eco does not seek to rationalize Fascism, his broad and abstract definition allows for the categorization of many non-fascists as such. This view is arguably the most misinformed and intellectually dishonest definition presented to the public, despite Eco himself having been raised in Fascist Italy. The Soviet attempt to describe Fascism as "Capitalism in Decay" holds more ground in comparison.

In contemporary times, there is a tendency among leftists, particularly in online spaces, to cite Eco as the definitive authority on Fascism. However, their reliance on his work ignores the research and scholarship that contradicts his definition. This denial either stems from a refusal to acknowledge influential historians like Sternhell or a deliberate choice to ignore scholarly research.

Our purpose is to deconstruct Umberto Eco's 14 Points in a comprehensive manner. While the rebuttal that Fascism is “Capitalism in Decay" has already been extensively discussed, our analysis will provide extended examination and sourcing. It is often said that it is easy to propagate a lie, but challenging to debunk it. We have taken on the duty to shed light where darkness has prevailed, aiming to counter the lack of accurate information on Fascism. The future is within our grasp, but it requires the will to seek and disseminate accurate knowledge.

Ur-Fascism

1. The first feature of Ur-Fascism is the cult of tradition. Traditionalism is of course much older than fascism. Not only was it typical of counter-revolutionary Catholic thought after the French revolution, but it was born in the late Hellenistic era, as a reaction to classical Greek rationalism. In the Mediterranean basin, people of different religions (most of them indulgently accepted by the Roman Pantheon) started dreaming of a revelation received at the dawn of human history. This revelation, according to the traditionalist mystique, had remained for a long time concealed under the veil of forgotten languages—in Egyptian hieroglyphs, in the Celtic runes, in the scrolls of the little known religions of Asia.

2. Traditionalism implies the rejection of modernism. Both Fascists and Nazis worshiped technology, while traditionalist thinkers usually reject it as a negation of traditional spiritual values. However, even though Nazism was proud of its industrial achievements, its praise of modernism was only the surface of an ideology based upon Blood and Earth (Blut und Boden). The rejection of the modern world was disguised as a rebuttal of the capitalistic way of life, but it mainly concerned the rejection of the Spirit of 1789 (and of 1776, of course). The Enlightenment, the Age of Reason, is seen as the beginning of modern depravity. In this sense Ur-Fascism can be defined as irrationalism.

3. Irrationalism also depends on the cult of action for action’s sake. Action being beautiful in itself, it must be taken before, or without, any previous reflection. Thinking is a form of emasculation. Therefore culture is suspect insofar as it is identified with critical attitudes. Distrust of the intellectual world has always been a symptom of Ur-Fascism, from Goering’s alleged statement (“When I hear talk of culture I reach for my gun”) to the frequent use of such expressions as “degenerate intellectuals,” “eggheads,” “effete snobs,” “universities are a nest of reds.” The official Fascist intellectuals were mainly engaged in attacking modern culture and the liberal intelligentsia for having betrayed traditional values.

4. No syncretistic faith can withstand analytical criticism. The critical spirit makes distinctions, and to distinguish is a sign of modernism. In modern culture the scientific community praises disagreement as a way to improve knowledge. For Ur-Fascism, disagreement is treason.

5. Besides, disagreement is a sign of diversity. Ur-Fascism grows up and seeks for consensus by exploiting and exacerbating the natural fear of difference. The first appeal of a fascist or prematurely fascist movement is an appeal against the intruders. Thus Ur-Fascism is racist by definition.

6. Ur-Fascism derives from individual or social frustration. That is why one of the most typical features of the historical fascism was the appeal to a frustrated middle class, a class suffering from an economic crisis or feelings of political humiliation, and frightened by the pressure of lower social groups. In our time, when the old “proletarians” are becoming petty bourgeois (and the lumpen are largely excluded from the political scene), the fascism of tomorrow will find its audience in this new majority.

7. To people who feel deprived of a clear social identity, Ur-Fascism says that their only privilege is the most common one, to be born in the same country. This is the origin of nationalism. Besides, the only ones who can provide an identity to the nation are its enemies. Thus at the root of the Ur-Fascist psychology there is the obsession with a plot, possibly an international one. The followers must feel besieged. The easiest way to solve the plot is the appeal to xenophobia. But the plot must also come from the inside: Jews are usually the best target because they have the advantage of being at the same time inside and outside. In the US, a prominent instance of the plot obsession is to be found in Pat Robertson’s The New World Order, but, as we have recently seen, there are many others.

8. The followers must feel humiliated by the ostentatious wealth and force of their enemies. When I was a boy I was taught to think of Englishmen as the five-meal people. They ate more frequently than the poor but sober Italians. Jews are rich and help each other through a secret web of mutual assistance. However, the followers must be convinced that they can overwhelm the enemies. Thus, by a continuous shifting of rhetorical focus, the enemies are at the same time too strong and too weak. Fascist governments are condemned to lose wars because they are constitutionally incapable of objectively evaluating the force of the enemy.

9. For Ur-Fascism there is no struggle for life but, rather, life is lived for struggle. Thus pacifism is trafficking with the enemy. It is bad because life is permanent warfare. This, however, brings about an Armageddon complex. Since enemies have to be defeated, there must be a final battle, after which the movement will have control of the world. But such a “final solution” implies a further era of peace, a Golden Age, which contradicts the principle of permanent war. No fascist leader has ever succeeded in solving this predicament.

10. Elitism is a typical aspect of any reactionary ideology, insofar as it is fundamentally aristocratic, and aristocratic and militaristic elitism cruelly implies contempt for the weak. Ur-Fascism can only advocate a popular elitism. Every citizen belongs to the best people of the world, the members of the party are the best among the citizens, every citizen can (or ought to) become a member of the party. But there cannot be patricians without plebeians. In fact, the Leader, knowing that his power was not delegated to him democratically but was conquered by force, also knows that his force is based upon the weakness of the masses; they are so weak as to need and deserve a ruler. Since the group is hierarchically organized (according to a military model), every subordinate leader despises his own underlings, and each of them despises his inferiors. This reinforces the sense of mass elitism.

11. In such a perspective everybody is educated to become a hero. In every mythology the hero is an exceptional being, but in Ur-Fascist ideology, heroism is the norm. This cult of heroism is strictly linked with the cult of death. It is not by chance that a motto of the Falangists was Viva la Muerte (in English it should be translated as “Long Live Death!”). In non-fascist societies, the lay public is told that death is unpleasant but must be faced with dignity; believers are told that it is the painful way to reach a supernatural happiness. By contrast, the Ur-Fascist hero craves heroic death, advertised as the best reward for a heroic life. The Ur-Fascist hero is impatient to die. In his impatience, he more frequently sends other people to death.

12. Since both permanent war and heroism are difficult games to play, the Ur-Fascist transfers his will to power to sexual matters. This is the origin of machismo (which implies both disdain for women and intolerance and condemnation of nonstandard sexual habits, from chastity to homosexuality). Since even sex is a difficult game to play, the Ur-Fascist hero tends to play with weapons—doing so becomes an ersatz phallic exercise.

13. Ur-Fascism is based upon a selective populism, a qualitative populism, one might say. In a democracy, the citizens have individual rights, but the citizens in their entirety have a political impact only from a quantitative point of view—one follows the decisions of the majority. For Ur-Fascism, however, individuals as individuals have no rights, and the People is conceived as a quality, a monolithic entity expressing the Common Will. Since no large quantity of human beings can have a common will, the Leader pretends to be their interpreter. Having lost their power of delegation, citizens do not act; they are only called on to play the role of the People. Thus the People is only a theatrical fiction. To have a good instance of qualitative populism we no longer need the Piazza Venezia in Rome or the Nuremberg Stadium. There is in our future a TV or Internet populism, in which the emotional response of a selected group of citizens can be presented and accepted as the Voice of the People.

14. Ur-Fascism speaks Newspeak. “All the Nazi or Fascist schoolbooks made use of an impoverished vocabulary, and an elementary syntax, in order to limit the instruments for complex and critical reasoning.

I - The Cult of Tradition

According to Benito Mussolini in his article Trenchocracy, he predicts that the old political parties and individuals who exploit the future of Italy will be swept aside. He envisions a different tempo for the politics of tomorrow, with moments of intensity and unexpected challenges. Mussolini expresses contempt for the current governing figures, criticizing their presumptuousness and senility.

