THE FASCIST WAY OF LIFE:

MARIO PALMIERI’S THE PHILOSOPHY OF FASCISM

____________________________________

A Thesis

Presented to the

Faculty of

California State University, Fullerton

____________________________________

In Partial Fulfillment

of the Requirements for the Degree

Master of Arts

in

History
____________________________________

By

Sean Washburn

Thesis Committee Approval:

Cora Granata, Department of History, Chair

Steve Jobbitt, Department of History
Robert McLain, Department of History

Spring, 2017
 ABSTRACT

Since its emergence in the inter-war period, fascism has commanded the attention

of historians, social scientists, and intellectuals. Fascists world over saw their movement

as a revolutionary one that held the potential to transform human life by providing a new

political, social, and economic system apart from capitalism and the other alternatives of

anarchism, socialism, and communism. To the many who found fascism enticing, they

saw a new political, social, and economic philosophy—a new way of life. Mario

Palmieri’s The Philosophy of Fascism is one source that provides a glimpse into the

intellectual foundations of fascism and its new way of life. Palmieri an Italian Fascist

thinker wrote his book to describe what it means to be fascist. Translated into English in

1936 for an audience in the United States, he hoped the book would spread fascist

philosophy.

The following is an analysis of Palmieri’s book and his conceptualization of

fascist philosophy. By examining the language deployed by fascists like Palmieri the

author presents how crucial knowledge on fascist intellectual thought is for understanding

fascism and its disturbing place in human history. Furthermore, studying and

understanding inter-war fascism is critical for knowing how modern fascist movements

have evolved from their inter-war predecessors. Therefore, the author ends their

conclusion with a final section discussing the present reemergence of fascist movements.

ii
 TABLE OF CONTENTS

ABSTRACT ................................................................................................................... i

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS ............................................................................................. v

INTRODUCTION ......................................................................................................... 1

Chapter
1. FASCIST PHILOSOPHY..................................................................................... 11

Introduction ........................................................................................................... 11
Fascism Against Individualism............................................................................. 15
Fascism and Materialism ...................................................................................... 27
The Fascist Meaning of Life ................................................................................. 33
Conducting a Fascist Life ..................................................................................... 41
Fascist Ethics ........................................................................................................ 48
Fascism and Liberty .............................................................................................. 55
Conclusion ............................................................................................................ 59

2. FASCIST GOVERNMENT AND ECONOMICS ............................................... 61

Introduction ........................................................................................................... 61
Fascism and Democracy ....................................................................................... 62
The Fascist State ................................................................................................... 67
The Organization of the Italian Fascist State ........................................................ 76
Fascist Economics: The Corporative State ........................................................... 84
Conclusion ............................................................................................................ 99

3. FASCIST HISTORY ............................................................................................ 103

Introduction ........................................................................................................... 103

A Fascist Interpretation of Italian History ............................................................ 105
Forerunners of Fascism ......................................................................................... 116
The Hero as Leader ............................................................................................... 128
The Fascist Revolution and Palmieri’s Conclusion .............................................. 131
Fascism and America ............................................................................................ 138
Conclusion ............................................................................................................ 142

iii
CONCLUSION .............................................................................................................. 145

The Philosophy of Fascism ................................................................................... 145

The Reemergence of Fascism ............................................................................... 151

BIBLIOGRAPHY .......................................................................................................... 171

iv
 ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

No research or written work is truly an individual effort. This thesis is no

different. I am indebted to my family, friends, and professors who have supported me

throughout the process of writing this thesis. First, I wish to thank my mom, Kristie

Arehart, without her support not only would this thesis be impossible, but also my

education. I also want to thank my sister Jamie Washburn and my brother-in-law Jesse

Yumang; likewise, without their support all of this would have been impossible. I also

want to thank my niece and nephew, Jordynn and Jayden. I must thank Adam Hertzberg,

John Shahrikian, Jason Shahrikian, and Steve Wazir, they are not only friends they are

family and no words can describe the support and friendship they have given me

throughout my life. I also wish to thank four of my closest friends, who are also better

described as family. John Belleci, Juan Villa, Carie Rael, and Tim Barrette, each have not

only helped and supported me in various ways for the past year, but for the past few years

have been incredible friends. Finally, I want to thank my committee members: Dr. Cora

Granata, Dr. Robert McLain, and Dr. Steve Jobbitt. You are all amazing professors and

mentors no words can express the gratitude I have for the three of you and what I have

learned from you.

v
 1

INTRODUCTION

When someone is asked what is fascism or what is a fascist government,

typically, their first thoughts may inevitably be images of Adolf Hitler speaking in front

of an energized crowd, goose-stepping soldiers marching in unison, Benito Mussolini in

military dress addressing the masses from a balcony, and more vivid images from these

two regimes. However, a minority of people imagine a complex philosophy that describes

an alternative way of life. We fail to see fascism as more than the aforementioned

imagery—these images are very real and are a part of fascism—but they are only the

surface of its political, social, and economic ideology. Fascism held its own codes of

ethics, ideas on the meaning of life, its own thoughts on individualism and materialism,

and on liberty and democracy. All of these ideas come together to create a system of

thought that builds mass support for which those surface images from above rely on for

legitimacy. To truly understand fascism, we must look at what it means to those who

followed and believed in its philosophy. This enables us to understand fascism not as an

abstract term with a dissatisfactory dictionary definition, but as a movement that offered a

meaningful way of life to some.

The meaning of fascism has long been a contentious topic among historians.

Indeed, many begin their work by explaining how the meaning of fascism has been a

matter of debate. The likelihood is that no single person will devise a satisfactory

definition for the term fascism. For that reason, the purpose of the following analysis of
 2

Mario Palmieri’s The Philosophy of Fascism is not to reach or argue “the” definition.

Instead, the hope is to provide meaningful insight into how fascists viewed themselves

and their movement based on their ideas and the language they use to describe their way

of life. To be sure, fascism is and can be a generic concept (this point is one of extreme

contention amongst many scholars). However, proving so should not necessarily be about

pointing out links or similarities between movements. Instead, one should focus on the

fact that fascism is a revolutionary movement and a philosophy or new way of life that

seeks their ideal of a better life. Understanding this philosophy of fascism’s new way of

life is what gives importance to the similarities and parallels of different fascist

movements.

The concepts found in fascist thought alone make fascism a generic movement

that must be applied everywhere for this new life to exist. Fascism centers on an attack on

individualism and the upholding of the state through institutions of the church

(spiritualism), family, and nation. All these fettered by nationalism, racism, militarism,

imperialism, and more. However, what is important is the idea of changing human life, to

accomplish this necessitates the need of fascism to be more than just an isolated political

party in one country. It also means fascist movements will differ from country to country

because of each’s unique culture.

The main methodological component of the following analysis is based on the

theoretical approach developed by Edward Said in his influential work Orientalism.1 The

implication here is not to suggest that fascism as a subject is a product of Orientalism, but

1
Edward Said, Orientalism (New York, Vintage Books, 1979).
 3

instead I elect to borrow from Said’s methodology. The basis of his theory is Western

imperialism over the East has had a direct influence over how the West perceived the

East. This perception in turn directly influenced their social, political, and economic

interactions with the East; furthermore, it had a direct influence on how their

psychological imagination of these regions. To support this argument Said turned to the

language the West employed when discussing, describing, or interacting with the East. In

other words, Said turned to comprehending Western imperialism on its own terms

through its own epistemological concepts. Therefore, I wish, if possible, to use such an

approach to discuss the intellectual foundations of fascism by the vary fascists who

developed and believed in their philosophy. We must understand fascism and to do so we

must comprehend it on its own terms. This means that we must examine fascism through

the ideas, language, literature, and actions of its followers and advocates. Moreover, such

analysis cannot be left to only the famous (or infamous) leaders of these movements.

Whenever possible it must include those who did not receive as much attention, such as

mid and low level fascists. Including the thoughts of these people, will develop a more

comprehensive perception of what fascism means and what it means to be a fascist.

Examining Palmieri’s book is only one example of a source that can provide further

insight on fascism.

The following is by no means a “complete” analysis of Palmieri’s book or

fascism; what has been covered is only the surface and much more can be pulled from the

book. Furthermore, there is at least one chapter from his book that is completely omitted

because I do not have the background and knowledge to examine his discussion on

Roman history. Another issue some may have is that I have no exhaustive biographical
 4

information on Palmieri—this is for two reasons. First, it seems that there is little written

about Mario Palmieri in English and I lack the skills necessary to read any Italian sources

on him, if they exist. Second, Palmieri and his life are not the subject of the following

analysis. Instead what he wrote on fascism is the real concern. While much can be

learned from his life and his position in the Italian Fascist Party that topic remains a

discussion for another time. Finally, to my own dismay, two extremely important issues

receive only a small amount of attention—first is gender and the second is race.

Unfortunately, I have been forced to leave out more lengthy and nuanced discussions on

these two issues. The main reason for this is Palmieri hardly gives any outright attention

to these subjects. Of course, theories on gender and race run as sub-currents in Palmieri’s

greater philosophic narrative, but he does not mention them in any meaningful way. As a

result, when capable I have attempted to extract what I can, but more—much more—can

be written about fascist thoughts on gender and race. Regrettably, the scope of this

analysis hinders any protracted discussion on them. However, it is important to note that

Palmieri’s omission or lack of depth on gender and race concerning fascist philosophy

speaks volumes on his assumptions about them.

As a historical topic, fascism has received an immeasurable amount of attention.

Due to this, there are various definitions of fascism and numerous descriptions of its

history. The discussion on the subject has ranged from denouncing the use of fascism as

term to describe anything other than the Fascist regime in Italy to a generic movement

that captured the world’s attention in the inter-war period. Moreover, many scholars have

discussed the many different characteristics of fascist regimes. Today, any discussion on

understanding fascism will likely be dominated by sources written by the scholars who
 5

have made some of the most impressive studies of the movement(s)—this includes, but is

not limited, to Roger Griffin, George Mosse, A. J. Gregor, Robert Paxton, and Stanley

Payne. Each of these historians focus on defining fascism or discussing the historical

narrative of inter-war fascist movements—or in some cases both. This analysis draws

from these historians and their various works and many others not specifically listed

above.

