Discuss the reasons for collapse of liberal democracy in Italy after the First

World War?

Modern Italy became a nation-state belatedly, following centuries of existence as

a collection of smaller kingdoms and city-states; on March 17, 1861, when most
of the states of the peninsula were united under king Victor Emmanuel II of the
Savoy dynasty, which ruled over Piedmont. The architects of Italian unification
were Count Camillo Benso di Cavour, the Chief Minister of Victor Emmanuel,
Giuseppe Garibaldi, a general and national hero, and Giuseppe Mazzini, a political
visionary and leader of the radical democratic faction in the movement for Italian
unificatication (Risorgimento).With the annexation of Venetia (1866) and Rome
(1870), the Italian unification was complete. However, the crucial role played by
French and Prussian armies had resulted in a sense of national shame. The
unification of Italy symbolized the realization of Cavour's programme of the
expansion of Piedmontese power which was accompanied by jubilation along
with a sense of betrayal. Many people felt that unification didn't live up to the
hopes of Risorgimento. Moreover, the making of Italy was not followed by the
making of Italians. Many inhabitants were indifferent to the unification or
alienated by the new state. Italy was also beset by deep seated regionalism and
provincialism born out of centuries of division and subordination. North-south
divide was the hallmark of unified Italy. The myth of the fertile south had
weakened national feeling. Once reality was observed, it was assumed that South
would take north downhill along with it. The south, with its poverty stricken,
illiterate agrarian population, deep sense of parochialism, had a tradition of
peasant insurrection and deep antagonism towards all forms of centralizing
authority or state, which was manifested in the tradition of private justice (mafia,
camorra). South felt north was favoured. The southerners had a deep sense of
hostility and often felt a sense of exploitation by the north, which was
industrialized and had relatively flourishing agrarian society because of
favourable climate. The imposition of Piedmontese administration on south was
detested and as a result many revolts had also broken out in 1860s. The liberal
government because of financial constraints and political reasons was apathetic
to bridge the north-south divide and thus was unable to integrate the masses with
the state. The church did not acknowledge the newly created state. The pope had
issued a ban on participation in polities. Many Italians, particularly the peasants,
for whom religion was an integral part of their life, often suffered form conflict of
consciousness as far as participation in polities and political activities, was
concerned. Adrian Lyttelton points out that further demobilization of the
electorate was a result of the limitations on the electorate (uptill 1846),
corruption and apathy of large number of voters. According to him Italy only had
an artificial democracy. It was the government which made the elections, not the
election the government. Clearly, the Italians were glad to sacrifice electoral
freedom for some order, discipline, and deeper "sense of the state" which they felt
themselves to lack. The base of liberal government was quite narrow until the
introduction of universal manhood suffrage under Giolitti which increased the
number of voters to eight million from half a million and initiated a trend of mass
politics.

Unification was a result of the efforts of a minority (elites) and hence the political
system that emerged was essentially elitist in nature; based on an alliance
between the northern industrialist and the southern landowners. The new
centralized Italian state based on the statute of 1848 granted a constitutional
monarchy with a bicameral legislature. The ministers were responsible to the
king, and not to the parliament, and there was no sense of collective
responsibility. 1848 statute could be stretched to cover monarchy, paternalism,
enlightened liberalism, parliamentary dictatorship and mass democracy. There
was no solid tradition of liberal government. R.Bonghi says Italy lacked essential
prerequisite of English parliamentary government like widespread political
education, a sense of social responsibility and a strong middle class. The special
character of parliament was that diverse groups were held together by lose ties.
In 1861 convention had settled that the ministers should normally be an
expression of the majority in house. This was to give birth to 'transformism'
according to which parliamentary managers were to create majorities in the
parliament by shifting political alliances. System of coalition depended on the
popular "circulation of elites". Each prime minister depended on coalition of
various elements; the difference lay almost solely in emphasis. The results of
these coalition-based polities were that it inhibited growth of a clear cut party
system and an organized opposition. Every government was coalition, for no
group was ever powerful enough on its own. This usually meant that when any
real division or clash of principle emerged, it was driven underground in order to
prevent the breaking up of majority like the way in which half a dozen successive
cabinets after 1919 avoided the whole issue of fascism. This was possible due to
the existence of extreme views, ultraconservative or republican, communist or
fascist, which wanted to alter the whole politics, and against which the group of
the center had to try to combine. Italian politicians, it was argued, were too
individualistic, perhaps too sensitive to criticism, to form parties of any size or
durability. This led to a pattern of parliamentary dictatorship and which was
different only in degree whether under Cavour, Cripi, Giolitti, or even under
Mussolini. The deputies themselves were grateful when a man of action cut
through their interminable debates, arbitrated their conflicting views and
relieved them of responsibility for unpopular measures.