In a speech given in Rome on January 19, 1923, Mussolini emphasizes the need for an active and dynamic lifestyle in the current times. He represents a government focused on speed and progress, aiming to eliminate stagnation in national life. Mussolini believes that if everyone embraces energy, goodwill, and cheerfulness, they can overcome the crisis. He encourages Rome to awaken and become an industrial center, urging the Romans to move beyond relying solely on past achievements. Mussolini envisions a future nation of producers, built by the hard work, discipline, and intellect of the current generation.

“We must ruthlessly eject the conservatives, the cowards, the fainthearted and the men of yesterday from our ranks and even from our lives.”

— Benito Mussolini, speech in Rome, October 27, 1930

It is important to address the misconception that Fascism was solely a reactionary movement against Communism, aiming to protect or build upon existing government structures. While it is true that Fascism opposed Communism due to its internationalist beliefs, this does not mean that Fascism sought to preserve the status quo. Fascism made use of appeals to tradition to further its own interests, even though it was not inherently traditionalist.

There is evidence from academic works that debunk the notion that Fascism merely aimed to preserve the government of the past. For example, Mussolini, the founder of Fascism in Italy, supported land occupations and strikes as long as they were not driven by communist ideology. In fact, landowners willingly handed over their land to the Fascists for protection against Communists, and this land was then redistributed to peasants.

In 1920, Italy experienced a period of intense social unrest, with workers occupying factories and peasants taking over farms. Mussolini expressed support for these occupations, as long as they did not become a Bolshevik experiment. Socialist peasant leagues seized thousands of hectares of farmland from landowners and handed it over to workers' cooperatives. The growth and violence of rural Fascism during this time transformed it into a force of national importance.

It is worth noting that Fascism's alignment with right-wing traditionalists should not overshadow the fact that it also had left-wing Futurists as a significant faction in its early stages. Fascism is a complex ideology that encompasses various elements and is not easily confined to traditional left-right political distinctions. The Futurists, known for their anti-Traditionalist stance, demanded a complete break from the past and a focus on the future. However, they were disappointed when Mussolini's Fascism made concessions and embraced certain elements of tradition. On the other hand, right-wing Traditionalists also became disillusioned with Fascism when they realized that it had its own distinct agenda.

During the early years of the Fascist regime, there was a struggle between conservatives and revolutionaries within and outside the party. Fascist theoreticians attempted to reconcile these tensions by claiming that the revolution aimed to preserve valuable aspects of the past. This satisfied those who saw Fascism as a transitional regime that would restore the previous politically and economically liberal order. However, with the murder of Matteotti in 1924, many conservatives and liberals who initially supported Fascism began to withdraw their support. The opposition press and propertied classes grew apprehensive, leading to defections and mounting challenges to the regime.

An example of the right turning against Fascism is Julius Evola, considered by some as a significant Fascist thinker. However, a closer examination reveals that Evola was viewed with suspicion by the Fascist government, and disagreements between Fascism and Evolian Traditionalism persisted throughout the existence of the Italian Fascist Regime. Evola saw Fascism as a tool to advance his own agenda rather than valuing the doctrine of Fascism itself. He believed that Fascism lacked a soul and needed to be infused with the wisdom of cosmic masters to achieve true revolution and restore the traditional order of things. Evola's rejection of key Fascist concepts and his idiosyncratic reinterpretation of terms demonstrated his commitment to his own traditional Mediterranean vision.

Evola's view of Mussolini and Fascism was that they were merely a means to convey the profound realities of a transcendent world to a select few. He believed that Fascism lacked a true spiritual essence and saw it as a hypnotic sideshow. Throughout his life, Evola sought to use Fascism as a tool to educate an elite group that would restore the virtues of the ancient world.

It is worth noting that most intellectuals associated with Evola opposed Giovanni Gentile, a prominent philosopher of Fascism. They rejected Gentile's humanism and moral opposition to anti-Semitism and biological racism. This indicates a clear division between Evola's Traditionalist movement and Fascism.

Furthermore, Fascism itself was not rooted in Traditionalist thought. It emerged from a mix of radical anti-traditionalists, revolutionary syndicalists, and former socialists. Mussolini gradually reformed Fascist Italy to purge Traditionalist elements and move towards his vision of an Ethical Totalitarian State.

The history of Fascist Italy can be divided into three periods: Heroic Capitalism, Corporate State, and State Socialism. Some scholars argue that Fascism can be seen as a developmental regime with an ideology of delayed industrialization. However, accommodations were made for pre-Fascist elements, including the aristocracy, in order to gain political power and carry out the rapid modernization and industrialization of Italy.

Contrary to the argument that Mussolini's regime in its later years was a mere facade appealing to the proletariat and attempting to emulate socialism, this notion has been disproven by former Italian Fascists like Rutilio Sermonti and academic scholars like A. James Gregor in his work on Italian Fascism and Developmental Dictatorship. These primary and secondary sources provide evidence that Italy was indeed undergoing a series of reforms aimed at achieving a state of socialism, a progression that can be traced through Mussolini's speeches as well.

Mussolini regarded traditions as a tool of the state, something that could be utilized to attract influential individuals and secure the support of major voting blocs, thereby ensuring the longevity of Fascism's grip on power. However, his concessions to reactionary forces within his regime ultimately led to the 1943 coup, which triggered the Italian Civil War. Mussolini himself acknowledged that this was one of his main mistakes, as it disrupted the reformative path he had set out on. It is important to note that despite his intentions, Mussolini never fully realized his vision of a totalitarian state, and he was forced to expedite the process during the period of the Italian Social Republic, where he remained subordinate to the Germans.

"He (Mussolini) announced that he intended to found the ‘anti-party’, that is the combat beams, an organ of action and agitation for the whole peninsula, destined to turn against both right-wing misoneism and the destructive ambitions of the Leninist left."

— Gioacchino Volpe, Genesis of Fascism

Mussolini's rejection of the concept of conserving the past is evident in his policies, which aimed to consolidate power for Fascism rather than preserve traditional values. Additionally, he consistently denounced the idea of the political spectrum, rejecting the notions of right-wing and left-wing. Instead, Mussolini viewed Fascism as a pragmatic form of governance that would chart its own course and pursue its own objectives. He referred to this position as the Third Position or being "on the Top of the Centre." This further illustrates Mussolini's focus on establishing Fascism as a distinct and independent political force.

“Fascism, which sits on the Right—although in fact we could be placed at the top of the Centre—is reactionary towards Socialism, which, even if it sits on the Left, is today typically bourgeois, one might even say conservative and reactionary...

These words (R & L) do not have a fixed and immutable meaning: they have variables and are conditioned by the circumstances of time, place and spirit. We Fascists completely ignore these empty terms and above all despise those who are terrified by these words."

— Benito Mussolini, Clichés: Left and Right

In a speech in Rome on October 27, 1930, Mussolini declared his unwavering support for Fascism and asserted that all power should be exclusively given to Fascism. He emphasized the strength of the Revolution, stating that it would confront its enemies and eliminate them. Mussolini rejected the notions of Jacobins, Girondins, Thermidorians, Right, and Left, considering them irrelevant in the context of the Fascist regime.

According to Nicholas Farrell in his book Mussolini: A New Life, the commonly held beliefs about Mussolini's rise to power and the nature of Fascism are misleading. Mussolini did not seize power but was granted it by the King. Fascism was not a bourgeois counterrevolution against the working class, as Marxist history suggests. Instead, the Fascists opposed both the bourgeoisie and the Socialists, focusing on the unity of the nation.

The perception of Fascism as a right-wing ideology is also misleading. While Mussolini initially described it as "of the right," the intellectual foundation of Fascism was rooted in left-wing thought. Many Fascists had previously been Socialists or syndicalists. Although Fascism displayed right-wing characteristics, its guiding principles were left-wing. It sought a Third Way between Capitalism and Socialism, advocating for a Corporate State that would promote class collaboration and end class warfare. Mussolini believed that the strength of Fascism lay in its ability to adopt vital aspects from various ideologies and put them into practice.

II - Rejection of Modernism

Fascism, as described by the National Fascist Party's Dictionary of Politics, viewed human life as a struggle guided by superior ethical principles. It emphasized the importance of culture in all its forms, including religion, art, and science, as well as the significance of education, labor, and moral forces. Fascism aimed to affirm spiritual motives and promote a responsible spirit.

According to Nicholas Farrell's book "Mussolini: A New Life," Fascism displayed a strong modernist inclination. It drew support not only from the middle class but also from the marginalized sections of society, and its core ideas were influenced by avant-garde thinkers. Fascism welcomed individuals from various artistic fields, such as Mario Sironi, who sought to create a modern art that combined classical and modern elements, aligning with the ambitions of the Fascist movement.