The past thirty years has witnessed a revitalization in the study of fascism;

however, fascism has in some form or another commanded the attention of scholars since

its arrival during the inter-war period. Arguably, the renewal of studying fascism began

with Stanley Payne’s book Fascism: Comparison and Definition, in which he argued, “If

fascism is to be studied, it has first to be identified, and it is doubtful that can be done

without some sort of working definition.” 2 Therefore, Payne believed that without an

empirically based definition of fascism there could be no understanding of the inter-war

movements. To develop his definition Payne relied on comparing fascist movements to

one another and to the various right-wing authoritarian regimes that also emerged in the

inter-war period. The effort behind this was to draw theoretical links to recognized fascist

groups while separating them from the authoritarian governments; thus, creating a useful

restriction to the term. Furthermore, Payne rejected the stance made by Gilbert Allardyce

(and others), that fascism has no ideology and is not a movement outside of Italy, thereby

leading to his demand that the term fascism should be dropped from intellectual use. 3

2
Stanley Payne, Fascism: Comparison and Definition (Madison: University of Wisconsin Press,
1980), 4.

3
Gilbert Allardyce, “What Fascism is Not: Thoughts on the Deflation of a Concept,” American
Historical Review 84, (1979): 367-388.
 6

Another powerful book in the discussion of defining fascism is Roger Griffin’s 1991 The

Nature of Fascism. Griffin’s book and subsequently his definition subtly differed from

Payne because he advocated using Max Weber’s theory of “ideal type” to devise a

common definition between the fascisms of the inter-war period and beyond. 4 The most

notable inclusion that Griffin made in his definition was his description of fascism as a

palingenetic—rebirth or renewal—movement, which he argued drew the strictest line of

continuity between movements and made fascism differ from other political, social, and

economic movements.5

Another noteworthy work in the long list of fascism studies is Robert Paxton’s

2004 The Anatomy of Fascism. Paxton’s book looks at fascism under a different light

when compared to Payne and Griffin’s two books. Instead of devising a definition, he

creates a narrative detailing the history of inter-war fascism. Paxton’s argument is to set

aside for a moment the methodology used by historians like Payne and Griffin and

instead focus on the history of fascism as a tool to understand its meaning. He identified

five distinct “phases” in the history of fascism, which he labeled “(1) the creation of

movements; (2) their rooting in the political system; (3) their seizure of power; (4) the

exercise of power; (5) and, finally, the long duration, during which the fascist regime

chooses either radicalization or entropy.”6 Paxton sought to contextualize the progression

4
Roger Griffin, The Nature of Fascism (London: Routledge, 1991), 8-12.

5
Griffin, 26, 32-6.

6
Robert Paxton, The Anatomy of Fascism (New York: Vintage Books, 2004), 23.
 7

of fascism, hoping to develop a more complete understanding of the ideology and its

different aspects instead of only relying on constructing a definition.

Historians have not only focused on defining fascism or discussing its historical

progression; others have focused on additional issues concerning inter-war fascism. Both

historians A. J. Gregor and George Mosse made great inroads in advancing the argument

that inter-war fascism did indeed have an intellectual and cultural basis. However, Gregor

does not necessarily agree to the existence of generic fascism. Gregor’s 2005 book,

Mussolini’s Intellectuals: Fascist Social and Political Thought detailed some of the

intellectuals who devised Italian Fascism’s philosophical components (although Palmieri

seems to be missing). Mosse not only advanced the argument that fascism had an

intellectual basis, but that it too had a cultural element. This was the subject of several of

his works including his 1999 book The Fascist Revolution: Toward a General Theory of

Fascism. Moreover, numerous scholars have centered their attention on the “inner

workings” of fascism, which has helped to create a more nuanced understanding of the

subject. For example, Simonetta Falasca-Zamponi described the power dynamics of

fascism through its fetish of aesthetic beauty in her book Fascist Spectacle: The

Aesthetics of Power in Mussolini’s Italy.7 Additionally, Victoria De Grazia in her book

How Fascism Ruled Women: Italy, 1922-1945,8 explored how fascism effected the lives

of women, shedding light on an often-overlooked aspect of fascism.

7
Simonetta Falasca-Zamponi, Fascist Spectacle: The Aesthetics of Power in Mussolini’s Italy
(Berkeley: University of California Press, 1997).

8
Victoria De Grazia, How Fascism Ruled Women: Italy, 1922-1945 (Berkeley, University of
California Press, 1992).
 8

The structure of this analysis will mostly follow that of The Philosophy of

Fascism. Palmieri’s book is structured into a Preface, an Introduction, Part 1, Part 2, Part

3, a Conclusion, and a final Appendix chapter. Parts 1, 2, and 3 are made up of six to five

chapters each. I have structured this examination into three chapters followed by a

conclusion. Chapter 1 is focused on the Preface, Introduction, and the chapters from Part

1. Accordingly, the main subject in Chapter 1 is Palmieri’s ideas concerning the

philosophic foundations of fascism. Chapter 2 of this thesis explores the topics discussed

in the chapters of Part 2, which Palmieri centered on his ideas regarding the political and

economic structures of fascism. Chapter 3 consists of the chapters from Part 3, which

varied from his interpretation of Italian history, the historical intellectuals that he

identified as the “forerunners” of fascism, and two chapters that further covered the

concepts of the hero as a leader and fascism as revolutionary act. Finally, also included in

Chapter 3 is the Conclusion from the book and the Appendix chapter, within which

Palmieri argued that the United States should embrace fascism. The Chapters of this

thesis are divided into subsections based on the topic or topics covered in the

corresponding book chapters. Finally, my conclusion includes a final section that

discusses the reemergence of fascism today. The idea here is to add some relevancy to the

analysis of Palmieri’s book.

For the most part this analysis relies on one primary source, Mario Palmieri’s The

Philosophy of Fascism. The reason for this is obvious in the fact that the following is

meant to be an examination of the book and the information on fascist thought that is held

within it. My goal here, if successful, is to create something that is reminiscent of an

interview with Palmieri himself. The ideas he wrote in this publication are the true
 9

subject of this thesis and for better or worse this means relying on Palmieri’s words more

than those of others. To draw similarities, I have brought in others, but I purposely

limited the inclusion of such sources to preserve the presentation of Palmieri’s ideas.

Finally, because Palmieri is so heavily quoted, I have—in an attempt to limit the number

of footnotes—combined the notes for quotes from him. This only occurs in paragraphs

that have numerous quotes from Palmieri and have no other references from other

sources.

No historical work is complete without a body of secondary sources. As

mentioned before the secondary source material on fascism is massive—even daunting.

That said it is likely impossible to include every single piece of secondary work produced

that discussed fascism in any writing on the topic of fascism. For the most part, I have

tried to include as many recent materials on the topic. Additionally, I am indebted to the

scholars before me who have given their attention to this topic. Every source noted in the

bibliography has shaped this thesis in some way even if I could not manage to directly

quote or cite it in the numerous footnotes on the following pages. Aside from the

numerous sources on fascism I have included some general histories as reference to some

of the more general historical events and issues I bring up throughout this analysis. As for

the section in the conclusion that is focused on present-day fascist movements, I have

utilized mostly recently published news articles coupled with a few academic sources and

if possible documents from the movements in question.

On another note concerning sources, for many of the quotations and sources that

Palmieri himself used that I needed to address or quote, I elected to lift those quotes from

The Philosophy of Fascism. These include primary sources from Mussolini and other
 10

Italian Fascists that Palmieri quoted and ideas he otherwise borrowed. This also includes

other sources from intellectuals like Giuseppe Mazzini, who was not a Fascist, but

Palmieri used to back many of his arguments. There are many reasons why I have cited

these sources this way. First, I have done so because Palmieri did not include any

sourcing what so ever; instead, in text he only mentioned the original author—often only

by last name. Consequently, tracking down many of the specific sources he used has been

nearly impossible. Second, I did so because of the variations between multiple editions of

translated works and the idiosyncratic nature of translating written work from its original

language. The materials I have been able to find I have referenced and have added into

the bibliography, but to preserve the context of Palmieri’s arguments I mostly relied on

his writing as the main citation source for these works.

On a final note, the argument made here that to understand fascism we must look

at it through its followers’ own words is in no way an endorsement of fascism and fascist

philosophy. There are no words that can properly convey my disapproval and disgust for

this despicable and troubling political, social, and economic system. The regimes that

followed fascist philosophy in the inter-war period and those people who seek fascism’s

revival as a legitimate way of life are revolting in every sense of the word. The purpose

of understanding fascism must always be and must remain prevention; we must know

what fascism is so we may inhibit any future rise of fascism into any place of power.
 11

CHAPTER 1

FASCIST PHILOSOPHY

Introduction

The American edition of Mario Palmieri’s The Philosophy of Fascism began with

a preface written by Dr. Guido Corni, a member of the Italian Parliament and Honorary

Governor of Somaliland. While seemingly unimportant, Dr. Corni’s preface set up

Palmieri’s argument by praising him and his ideas. Additionally, he commended Palmieri

for writing a book that defines fascism, which he claimed others had not done before.