One interesting constitutional custom was that a prime minister would not
normally wait for defeat in either house before resigning. The decade 1891-1900,
ministries invariably resigned with waiting for a parliamentary vote against them.
The king was thereby at least left more freedom in choosing a successor,
"unhampered" by a parliamentary decision. Ever since 1860 the centralization of
government had proceeded apace, without a parallel development in
representative institution to ensure the essential freedom and enough public
criticism. The senate rarely showed independence, and subserviently came to
heel at the mere threat of nomination and infornata or "overfull" of new senators,
in the lower house a skillful premier could usually build a majority by the
patronage emanating form the ministries of the interior and public works.

The reputation of parliament naturally suffered when the process of government

could be thought of as a succession of administrative edicts, and the function of
deputies as mainly to talk and hinder. Parliamentary prestige also suffered when
the bank scandals revealed how much government had been connected with the
Banca Romana and so were presumably the mouth-pieces of corrupt financial
interests. So far removed were these so-called representative form productive life
of the nation that in 1900 only eight of them called themselves agriculturist and a
dozen declared themselves engaged in the industry. Hence, the reputation of the
house was that of a parasite community.

As late as the 19th century, Italian society was agrarian. Italy lagged far behind
the advanced nations in terms of railway networks, coal production, industries
and had a weak financial structure. It lacked even the necessary mineral sources
for industrialization. Conjoined with a backward economy which was a major
cause of extreme poverty was the scandalous level of illiteracy. There was a
continued lack of a widely diffused culture. In science, letters, industry, commerce
and education Italy was lagging behind other civilized powers but still thought
she was better than them. This was another fundamental problem - that of gaining
respect among the nations.

In 1881 France seized the north African territory of Tunisia from Italy which was
an Italian zone of influence. Italy as a result joined the Austro-German alliance.
This undermined the issue of Trentino and Trieste which were Italy's principle
Terre Irredente (unredeemed lands) and were the prime object of Italian patriotic
passion. Crispi to turn away attention from internal problems launched a colonial
attack on Abyssinia in 1896 for which she was unprepared and led to the
humiliation of Adowa. This greatly aggravated national shame.

In 1898-1900-conservative groups with an authoritarian stamp undertook a

campaign to reverse the trend towards parliamentary sovereignty as a result of
clear failures of the parliamentary regime. The heart of the effort was "exceptional
laws" proposed by general Pelloux who proposed an alternative of a strong
executive, above corruption, and the law, to suppress unrest at home and assert
Italy on the international scene. The constitutional crisis appears to benefit Italy
as it was thought to be a new beginning for the new and improved parliament.
After 1900 there was a return of prosperity -wages rose, tariff war with France
ended, use of electricity increased but concentration of industry in north became
more pronounced. The turn of the century, brought Giolitti to power, who was to
dominate Italian politics till the war and introduced many progressive reforms.
Some scholars however, point out that these were too less and self serving. He
ignored the problem of south and used it as a power base as the law of 1912 was
to control the vote of southern peasantry. So he basically perpetuated the old,
trained methods which after expectation for something new, disappointed the
people.

Meanwhile Italian national association was found in 1910 and it aspired to

conquer Libya which led to Italo-Turkish war of 1911-12 ended in victory for
Italy. But nationalist demanded extension of war and criticized the peace treaty
which gave Libya to Italy. Moreover, criticism against the inadequacy of the liberal
politicians increased. Questions such as what do, they know of national honor
who are so mercenary in their business and debate all day but take no swift action,
were raised.

With the out break of the First World War the liberal government decided Italy's
neutrality because Austria had broken the terms of the alliance by declaring war
on Serbia without first informing Italy. The nationalist believed that the war
would offer Italy an opportunity to grab more land and make its mark as a great
power. While the national socialist (syndycalist) believed war would hasten
revolution. The interventionist set up the Fasci Di Azione Rivoluzionaria,
organized many street demonstration and demanded Italian involvement in the
war. Syndicalist socialist interpreted the ww1 as an ideological, was between the
right (Germany) and left (Anglo-French). Moreover, fight for nation would
integrate Italian workers into the state. An amalgamation of factors such as king's
favor for Italy's entry in war, Fasci demonstration, the selfish interest of some
industrialist, and of politicians like Salandra who calculated that the war would
by short, will lead to Italy's transformation and most importantly will create a
national consensus around his party which would help to defeat the liberals,
finally led to Italy's entry in war. In addition, the treaty of London (1915) which
was negotiated at the king's behest, had bound Italy to the Anglo- French block.

But Italy was not prepared for the war. War shortages, restrictions affected the
morale of the people and caused a lot of misery. The defeat at Caporetto in October
1917 was to cause further disgrace. And though the war saw some genuine
idealism, patriotism and united the country like never before, Italy emerged form
the war economically, politically and internationally weaker. War was anyway not
popular among the people and caused tremendous financial drain (industrial
effort, multiplied state expenditure, inflation, wages lagging behind the raising
price index, unemployment) and widened social disparities because of
profiteering by some people in the course of war and intensification of north-
south dichotomy.