While Fascism embraced modernism, it did not reject it entirely. Rather, Fascism aimed to create its own version of modernity and shape material circumstances in a way that aligned with its ideological framework. It sought to address what it perceived as the damaging consequences of liberal materialism, which had disconnected the spiritual aspect of individuals from the masses. Fascism was willing to adopt modernism as long as it remained spiritually revolutionary and fulfilling within the envisioned society.

This perspective challenges the view put forth by Umberto Eco, which suggests that Fascism sought to completely destroy modernity. Instead, Fascism aimed to forge its own path towards a new society, appreciating spiritual progress within the national tradition while incorporating elements of modernity that aligned with its revolutionary goals.

“This political culture, communal, anti-individualistic, and anti-rationalistic, represented at first a rejection of the heritage of the Enlightenment and the French Revolution, and later the creation of a comprehensive alternative, an intellectual, moral, and political framework that alone could ensure the perpetuity of a human collectivity in which all strata and all classes of society would be perfectly integrated... Fascism wished to rectify the most disastrous consequences of the modernization of the European continent and to provide a solution to the atomization of society, its fragmentation into antagonistic groups, and the alienation of the individual in a free market economy. Fascism rebelled against the dehumanization that modernization had introduced into human relationships, but it was also very eager to retain the benefits of progress and never advocated a return to a hypothetical golden age. Fascism rebelled against modernity in as much as modernity was identified with the rationalism, optimism, and humanism of the eighteenth century, but it was not a reactionary or an antirevolutionary movement in the Maurrassian sense of the term. Fascism presented itself as a revolution of another kind, a revolution that sought to destroy the existing political order and to uproot its theoretical and moral foundations but that at the same time wished to preserve all the achievements of modern technology. It was to take place within the framework of the industrial society, fully exploiting the power that was in it.”

— Zeev Sternhell, The Birth of Fascist Ideology

The Fascist ideology does not view depravity as a product of modernity alone. Instead, it sees modernity as a corruption of an already corrupted world, attaching the medieval mindset to new chains rather than freeing it. The notion of a "return to Tradition" within Fascism is considered false. The core principle of Fascism lies in its organic quality, where every policy is determined by its utility for the State and its ability to achieve Socialism.

Fascism can be described, to some extent, as a form of rule-based utilitarianism, where the success of policies is measured based on their contribution to increasing the power of the state. To comprehend this perspective, it is important to understand certain aspects of the Fascist Lexicon. In Giovanni Gentile's work "What is Fascism," he emphasizes the belief that the State is an extension of the individual's personality, transcending specific interests and serving the general welfare. The State represents the moral consciousness and the national identity, guiding the individual towards the common good as a manifestation of the general will. The ethical foundation of Fascism is rooted in spirituality, where personality is synonymous with awareness, and the State embodies the will and thought of the nation. The State is not merely a facade or an empty structure but rather the embodiment of the collective spirit and purpose of the people.

Gentile's perspective highlights that the State encompasses all aspects of the citizen's interest, both economically and morally. It does not consider itself separate from any domain that affects the well-being of its citizens. The State is seen as the great will of the nation, driven by intelligence and encompassing the entirety of human experience. It is the house in which people live, work, and find fulfillment, representing the essence of the human spirit.

Fascism displayed an enduring spirit that valued developmentalism, progressivism, and constant change, driven by the reciprocal interaction of social and political factors. It emphasized the duty of individuals to uplift one another and place importance on their own spiritual enlightenment, rejecting the shallow pursuit of materialism.

Fascism approached the ideas of earlier times with a pragmatic and idealistic mindset, seeking to construct its own rationale and foster a distinct form of spiritual thinking within its citizens. It aimed to avoid what could be deemed as "over-intellectualism" or a superficial engagement with ideas. Instead, Fascism sought to cultivate a dynamic and transformative mode of thought, in contrast to static and stagnant thinking.

For a more comprehensive exploration of the relationship between Fascism and Modernism, Roger Griffin's book on the subject is recommended.

III - Action For Action’s Sake

"Anti-Intellectualism does not mean, as some ignorant Fascists seem to believe, that they are authorized by the Duce to dismiss science and philosophy. It does not mean that one denies the value of thought and those superior expressions of culture through which thought expresses itself. Spiritual reality is a synthesis, in whose unity one finds expression and value in that thought that is action. In the conclusive unity of that synthesis converge, and must converge, and know that they converge, many elements without which the synthesis would be empty, operating in a void."

— Giovanni Gentile, Origins and Doctrine of Fascism

According to Giovanni Gentile, Fascism is a war against intellectualism. It rejects the separation between thought and action and emphasizes the synthesis of the two. Fascist intellectuals are not merely thinkers, but individuals who actively engage in putting their ideas into practice. Fascism opposes armchair intellectualism and the passive observation of life's challenges.

The notion that Fascism is solely about blood and violence is a slanderous portrayal by materialists who refuse to acknowledge any Third Position that differs from their own philosophical standpoint. It is important to recognize the significant intellectual figures who were part of the Fascist movement, such as Giovanni Gentile, Alfredo Rocco, Sergio Panunzio, Ugo Spirito, and Nicola Bombacci. These individuals did not advocate for traditionalism or a return to the past. In fact, figures like Sergio Panunzio considered Fascism as the highest realization of Marxism, while Nicola Bombacci believed that Mussolini's actions aligned with the Marxist-Leninist dialectic.

The Fascist understanding of "intellectualism" was a rejection of remaining passive and detached from real-life action. Fascism emphasized the importance of both thought and action, viewing them as inseparable. It sought constant change in Italian society, embracing dynamic human nature and refusing to be tied to the past.

The Fascist motto "the Book and the Rifle makes the Perfect Fascist" highlights the fusion of intellectualism and action. Fascism recognized that being a brute or a wimp alone was insufficient. The ideal Fascist embodied a combination of thought and action. This is evident in Italy's legislative priorities, which included educational reforms and programs aimed at improving the health of Italians through the promotion of athleticism.

According to Tracy H. Koon in Believe, Obey, Fight: Political Socialization of Youth in Fascist Italy, 1922-1943, Fascism aimed to realize an ethical state by fostering a new spirit within the nation. Education played a crucial role in this process, as fascism saw itself as a continuing revolution of the national spirit. This application of Gentilian notions to education involved rejecting positivist trends and emphasizing the importance of a school that integrated knowledge with action and scientific instruction.

Fascism can be considered anti-intellectual, but not in the sense of rejecting value in culture or intellectual pursuits that invigorate thought as a source of action. Rather, it is hostile to what it sees as a specific product of the educated classes in Italy: the leterato, who plays with knowledge and thought without a sense of responsibility for the practical world. Fascism opposes bad culture, which fails to educate and create morally and politically engaged individuals.

Fascism does not waste time constructing abstract theories about itself, as it rejects intellectualism. However, this does not mean that it is a blind or purely instinctive method. Fascism can be seen as a perfect system with a solid foundation and rigorous logic in its development, guided by a principle of universal character. Those who understand and embrace the truth and vitality of this principle work day by day to develop it, adjusting their actions accordingly.

These ideas are expressed by Giovanni Gentile in his work The Philosophic Basis of Fascism.

IV - Disagreement is Treason

“Il Secolo, a leading anti- Fascist daily, for example, noted on 4 November, ‘There isn’t a party or political movement in Italy in which there are, as in Fascism, so many currents which flow in opposite directions, each one acting for itself, with no respect either for discipline, or central leadership.’”

— Nicholas Farrell, Mussolini: A New Life

As previously discussed, Mussolini actively sought and welcomed criticism as a means to gain consent from the population. The notion that Fascism was a monolithic ideology with no room for disagreement is simply untrue. There were numerous dissenting individuals within the regime who held differing interpretations of Fascism. In fact, Mussolini even included critics of his government within his inner circle. Additionally, the Fascist Party itself had various branches that diverged in their desired paths of action, represented by figures such as Gentile, Ugo Spirito, Marinetti, Alfredo Rocco, Sergio Panunzio, Niccolo Giani, Berto Ricci, and De Vecchi. The Fascist Regime exhibited a surprisingly wide diversity of thought, as it encompassed thinkers with different perspectives.

