‘The conditions in which authoritarian states emerged were mainly determined by

economic factors’. Discuss with reference to two authoritarian states (15)

Economic factors play a major role in any nation and as authoritarian states rise and fall
throughout history it’s clear that they are dependent on this factor to be in their favour. Some
historians argue that this was the case with Mussolini’s rise to power in Italy and the
establishment of a Communist China under Mao. It’s argued that in Italy Mussolini depended on
the economic inequality in the North and South while Mao recruited the peasants of China.
However, it can also be argued that the leadership of the individuals played a larger role. An
example is Mussolini convincing the King only he could control the blackshirts or Mao
developing a model of communism which fit China’s circumstances. Another factor to consider
is the unpopularity of the previous governments, however, this isn’t as significant as leadership
as Mussolini and Mao exploited this. If they hadn’t been there instead of that government may
have been voted out or overthrown by more liberal groups. With this in mind, it can be stated
that the leadership skills of Mussolini and Mao were the most significant factor in the rise of a
Communist China and Fascist Italy.

Economic factors were significant to the rise of Italy and China as authoritarian states but it
wasn’t the most significant factor. It can be argued that in Italy the North-South divide inevitably
created conditions for a new leader to take over. The mass majority of the South didn’t support
a centralized Italian rule as they didn’t see the outside interference in the Duchies and kingdoms
as an issue. Instead, they had to now share an economy which was focused in the industrial
North, who paid little attention to the South. As a result living conditions were horrible for the
farmers and their family and many starved. The only time they did get the attention from the
Italian government was when they went on mass protest, but these protests were often
suppressed by the military or police. Although it’s clear here that the divide allowed for a new
leader to step up Mussolini’s leadership skills were needed in order to exploit this divide. Had he
not been there it’s possible another faction would’ve been allowed to take over simply because
they waited long enough. In the case of China, it can be argued that due to the GMD’s support
being primarily based in cities and the South, it can be argued that the condition of China’s
peasants would’ve been eventually used by the Communist party. Proof of this is that the CCP
who had been influenced by the 28 Bolsheviks at the time had decided to keep Mao in the party
primarily due to his knowledge of Chinese peasants. While this may have been the case if the
CCP had remained under Bolshevik influence the peasants would’ve had an entirely different
purpose; to overthrow the feudal society and turn China into an industrial notion, in accordance
to Karl Marx’s theory. Mao accelerated this process with his own version of Communism and
saw the Chinese peasants as Communists instead of a stepping stone into the next stage of
society. It’s because of this manipulation of economic factors by the leaders which allowed for
their respective authoritarian states to rise.

Continuing from the previous paragraph, it was the leadership skills of both Mao and Mussolini
which was the most significant factor in their rise to power, although their styles of leadership
were completely different. While economic factors were significant only Mussolini was able to
exploit this. First, he moved his party in a more popular direction, attracting veterans and
farmers who felt they had been left behind while they were at war. He ensured he didn’t lose the
support of Italy’s elite, who feard the PSI would take away their land and riches. Mussolini
learned to always adapt to the conditions of his country and without this ability economic factors
would be nowhere near as important. Another example of his ability to adapt was in 1922 during
the March on Rome. He knew it was a dangerous move and if he failed he would have to flee.
So instead he brokered a deal with the Italian King; He would be elected as prime minister and
in response, he would control his Squadristi. While it wasn’t the victory his men wanted it was
still a victory which they celebrated. Mao had a different method of coming to power but his
leadership skills still trumped over China’s economic conditions. While Mao depended on
impoverished peasants to become communist as a result of the GMD’s economic policies it was
Mao who had the ability to harness their potential. Bolshevik communism clearly outlined that it
was the working class, not the peasants that would overthrow the Bourgeoisie and that China
was still stuck in a semi-feudal state. Mao didn’t believe this so instead he took to eliminating
those who believed this. He would decimate supporters of the 28 Bolsheviks and ensured he
was a valuable asset to the CCP. In the Yan’an Soviet, he then came up with Maoism, which fit
China’s condition. It was here he split the CCP from the Soviet Union and here he began using
the peasants to their full potential, with more and more becoming Communist after realizing they
had a place in the organization. Soon the Red Army swelled in size and the CCP became a
major power in China once more. This shows that without Mao economic conditions couldn’t
have been exploited to their full extent by other leaders of the CCP like the 28 Bolsheviks.

Some historians argue that it was instead the previous government which was responsible for
the emergence of a Fascist Italy and Communist China. In Italy, the liberal government had
failed to “make Italians” out of the people. Most of the liberal government had been corrupt and
over the years it existed. The ability to vote spread slowly through the population and their North
centric policies upset the poor South. They failed to gain the support of the Catholic Church and
thus the entire Catholic population of Italy. Even when they attempted to unify Italy with a
successful war the conscripts they used didn’t see the reason for invading Ethiopia, nor did they
want to leave their homes and farms. To make matters worse the disastrous Battle of Adwa
signalled the Italian’s defeat. These conditions arguably made it so Italy needed a leader to take
over and “make Italians”. Mussolini was this leader but he wouldn’t have made it far if he wasn’t
able to control the Squadristi, or if he hadn’t made his party nationalistic. In the case of China,
after Sun-Yat Sen’s death in 1925 and Chiang Kai Shek took over he proceeded with a violently
anti-Communist policy. He saw them as “a disease of the heart” and took every action he could
against them. This eventually led to him neglecting the Japanese threat, allowing them to invade
Manchuria while he pursued his encirclement campaigns against the Communists. The situation
became so dire his supporters were forced to kidnap him and force him to take action against
Japan. Through this, the GMD began losing support and eventually the Chinese Communist
became strong enough to take over, as evident in the Sino-Japanese war where most Chinese
who wanted to fight joined the Communists who were far more effective and popular. Despite
this without Mao as part of the CCP, the CCP would have likely been destroyed. It was Mao
who at Jiangxi realized the situation they were in and his skills as a tactician ensured that the
CCP could escape and re-establish themselves in Yan’an. It was also Mao who was able to
draw so many peasants to join the Red Army, giving them enough soldiers to challenge the
GMD.

In terms of whether economic factors determined the rise of authoritarian states in China and
Italy, it can be stated that it was instead the leadership of individual leaders and their ability to
exploit their circumstances such as the impoverished peasants in China or the need to control
the Squadristi in Italy. It was the economic factors and the state of the previous government
which provided for those exploitable circumstances.