During the war D'Annunzio had distinguished himself in the most improbable
fashion. In September 1919, when the Peace Settlement awarded Dalmatia to the
new Yugoslavia, D'Annunzio along with his troops occupied Fiume and
established himself there for fifteen months. He was applauded as a hero by the
nationalists. However in the elections of 1919 there was still not much support
for the nationalists as the socialist emerged the biggest party and catholic
popolari as the second largest. But D'Annunzio kept the nationalist grievances
in the forefront and exposed the futility of the government in foreign matters. The
nationalist fashioned the myth of "mutilated victory". In reality, Italy received
most of what it wanted with exception (Fiume and Dalmatian) and was
territorially richer by 9000 square miles. But they still accused the liberal
government of allowing Italy to be deceived and talked of allied betrayal.

The general frustration among all classes due to post was depression led to a wave
of strikes in 1919 and 1920 (Bienno Rosso or the Two Red Years) that sank the
government's prestige even lower. In many areas especially in the north, the
Socialists took control of the local government. The industrialist and landowner,
and the middle class in general began to anticipate a communist revolution and
favored tough repression. The government headed by Giolitti working on the
premise that the worker was less dangerous in the factories than they would be
on the streets and that their militancy would soon decline, urged employers and
landowner to make some concessions. He also set up food committees to control
distribution and prices in view of food riots. The threat of bolshevism was felt
throughout the country and government inaction had failed to provide any sense
of security to the upper classes.

A.Cassels points out that the threat of revolution in Italy was illusionary. There
was no master plan for revolution, peasants and workers acted without
premeditation and on local basis; there was no real cooperation between the
strikers in one town with other. PSI failed to give national organization and fought
among themselves. Lenin even said Italian proletariat movement was too
immature for a revolution. Moreover revolutionary sentiment and disorder
waxed and waned in accord with the fluctuations of the Italian economy and so
by the last quarter of 1921 the worst post war depression was over and so was
the worst of the proletarian unrest. But the myth of the threat of revolution was
to be exploited by the fascist to come to power.

This was a period of dark reactions against liberalism all over Europe, of Marxist
calls for revolution, of imperialist claims and of rising nationalism. Frailty in
domestic policy and foreign affairs left a power vacuum at the heart of Italian
politics that gave Mussolini his opportunity. The twin myths of mutilated victory
and threat of red revolution pushed Italy into the embrace of fascism. And thus in
the early part of the 20th century, that E. J. Hobsbawn calls the 'Age of
Catastrophe', witnessed the shocking collapse of the liberal order and emergence
of new forces in Italy-nationalism and fascism. The history of fascism remains a
bitterly contested area. A number of scholars do try to subsume the history of
fascism in the biography of Mussolini, while others consider fascism as a direct
outgrowth of Italian history. However, as Cassels puts it, the truth lies between
the two extremes. Also it is very rare that any two theorists, even if they belong
to a single school actually agree completely.

Mussolini was born in Romagna, a place renowned for its tradition of rebellion
against constituted authority. He was an ardent socialist from a young age and
worked as the editor of the socialist journal Avanti! However, when Mussolini
switched from anti-war to pro-war in November 1914, the other Socialist Party
leaders immediately claimed that he had been bought off by the bourgeoisie. But
any notion that Mussolini sold out is more far-fetched than the theory that Lenin
seized power because he was paid by the German government to take Russia out
of the war. As one of the paramount figures of the Italian left, Mussolini had it
made. He was taking a career gamble at very long odds by provoking his own
expulsion from the Socialist Party, in addition to risking his life as a front-line
soldier. There were various reasons for Mussolini turning into an interventionist.
The socialist party stuck to the principles of revolutionary internationalism,
condemned the world war as an inter-imperialist conflict and urged the workers
and government to stay neutral. However, in 1914 Mussolini took a dramatic
political u-turn as a result of the failure of socialist internationalism. Also
continued inaction was to aid the central powers. But most importantly the war
revealed the intimate ties, which bound the working class to the national
bourgeois. Mussolini realized that men were mobilized into action not by class
interests alone but by psychological and moral considerations transcending them.
The proletariat identified with the nation. Mussolini had finally discovered the
most portentous reality of the twentieth century-the nation (Gregor).

Many historians claim that the March 23, 1919 meeting at the Piazza San
Sepolcro was the historic "birthplace" of the fascist movement. However, this
would imply that the Italian Fascists "came from nowhere" which is simply not
true Etymologically, the use of the word Fascism in modern Italian political
history stretches back to the 1890s in the form of fasci, which were radical left-
wing political factions that proliferated in the decades before World War
I.D'Annunzio in Fiume had already devised much of the ideology and inaugrated
the whole ritual of nascent fascism. However in the elections of 1919 fascism did
not even win a single seat.