Corni asserted that fascism has garnered a large amount of attention both in Italy

and abroad. However, the authors of these works, especially those abroad, have failed to

discuss the true definition of fascism. He stated, “very few, especially abroad, have

understood its essence; and the true spiritual forces which generated it have not always

received the right interpretation.” 9 In other words, the authors of these numerous works

have neglected the philosophic foundations that make fascism more than simply a

political movement. According to Corni, Palmieri’s discussion of fascism came at an

important time for the movement as it has begun to spread and become a viable

alternative to the political, social, and economic systems of the period. Corni recognized

that the potential for fascism’s growth is hindered if people do not understand what

9
Guido Corni, preface to The Philosophy of Fascism, by Mario Palmieri (Chicago: Fortune Press,
1936), IX.
 12

fascism truly means and stands for. For this reason, Corni described the importance of

Palmieri’s book in the following manner:

This work of Mr. Palmieri on ‘The Philosophy of Fascism’ fills a greatly felt
deficiency of such bibliography with its exposition of the spiritual aspects of
Fascism, and is therefore highly appreciated in times like the present, when the
desire to know fascism in its true essence is becoming so thoroughly
widespread.10

Praise, however, is not the only feature of his preface. Corni displayed a significant

understanding of Palmieri’s writing and theories on the meaning of fascism—he also

clearly agrees with him.

While Corni’s preface provides a glimpse into Palmieri’s thoughts, we are given a

clearer insight into Palmieri’s ideas through his own words in the short introduction

where he summarized his fascist philosophy. First, Palmieri constantly described fascism

as a social movement. In one such example, he styled fascism as “this dazzling social

phenomenon of modern times.”11 The description of fascism as a movement is not unique

to neither Palmieri or to Italian Fascism. Other fascist groups across Europe projected

themselves as movements as well, for example, the Nazis in Germany centered much of

their linguistic energy on reinforcing the concept that their party was a movement. 12

Further into the introduction, Palmieri described Fascism (the Italian variant) as a

successful fourteen yearlong functioning social and political movement—he is

10
Ibid.

11
Mario Palmieri, introduction to The Philosophy of Fascism (Chicago: Fortune Press, 1936),
XIII

12
George Mosse, introduction to Nazi Culture: Intellectual, Cultural, and Social Life in the Third
Reich (Madison: University of Wisconsin Press, 1966), xxvii.
 13

undoubtedly referring to the famous and illusionary March on Rome on October 31, 1922

as the starting point the Italian Fascist Party’s power over the country. 13

Aside from insisting that fascism is a successful social movement, Palmieri

revealed to the reader that fascism is also a system of thought or philosophy. Palmieri

argued that fascism is a philosophy grounded in the spirituality of humanity (thus

revealing the spiritual nature of fascism). Because fascism is a system of thought

grounded in humanity’s spirituality, it is therefore bound to all humankind—meaning that

fascism by nature is and must be a generic movement.14 According to Palmieri, this

philosophy is destined to replace the current system of thought and its political, social,

and economic structures.15 Finally, Palmieri discussed his goals for the book. He

recognized the importance of conveying the movement’s meaning and articulating the

philosophical base for fascism. His hope for doing so was not only to bring people into

13
Palmieri, XIII. The March on Rome remains an interesting and mythic event that marked Italian
Fascists’ rise to power. As it stands, the March on Rome is nothing more than a fable. The so-called March
on Rome was the anticlimactic conclusion of the political crisis that made Benito Mussolini the prime
minister of Italy in the Fall of 1922. It began on October 27, 1922, when Fascists issued a threat that they
were to march on and occupy Rome. In response, Prime Minister, Luigi Facta, declared martial law to quell
the planed Fascist attack on the capital. Meanwhile, Mussolini choosing to stay safely in Milan, held secret
negotiations with the government to resolve the crisis peacefully. King Vittorio Emmanuel III denied
Facta’s proclamation to enact martial law and instead offered Mussolini a place in a coalition government
with conservatives and nationalists. Mussolini refused and demanded that he be allowed to form his own
government, the king accepted. With permission from the king, Mussolini arrived in Rome on October 30,
to draw up his new government. The following day the mobilized Fascist militias arrived in Rome. Instead
of the grand invasion that would topple the liberal/conservative government of Italy that the Fascists
envisioned the militias rode into Rome in special railcars and paraded before Mussolini and the king.
Falasca-Zamponi, Fascist Spectacle, 1; Alan Cassels, Fascism (Arlington Heights, IL: Harlan Davidson,
1975), 47; Alexander De Grand, Italian Fascism: Its Origins and Development (Lincoln: University of
Nebraska Press, 2000), 35-7; Paxton, Anatomy of Fascism, 87.

14
Palmieri, introduction to The Philosophy of Fascism, XIV.

15
Palmieri, XIV-XV.
 14

the movement, but also to make sense of how important fascism was as a historical

moment in human history.

To be clear Palmieri’s use of fascism had duel meanings; in his book, he

discussed both Italian Fascism and the generic concept of fascism. Consequently, his use

of the word fascism can be confusing at times. While at certain points in his writing he

distinguished between the Italian movement and the idea of a generic fascism, at other

times in his writing, he is more ambiguous. However, there are also points when it is

obvious that he used Fascism in Italy as a reference to support his claims on the meaning

of generic fascism. Naturally, he made connections between Italian Fascism and generic

fascism. Correspondingly, while he perceived the Fascist Party in Italy and generic

fascism were part of the same movement, he seemingly acknowledged that differences

between the two existed.

Part 1 of Palmieri’s book detailed and discussed the philosophical nuances of the

fascist movement. It is the most complex and thought provoking section of the book. Part

1 is comprised of six chapters, each used to discuss the different theoretical issues that

fascism is composed of. Each theme reinforces the core elements of fascism; the family,

the nation, and spiritualism—that all serve as institutional pillars that hold up fascism’s

central belief that the state rightfully deserves to dominate all aspects of life. Palmieri

began his discussion on fascist philosophy with a resounding denouncement of

individualism and centers fascism’s one of many causes around combating and

dismantling individualism.
 15

Fascism Against Individualism

Palmieri started his philosophical discussion on fascism with a categorical

denouncing of individualism. In doing so, he revealed that a central aspect of fascist

thought is anti-individualism. This discussion occupied the first chapter of Part 1 simply

because anti-individualism serves as the foundation for Palmieri’s ideas. He believed

fascism to be the anti-thesis to individualism and its social and political constructs. He

placed responsibility for the rise of individualism as a way of life on the events of the

Renaissance.16 His attack on individualism is multilayered; however, he primarily

focused on accusing individualism as the reason for the crises of the inter-war period that

he viewed as one of the signifiers that proved the decline of Western Civilization. Finally,

Palmieri postulated fascism as the natural answer not only to individualism, but also to

the issues that the philosophy had created.

His definition of individualism does not appear until about midway through the

chapter. Nevertheless, it is an important starting point to discuss his thoughts on

individualism. To begin, he argued that individualism negates the unity that bonds

humanity together. He contended that “[i]ndividualism is the negation of the fundamental

unity which is at the root of Being and which underlines the whole world of man.” He

continued to argue that individualism usurps authority, which through law and power

controls individuals. Furthermore, individualism corrupts the true meaning and desire of

liberty that should seek to free humanity from its animal instincts of material

consumption “when it releases man of the tyranny of his needs, his desires and his wants,

16
Palmieri, The Philosophy of Fascism, 23.
 16

and makes him choose—of his own free will—what is of the higher value than his

satisfaction of the senses.” Meaning that individualism is also the negation of one’s sense

of duty, which serves as the basis of moral standards. Instead, individualism replaces duty

with rights. With distain, Palmieri observed “those rights which are the perennial spring

of all human ills and evils.” Finally, individualism decays humanity’s spirituality. He

claimed individualism was a philosophy that replaces humanity’s spiritualism with

reason. The degradation of spirituality allows the individuals to care only for their own

material, economic, and bodily wellbeing. 17

Palmieri’s anti-individualism centered on his belief that humanity 18 is connected

and therefore, the actions of each individual inevitably affects the others. He likens this

bounding of humanity to that of ripples moving across a pond, which will reach every

inch of said pond. Accordingly, every action and decision made by an individual will

have consequences that will inevitably affect every human being. This unity between all

of humanity serves as the root to human life. Consequently, individualism breaks this

bond and usurps the underlining meaning and purpose of life. 19

According to Palmieri, the systems of power that have risen and fallen throughout

history are products of this bond between humanity. This means history itself is a

byproduct of the competition between individualistic and anti-individualistic forces or as

17
Palmieri, 25.

18
Throughout the book, Palmieri uses the term man and he is implicitly referring to man’s
“superiority” over women as established by the patriarchal structures of gender. Because he wrote in a
fashion that supports such structures I elect to replace man with humanity, save for direct quotes, in attempt
to not perpetuate such sexist language.

19
Palmieri, 21.
 17

he claims “It is possible, therefore, and justified, to look at history as an alternative play

of individualistic and anti-individualistic forces integrating and disintegrating in turn the

social structure, the economic organization, the political systems, and all other outward

aspects of the life of man.”20 For this reason, according to his logic the current system—

liberal\conservative capitalism—that promotes individualism is only an episode within

the historical cycle of conflict between competing systems of life that promotes unity or

devolves into individualistic behavior. Furthermore, fascism is a product of human

history and a byproduct of and\or an answer to the liberal\conservative system that

supports individualism and more specifically the crises developed by this system. The

concept that fascism is a product of modern human history and its relationship to

liberal/conservative capitalism’s historical progression—specifically its collapse in the

1930s—has been recognized by many historians. 21 For example, Enzo Traverso made

such a recognition “It is obvious that the global crisis of capitalism played a crucial role

in provoking the European collapse in the 1930s, setting many countries on the road to

fascism . . . ”22

Palmieri argued that individualism as a philosophy emerged during the

Renaissance. He claimed that the Renaissance stands as one of the seminal moments in

human history when humanity realized its potential for true uniqueness and brilliance.

This moment suggests that for a time humanity discovered their potential power that was

20
Ibid., 22.

21
Roger Griffin, preface to The Nature of Fascism (London: Routledge, 1991), viii.

22
Enzo Traverso, Fire and Blood: The European Civil War 1914-1945, trans. David Fernbach
(London: Verso, 2016), 2.
 18

realized in the “glory of artistic expression.” Palmieri equates individualism—and in

extension the Renaissance—as the origin of the present crises of the inter-war period. He

stated, “But the Renaissance sang not only paean of Art, it sang also the birth of

Individualism; the philosophy of life which was to guide, through the following centuries,

the thoughts and the actions of men toward the present state of chaos and despair.”