The perception that Fascism solely relied on violence and functioned as a bloodthirsty death cult is flawed. It is important to note that it was not the Fascists who initiated violence in Italy. The Red Terror, a wave of violence perpetrated by communist and socialist groups, predated the emergence of the Squadrismo that characterized Italian Fascism. Mussolini himself stated in 1921 that violence for Fascists was not a capricious act but a surgical necessity, a somber requirement. Fascists viewed violence as an exception rather than a method or system.

Contrary to the portrayal of an oppressive regime, archival records from the OVRA (the secret political police) and the findings of historians reveal that Fascism was not as repressive as often claimed. The Special Tribunal for the Defence of the State, which received most of its cases from the OVRA, saw relatively low numbers of convictions. From 1927 to 1929, out of 5,046 individuals brought before the tribunal, only one-fifth were convicted. The sentences ranged from death to several years in prison. These figures are significantly smaller compared to the atrocities inflicted by other dictatorships, both on the right and the left.

Similar to Communism, Fascism considered violence morally justifiable in certain circumstances beyond self-defense or capital punishment. However, once in power, the need for a Fascist terror was unnecessary. The era of squadrismo, marked by violent actions, had largely disappeared by 1930. Between 1930 and 1934, the OVRA arrested around 6,000 political opponents, primarily Communists or members of Giustizia e Liberta, a non-party revolutionary movement founded by Carlo Rosselli in 1929. However, only a few of those arrested were imprisoned. The Special Tribunal imprisoned no more than several dozen political prisoners per year during the 1930s, with an increase in numbers in the latter half of the decade. Three individuals were executed during the 1930s for plotting to assassinate Mussolini.

Fascism's rule in Italy for 20 years was characterized by a concerted effort to seek agreement, despite the diverse range of beliefs within the movement. It is essential to dispel the notion that Fascism was merely a tyrannical regime crushing opposition without consideration. Instead, it aimed to identify and eliminate subversive elements while actively incorporating individuals who could contribute to the development of Fascist Doctrine.

In this context, Fascism can be seen as an accomplishment of a "Permanent Revolution," albeit not in the same sense as Trotsky's concept. Rather, it signifies a continuous process of change and improvement within the regime. Mussolini and the Fascist government consistently sought to adapt and refine their ideology and policies, molding them to align with the evolving needs and aspirations of the nation.

“Italian Fascism proposed the theory of Permanent Revolution, which it pretended to carry out as an ideological model in a gradual way. In the history of revolutionary movements, Fascism was the one that declared that it was impossible to pre-emptively adopt an institutional entity that was stable––be it monarchy or republic. On the contrary, the ideological basis of the Corporative Ethical State can't be identified with an institution or a certain historic moment. For Fascism, these were just a means to an end. Therefore, if an institution becomes anachronistic, it should be substituted with another one. Mussolini said in 1917: ‘Revolution is not chaos, disorder or collapse of activities like the stupid extremists say. Revolution is an order that replaces another order, a hierarchy that takes the place of another’. Mussolini did not have as an objective a monarchic Fascism, since, sooner or later, one of the two would prevail. The relations were hostile, in the same way they were with the Left and Right.”

— Marco Piraino and Stefano Fiorito, Fascist Identity

Fascism does not adhere to a rigid dogma that inhibits growth and evolution. On the contrary, it aimed to challenge established dogmas and foster discussions among individuals with diverse perspectives. The regime consisted of a wide range of thinkers who often held differing opinions, leading to internal disagreements. Mussolini recognized the need for consensus-building, which ultimately contributed to his downfall in 1943. It was during this time that he realized, despite his leniency towards certain factions, he had been betrayed, much like the sword of Damocles hanging over his head.

In his Last Testament, Benito Mussolini acknowledged that, compared to other dictators, he had shown relative restraint in dealing with his enemies. He claimed to have ennobled dictatorship by minimizing the number of casualties, with only a few hundred deaths compared to several thousand. Mussolini believed that he had humanized the concept of dictatorship, rejecting instruments of torture. In contrast, he accused Stalin of sitting atop a mountain of human bones. Mussolini expressed pride in the good he had done, even for his adversaries and enemies who had plotted against his life. He claimed to have provided them with substantial subsidies and even saved their lives. However, he questioned the responsibility he would bear if tomorrow those individuals were to kill his men, despite his previous acts of clemency.

V - Fascism is Racist by Definition

This issue becomes complex when relying solely on a quote from Mussolini that states, "Race! It is a feeling, not a reality: ninety-five percent, at least, is a feeling. National pride has no need of the delirium of race."

To those who interpret this quote as evidence of Mussolini's dismissive views on race, it is important to note that this is an oversimplification of his stance. To gain a comprehensive understanding, one must consider his 1919 article titled The Accomplices and his 1934 work Is the White Race Dying?

A more conclusive examination can be found in Arturo Sabatini's collection of Mussolini's statements on the concept of race in Fascism, aptly titled The Concept of Race in Fascism. The issue arises when individuals believe that Mussolini's racial views were solidified in doctrine. However, a closer look reveals constant contradictions and a lack of racial policies until the influence of National Socialism became prevalent in the regime. This indicates that Fascism's approach to racialism was not politically driven and did not hold a prominent place in its doctrine. Rather, it would differ from a modern understanding of race.

It is worth noting that the political racialism of Fascism faced criticism from key figures within the regime, including Giovanni Gentile and many Actualists. Figures like Italo Balbo, a potential successor to Mussolini, strongly opposed it. Institutions like the CAUR (Comitati d'Azione per l'Universalita di Roma) consistently rejected any racial understanding of Fascism, advocating for its universality instead. In the Mountreux Congresses, considered a "Fascist Internationale," discussions on racial topics and anti-Semitism took place, with a critical stance towards racism and German National Socialism. However, constant infighting among members ultimately led to the failure of these congresses.

Furthermore, examining the writings of other Fascist authors on anti-Semitism and racial views in Italy would further debunk the claim in question, highlighting the absurdity of such assertions.

“‘But Mussolini is not anti-Semitic. You rejoice in vain,’ whispered the Jewish press into our ears. It is not a matter of what we rejoice in say I, it is a question of why you Jews are sad at his victory, if he is not anti-Semitic. What is the rationale of the worldwide attack on him by the Jewish press? Italy has as many Jews as Romania has Ciangai [a quite minor ethnic group] in the Siret valley. An Italian anti-Semitic movement would be as if Romanians started a movement against the Ciangai. But had Mussolini lived in Romania he could not but be anti-Semitic, for Fascism means first of all defending your nation against the dangers that threaten it. it means the destruction of these dangers and the opening of a free way to life and glory for your nation.”

— Cornelio Codreanu, For My Legionaries

It is crucial to understand that Fascism, above all else, is a pragmatic ideology. In the context of Italy, racial views held little significance. Racialism was not inherent to the Italian theory of Fascism and did not translate into actual practice for the country. Additionally, Fascism stood in opposition to the racially imperialist ideas promoted by the British.

According to Giuseppe De Corso's work, "The Economic Policies of Italian Fascism Between 1922 and 1943: Brief Considerations Towards its Understanding," Italian imperialism differed from Anglo-Saxon imperialism. Its primary motive was not solely to conquer markets for surplus products and access raw materials; instead, it emphasized demographic colonization. The aim was to relocate surplus population to lands beyond Italy's borders. In this context, economic policies served multiple objectives. They sought to integrate colonies into the metropolis, not just economically but also as extensions of the Italian peninsula in terms of demographics and culture.

Fascism aimed to consider the people in their colonies as integral parts of Italy and as members of their respective countries. This process involved gradual inclusion and education. Italian Fascism exhibited both racist and anti-racist elements. While its doctrine may have preached otherwise, many within the regime and the actions of a few individuals did not truly represent the broader ideals and goals of Fascism. Ultimately, the regime became largely centered around Mussolini himself, rather than the racialist ideals that were being propagated elsewhere. Even concepts such as Evola's "Spiritual Racism" were met with rejection by a majority of Fascists throughout the regime. Evola would openly modify parts of his works to avoid being seen as a subversive element within the regime, as his ideas were foreign to Fascist doctrine.

“Fascist “racism” throughout the period between 1922 and 1938, however distinctive, was essentially benign—and shared little, if any substance, with the malevolent racism so prevalent across the Alps. None of the major Fascist intellectuals were racists of the sort one found in National Socialist environs. In fact, since many, if not most, of the principal ideologues of Fascism were Actualists, they had principled objections to attributing human behavior to material—that is, biological—causes. They simply could not accept the proposition that an entire population, characterized by ill-defined ‘racial’ traits, could be held, as a body, guilty of anything... The fact is that at the time of the publication of Evola’s Sintesi, the most serious students of raciation and comparative psychology in Fascist Italy dismissed his ideas as ‘bizarre occult anti-scientific fantasies.’ Evola had early been identified by Fascist critics as a ‘lucid madman,’ who was not to be taken seriously...’