In 1919, the fascists had developed a program that called for a democratic
republic, separation of church and state, progressive taxation for inherited
wealth, and development of co-operatives or guilds to replace labor unions,
universal suffrage for both sexes and proportional representation, land for
peasants, national syndicalism. and so on. From this programme the fascist seem
close to the left. But they also glorified war and colonial expansion which linked
them with the nationalists. Early fascists demonstrated a willingness to do
whatever was necessary to achieve their ends, and easily shifted from left-wing
to right-wing positions as suited their purposes. For this reason A.L.Lyttelton
refuses to acknowledge that fascism had an ideology and argues that fascism
resorted to mere opportunism. The early fascist did not possess a systematic
doctrine of how to organize social and political relations. None the less it was
marked by a particular mentality. Fascist ideology was composite and unstable
functional synthesis of the needs of various social groups. The ideology did not
make the movement but in course of the movement the ideology was formed.
However the difference in action and doctrine does not make ideology redundant.
Fascism, in many respects, is an ideology of negativism: anti-liberal, anti-socialist,
anti-Communist, anti-democratic, anti-egalitarian, etc., and in some of its forms
anti-religion. As a political and economic system in Italy, it combined elements of
corporatism, totalitarianism, nationalism, and anti-communism. But fascism as a
doctrine is a product of many hands unlike the assertion of some scholars who
give Mussolini the sole credit for the formation of fascist ideology.

From his earliest years as a Marxist revolutionary, Mussolini had been

sympathetic to syndicalism, and then an actual Syndicalist. From 1902 to 1914,
Italian revolutionary syndicalism underwent a rapid evolution. Always opposed
to parliamentary democracy, Italian syndicalists, under Sorel's influence, became
more committed to extra-constitutional violence and the necessity for the
revolutionary vanguard elite to ignite a conflagration. Many syndicalists lost faith
in the revolutionary potential of the working class. Seeking an alternative
revolutionary recipe, the most "advanced" of these syndicalists began to ally
themselves with the nationalists and to favor war. Tasks of Italy were largely
bourgeosie in the senses that national integration had to be completed and its
masses had to be mobilized for nation building. For the revolution to begin it was
important that capitalism reaches its full stage. Two avant-garde artistic
movements which contributed to the Fascist worldview were Futurism and
Vorticism. Futurism was the brainchild of Filippo Marinetti, who eventually lost
his life in the service of Mussolini's regime. It lauded the esthetic value of speed,
intensity, modern machinery, and modern war (cult of violence). Vorticism was a
somewhat milder variant of Futurism.

A general trend throughout revolutionary socialism from 1890 to 1914 was that
the most revolutionary elements laid an increasing stress upon leadership, and
downplayed the autonomous role of the toiling masses. This elitism was a natural
outcome of the revolutionaries' ardent wish to have revolution and the stubborn
disinclination of the working class to become revolutionary (influence of ideas of
Mosca and Pareto and Marx). The fascist moral ideal, upheld by writers from Sorel
to Gentile, is something like an inversion of the caricature of a Benthamite liberal.
The fascist ideal man is not cautious but brave, not calculating but resolute, not
sentimental but ruthless, not preoccupied with personal advantage but fighting
for ideals, not seeking comfort but experiencing life intensely. The early Fascists
did not know how they would install the social order which would create this
"new man," but they were convinced that they had to destroy the bourgeois
liberal order which had created his opposite. The nation was the myth which
could unite the productive classes behind a drive to expand output. Fascist
ideology, largely the work of the neo-idealist philosopher Giovanni GENTILE,
emphasized the subordination of the individual to a "totalitarian" state that was
to control all aspects of national life. Social Darwism with its emphasis on the
survival of the fittest also justified aggressive features of fascism. Influence of
Henri Bergson (rejected the scientism, mechanical evolution and materialism of
Marxist ideology) can also be discerned. The fascist concept of corporatism and
particularly its theories of class collaboration and economic and social relations
are very similar to the model laid out by Pope Leo XIII's 1892 encyclical Rerum
Novarum. The document criticized capitalism, complaining of the exploitation of
the masses in industry. However, it also sharply criticized the socialist concept of
class struggle, and the proposed socialist solution to exploitation (the elimination,
or at least the limitation, of private property). G.Sorel believed in the application
of myth to galvanize masses into action and in his Reflections on Violence
introduce Italy to the cult of violence. Violence as a creative force was an
important aspect of the Fascist philosophy. G. Pappini emphasized the role of
myths in electrifying masses. Nietzsche elaborated on the idea of the "superman"
who symbolized man at his most creative and highest intellectual capacity. Hegel
justified war to unify the state. E. Corradini stressed on the necessity to borrow
elements of socialism and the importance of irrational politics which believes in
nationalism as a religion.

Fascism was undoubtedly a product of the neo-romantic movement and appealed

is to emotions rather than ideas. It relies on hymn-singing, flag-waving, and many
other forms of anti-rationalism proliferated throughout the nineteenth century.
According to fascist, humans are not solely or even chiefly motivated by rational
calculation but more by intuitive "myths" (practical anti-rationalism). Mussolini
was adaptable enough to embody in himself many of these diverse elements, and
this was why he remained head of the party. The fascist leader might be
republican or monarchist, socialist or conservative, catholic or Masonic,
Anarchical. Mussolini was above all a realist and adapted himself to the political
realities of the time. Fascist nationalism was also different from the liberal
conservative nationalism of the elites. It was revolutionary as based on political
sovereignty (everything was done in the name of the people), aggressive as
wanted expansionism and cultural as aimed to form a national Italian identity.
The statement "Everything in the state, nothing against the state, nothing outside
the state" sums up their view towards the state. The advent fascist culture was
important as to unite all Italians in the new faith. Therefore, so many cultural
movements were made a part of fascist culture-whatever it took to allure the
people. Fascist convinced that politics required principal responses to particular
problems. There ideology was also developmental as they aimed at
comprehensive socio-economic change.