Palmieri believed that from its creation during the Renaissance, individualism seeped into

every aspect of modern life, thus, infiltrating the human mind as well as its institutions.

Since the Renaissance was the pivotal moment that created individualism, he contended

that if one is to understand fascism they must go back and understand the Renaissance

and its connection to individualism. Furthermore, he insisted that fascism brings to close

a system that is historically rooted as far back as the Renaissance. 23

Palmieri contested the importance of the Renaissance being the rediscovery and

reemergence of classical studies and pagan knowledge. He argued that there was no real

connection to ancient knowledge during the Renaissance; therefore, undermining the

relevance of classical and pagan thought during this period. He insisted that if the

Renaissance was nothing more than the revitalization of ancient ideas and ways of living,

then the Renaissance fails to serve as a moment that represents a milestone of human

development. Instead, the importance of the period was the development of

individualism. He described that importance of the Renaissance as such:

23
Palmieri, 23.
 19

The Renaissance has importance, instead, inasmuch as it represents the birth of

Individualism; the birth of a philosophy of life which was to hold sway over the
thoughts and the actions of men for well nigh four centuries; those momentous
centuries characterized by the greatest changes in all fields of human activity. 24

The changes to human thought and human interaction brought on by individualism is

what makes the Renaissance a moment that serves as a milestone in human development.

To Palmieri, individualism and its influence on humanity would carry devastating effects

on the way humans live, especially in the sense of power relations.

Palmieri argued that the creation of individualism established within humanity a

new belief in their self-power. The effects of this new understanding of humanity’s

potential self-power led to the development of new power relations, which led to the

diminishing of the institutions that insured the external control of individuals. Doing so

allowed humanity to question established power structures of authority, which then

permitted the new doctrines of freedom and liberty to take hold. Accordingly,

individualism allowed humanity to question and dismantle all forms of authority that

brought constraint, rules, and laws to human life. He claimed, “The birth of Individualism

also meant the birth of freedom from all external authority, all external constraint, all

external rules and law.”25 In turn, the birth of individualism and freedom led to the

creation of liberty, which questioned humanity’s connection to one another, thus,

breaking humanity’s bond and true potential. Palmieri described the breaking of that

bond as follows “hence Liberalism which, forgetting that man is truly man only because

he is part of a greater whole, proclaimed the doctrine of liberty, which is at the bottom

24
Ibid., 24

25
Ibid.
 20

only a doctrine of negative liberty.”26 Benito Mussolini likewise lamented individualism

he declared, “Fascism is therefore opposed to all individualistic abstractions based on

eighteenth century materialism.”27 Mussolini argued that an individual is only a human if

he or she belong and contribute to the collective whole of society.

Palmieri argued that the negative effects of individualism are found in its

doctrines that return humanity to nature. He listed these doctrines as the following, “the

doctrine of his natural rights in politics, the doctrine of his material essence in

philosophy, the doctrine of class war in economics, and the negation of moral ethics.” 28

Finally, individualism set in motion a decay in humanity’s tie with the spiritual world. He

wrote, “[t]he birth of individualism meant in short the decay of all ties with which

connect man to the spiritual world and make him a being thoroughly distinct from the

world of nature.”29 This challenging of authority and power relations, the creation of

freedom and liberty, and the disconnect from the spiritual world made individualism a

destructive force. Like Palmieri, Mussolini also expressed his anti-individualistic

sentiment within a spiritual framework. As he noted, “The Fascist conception of life is a

religious one, in which man is viewed in his immanent relation to higher law, endowed

with an objective will transcending the individual and raising him to conscious

26
Ibid.

27
Benito Mussolini and Giovanni Gentile, The Doctrine of Fascism (Rome: Ardita Publishers,
1932), 2. Palmieri will also critiqued materialism as philosophy that degrades humanity in a later chapter.

28
Palmieri, 24-5.

29
Ibid., 25.
 21

membership of a spiritual society.”30 As explained by Palmieri and Mussolini, within this

spiritual omnipotent state structure, fascism displays a desire to confront and replace

individualistic philosophy.

Palmieri regarded individualism as the root cause of the inter-war crises. He

claimed that individualism “gradually led mankind through democratic government,

competitive business, acquisitive property, hereditary wealth, economic individual

welfare, social class struggle and national wars.” 31 Palmieri insisted these degenerative

institutions and concepts of individualism led to the decline of Western Civilization as

described by Oswald Spengler’s The Decline of the West (1918).32 Spengler’s Decline of

the West represented the anxieties that swept through Europe and the West after the

calamitous events of the First World War. However, the philosophical base for the social,

political, and economic structures of liberal/conservative capitalism were under scrutiny

well before the war. World War 1 simply served as a catalyst that exacerbated such

paranoia surrounding western decline theory. By the end of nineteenth century, European

intellectuals such as Henri Bergson, Benedetto Croce, Sigmund Freud, and numerous

others began to question the basis of rational thought that functioned as the root of

Enlightenment theory, which in turn served as the basis for Western Civilization. 33 The

work of these philosophers influenced the theories of Spengler. In turn, Palmieri found

30
Mussolini and Gentile, 2.

31
Palmieri, 26.

32
Ibid.

33
Cassels, Fascism, 3, 11; Mark Mazower, Dark Continent: Europe’s Twentieth Century (New
York: Vintage Books, 2000), 22.
 22

Spengler’s theories as a prophetic description of what the degenerative institutions and

concepts of individualism would produce. 34

Fascism arose from the conditions created within modern western society;

consequently, making fascism a product of western modernity. 35 More importantly,

Palmieri addressed the argument that fascism is a generic movement. He believed that

fascism was not a movement that belonged to any one country, because at its root,

fascism is a movement that responds to the degeneration of modern Western Civilization.

He explained that the conditions bringing decline were not exclusive but shared to all

countries. He argued that “these conditions are not peculiar to one nation, but to all

nations.”36 Therefore, since the conditions faced by all Western nations create fascism, a

potential fascist movement can occur in all Western countries. He contended the notion

that fascism is only a localized movement in Italy is completely false based on the

historical conditions that the West now faces and shares:

Nothing could be more fallacious, therefore, than the general conviction that the
historical process which made possible the development of Fascism and was, in a
way, the primary condition of its birth, is a purely localized experience of one
nation: the Italian nation. The conditions out which Fascism arose were, and still
are, conditions affecting the whole civilized world; conditions which perpetuated
in time, must need create an increasing demand for the generalized application of
the universal principles of Fascism.37

34
Palmieri, 26.

35
Palmieri, 29; Roger Griffin, Modernism and Fascism: The Sense of a Beginning under
Mussolini and Hitler (New York: Palgrave MacMillan, 2007), 6.

36
Palmieri, 29.

37
Ibid., 30.
 23

His concept that fascism is rooted in the shared conditions of Western Civilization

harkens back to Palmieri’s belief that humanity shares a spiritual bond. It is no surprise

that he believed that this bond would be shared by socioeconomic systems. The

importance here is that he argued that fascism is not limited by time and space.

Furthermore, he applied a spiritual meaning to the movement by declaring “the activity of

the spirit which alone is of ultimate value—Fascism is beyond the limitations of time and

space; its roots are in the depths of Being, its flowers in the realm of Becoming.” 38

Correspondingly, Palmieri described fascism as a generic movement.

Spiritualism is a key component of fascism’s anti-individualism and of Palmieri’s

argument. His purpose assigned to fascism is seeped with spiritual meaning. He began by

explaining fascism is an anti-materialistic and anti-individualistic way of life. 39 They are

to be replaced by the spiritual quality of fascism. He wrote, “These characteristics are

clearly expressed by the recognition of the eternal value of the spiritual essence of man

and of the transitory aspect of his earthly being; by the recognition of the absolute worth

of the individual in the realm of the Spirit and of the relative worth of the individual in

the realm of Nature.”40 Spiritualism serves as the linchpin of fascist moral thought and

bounds humanity to both the spiritual and natural worlds. Only after the creation of a

spiritual foundation can the institutions of the family and nation serve their role in

society. After the acceptance of spiritual understanding, humanity can reverse rational

38
Ibid., 30-1.

39
Ibid., 32.

40
Ibid.
 24

thought and overturn the degradations of individualism. In doing so, the role of the state

is restored as the rightful source and holder of power and meaning. Like Palmieri,

Mussolini, similarly exclaimed fascism’s ideas on the state superiority and spiritualism to

combat individualism. On the importance of state superiority over individualism, he

stated “Anti-individualistic, the Fascist conception of life stresses the importance of the

State and accepts the individual only in so far as his interests coincide with those of the

State, which stands for the conscience and the universal, will of man as a historic

entity.”41 The coupling of state superiority and spiritualism reveal the true form of liberty

promoted by fascism, which is spiritual liberty. To explain Palmieri wrote “all forms of

personal freedom pale in contrast to that form of Liberty which only has meaning and

truly matters: the Liberty of the Spirit.”42

Similar spiritual theories can be found in Nazi ideology. In Martin Bormann’s

1942 confidential memorandum “National Socialist and Christian Concepts are

Incompatible” to party district leaders (Gauleiters) that attacked Christian ideology, he

declared that Nazi conceptualization of God drastically differs from Christian dogma of

an omnipotent man like deity. Instead, he declared the Nazi ideal of God is the natural

force that connects the numerous earthly bodies of the Universe. Accordingly, in order

for humanity to understand God it must live a natural life to keep with the earthly laws of

God as advocated by Nazi ideology. Recognizing this key difference allows the state to

41
Mussolini and Gentile, 3.

42
Palmieri, 32-3.
 25

wrestle away the power that Christian churches have over the individual, the family, and

the community or nation.43

Fascist spiritualism is meant to rein the individual back into state control by

making the nation the center of the meaning of life and not individual rights. Palmieri

claimed, “What must be paramount for man is not the conception of his rights as

individual but the vision of his duties as social being; that what is of supreme worth is not

personal life but the life of the nation.” 44 The crucial issue that fascist see with

individualistic rights is that they separate and pit the masses against the good of the state.