Mussolini believed that he had no option but to follow Germany into a conflict that he hoped would be of very short duration. Under the circumstances, it became critical to reduce the ideological distance between the two regimes. Fascist race theory would have to speak to the issues of Aryans and Jews—something, until that time, that standard race theory in Mussolini’s Italy did not do. Mussolini, by overtly addressing issues that were central to National Socialist thought, sought to have Hitler’s Germany take Fascist Italy more seriously. That would serve Fascism’s immediate and general purposes.”

— A. James Gregor, Mussolini’s Intellectuals

VI - Appeal to a Frustrated Middle Class

According to Nicholas Farrell's book, Mussolini: A New Life, Fascism attracted a diverse range of individuals who felt that socialism could not provide answers during difficult times. La Stampa reported that Fascism drew in unemployed former officers, impoverished public employees, struggling shopkeepers and contractors, students, young graduates, disaffected youths, and ex-revolutionaries who had supported the war. A census conducted by Il Popolo d'Italia in November 1921 revealed that 24.3% of Fascists were agricultural laborers, 15% were factory workers, 13% were students, 12% were owner or tenant farmers, and the rest consisted of a mix of shopkeepers, traders, professionals, and factory owners. Furthermore, nearly two-thirds of Fascists had served in the war, indicating their relatively young age. These figures challenge the notion that Fascism was solely a bourgeois counter-revolution.

Farrell also highlights that while Fascism had a flirtation with Futurism, which glorified the urban environment, violence, speed, industry, and the machine, its strongest connection lay with the countryside. Mussolini himself, along with the majority of Italians, had rural origins, and the support of farmers and peasants played a crucial role in Fascism's rapid success prior to the March on Rome.

Additionally, Farrell notes that Fascism appealed not only to property owners but also to workers who were excluded from factories or farms due to the closed shop policies of unions and political parties. Fascism had primarily been a phenomenon in urban areas until then. However, the majority of those who had fought in the war were peasants, known as "contadini" in Italian (which does not carry the same negative connotation as the English term "peasant"). During the winter of 1920-1921, Fascism rapidly spread throughout the Italian countryside, and Mussolini had finally found his support base among the "trincerocrazia" (a term used to describe the rural population).

"Not only has capitalism not entered into its final crisis anywhere in the world, but Fascism was first successful in marginally industrialized Italy— in a nation that had only begun its industrial development. Italian industrial capitalism was hardly at the end of its life cycle. It was a little more. Moreover, subsequent movements elsewhere in Europe that have been characterized as fascist proved to have been most successful in mobilizing the lower classes in underdeveloped.. countries.’“

— A. James Gregor, Mussolini’s Intellectuals

The notion that Fascism solely appealed to the middle class is absurd when considering the backgrounds of most Fascist leaders and the consistent composition of the initial blackshirts.

Contrary to popular belief, Fascists not only engaged in strikes and land occupations but also received significant support from peasants and farmers. This can be observed through the revolutionary left-wing background of the party, with figures such as Aurelio Padovani, Edmondo Rossoni, the De Ambris Brothers (Alceste and Amilcare), Roberto Farinacci, Michele Bianchi, and others.

The initial appeal of Fascism was directed towards the working class and this remained true throughout the regime. The initial liberal policies and rhetoric of Mussolini were merely strategic maneuvers to consolidate power. As many authors have noted, after 1925, the regime shifted towards a Fascist economic framework, seen through initiatives like the Labour Charter, the establishment of the Corporate State, reforms in legislative representation and corporate organization, as well as land distribution programs that contradicted commonly held beliefs among Marxist circles.

Stanley G. Payne, in his book A History of Fascism 1914-1945, points out that autarchy, the economic policy of self-sufficiency, did not receive complete approval from Italy's economic and industrial elite. It led to increased state control, Fascistization, and a foreign policy focused on military activism. The economic elite became increasingly concerned due to the Fascist state's interference and expansion of control over economic activities, the gradual transformation of the Fascist elite into an autonomous ruling class that altered the balance of compromise in its favor, and Mussolini's aggressive foreign policy that deviated from the true interests of Italy and the upper bourgeoisie. Additionally, autarchy emphasized "worker Fascism," resulting in expanded roles and activism for worker syndicates. Although wages did not see significant increases, worker fringe benefits grew, and in 1939, the large Dopolavoro recreation program was transferred from the party to the syndicates themselves.

For Mussolini, it was the Marxists and left-wingers who had betrayed socialism and failed to support the lower classes. Even Lenin faced criticism from this perspective.

""The developed and conscious proletariat is shouting 'Long live Lenin!', thinking that they are shouting 'Long live socialism!' They do not realize that they are actually crying 'Down with socialism!' The false shepherds are deceiving the masses, who are ready to swear by and die for the new and distant ideals, believing that what has been established in Russia is socialism. This is a colossal lie! There is not even the beginnings of socialism; there is nothing resembling a socialist regime. Leninism is the perfect negation of socialism. It is the government of a new caste of politicians.""

— Benito Mussolini, The Accomplices

“Light is no longer shining from the East, where terrible news of death and famine is coming out of Russia; we are receiving desperate appeals by socialists and anarchists in Petrograd against Lenin's reactionary policies."

— Benito Mussolini, Which Way is the World Going

VII — Obsession With a Plot

This claim is inherently flawed. Every ideology, whether it be Anarchism, Communism, Libertarianism, Theocracy, Social Democracy, or others, fundamentally relies on a divisive "us versus them" mentality. The appeal of fighting against a perceived opposition, whether internal or foreign, exists across all ideologies.

The truth is that Fascism, in its Italian interpretation, was influenced by the dialectic established by thinkers such as Enrico Corradini and the proponents of the concept of "Socialism of Nations" even before Fascism came into existence. This line of thinking supported and endorsed Syndicalism and a state that prioritized unity above all else, in a struggle between Proletariat Nations and those that exploited and drained their resources.

According to A. James Gregor in Mussolini's Intellectuals, the syndicalists believed in the unity of laborers in modern industry as the foundation of their community. However, Corradini argued that such a collective, in isolation, could not prosper or survive in the contemporary world. He asserted that workers, as long as nations existed, would only be a functional part of a larger historic and organic whole. Corradini contended that only nations could act on the international stage, as the world was seen as a Darwinian arena of struggle for survival. In order for Italian workers to thrive in this world, they needed entrepreneurs, functionaries, merchants, financiers, intellectuals, educators, and state officials. Corradini suggested that syndicalists could only become proponents and practitioners of a national syndicalism that nationalists could fully support.

Corradini also argued that in the Italian context, "proletarianism" had some unique merits. He pointed out that for a quarter of a century, Italian workers had been forced to leave their homeland to seek employment in more prosperous, capitalist nations. These emigrant workers were subjected to the control of foreign capitalists just to survive. Corradini highlighted that the distinctions recognized by the syndicalists within Italy were even more pronounced outside of Italy. While domestic capitalists were seen as oppressors, they paled in comparison to the dominance of capitalists from advanced industrial nations. The advanced capitalist nations exerted significant control over an impoverished Italy, making it a proletarian nation subject to the dominance of foreign plutocracies.

From the early stages of his political career, Corradini emphasized the distinction between "proletarian" and "plutocratic" nations. He argued that under those conditions, less developed nations were condemned to perpetual dependency on plutocracies. England would maintain control over the seas and financial markets, while France would dominate the continent with its culture and armed forces. Italy, lacking capital and resources, would remain an economic and cultural colony of its "superiors." "Rich nations" would continue to dominate proletarian Italy.

This belief system formed the basis for Mussolini's dialectic between Producers and Parasites, which he applied on an international scale. It was not just a plot, but rather a dialectical understanding of the relationship between foreign and domestic policy.

Italian Fascism did not primarily rely on the notion of an international conspiracy; rather, it had a conception of foreign policy that was similar to other ideologies. For more information, refer to Mussolini's Intellectuals.

It is important to highlight that the Blackshirts, the original paramilitary groups of Fascism, included Italian Jews and received financial backing from Jewish bankers. However, the implementation of racial policies had detrimental effects on Italy, considering that the rate of assimilation of Italian Jews was the highest in Europe.