Generally fascism was popular amongst the lower class but by the time fascism
came to power it was supported by various classes for different reasons. Many
moderate men had psychological and economic reasons for welcoming a
movement of revolt and adventure which was directed against anarchic socialism.
Ardity (demobilized soldiers) who found it hard to return to office life discovered
in squadristi outlet for the same discipline. Fascism for them meant that desired
thing, a uniform, as it also often polled a job in either the well-stocked party
hierarchy or the squads. Many of the white-collar unemployed also therefore
joined the nationalist, the futurists, the violence-loving sydicalists, and those
malcontents with a grudge to settle. Many peasants had a permanent grudge
against the liberals who in sixty years power had done so little for their welfare.
There were landlords who wanted strikes broken and their tenants and laborers
kept in order, and there were shopkeeper who would have liked to end the
competition form socialist co-operative.

Fascism was to have a large following among men of property. Industrialist in

general wanted as strong government to force through a new strike law, to keep
wages low, and to raise tariffs for protection against the postwar slump, while
others had private information that the existing government monopolies in
railroads, telephone, and insurance would be released by fascism to private
enterprises. Mussolini's first speech in parliament in June 1921 tried to wheedle
these people by saying that "the history of capitalism is only just beginning."

Support also came to him from the poorer middle classes whose fixed income was
rapidly depreciating due to the economic inflation and who thus became an
important revolutionary force. There were those patriots of every class who had
been humiliated by socialist opposition to the war and liberal "renunciation" of
the peace, many Catholics looked upon Mussolini as a defense against red
atheism, and the popularity had been won over to the idea of collaboration by
1922. Other groups were moved by their irritation at an incompetent and corrupt
parliament where people merely of jockeyed for place and let issues slide. To such
people fascism represented an efficient administration which would act more.

Fascist made use of the crisis of the two red years. The unrest of the two red years
had reached unprecedented levels and Mussolini offered to send in Squadre
d'azione (action squads) to put an end to factory and land occupations. The elites
frustrated and angered by the liberal government's stance of concessions and
inaction were only too pleased to give money to Mussolini's group in return for
the squadristi violence against the left's strike and occupations. The success of
Socialists, in the local election increased the fear of revolution for the elites. The
same fear united the parliament in a manner nothing had in the past. Benito
Mussolini exploited the threat of communism (which in a way was created by his
own movement). The fascist squadristi proved effective in suppressing mass
unrest and Squadristi violence continued and went unchecked even though the
threat of revolution has passed by 1921. With the treaty of Rapallo Mussolini's
political rival, D'Annunzio took a back seat, while the communists seceded from
the socialist party, weakening its position. As soon as there was a sign of stability
the fascist created unrest as there opportunity lay in the crisis.

The opportunism of Mussolini was seen when he signed a pact of pacification with
the socialist in August 1921. But Mussolini proved not to be strong enough to
swing his followers. The ras rebelled against making a pact with the very people
they had lately had been hired to massacre. Their rebellion against the leader was
apparently backed by the landowner and businessman who had the purse strings.
Mussolini momentarily had to resign from the executive of his fascist movement
and some regional meetings passed resolution to renounce his leadership
altogether. He was, however, too skillful a tactician not to be able to eat his word
almost at once, and at the fascist congress in Rome during November 1921 he
capitulated and buried this stillborn pact with socialism. Mussolini allowed the
movement to be transformed into the Fascist Party, and the squadristi or Action
Squads began to be incorporated as the Party Militia with special uniforms
(blackshirts), a process which was gradually completed by 1924.

There was government inaction and the liberals were moving closer to fascism as
there traditional enemies socialists and Catholics threatened there power. This
was a failure of perception and leadership on their part. The aristocratic nationals
provided an entry of fascist in the court circles. Fascist assault on basic rights was
justified as the only alternative to anarchy. But D.M.Smith states that post war
problems were everywhere but in Italy the ruling class was so bewildered that
they lost both control over events and confidence in themselves.