Romanian fascist martyr and theorist Corneliu Zelea Codreanu once declared, “We must

fight against the oligarchic parties, creating national workers organizations which can

gain their rights within the framework of the state and not against the state.” 45 He further

explained, “It is inadmissible that for your right, the historic right of the nation to which

you belong be trampled underfoot.”46 Therefore, fascism laments the concept of rights for

its individualistic qualities that allow the masses to separate their actions from the good

of the national community and, thus, the state. Fascism, however, is something more than

a political system.

43
Martin Bormann, “National Socialist and Christian Concepts are Incompatible,” in Nazi
Culture: Intellectual, Cultural and Social Life in the Third Reich (Madison: University of Wisconsin Press,
1966), 244-5.

44
Palmieri, 34.

45
Corneliu Zelea Codreanu, For My Legionaries (Sibiu, RO: Editura, 1936), 20.

46
Ibid., 21.
 26

The spiritual aspect of fascism seeks to answer the question of what is the

meaning of life by asking in turn, “What is the good life?”47 Palmieri denied that the

answer is within the material and socioeconomic philosophies that argue for better

homes, schools, an increase in wealth, or the equal distribution of wealth. Instead, he

argued that the better life is not found in the betterment of the individual’s economic or

material life, but in the spiritualization of humanity. Palmieri explained that fascist

spiritualism and conduct of life rests on three principles, Unity, Authority, and Duty. He

claimed that these principles serve as the basis of society; serving as the foundation for

law and moral order, which provide stable human life through justice and ethics. In

similar fashion Mussolini explained that fascism defined life spiritually, thus, providing

humanity with a spiritual society. He described the fascist perception of a spiritual society

as follows, “The Fascist conception of life is a religious one, in which man is viewed in

his immanent relation to a higher law, endowed with an objective will transcending the

individual and raising him to conscious membership of a spiritual society.” 48 Ergo,

fascism is more than a political system; it is a way of life because it meant to direct

humanity toward a new moral existence. This prompted Palmieri to declare fascism was

“a comprehensive philosophy of life; nay, as a veritable WAY OF LIFE!” 49 With this

declaration, fascism became something more than just a political theory; it became a

movement that advocates for an alternative political, social, and economic system.

47
Palmieri, 36.

48
Mussolini and Gentile, 2.

49
Palmieri, 37. (emphasis Palmieri’s).
 27

Precisely because spiritualism lies at the core of the fascist moral code, Palmieri

described it as the first article of the fascist creed, “Man does not live by bread alone but

also, mainly, of beliefs. Given an inspiring set of beliefs man may be able to accomplish

great deeds and the world may be vivified by a new age of faith.” 50 Through spiritualism,

fascism would end the undermining of Western Civilization. Therefore, fascism seeks to

restore humanity’s spiritualism in order to end the unsatisfactory and meaningless life of

modern individualist society. In this capacity, fascism served as a movement to usher in a

new age that would end individualistic societies. To achieve this, fascism maintained the

belief in the spiritual man in order to force the individual to value the things that are truly

important, which is “the welfare of the nation, the progress of the race, the growth of

knowledge, the liberation of the spirit within.” 51 To accomplish its resolution of spiritual

purpose that opposes individualism, fascism placed all importance in the state.

Accordingly, fascism without a doubt is, as Palmieri professed, the “antithesis and the

nemesis of Individualism.”52

Fascism and Materialism

Fascist philosophy did not only reject individualism. The second chapter of

Palmieri’s book focused on fascism’s adversarial stance to materialism. Like the previous

chapter, he equates the decay of society to the spiritual degeneration of humanity as

brought on through the decadence of materialism. Just as his critique of individualism,

50
Ibid.

51
Ibid., 39.

52
Ibid., 39.
 28

Palmieri’s criticism of materialism mirrored prior departures from materialism by

intellectuals and artists.53 Palmieri failed to provide any meaningful definition of the

word or concept of materialism. However, this may not be important since we are

provided a clear understanding of the negative effects of materialism—according to him.

Furthermore, what is more important is Palmieri’s claim that fascism is the new

“idealism” that will replace materialism. He offered fascism as the counter to

materialism’s lack of spiritualism that imprisoned humanity to “the natural state.”

Palmieri described the natural state as “the aspiration toward a life which is not of this

earth but belongs to the magic land of his beliefs and his dreams.” 54 Consequently, fascist

hostility towards materialism is based on how they perceived humanity’s place in the

natural world. Palmieri argued that materialism was a philosophy or idealism that

rendered humanity beholden by nature and animal instinct. Therefore, materialism limits

humanity to nature through the experiences of their senses, thus rejecting their spiritual

ties to the metaphysical world.55

Palmieri did not view materialism as a product of modernity. Instead, he

explained, “Materialism, to be sure, is not a product of our age.” 56 This language that

separates materialism from modernism holds true to fascism’s direct link to modernism. 57

53
Cassels, 3-4.

54
Palmieri, 41.

55
Ibid., 42.

56
Ibid.

57
For more on fascism and its relationship with modernism see Roger Griffin, Modernism and
Fascism: The Sense of a Beginning under Mussolini and Hitler (London: Palgrave MacMillan, 2007).
 29

He viewed materialism as a historical construct of humanity’s conscious reaction to their

environment. He stated, “Materialism—or its equivalents: naturalism and realism—has,

since the beginnings of history, risen from time to time to the surface of man’s conscious

life and shaped the type of his reaction to his environment and to the life of his fellow

beings.”58 Through the course of human history, this philosophy became the dominating

way of life—similar to the conflict between individualism and anti-individualism.

Palmieri offered the rise of Christianity as one of the moments (if only a short one) that

witnessed the defeat of materialism, an obvious reference to the end of ancient pagan

religions that centered on the natural world. 59

According to Palmieri, Christianity created a religious idealism that challenged

the earthly confinements of materialism. It gave man a spiritual tie to the soul and

something more to believe in, a metaphysical world beyond mortal life. However,

Christianity succumbed to the philosophy of materialism slowly losing and replacing its

spiritual ties with material ones. This loss of spiritualism within the religious idealism of

Christianity correlates to the degradation set on by individualism and signifies the decay

of culture and civilization (or Decline of the West). The present decay of civilization,

manifested by the crises of the inter-war period, signified that a new idealism would rise

to replace the old one and restructure human life. He declared, “A new form of Idealism

is bound to arise to deliver a new message of hope for mankind and re-shape not only the

58
Palmieri, 42.

59
Ibid.,42-3.
 30

course, but the very basis of human life.” 60 The new idealism that would lead humanity

away from the decadence of materialism and replace the old Christian religious idealism

was of course fascism. The Nazis, as well, presented their movement as a new ideology

to replace the old. They too sought to replace Christian religious idealism as shown by

Bormann’s aforementioned memorandum that assaulted Christian dogma. 61 Moreover,

the Nazis propelled their new idealism over all others by claiming only theirs could

reclaim and rebuild Germany—of course part of this took on a racial dimension primarily

targeting the Jewish community—from the destruction brought on from failures of

liberal/conservative government, the humiliation of the First World War, and the 1918

German Revolution.62 Palmieri’s assertion that fascism is a new ideology meant to

replace others, coupled with similar claims by the Nazis, lend credence to fascism being a

revolutionary movement seeking the creation of an all-encompassing new order.

The new idealism, according to Palmieri, could not succumb to the same decay as

the old Christian idealism. Therefore, it simply could not be a reiteration of old theories

and principles; furthermore, it could not be an abstract practice of academic discussion.

He explained that the new idealism must include a series of five “must have” principles if

it is to alter the course of human civilization. First, the new idealism must be a vital force

of modern life. Meaning it must permeate every aspect of human life with a meaningful

and tangible message. He clarified, “the new Idealism must above all deliver a message

60
Ibid., 46.

61
Bormann, in Nazi Culture, 244-6.

62
Mosse, “ Editor’s Introduction: Christianity,” in Nazi Culture: Intellectual, Cultural and Social
Life in the Third Reich (Madison: University of Wisconsin, 1966), 240; Volker Ullrich, Hitler: Ascent
1889-1939, trans. Jefferson Chase (New York: Alfred Knopf, 2016), 98-9.
 31

in tune with the needs of this life as it is being lived today, and not as it ought to be lived

in a future which may never dawn.” 63 Second, the new idealism must take into account

the complexities of modern life and cannot ignore or deny this complexity or it will be

doomed. Third, science and scientific pursuit must be reined in, brought into the higher

synthesis of the new idealism, and made part of a congruous relationship with all aspects

of human life. Fourth, the new idealism must be in tune with the masses and cannot be an

“intellectual pastime of the elite.”64 Not only must it be in tune with the needs of the

masses, but its message must also be easy for them to comprehend. Palmieri wrote, “The

new Idealism must bring its message to the masses, and bring it in such a form as to make

it easily intelligible and readily accepted.”65 The fifth and final principle resonates with

the previous principle of mass appeal; it demands that the new idealism must be a

message for the human being of the present period. 66

With these principles, the new idealism would be capable of replacing the old

Christian religious idealism that succumbed to the decadence of materialism. Palmieri

declared that the principles of the new idealism were the very features of fascism. This

meant that fascism and its philosophy is the new idealism “such indeed are the

distinguishing features of Fascist Idealism.” 67 By declaring fascism the new idealism,

63
Palmieri, 47.

64
Ibid.

65
Ibid.

66
Ibid.

67
Ibid., 48.
 32

Palmieri revealed that it is the solution to the decaying of human civilization brought on

by the decadence and inherent lack of spiritualism that is found in materialism. To

support his claim, Palmieri turned to Mussolini’s The Doctrine of Fascism. For three

pages, he directly quoted Mussolini’s discussion on fascist thought. However, the

concepts discussed after his direct quoting of Mussolini are far more important and

warrant more attention.