It should be recognized that this is a common aspect found in every ideology. All ideologies tend to identify a scapegoat or an opposing group to fight against, creating an "us versus them" dynamic.

Moreover, it is crucial to acknowledge that the Nationalist conception and the Fascist conception of a country differ when considering the ideological writings and historical evidence presented by scholars and ideologues of Fascism. This distinction is further explored in the explanation provided by Gentile in his work "The Fascist State as a Democratic State" in Origins and Doctrine of Fascism.

“This gigantic struggle is nothing other than a phase in the logical development of our revolution; it is the struggle of peoples that are poor but rich in workers against the exploiters who hold on ferociously to the monopoly of all the riches and all the gold of the earth; it is the struggle of the fertile and young people against the sterile people moving to the sunset; it is the struggle between two centuries and two ideas...

Proletarian and Fascist Italy stands up a third time, strong, proud, and united as never before. The single order of the day is categorical and obligatory for all. It already spreads and fires hearts from the Alps to the Indian Ocean; Victory! And we will win, in order to finally give a long period of peace with justice to Italy, to Europe, and to the world.”

— Benito Mussolini, speech in Rome, June 10, 1940

VIII - The Enemies Are Too Strong and Too Weak

This point is once again flawed and lacks substance. It is too vague and can be applied to any ideology, as mentioned earlier. It seems to be an attempt to discredit the argument without providing any substantial evidence or analysis.

Furthermore, this does not constitute an ideological statement, doctrine, or praxis. It appears to be presented in a slanderous manner, lacking a true understanding of the overall framework of Fascism. Eco fails to recognize that this mechanism of identifying an enemy exists in all ideologies.

It is important to note that an enemy can be spiritually weak but possess the means to overpower you, or vice versa. This point is not unique to Fascism and does not provide a comprehensive understanding of how Fascist governments actually operated. It seems to only refer to wartime dynamics, which is a common occurrence in any conflict. Even the Allies during World War II used similar rhetoric and talking points against the Axis powers.

Once again, refer to the previous point for a similar rhetorical approach.

IX - Pacifism Is Trafficking With The Enemy

Benito Mussolini, in his Doctrine of Fascism, stated that Fascism does not believe in the possibility or utility of perpetual peace, as it considers the future and the development of humanity beyond the immediate political considerations of the moment.

Giovanni Gentile, in his work What is Fascism?, emphasized the all-encompassing nature of Fascism. He argued that one cannot be a Fascist solely in politics but must also uphold Fascist principles in all aspects of life, including school, family, and the workplace. Just as a devout Catholic lives their entire life in accordance with their religious beliefs, a Fascist must constantly remind themselves that they are a Fascist in every aspect of their existence.

This understanding of Fascism as a total commitment to life is what truly defines it. Fascists take life seriously, recognizing that it is centered around labor, effort, sacrifice, and hard work. Pleasure is not prioritized, as there is always an ideal to be realized and no time to waste. Even in rest, a Fascist remains responsible for their talents.

Eco's criticism of Fascism as being merely rooted in rhetoric fails to grasp the underlying principles and practices that shaped its development. This is a recurring flaw in his analysis, seen in his previous claims on the "Anti-Intellectualism of Fascism." He tends to focus on surface-level observations while disregarding the historical and philosophical foundations.

The desire for struggle in Fascism stems from the actualist doctrine and the constant evolution of thought and individual and national life. While Mussolini may have mentioned the possibility of peace after the defeat of the Allies, it was never portrayed as an eternal state but rather a temporary victory for the Proletariat Nations, leading to new goals and conquests in the future.

Struggle in Fascism encompasses more than just warfare; it starts with conquering oneself and extends to the conquest of new frontiers, even reaching for the stars. This belief is present in various Fascist thinkers, highlighting the multifaceted nature of Fascism as a philosophy of life, not just a political ideology. Eco's failure to understand this broader perspective contributes to his misinterpretation of Fascism.

Gentile further emphasizes that Fascism is a political method and a philosophy of praxis. It rejects abstract and detached philosophies and focuses on practical action within the human community. The fascist state is considered a distinct entity with its own aims and style, separate from its individual citizens.

“The Fascist system is not a political system, but it has its center of gravity in politics. Fascism came into being to meet serious problems of politics in post-war Italy. And it presents itself as a political method. But in confronting and solving political problems it is carried by its very nature, that is to say by its method, to consider moral, religious, and philosophical questions and to unfold and demonstrate the comprehensive totalitarian character peculiar to it. It is only after we have grasped the political character of the Fascist principle that we are able adequately to appreciate the deeper concept of life which underlies that principle and from which the principle springs. The political doctrine of Fascism is not the whole of Fascism. It is rather its more prominent aspect and in general its most interesting one.”

— Giovanni Gentile, Philosophic Basis of Fascism

X - Contempt For The Weak

Again in Farrell's Mussolini: A New Life, he argues that while Benito Mussolini did away with democracy, he did not rely on mass murder, as many dictators do, to retain power. This was because Fascism and Mussolini himself had mass appeal. Unlike democracy, which was seen as ineffective, especially in Italy, Fascism was able to get things done and transformed politics into a form of religious devotion. It became a daily act of faith for its followers.

Contrary to the Left's claims, Fascism was not solely a creation of big business. It had widespread appeal, as evidenced by the significant membership numbers of the National Fascist Party (PNF). In October 1922, PNF membership stood at 300,000 and grew to 783,000 within a year. Furthermore, Fascism's financial support came from various sources, as demonstrated by De Felice's research. As noted by Adrian Lyttelton, Mussolini's rise to power was facilitated by a mass movement. However, it was not solely the mass movement that delivered power to Mussolini. He came to power through a coup d'état that differed from typical coups in two ways.

Firstly, unlike most coups, which involve the army or a faction within the army taking control, Mussolini's coup did not rely solely on the military. Secondly, this coup d'état was legal, as Mussolini was invited by the King to become prime minister. The King, acting as the interpreter of the nation's will, handed over the government to Mussolini. However, it should be noted that while Mussolini obtained power through legitimate means, he did not gain control over the state itself.

“The interesting point (and a point that is invariably missed by all off-hand anti-Fascists) is that in this new kind of autocratic state, the autocrat actually seeks consent of his people. Far from "not giving a damn" whether the Italian people like Fascism, Mussolini is passionately desirous that his people should like Fascism and he has worked for twelve years to build up their liking in his own dictatorial way."

— William Welk, Fascist Economic Policy

Juan Domingo Perón, the President of Argentina, studied Fascism extensively after returning from Germany and Italy. He found Italian Fascism particularly intriguing due to its ability to involve popular organizations in national life, allowing the working class to participate effectively in the nation's affairs. Before Mussolini's rise to power, there was a disconnect between the nation and the workers, with the latter having no participation in the former. Perón's study of Italian Fascism led him to discover the resurgence of corporations, which he thoroughly examined.

In Benito Mussolini's Last Testament, he expresses his admiration for workers who fulfill their social duty, highlighting their daily acts of heroism. He criticizes false prophets who claim to represent the workers but fail to truly understand or address their needs. Mussolini considers himself a socialist, emphasizing his consistency in seeking substantive solutions rather than focusing on appearances. He argues that as society developed, true socialism moved away from Marx's predictions and towards corporatism, which he sees as the only feasible form of socialism that can be implemented. He sees corporatism as a point of equilibrium and justice that respects collective interests.

It is important to note that Fascism presents itself as a "Popular Democratic State," which contradicts the claim that it lacks support for the masses. Throughout history, Mussolini actively sought the consent and approval of the masses during his rule. Fascism gained significant mass support even before its rise to power, as demonstrated by the swift success of the March on Rome. While Fascism emphasizes the leadership of great individuals guiding the masses, it also maintains a populist approach and consistently appeals to the working class.

Contrary to the notion that Fascism harbors contempt for the weak and lower classes, there is limited evidence to support this claim. Reliable sources and credible research do not provide substantial backing for this assertion. In fact, Fascism promotes the valuing of every member of society, recognizing the importance of individuals in all professions, from street cleaners to government officials. Its goal is to appreciate and acknowledge the contributions of all individuals in building the nation.

“Fascism does not submerge the individual in the social group. It subordinates him, but does not eliminate him; the individual as a part of his generation ever remaining an element of society however transient and insignificant he may be. Moreover the development of individuals in each generation, when coordinated and harmonized, conditions the development and prosperity of the entire social unit.”