Giolitti created a National Bloc in the election campaign of May 1921. The
national Bloc United the Liberals, Nationalists and fascists, using the symbol of
the Fascio, the lictors'rods; the other competitors were the socialists, the Popolari
and the Communists. The elections gave the nationalists ten seats in the Chamber
and the Fascists thirty-five. The largest majority was that of the socialists. The
Third international called for a violent revolution because of which the socialist
party split into reformist and radical communist and this paved way for counter
revolution from the right. The Vatican pressed popolari to break from giolitti and
protect assets of Religious Corporation as a result of Giolitti's tax reforms. Giolitti
was accused as a dictator and all turn against him .He asked for full powers but
was refused because of rivalries, class interest and regional influences and so he
resigned. Giolitti's dissolution of the parliament 1921 proved to be a disastrous
error as it favoured the collusion with fascist and also alienated the popolari along
with strengthening the anti- parliamentary forces of the right. The popolari and
socialist were not reduced in numbers so the net result was to weaken the
democratic and liberal centre. With the resignation of Giolitti the parliament lost
a skilful leader. The government under Bonomi and Facta was hopelessly divided
and ineffective. The Bonomi government tried to restore peace but he wasn’t the
man of the situation .He was succeeded by the facta government which attempted
to appease the fascists and gain stability. However, the government under Facta
lacked authority and was unable to control the situation. There now existed a
power vacuum.

In the meantime, Mussolini was a deputy who hoped to achieve real power and
was determined to make full use of the opportunity. He now realized that he had
to convince the industrialists, landowners, and the middle classed of three things,
that the liberals were finished as an effective political force, that there was a real
threat of socialist revolution and that only the fascists were strongly enough and
determined enough to take the necessary action and restore order and dignity to
Italy. Mussolini was still enigma which everyone interpreted as they say.

At this moment (August 1922) of all moments a general strike was declared, a
last fatal example of the strike myth which had deluded Italian socialism for
twenty years. Mussolini launched an ultimatum that the fascists themselves
would break the strike if the government did not immediately intervene to stop
it. This enabled his gangs to pose as defenders of law and order and at the same
time offered an excellent chance to seize some of the important towns not yet
captured for fascism. Of these was Milan, the biggest prize of all, the brain center
of Italian socialism. To the satisfaction of the Corriere and many main
industrialists, Farinacci then ejected the socialist civic administration. The
commercial classes of Milan especially detested any transportation strike and
were therefore duly appreciative when the fascists took over trains and stations
and operated a reduced service for the public. Their gratitude undoubtedly took
a concrete monetary form. Among such people the fatal illusion was spreading
that Italy was on the edge of economic collapse and needed a savior. On 20th
September Mussolini grudgingly accepted monarchy this made the king feel more
secure towards the fascists.

The failure of Facta government led to the search of new ministry. October 24,
1922 Mussolini issued the call: "either they will give us the government or we
shall seize it by descending on Rome". The "March on Rome" was entrusted to the
quadrumvirate which reflected the diverse elements of leadership as it included
an extremist, nationalist, ultra conservative and syndicalist socialist. Throughout
October Mussolini negotiated with everyone in sight-Giolitti, Facta, Orlando,
Salandra and each was made to feel that fascist desired and needed them for the
new combinazione. As the coup unfolded on 28th October it was now clear that
fascist wanted a upper hand in the government. They didn't just want to enter
into office but wanted to control the office as well. Facta government was taken
by surprise at the first signs of fascist mobilization on 26th October and wanted
to proclaim the martial law to protect Rome but the king refuse to sign the
proclamation and in this he was acting against ministerial advice. A.lyttelton feels
that although the process of crisis narrowed the choices, fascist victory was not
inevitable even now. In the final stage a lot depended on the individual decision
and temperament of the king. But when all objective elements, the indecisiveness
of the government, partial success of the fascist tactics, fear of the Duke of Aosta
are added up along with considering temperament of the Victor Emmannuel (he
was a pessimist) the king decision to invite Mussolini to become the premiere on
October 30th can be justified; even though the king still wielded the loyalty of the
army which was enough to crush the fascists and the senate.

As much as the fascist latter portrayed the coming fascist to power as a coup
d'état, it can hardly be said that they took over the state by a violent revolution.
They received the backing of Giolitti, Bonami, Salandra. Before any of the fascist
squadristi reached Rome Mussolini had become the premier and thus the
transfer of power was very much within the legal framework. Mussolini was now
at the head of a wide coalition.

Although Italy's Prime Minister was a Fascist, Italy was not yet a Fascist state.
Mussolini's coalition government had only four Fascist in the cabinet and the
government was essentially, a nationalist – Italian popular party (P.P.I.) liberal
coalition. Mussolini took several measures to consolidate his authority. The
parliament gave him emergency powers for one year on his cause of creating a
untied and strong Italy. In order to increase his support among the conservative
elites he appointed the liberal Alberto de Stefani as finance minister who reduced
government controls on industry and trade and cut taxation. In December 1922,
in an attempt to tighten his grip over the party he established a Fascist grand
council which was declared as the Supreme decision making body. He insisted on
sole power over appointment to the council and was successful in persuading the
council to convert the fascist action squads into a national fascist militia funded
by government money. This step considerably reduced the power of the
provincial ras. Between April–June 1923, he worked to gain support from the
Catholic hierarchy and announced several measures including renouncing
atheism. In February 1923 he fused the Fascist Party with the Nationalist who
were proving competitive, particularly in the south. In the same year Giovanni
Gentile's educational reform became law; it was pleasing to the new Pope, Pius XI
because it made religious instruction compulsory in all the elementary state
schools. The Vatican thought fascism to be less dangerous than socialism. In the
early 1920s, the Catholic party in Italy (Partito Popolare) was in the process of
forming a coalition with the Reform Party that could have stabilized Italian
politics and thwarted Mussolini's projected coup. On October 2, 1922, Pope Pius
XI circulated a letter ordering clergy not to identify themselves with the Partito
Popolare, but to remain neutral, an act that undercut the party and its alliance
against Mussolini.