Palmieri ended his discussion on materialism with a resounding declaration. He

argued that fascism’s adversarial stance to materialism and individualism coupled with its

emphasis on the reclaiming of humanity’s lost spiritualism reveals that fascism is a call

for a new life. Adding a new dimension to the already well established understanding that

fascism at its core is palingenetic.68 Fascism’s new life is a call that seeks to end

humanity’s dependence on nature; it denounces the worship of material possessions. 69

The new fascist way of life is to be a spiritual awakening that sets humanity “above,

outside, and against nature.”70 Therefore, fascism is a way of life that cuts humanity from

the physiological and physical hindrances of materialism. Furthermore, it is a way of life

that exalts all things spiritual, showing that the essence of humanity is in the spiritual

world. This way of life gives humanity a conscience, giving them a sense of

responsibility toward others and providing humanity with the realization of their bond

with one another, which makes their “destines one interrelated whole a reality.” This new

68
Griffin, Nature of Fascism, 26.

69
Palmieri, 51-2.

70
Ibid., 52.
 33

way of life—fascism—rejects the political and economic structures of

liberal/conservative capitalism. It stands against a culture that is only an “intellectual

sport” of the elite; it celebrates a culture that allows the flowering of spiritualism within

the whole nation. It calls for higher life of duty, sacrifice, and heroism. Finally, the fascist

way of life provides no credibility to a civilization that undermines human progress in the

form of the institutions of the Church, the Family, and the State. Through this call,

Palmieri described a new way of life that would be created with the rise of the fascist

idealism. He denied that fascism is just a political entity, but described it as a social

movement that would become a new way of life. One that provides humanity with a

sense of worth that disappeared with the rise of materialism. This fascist way of life

would raise humanity above the natural confines of materialism and give it a new

spiritual worth.71

The Fascist Meaning of Life

The first two chapters of Palmieri’s book focused on fascism’s adversarial stance

on what he recognized as the two dominating philosophies of human life: individualism

and materialism. In his third chapter, he focused on fascism’s answer to the meaning of

life. Undoubtedly, Palmieri’s ideas on the meaning of life spur from his ideas on

individualism, materialism, and his conceptualization of human history—that humanity is

bound together. Consequently, it is no surprise that he began his discussion on the

meaning of life with a historical conception of this conundrum.

71
Ibid., 52-53.
 34

According to Palmieri, the meaning of life has seen various “answers” throughout

the course of human history. He listed several interpretations of the meaning of life

ranging from the Hindu, Christian, Greek, Roman, and Renaissance meanings of life. He

claimed each of these interpretations have led humanity to accept some greater truth.

According to Palmieri, the Hindu meaning of life made humanity realize that life has a

meaning, which consists of identifying that the individual consciousness must merge with

the consciousness of the whole and the true goal of life is to reach Nirvana. The Christian

meaning of life, he claimed, holds that human life is the preparation for a nobler life not

to be lived on this earth, but in another spiritual world. Therefore, the goal of Christian

life is the salvation and redemption of ourselves. He argued that the Greek meaning of

life depended on the dedication of all individual efforts to the realization of an ideal that

brings harmonious perfection to human life. Palmieri asserted the Roman meaning of life

was the worship of law, order, and justice. Finally, he explained the Renaissance found

the meaning of life in spiritual expression.72

Palmieri identified one commonality between all of the historical variations of the

meaning of life he described. He clarified that the different meanings of life all focus on

humanity revering something greater than the self. However, with the advent of modern

life the historical meaning of life witnessed a shift from a meaning of something beyond

the bounds of one’s self. Instead, the meaning of life took on a materialistic definition

that is only concerned with individualistic welfare. He wrote, “With the advent of modern

72
Ibid., 55-6.
 35

times man is simply and solely concerned with his own welfare.” 73 This shift to a

materialistic meaning of life focuses solely on the needs and the desires of the individual

and means that humanity has rejected the meaning of life that stands beyond one’s self.

The materialist meaning of life that emphases the individual has led to a relentless

war on perceived obstructions to freedom, Palmieri argued. The reason for this he

claimed is because “only in unfettered freedom does he believe it possible to realize his

Will to live.”74 Therefore, modern humanity believes that their will to live lies only in

unchallenged freedom. Any curb to this freedom is thus an attack on humanity’s will to

live. Palmieri concluded that the consequence of such thought has been the total rejection

of the three most important aspects of human life: the church, the state, and the family.

Palmieri described humanity’s rejection of these institutions, he wrote, “he has

consequently rejected all the claims of the Church upon his conduct of life, all the claims

of the State upon his person and his goods, all the claims of the Family upon his time, his

energies and his affections.”75 The consequence of humanity’s rejection of the church, the

family, and the state has regulated them to meaningless concepts. The church, through the

materialist meaning of life, has become nothing more than what Palmieri calls an

“institution of meaningless ritualistic practices.” Spiritualism and the understanding of

the spiritual world is no longer the concern of the church. Instead, the church is bound to

performing rituals with no spiritual substance, not to teach of the spiritual world beyond

73
Ibid., 57.

74
Ibid.

75
Ibid., 57-8.
 36

that of the natural, but just for the sake of performing rituals. Corresponding criticisms

are also present in Nazi thought. Again, Bormann identified decadence within German

Christian practices by writing that “Christianity’s immutable principles, which were laid

down almost two thousand years ago, have increasingly stiffened into-alien dogmas.” 76

The state, as well, has been forced into becoming a meaningless concept, transformed

into an institution that serves the will of the people protecting them and their property

without intruding upon their freedoms. Finally, the family has become an insincere entity

that no longer means to keep relationships permanent. Instead, the family is temporary

and easily dissolved.77

Palmieri accused liberty with empowering humanity with the ability to destroy

these institutions of human life. He argued that liberty became a slogan for materialist

individualism and gave humanity the ability to realize their material desires. It is through

the different forms of liberty that humanity undermined the roles of the church, the

family, and the state. Palmieri lamented, “It is in the name of religious liberty he has

undermined Religion, in the name of political liberty he has nullified the State, in the

name of economic liberty, he has enslaved his brethren, in the name of personal liberty,

he has destroyed the Family.”78 The undermining of these institutions through liberty

established the materialistic meaning of life and in turn allowed for the triumph of

individualism. Materialism and individualism allowed humanity to indulge in their

76
Bormann, in Nazi Culture, 244.

77
Palmieri, 58.

78
Palmieri, 58.
 37

animalistic will to live over that of spiritual aspirations. With these institutions destroyed

and the triumph of individualism and materialism over that of spiritualism, humanity’s

sense of responsibility vanished. According to Palmieri, humans no longer have to live a

life that adheres to spiritual responsibility and expression. Humanity’s duties to state have

also have fallen by the way side and their responsibilities to their fellow human beings

have been replaced with treating one another as pawns in their desires for self-

gratification.79 Of course, Nazi theorists at every level would add one other characteristic

that is absent from Palmieri’s assessment. This would be their racist anti-Semitic theories

that claimed all such degenerative issues spur from Jewish influence over German society

and culture.80

Fascism, naturally, confronts the destruction the materialist meaning of life

brought onto the so-called institutions of human life. It strives to rebuild the institutions

of human life—the church, the family, and the state. For this reason, the fascist meaning

of life is exactly the opposite of the materialist meaning of life that Palmieri discussed in

the first half of chapter three. He argued the materialist meaning of life has ushered in the

approach of a “new Dark Age.” To that end, fascism seeks to fight the coming of this

new Dark Age. Palmieri promised, “It is the possibility of such a Dark Age which

fascism is trying strenuously and successfully to stave off.” 81 To fend off the impending

new Dark Age, fascism offers an alternative meaning of life, one that discards the

79
Palmieri,-58-9.

80
Roger Griffin, “Nazism as a Manifestation of Generic Fascism,” in A Fascist Century: Essays
by Roger Griffin, 98; George Mosse, The Crisis of German Ideology (New York: Howard Fertig, 1998):
88-107; Volker Ullrich, Hitler, 85, 100-1, 202, 323.

81
Palmieri, 61.
 38

materialist meaning of life and one that rejects the other alternative—Marxism.

Accordingly, fascism in all its forms presented itself as an alternative system or a “third

way.” This remained true in the case of Hitler and the Nazi Party; however, keeping with

their racial outlook they considered Marxism and Judaism one in the same. 82

Palmieri insisted that fascism and its definition of the meaning of life offered

humanity something that materialism could not. He argued that fascism gave meaning to

life and “it answers emphatically that life HAS a meaning, that it has purpose and a goal,

and that it has worth and dignity and beauty.” 83 To give life meaning fascism maintains

the institutions of the church, the family, and the state; however, he claimed that fascism

adds another important institution—the nation. This new institution of the nation served

simply as an intermediary between the state and the masses. Only through these

institutions, Palmieri argued, is individuality truly realized. 84

Each institution works in tandem creating a cycle of sorts, which produces the

fascist meaning of life. This cycle begins with the realization of the “full life of the

Spirit.” The spiritual realization is only achieved when an individual’s spiritual needs,

aspirations, and longings are based, incorporated, and supported by the institutions of the

family, church, nation, and state. Each institution serves a role in realizing a person’s

spiritual being. The family provides the individual with a venue where they can “express

and realize his first spiritual needs.” The church in turn provides the individual with an

82
Palmieri, 60-1; Mosse, Fascist Revolution, 7; Payne, Fascism, 9; Ullrich, Hitler, 203.

83
Palmieri, 61-2.

84
Ibid., 62.
 39

outlet for the spiritual needs that cannot be fulfilled by the family. The nation provides

the individual with a space that expresses the continuity of their human experience and

unity with other individuals. Finally, the state serves as an organism that provides scope

to the expression of the spiritual life. It is created based on the conscious act of restricting

free will and freedom—allowing the rights, liberties, and opportunities of all individuals

to be bound by the same laws, duties, and authority as determined by the state. Through

these institutions, fascism maintains its meaning of life that provides humanity with a

spiritual life that smashes the animalistic materialist meaning of life. 85

To close chapter three Palmieri turned to using the work of other fascist thinkers