— Alfredo Rocco, Political Doctrine of Fascism

One can counter this point by examining the concept of Producers and Parasites, which was prominent in Fascist regimes like those led by Mussolini and Juan Perón. According to this dialectic, the Nation is divided into two categories: Producers, who actively contribute to the nation's progress and participate in national life, and Parasites, who undermine the nation's unity and work towards their own selfish interests.

Furthermore, we can consider the perspective of Giovanni Gentile, who viewed Fascism as a democratic state that utilized authoritarianism as a means to an end. It is also worth noting that Italy was in the process of transitioning into a Republic, which can be seen as a step closer to achieving the Ethical Totalitarian State that Fascism advocated for.

In addition to these points, it is important to recognize the similarities between Fascism and Socialism. Paul Einzig argues that the aims of Fascism and Socialism are largely aligned, to the extent that what was occurring in Italy under Fascism resembled what would happen under a Socialist government free from political considerations. Fascism and Socialism may fiercely oppose each other in the political sphere, but their goals are actually more closely aligned than either is to the laissez-faire school of thought. It is crucial for both supporters and opponents of Fascism to acknowledge its underlying Socialistic tendencies.

By considering these perspectives and arguments, it becomes evident that Fascism does not hold contempt for the weak and lower classes, but rather seeks to create a unified nation by distinguishing between those who contribute to the common good and those who undermine it.

XI - Everybody Is Educated to Become a Hero

A. James Gregor, in Mussolini's Intellectuals, criticizes the prevalent narrative that portrays Mussolini's regime as solely driven by irrationality and violence. This portrayal, according to Gregor, is a parody of Fascist thought and hinders our understanding of a significant historical revolution. It is important to recognize that the Fascism of the twentieth century was not solely inspired by appeals to violence and hatred. In fact, the number of Fascist intellectuals advocating for war, violence, and hatred for their own sake was minimal.

The belief in heroism and martyrdom that is often associated with Fascism predates the ideology itself. It emerged as a consequence of the Romantic and Futurist tendencies that existed within the regime. This belief represented the ideal of dying beautifully and avoiding the degradation of the body. Mussolini himself expressed a belief that he had lived for too long and that it was time for him to pass away. However, this cult of heroism existed before Fascism incorporated it into its ideology as a means to an end.

Various thinkers, from Corradini with his concept of the Socialism of Nations to Sorel's myths of Violence, had already embraced notions of death and martyrdom. These ideas were present in National Syndicalism and served as a foundation for revolutionary nationalism. Corradini, as early as 1909-11, foresaw the convergence of these revolutionary movements.

It is crucial to acknowledge the diversity of beliefs and interpretations within Italian Fascism, especially during the development of Fascist theory. Eco's point, which focuses on the association of martyrdom and heroism with Fascism, overlooks the origins and variations of this understanding within and beyond Fascism.

Furthermore, it is important to note that the concept of martyrdom and heroism is not exclusive to Fascism. Other ideologies also conceive of sacrifice, martyrdom, and heroism as means to achieve political objectives. Eco's argument, therefore, displays a lack of understanding of the broader historical context and fails to recognize that these ideals are present across various ideologies.

“A civilization must exalt a tradition of heroism. This it may do in war or pyramid building. Liberalism never glorified heroism in theory but, in its frontier empire-building days, it exemplified heroism in its practice.”

— Lawrence Dennis, Dynamics on War and Revolution

XII - Machismo and Weaponry

“As Italian and Fascist women you have particular duties to perform: you must be the custodians of the hearths. You must give with your vigilant attention, with your unfailing love, the first imprint on the offspring that we desire to be numerous and vigorous... Fascist women! For its action of national and social assistance that must go from the cities to the fields, the Regime has counted and is counting on you.“

— Benito Mussolini, seech in Rome, June 20, 1937

Proto-fascist systems, like D'Annunzio's proto-Fascism in Fiume and Marinetti's Futurist Fascism, promoted sexual liberation and equal rights for both men and women. The Charter of Carnaro, which represented progressive values, was influenced by these early fascist movements. Many former followers of D'Annunzio went on to support Mussolini's Fascist project.

It is important to acknowledge the existence of often-overlooked homosexual figures within the early stages of Fascism, such as Guido Keller. Additionally, the regime showed approval towards individuals like Federico Garcia Lorca.

Fascism, as a political movement, offered a vision of progress, which was compatible with feminism. This was evident in movements like the British Fascists, which closely resembled Italian Fascism, and pro-Fascist feminists like Mary Richardson and Mary Sophia Allen.

Fascism, both in Italy and globally, attracted former feminists who fought for equal rights for women under the banner of the ideology. Mussolini himself even attended feminist congresses in Rome. Fascism had a significant impact on influential women in the feminist movement in Italy, such as Ines Donati, whom Mussolini praised as a fierce Italian and indomitable fascist.

Interestingly, upon closer examination by historians, it becomes evident that policies labeled as oppressive or "anti-feminist" were often a result of the circumstances and requirements of the regime, rather than a rejection of feminism itself by the regime.

In Italian Fascism and Developmental Dictatorship, A. James Gregor argues that Fascists were not inherently opposed to feminism. He dismisses the notion that their positions can be explained by sexual frustration, latent homosexuality, or capitalist oppression. Fascist policies toward women were shaped by various circumstances and assessments of probability. In fact, the Fascist program of 1919 advocated suffrage rights for women, and early Fascist references to the Statute of Carnaro highlighted the inclusion of women's rights.

Until 1925, there was little evidence of an antifeminist stance in Fascist ideology or policy. In a traditionally male-dominated society like Italy, Fascist tendencies were somewhat progressive. The issue of women's rights garnered limited interest within the broader Italian revolutionary movement. However, by 1927, the situation changed. Mussolini implemented a population policy focused on encouraging large families, and unemployment became a persistent concern.

The collapse of the Italian economy during the international crisis of 1929 further influenced Fascist policy on women. With over one million Italians unemployed, a set of ideological and legislative orientations emerged, solidifying the Fascist position on women. The Fascist ideology emphasized the importance of the monogamous family as a means to foster disciplined and populous families. Emancipation of women was seen as counterrevolutionary, and women were encouraged to embrace complementary roles to men rather than competing with them.

Gregor suggests that Fascist policy on women was driven by impersonal concerns. Italy sought to become a powerful nation in a competitive world, necessitating a population of sixty million by the mid-twentieth century. The subsequent policy toward women was influenced by the declining birth rate between 1880 and 1922 and the belief that feminism played a significant role in this decline. The growing unemployment from 1927 onwards intensified the antifeminist tendencies within Fascism.

“Fascism may have been instrumental in removing women from the job market (the percentage of Italian women involved in extradomestic employment declined from 30 percent of the labor force in 1920 to 19 percent in 1931) , but the statistics are not unequivocal. Most industrial countries had experienced a decline in the employment of women after 1900. In Italy, Fascist policy may have contributed to this decline, but it is in no ways certain. On the other hand, in certain employment areas like teaching or in the fine arts, the number of women employed increased significantly during the Fascist period. All of which suggests that Fascist antifeminism was not particularly successful and may not have been pursued with any special application. In any event, Fascist anti-feminism was, at best, a subsidiary concern of Fascist social policy, and made its appearance largely as a consequence of concerns with a declining birthrate and rising unemployment.”

— A. James Gregor, Italian Fascism and Developmental Dictatorship

The inclusion of former suffragettes within Fascism was not uncommon. In Britain, for example, Oswald Mosley, leader of the British Union of Fascists (BUF), strongly advocated for the equal rights of women based on Fascist principles. Mosley emphasized the importance of honoring and elevating the position of women, rejecting the notion that being a wife and mother was inferior. Instead, he believed that these roles were significant human and racial functions that should be respected and encouraged. Fascism, according to Mosley, aimed to combat the false values of decadence through persuasion and leading by example, rather than through force.

Many authors have highlighted that Fascism emerged from a context of sexual liberation and a desire for progress. D'Annunzio's Fiume, while not a full-fledged Fascist state, can be seen as a precursor to Fascism. It sought to establish a society based on free love and gender equality. Contrary to claims made by Eco, the foundations of Fascism were not rooted in the rejection of these principles but rather in the pursuit of an ideal that embraced them.

“Gabriele D'Annunzio, who is not only a great poet but a great soldier, the first soldier of Italy, has dared to perform an act that scared our cowardly government. We salute the Hero and we promise you that we will obey his every nod... Every offense against Gabriele D'Annunzio, each act made against him, constitutes an attack on all the great deeds he has done; it is an attack on Italy itself. Long live D'Annunzio! Long live Italy! Long live Fiume!”