Old order still not overthrown and the ras were impatient. There was
Considerable tension within fascism for two years between the extremists and
the moderates. Meanwhile, Mussolini was successful in getting the Acerbo law
passed which was intended to give the fascists total control of Italian politics.
According to the law the party which was to get maximum votes (minimum 25%)
was to be automatically given 2/3rd of the seats of the Chamber of Deputies.
The elections of April 1924 witnessed systematic use of terror by the fascists who
managed to secure 65% of the votes.

In June Matteotti, a socialist leader was murdered. Matteotti's death precipitated

a crisis so acute that the king was almost obliged to dismiss Mussolini who was
indirectly responsible for the murder. Although administrative power was in his
hands Mussolini lost his confidence for months. By the end of the year he
recovered it partly because of the hopeless divisions among his enemies and the
industrialists were also opposed to another fresh beginning.

The Fascist extremists had been threatening of second Fascist revolution, and on
31st December, as part of their threat, thirty three Consuls of the Fascists Militia
went to Mussolini demanding all or nothing, it is said. Three days later on 3rd
January 1925. Mussolini accordingly made his famous speech in the Chamber in
which he assumed personal responsibility for all that had happened. From this
time onwards the other parties were suppressed, and his regime became one of
permanent dictatorship or, more simply of tyranny.

Rise of fascism has been perceived differently by the Marxist and the liberals.
Marxist ascribe generally to the theory of crisis of socialism. Marxism had
survived into a world which Marx had believed could not possibly exist. The
workers were becoming richer, the working class was fragmented into sections
with different interests, technological advance was accelerating rather than
meeting a roadblock, the "rate of profit" was not falling, the number of wealthy
investors ("magnates of capital") was not falling but increasing, industrial
concentration was not increasing, and in all countries the workers were putting
their country above their class. It was thus, the lack of the revolutionary capacity
on the part of the proletariat which permitted the political development of
fascism.

A.James Gregor has argued that Fascism is a Marxist heresy, a claim that has to be
handled with care. Marxism is a doctrine whose main tenets can be listed
precisely: class struggle, historical materialism, surplus-value, nationalization of
the means of production, and so forth. Nearly all of those tenets were explicitly
repudiated by the founders of Fascism, and these repudiations of Marxism largely
define Fascism. Yet however paradoxical it may seem, there is a close ideological
relationship between Marxism and Fascism. Mussolini remained a radical and
saw himself as a revolutionary. Fascism in its belief, in a revolutionary elite
leading the masses, with its own particular vision of revolution, was a close kin of
the Jacobins of the French revolution of for that matter the Bolsheviks. In power,
the actual institutions of Fascism and Communism tended to converge.
Intellectually, ►Fascists differed from Communists in that they had to a large
extent thought out what they would do, and they then proceeded to do it, whereas
Communists were like hypnotic subjects, doing one thing and rationalizing it in
terms of a completely different and altogether impossible thing. ► Fascists
preached the accelerated development of a backward country. Communists
continued to employ the Marxist rhetoric of world socialist revolution in the most
advanced countries, but this was all a ritual incantation to consecrate their
attempt to accelerate the development of a backward country. ►Fascists
deliberately turned to nationalism as a potent myth. Communists defended
Russian nationalism and imperialism while protesting that their sacred
motherland was an internationalist workers' state. ►Fascists proclaimed the end
of democracy. Communists abolished democracy and called their dictatorship
democracy. ►Fascists argued that equality was impossible and hierarchy
ineluctable. Communists imposed a new hierarchy, shot anyone who advocated
actual equality, but never ceased to babble on about the equalitarian future they
were "building". ►Fascists did with their eyes open what Communists did with
their eyes shut. This is the truth concealed in the conventional formula that
►Communists were well-intentioned and Fascists evil-intentioned. The chief
contrast lay in the economic absolutism of the soviet Russian state, which had
replaced the entrepreneurs and the big landowners of Russia. (Wiskemann). But
if one characterizes fascism's first phase as libralist and the second a
thermidorian phase then this would apply to Bolshevism as well.

Another Marxist theory of rise of fascism is a reaction to the crisis of capitalism.

The general crisis of capitalism, which emerged after World War I as the
unavoidable result of the sharpening of imperialist contradictions, was a crisis of
the entire capitalist social system. Fascism is capitalism with the mask off. It's a
tool of Big Business, which rules through democracy until it feels mortally
threatened, then unleashes fascism. Mussolini and Hitler were put into power by
Big Business, because Big Business was challenged by the revolutionary working
class. The explanation is that Fascism deceived the masses by fiendishly clever
use of ritual and symbol. Hilferding wrote: "Finance capital does not want
freedom, but dominance; But in order to achieve this, to preserve its
overwhelming power and expand it further, it needs the state, which ensures its
command of the domestic market by way of import duties and tariff policies, a
powerful state which can promote its financial interests abroad, a state which can
intervene everywhere in the world in order to transform the entire world into an
investment sphere and finally, a state which is powerful enough to pursue
expansionary policies."