Balbino Giuliano and Giovanni Gentile to support his claims. He primarily focused on

what both men had to say about the institutions of the church, the family, the nation, and

the state. He began with Giuliano’s explanation of the family. Giuliano described the

family as the basic element of society that serves as something beyond a reproductive

entity. Instead, the family serves as an individual’s physical and spiritual foundation as

“the first formation of the physical and spiritual structure of the individual.” 86 This

statement lends credibility to Palmieri’s claim that the family serves as the first venue for

the individual to express his or her spiritual needs and thus brings them into the service of

the state. Indeed, fascism used the family to bring the individual into the aegis of the

state.87 The importance of the family for bringing individuals into the state’s sphere of

85
Ibid., 62-3.

86
Palmieri, 63.

87
De Grazia, How Fascism Ruled Women, 79.
 40

influence is also present in the Nazi philosophy. Hitler himself commented on the

importance of the family declaring it the “basic cell of our body as a people and a

state.”88

Palmieri also used Giuliano to back the importance of the nation in the life of the

individual. Again, his explanation of the nation adds credibility to Palmieri’s argument of

the importance of the nation in giving the individual a spiritual space that links them to

others. Giuliano explained that the nation essentially makes the individual by providing

humanity to the individual because it establishes a commonality between people. Finally,

Palmieri again references Giuliano to back his claim on the role of the state. His writing

reaffirms Palmieri’s argument that the state serves as an organ that establishes common

laws and authority that limits the liberties of individuals. To aid in his claims on the

church’s role and its importance Palmieri turned to Gentile. He argued that the fusion of

authority and liberty that creates the ethical will of the individual and the state is only

developed through the religious discipline. Therefore, the state must recognize the

church’s authority over religion; doing so will realize the goals of the state. 89

Palmieri concluded the chapter by clarifying that fascism, in order to lead

humanity to a more meaningful spiritually based of life, establishes the cult of the church,

the family, the state, and the nation. This cult—as described in the chapter—is necessary

for creating the new fascist meaning of life. At the center of this cult and the meaning of

life is the spiritualization of humanity that provides it with purpose. He affirmed, “With

88
Ullrich, Hitler, 415.

89
Palmieri, 64.
 41

this cult life will again find a purpose; through this cult life will finally reach its far off,

magnificent goal which is nothing less than the spiritualization of man.” 90

Conducting a Fascist Life

While Palmieri focused the previous chapter on how fascism defines the meaning

of life, he used chapter four to describe how to live a life that meets with the expectations

of that meaning of life. Keeping with the foundations of fascist philosophy the conduct of

life described by Palmieri is based on anti-individualism and materialism. Moreover, he

claimed that the fascist conduct of life has the power to transform the life of a country,

claiming that this transformation has occurred in Italy. He explained that the fascist

conduct of life produces a new spirit that permeates all strata of society. In doing so, the

fascist conduct of life animates all of the nation’s energy producing a singular “supreme

expression of power.” Therefore, the purpose of the fascist conduct of life is to create a

new national energy that is not based on individualistic and materialist interests.

Furthermore, the fascist conduct of life is determined by the state and “[t]he conduct of

life cannot be left to the individual choice of the people; cannot be dependent from their

individual likes and dislikes; it must be, instead, determined for them by a power which is

above them and comprehends them: namely, the State.” Consequently, the fascist conduct

of life places the lives of the masses into the aegis of the state. 91

Like his prior claims of fascism’s historical place Palmieri claimed that the fascist

conduct of life would end the consequences created by the major events of historical

90
Ibid., 65.

91
Ibid., 67, 68.
 42

progress. He singled out the Reformation, the French Revolution, and the Declaration of

the Rights of Man as the historical moments that are chiefly responsible for what he

called the chaos of the present. These events bore responsibility in the creation of

humanity’s belief in their own powers. In turn, humanity’s belief in their power has led to

the crises of the inter-war period. The fascist conduct of life combats the root causes of

this problem—individualism and materialism—and ends this period in human history. 92

The fascist conduct of life is centered on three principles, the principle of unity,

the principle of authority, and the principle of duty. Palmieri described the meaning and

importance of these principles in the order above. He began his description of unity with

the following quote from an unknown source (possibly Mussolini), “One invisible tie

binds together the destinies of all the people of one nation. There cannot be any joy or

any pain experienced by one single individual, any good or any evil befallen to him

which shall not ultimately affect the welfare of the whole nation.” The quote established

that the main concept of the principle of unity is based on humanity’s spiritual bind that

Palmieri discussed in the prior chapters of the book. This bind dictates that the lives of

the people of a nation are destined to be affected by one another, confirming that

individuality is unnatural. Of course, humanity’s connection is largely ignored because

the present system supports individualism. Palmieri argued that unity is the first principle

of fascism because the principle restores the bind between people and resists the material

welfare of individualism. He stated, “The good of the whole cannot be dependent from

the material welfare of the individual, that the very life of the individual is dependent

92
Ibid., 68.
 43

upon and is part of the life of an entity much greater and of far deeper meaning than his

small ego, namely the nation.” Accordingly, the principle of unity reestablishes the bind

between the masses and replaces their life’s worth into the nation. This in turn will force

the masses to act in the interest of the state. 93

While the principle of unity is based on the spiritual concept of humanity’s

spiritual bond, the second principle of authority is based on a completely different notion.

This is, according to Palmieri, “the divine essence of the hero.” 94 By hero, Palmieri is not

referring to military heroics, but something more complex. His sense of hero is based on

the concepts illustrated by nineteenth century philosopher Thomas Carlyle, specifically

his lecture from May 1840, about the hero as the preferred national leader. Palmieri

directly quoted Carlyle’s following description of the hero leader, “Find in any country

the ablest man that exists there, raise him to the supreme place and loyalty, reverence

him, you have a perfect government for that country; no ballot box, parliamentary

eloquence, voting, constitution building or other machinery whatsoever can improve it a

whit. It is the perfect State, the ideal Country.” 95 Carlyle believed the heroic figure, men

that possessed superior cunning moral fortitude, is best suited to rule nations. 96 Like

93
Ibid., 68-9, 69.

94
Ibid., 69.

95
Thomas Carlyle, On Heros, Hero Worship, and the Heroic in History (New York: Frederick A
Stokes and Brother, 1888), 218.

96
The use of “men” here is purposeful. It reflects that this theory of the hero as a leader does not
include women. Carlyle and Palmieri are implicitly describing men as the heroic figures because in their
framework there cannot be a heroine leader of the nation. This holds especially true in the fascist
understanding of the concept. While fascism politicized women with methods unseen in the
liberal/conservative political, social, and economic structure, it does not mean that fascism favored gender
equality nor equity proposed by feminism. Fascism rejected feminist theory and continued traditional
gender roles—although not necessarily by subscribing to or using traditional practices. For more, especially
 44

Carlyle, Palmieri styled the hero leader in fascism in the same light. He wrote, “The Hero

among us is partaker of it in a fuller measure than all. He is in a more direct, more

immediate relationship with the fountain-head of all knowledge, all wisdom, all love.

What he sees in life we do not see . . . ” 97 The hero then stands above the masses able to

understand the world in a way that the masses cannot. Without such a hero, the country is

doomed to darkness “originating from the confusion of conflicting ideas, conflicting

beliefs, conflicting wills.”98 Therefore, only a hero is capable of ending the conflicts in a

nation and creating a homogenous national order or authority.

The hero leader also played a significant role within the Nazi Party’s ideological

platform. At first, there was no cultish worship of Hitler until the successful rise of

Mussolini or at the very least, the creation of the Führer cult coalesced with the Fascist

Party’s claim to power in Italy.99 Never-the-less Hitler’s role as the hero leader became a

central aspect of National Socialism. Moreover, Nazi cult of the hero leader mirrored

Palmieri’s. In the winning essay from a University of Munich contest held in 1922,

Rudolf Hess wrote on Hitler’s role as the hero leader:

Deep knowledge in all areas of life of the state and its history, the ability to learn
from them, belief in the purity of his own cause and in ultimate victory, and
untamable strength of will give him the power of captivating oration that makes
the masses celebrate him . . . Thus we have a picture of the dictator: sharp in
intellect, clear and honest, passionate yet under control, cool and bold, daring,
decisive and goal-oriented, without qualms about the immediate execution of his
plans, unforgiving towards himself and others, mercilessly hard yet tender in his

within the Italian regime, see Victoria De Grazia, How Fascism Ruled Women: Italy, 1922-1945 (Berkley:
University of California Press, 1992).

97
Palmieri, 70.

98
Ibid., 71.

99
Ullrich, 125.
 45

love for his people, tireless in his work, with an iron fist clothed in velvet glove,
capable of triumphing over himself. 100

Hess’s portrayal of Hitler—in the paper he does not mention Hitler by name but later

confessed in a letter that he was indeed writing about Hitler101—as the hero leader is a

word for word a description of Carlyle’s hero as leader theory. Likewise, his idealization

of Hitler’s leadership qualities contains the same qualifications that Palmieri demanded

of any prospective hero leader.