— Benito Mussolini - speech in Milan, September 13, 1919

Contrary to common misconceptions, Fascist Italy did not adopt a hostile stance towards homosexuals. There were no laws specifically in favor of or against homosexuality. The only notable actions related to homosexuality were the establishment of supposed "Islands" where individuals deemed undesirable, including some homosexuals, were sent.

Fascism recognized the equal value of both manhood and womanhood in the pursuit of improving the nation. It was believed that unity and synthesis could be achieved by embracing the contributions of both genders. In the spirit of building a strong Fascist nation, the recognition of the worth and potential of both men and women was crucial.

XIII - Selective Populism

The concept of "Everything Inside the State, Nothing Outside the State, Nothing Against the State" by Mussolini is often misunderstood. It refers to a doctrinal understanding of the origins of political notions, such as individual rights and ideas.

According to the Fascist conception, the State represents the People, akin to a single entity composed of different branches, much like a person with various body parts. While individuals have rights within the State, they do not have rights outside of it. It is important to recognize that individuals are part of something greater, but they should maintain their individuality. Fascism values the contributions of great individual men, as it believes that everyone has something to offer to society. This does not mean that the regime will adapt to individuals or vice versa, but rather that both will work together to achieve personal and national goals.

As an individual within Fascism, you have value, but you also have a duty since you benefit from the opportunities provided by the State. However, it is crucial to understand that Eco's claims and complaints lack a true understanding of the underlying meaning or accuracy of what he states.

Furthermore, Eco's claims are so broad that they can be applied to many other ideologies as well. These points are not exclusive to Fascist beliefs and can be found in anti-Fascist or non-Fascist regimes.

Contrary to popular belief, Fascism did engage in participatory activities. The regime implemented constant reforms based on consultations with the population. The main goal of Italian Fascism was to establish a Republic that involved the socialization of the means of production and participatory measures for workers. Rutilio Sermonti's work on socialization highlights the gradual approach of the Fascist revolution, aiming to evolve popular thinking in the desired direction. The path to socialization included phases such as trade union laws, the Carta del Lavoro, the establishment of corporations, the reform of political representation, and the reform of civil codes. Socialization was not a sudden breakdown or a return to the origins but a progressive step towards building an organized society within Fascism.

XIV - Ur-Fascism speaks Newspeak

“Fascism is thought of as well and it has a theory, which is an essential part of this historical phenomenon, and which is responsible in a great measure for the successes—that have been achieved. To the existence of this ideal content of Fascism, to the truth of this Fascist logic we ascribe the fact that though we commit many errors of detail, we very seldom go astray on fundamentals, whereas all the parties of the opposition, deprived as they are of an informing, animating principle, of a unique directing concept, do very often wage their war faultlessly in minor tactics, better trained as they are in parliamentary and journalistic manoeuvres, but they constantly break down on the important issues.”

— Alfredo Rocco, The Political Doctrine of Fascism

"Education involves free action, the vocation of our souls, the duty of humankind, an act which, more nobly than any other, allows the human being to actualize his superior nature. Animals do not educate themselves even when they raise their young. They do not form families, ethical organisms in which differentiated members organize themselves into systems. Human beings, on the other hand, freely and consciously, acknowledge our children as we do our parents and brothers as extensions of ourselves. In such circumstances we consciously develop our respective personalities and seek to assist in the development of the personality of others. In the human family, in society, in the city, in any community, we constitute but one collective spirit, with common needs that are satisfied through individual activity within a social matrix. If human beings are said to be political or social animals, one can also say that they are animals that educate."

— Giovanni Gentile, The Reform of Education

In the book Mussolini: A New Life, it is highlighted that between 1923 and 1936, there was a significant increase in the number of students in primary, secondary, and tertiary education in Fascist Italy. The regime recognized the importance of freedom of speech and criticism among young Fascists, as they were seen as crucial in creating a new ruling class. During the 1930s, the youth enjoyed more freedom of expression than adult Italians. They openly discussed ideas such as the ownership of means of production by the corporate state.

Contrary to the Nazis, who idealized a mythical Aryan past and rejected the modern, Fascism believed in progress and embraced the modern. Fascist Italy did not engage in book burnings or bans on modern art.

Eco's claim that Fascists were anti-education and anti-intellectual is unfounded and amusing. In fact, the Fascist regime placed great emphasis on education and intellectual development. The reform of education was a significant aspiration of Fascism, and the regime produced Nobel Prize winners and fostered complex intellectual discussions. Gentile, influenced the regime's policies and inspired intellectuals like R. G. Collingwood.

Fascism encouraged critical thinking and diversity of opinion, as long as it did not lead to subversion or divisive acts. The regime aimed for an Ethical Totalitarian Dream, but it also recognized the importance of different thinkers and currents within its sphere. While there were divisions and disagreements within the movement, the creed of Fascism allowed for unity among diverse perspectives.

It is important to acknowledge the complexity and diversity of thought within Fascism, as well as the endorsement of intellectual engagement and the pursuit of different paths to achieve its goals.

“The most obvious schism within Fascism was between Farinacci and Bottai; between intransigentismo and revisionismo. Mussolini said that they were merely 'Two keys on the same piano’ but Bottai’s Critica Fascista said that while he was Fascism’s ‘Holy Water’ Farinacci was its ‘Devil’. Bottai did not believe that the party should control the state but that it should connect the state with the nation via its officials who should be elected by members and enjoy complete freedom of speech. There were many other currents of opinion within Fascism — the unions, the ex-nationalists, the fiancheggatori — notably described in an article in Critica Fascista in 1925 as ‘The Five Souls of Fascism’ — each one more or less at odds with the other.”

— Nicholas Farrell, Mussolini: A New Life

Ultimately, Fascism's ability to encompass diverse currents of thought, whether nationalist or internationalist, lies in its constant pursuit of actualizing its doctrine while refusing to establish a rigid reality. This inherent need for adaptation and evolution allows Fascism to maintain a broad framework that can accommodate a variety of perspectives.

Within Fascism, there is a recognition of the importance of internal feedback mechanisms. This acknowledgment is evident in the numerous discussions and schools of thought that emerged, focusing on praxis and theoretical interpretation. This diversity of ideas is what sets Fascism apart and contributes to its uniqueness.

From theories of Universal Fascism to the Fascist School of Mysticism, the regime itself endorsed and fostered a range of thought. This endorsement served the purpose of advancing the permanent revolution that Fascism sought to achieve. By allowing for a variety of perspectives, Fascism aimed to continuously push for new ideas and approaches, ensuring its ongoing development and evolution.

“When it is written that we are the white guard for the bourgeoisie, it is the vilest of lies. I defended, and I state this with full conviction, workers' progress. Amongst the principal causes for the fall of Fascism I blame the deaf and merciless fight of certain financial and industrial groups who, in their mad egoism, feared and hated Fascism as the worst enemy of their inhuman interests. I must say for the purpose of justice, that the Italian capital, the part which is legitimate and holds itself up with the ability of its industry, has always understood the needs of society, even when they required sacrifice to address new labour terms. The humble folk of labour have always loved me and love me still... Nobody will be able to erase twenty years of Fascism from Italy's history. I have no illusion regarding my fate. They will not give me a trial, because they know that from a defendant I would become a prosecutor. They will probably murder me and then claim that I committed suicide, overcome by remorse. He who fears death has never lived, and I have lived, perhaps even too much. Life is nothing more than an intersection between two eternities: the past and the future. As long as my star shone, I was enough for all. Now that it fades, everybody is not enough for me. I will go where destiny will want me because I always did what fate requested of me.

Fascists who will remain faithful to principles will need to be exemplary citizens. They must respect the laws that the people will give, and cooperate loyally with legitimate authorities to help them heal, as quickly as possible, the fatherland's wounds. Whomever will behave differently will demonstrate that he no longer supports the fatherland when he has to serve it from below. Fascists, in other words, will have to act out of passion, not resentment. Their behaviour will depend on a speedier historical rehabilitation of Fascism. Because now it is night, but later, day will break... Today I forgive those who don't forgive me and condemn me, thereby condemning themselves. I think of all those to whom it will be denied for years to love and suffer for the fatherland, and I would like them to feel not only witnesses of a defeat, but also bearers of a rebirth...”

— Benito Mussolini, Last Testament