The backbone of Gregor's analysis of fascism is his concept of "reactive

developmental nationalism," In brief, reactive developmental nationalism
represents, according to Gregor, a tendency which emerges when a "nation" sees
the need to forge ahead economically in order to assert its national identity and
place in the sun, and when the progress toward this place in the sun seems
stymied by some foreign catastrophe or national embarrassment. The result is a
"reactive" authoritarianism, an attempt to develop the nation from the top down
and to adopt something like the "reactionary modernism". This view obviously
sees fascism clearly as a reactionary movement- a reaction to the backward
condition of Italy.

Renzo de Felicia in his work Universal fascism has shown that Italian fascism was
both right wing and revolutionary. He has distinguished between "Fascism –
Movement" and "Fascism regime" and has argued that while Mussolini's regime
was authoritarian and reactionary, within the "Fascism movement" there were
many who were animated by "a desire to renew and wanted something more
revolutionary by sweeping away the old ruling class to make way to newer and
dynamic elements – capable of fundamental changes." Though "Fascism –
movement" was overcome and eventually suppressed by "fascism regime" it did
constitute a political revolution in Italy since for the first time there was an
attempt to mobilize masses and to involve them in the political life of the country.
He however concedes that Mussolini's was a "failed revolution". He further adds
that fascism rose in a period of crisis which according to him Mussolini
personified .Thus, for him Mussolini was the "symbol of crisis". However, since
there is no final authority on what constitutes a true revolution (E. Weber) the
issue that Fascism was revolutionary or not, remains an open ended one.

The question of whether fascism was rooted in the left or epitomized the
right is again quite debated. While historians such as Gregor point of that
fascism was a movement largely rooted in the left. Its leaders and initiators were
secular-minded, highly progressive intellectuals, hard-headed haters of existing
society and especially of its most bourgeois aspects. However, others don't agree.
A.Gramsci writes that fascism was not just a body guard of the bourgeoisie but
also a social movement. The recruitment resources of Fascism lay essentially in
the urban petite bourgeoisie and new agrarian bourgeoisie but a variety of
circumstances had provided Fascism with an ideological unity that permitted the
movement to oppose the traditional political leaders with an ideological system
essentially anti liberal and potentially totalitarian. Walter Laqueur takes a middle
of the road position and states,"But historical fascism was always a coalition
between radical, populist ('fascist') elements and others gravitating toward the
extreme Right. While opposing communism and social democracy, fascism was
influenced by the theories of Gabriele D'Annunzio (a former anarchist), Alceste de
Ambris (influenced by anarcho-syndicalism), and Benito Mussolini(former
socialist). Also it maybe concluded that Fascism represented the force of new
(extreme) nationalism which in political terms lies somewhere between
communism and capitalism; in other words a political 'third force'.

In conclusion, fascism was a result of the crisis of confidence of the liberal

regime.The loss of government authority aggravated the economic crisis and
along with the crisis of public order and of parliament made solution more
difficult and fascist seemed to offer an answer. The elites in power failed to realize
that fascism was as much a threat to them as the socialist. Fascism could not have
come to power without the help of the elites. Fascist power rested on the
weakness of their opponents. If only the liberals could have united and acted
could the fascist be stoped but since they didn’t fascism attained power
practically without any hindrance. Mussolinni above all was a realist and craved
for power. And the liberals, socialists and democratic Catholics all played into his
hands. Mussolini was aware of the similarities between Soviet Russia and Fascist
Italy and indeed he fancied himself as the Lenin of Italy. Fascism changed
dramatically between 1919 and 1922, and again changed dramatically after 1922.
This is what we expect of any ideological movement which comes close to power
and then attains it. Bolshevism also changed dramatically, several times over.
Fascist also should be credited for a brilliant propaganda through mass media to
mobilize the masses and in being able to portray themselves as solution to Italy's
problems. Fascism however remained a movement of minority committed to
mobilize the inert masses. The 'One Party State' was a paradoxical novelty
borrowed by Fascism from Soviet Russia. A political group, misusing the liberal
conception of a free party, was able to extend its power to be equivalent to that of
an absolute monarch by destroying all rivals instead of debating with them. The
phraseology gave the new absolutism the appearance of popular support. Also
fascist ideology was a product of the neo romantic movement and appealed to the
basic instincts of man.

Bibliography
1. A.Cassels,Fascist Italy
2. A.Lytellton,The seizure of power
3. Walter laqueur,Fascism a reader's guide
4. E.Wiskemann,
5. D.M.Smith, Italy a modern history
6. A.J.Gregor,Fascism a study
7. A.J.Gregor,Fascism and developmental dictatorship
8. kj
9. internet