While the heroic figure commands an important role in the authority principle,

Palmieri explained that fascism recognized another concept—hierarchy. Hierarchy works

in hand with the hero. It establishes and fetters the structures of the state. To demonstrate

the role of hierarchy Palmieri described the state structure as a pyramid. At its “vortex” is

the hero, the person destined to serve as the state’s head. His powers are granted to him

through the arranged hierarchies of the state. Thus, hierarchy becomes “the very essence

of Authority and the hierarchical arrangement of Society its truest expression in the world

of man.”102 In addition, through the hierarchical structure, humanity’s worth is revealed

to them as all the functions of their social and political life is fulfilled through

hierarchical structures. The perpetuation and the strengthening of hierarchical structures

were a central component of fascist movements. The support of hierarchy most often took

the form of language that stressed reinforcing and abiding to authority—especially that of

the state and in extension the hero leader. Therefore, the hero as leader and the

100
Ibid., 125-6.

101
Ibid., 126.

102
Palmieri, 72.
 46

reinforcement and abiding to authoritative structures of the state were manifestations of

fascist maintenance of hierarchy. A consequence of fascist perpetuation of hierarchy is

that they did not often challenge old liberal/conservative structures once they took power,

which is seen in both the Fascist Party and the Nazi Party. 103

So far, the first and second principles of the fascist conduct of life have been

discussed. The third principle Palmieri identified and discussed was duty. Palmieri

described duty as the greatest principle of the three and that unity and authority cannot be

separated from it. Furthermore, he described duty as the supreme motive of humanity’s

actions. Moreover, he claimed the belief that duty can be transformed into a living reality

is fascism’s most profound idealism that underlines its philosophy.

His discussion of duty began with one on conformity to the fundamental laws of

life—Palmieri never clarified what these laws are. Fascism believes that the fundamental

laws of life establish the moral nature of humanity and all must conform to these laws.

Fascism—according to Palmieri—rejects that these fundamental laws are formed from

“the pragmatic results of human behavior.” 104 Meaning that humanity did not develop

these laws, instead they are the product of the “very constitution of the Universe.” 105 This

is not to claim that the fundamental laws are natural as this would be the assertion of

materialism, which fascism rejects. Instead, the fundamental laws of life are the product

of the spirit. The moral progression of humanity is their discovery and adoption of these

103
Falasca-Zamponi, Fascist Spectacle, 125.

104
Palmieri, 72.

105
Ibid., 73.
 47

laws. Therefore, the principle of duty conditions humanity to these laws by applying

them to their practical life. Accepting these laws awakens in humanity a sense of

responsibility, which is comprehended through the principle of duty. Without this sense

of duty that provides the masses, the social capacity and responsibility care for one

another they cannot be considered human.106

Palmieri based his ideas on duty from those of Italian nationalist thinker and

activist Giuseppe Mazzini.107 Mazzini’s ideas on rights and duty were so influential to

Palmieri that he used a long passage from Mazzini to finish articulating the meaning of

duty. Mazzini described duty as the alternative to rights, explaining that rights are a

concept that favors the individual while duty is a concept of unity. He distinguished

between the two as follows: “Right is the faith of the individual. Duty is the common

collective faith.”108 For this reason, duty is a unifying force that builds society while

rights are one of individualism and destruction. Furthermore, he believed societies based

on duty are stronger, more resilient to force, and resist the possibility of struggle because

duty subjugates the individual to the will of the collected good—the nation. Finally,

Mazzini accused the concepts of rights for putting an end to sacrifice and martyrdom.

106
Ibid.

107
Giuseppe Mazzini commands a special place in Italian history and in Italian nationalist
mythos. Mazzini was a Italian nationalist who wrote on Italian nationalism, state building, and unification
throughout the nineteenth century. Furthermore, Mazzini personally founded and led many Italian
nationalist groups such as the Young Italy movement and attempted to start several failed revolutions with
the aim of creating and unifying an Italian national state. For this historians have lauded Mazzini as one of
the most important figures concerning the Risorgimento or Italian unification. For more on Mazzini and a
general history of the Risorgimento see Lucy Riall, Risorgimento: The History of Italy from Napoleon to
Nation State (New York: Palgrave Macmillan, 2009).

108
Giuseppe Mazzini, “Unknown,” in The Philosophy of Fascism (Chicago: The Fortune Press,
1936), 74. It must be said that just because Palmieri is using the ideas of Mazzini it does not mean that he is
a fascist, this holds true for many of the intellectuals that Palmieri borrows from.
 48

With rights, individual interests become the governing motives of people and sacrifice

becomes an absurd concept since it cannot promote individual interests. 109

In these terms, this is what duty means and why the principle of duty is imperative

to fascist philosophy. It is another method to bring the individual into the control of the

state, arguably the primary goal of fascism. Ergo, the fascist conduct of life is the

devotion to these principles of unity, authority, and duty. Each of these concepts promote

the end of individualism and provide the individual with a life meaning that advances the

welfare of the collective—the nation and eventually the state. For this reason, the true

fascist does not work for their own good, but for the state; the true fascist rejects rights

and excepts duty to the state; the true fascist does not love for sensual enjoyment, but for

unity; the true fascist accepts the authority of hierarchy; the true fascist sacrifices

themselves for the collective welfare of the nation. This is how life is conducted within

the fascist state.110

Fascist Ethics

For chapter five Palmieri focused on the ethics of fascist philosophy. Considering

that fascism sought to overhaul completely the political, economic, and social structures

of the nation, it is paramount that it had its own ethical ideals. The ethics of fascism

renounced those of materialism and individualism. Fascist ethics—based on its own

complex thought—focused on the duality of reality, the duality of subject-object, good

and evil, war and peace, and sacrifice.

109
Ibid.

110
Palmieri, 75-6.
 49

To begin Palmieri argued that through rejecting materialism and individualism

fascist philosophy recognized “the fundamental, irreducible duality of Reality, the duality

Subject-Object.” Palmieri claimed that the duality of reality and of subject-object when

addressed by other philosophies leads to an impasse with no solutions or resolutions

characterized by contradictions and negations. He argued that fascism has resolved these

dualities by recognizing that reality cannot be understood unless it is transformed into

thought by “the recognition that all Reality, be it apparently external to us, or an integral

part of ourselves, cannot be apprehended unless it is transformed into pure thought.”

Therefore, for fascism, thought is the standard for truth. This concept that the idea is

reality, which is subject-object resolved by pure thought and is in turn the criterion of

truth, serves as the basis of fascist ethics. 111

The next aspect of fascist ethics is that morality is a never-ending process.

Palmieri argued on the nature of morality claiming that “[a]ll Fascist theory of Ethics

begins with the recognition that morality is always in the making, is never final.” The

reason for this is that the transformation of moral relationships into pure thought is a

process that will go on forever. He made this argument with two assumptions, first that

moral relationships pre-exist as ideas in the realm of the absolute; second, the human

mind must rise through successive and never-ending stages to gain pure thought that is of

the character of the absolute. The recognition of this never-ending process means that

morality cannot be based on arbitrary moral values and relationships. Accordingly,

fascism postulates that ethics is not and cannot be the legislation of arbitrary laws.

111
Ibid., 77, 78.
 50

Instead, ethics must be “the transformation into laws, through the process of thought, of

the moral relationships which man discovers existing in the external world at a given time

and place.” Consequently, moral issues take on a new significance, which fascism seeks

to resolve with its own code of ethics that is based on thought turned into law. 112

As with any code of ethics, a paramount issue is the dynamic of good and evil,

fascist ethics is no different. At the heart of fascist ethics is the understanding that good

and evil are a persistent issue. Palmieri claimed that to deny the existence of good and

evil is a “misinterpretation of the very essence of life.” He further explained that good

and evil are the “primary conditions of the very existence, the very possibility of life.”

For this reason, fascist ethics does not deny the existence of good and evil. It accepts

them as they present themselves as subjects of thought and builds upon them as structures

for individual and social morality. Given the crimes committed under the various fascist

regimes, specifically the Nazis, fascist discussions on good and evil may seem

contradictory and above all disingenuous. While there can be no justification for the

atrocities committed by fascists, we also cannot simply write off these acts as sudden

spats of insanity or as a break from Western morals. Furthermore, fascist concepts of

good and evil and of morality also cannot be dismissed or we will have no understanding

of fascism.113

The atrocities committed by fascists, including acts of genocide such as the

Holocaust, are more complex than momentary lapses of collective reason and morality.

112
Ibid., 78, 79.

113
Ibid., 79.
 51

Given the brutal history of Western imperialism in Asia, Africa, and Central and South

America, fascist acts of violence become less alien to the mythos of Western morality. In

fact, anti-imperialist intellectual Aimé Césaire commented on the contradictory nature of

insisting the Holocaust (and in extension fascist morality) lay outside the bounds of

Western morality. Césaire explained how the crimes of the Nazis were the same as the

brutal policies of European imperialism as so:

. . . what he [the Westerner] cannot forgive Hitler for is not the crime in itself, the
crime against man, it is not the humiliation of man as such, it is the crime against
the white man, the humiliation of the white man, and the fact that he applied to
Europe colonialist procedures which until then had been reserved exclusively for
the Arabs of Algeria, the “coolies” of India, and the “niggers” of Africa. 114

Therefore, the crimes committed by the Nazis and numerous other atrocities committed

by the fascist movements are a logical extension of the violence found in Western

history, especially that imposed on its international colonies. 115 However this may be,

fascist regimes still needed to produce a social and cultural consensus to justify such

actions. Yet another aspect of Western thought helped to produce this consensus—

racism. Much of the atrocities committed by these regimes and their followers found

legitimization based off existing theories on race. In the case of Nazi violence, existing

sentiments of anti-Semitism were amplified to new heights to trigger the violence

targeted at Jewish communities. Prior anti-Semitic attitudes can be found throughout the

nation’s history in its political, social, and cultural spheres as it was often used in

attempts to ease class tensions and inspire nationalist identity amongst the German

114
Aimé Césaire, Discourse on Colonialism (New York: Monthly Review Press, 2000), 36.

115
For a more complete analysis of Nazi violence as distinct product of Western history see Enzo
Traverso, The Origins of Nazi Violence (New York: The New Press, 2003).
 52

masses. However, the Nazi Party stoked the preexisting anti-Semitic sentiments lurking

within German political, social, and cultural spheres of influence and unleashed its deadly

potential through numerous means of physiological consensus. Eventually, this built up

into the dehumanization of Jewish Germans and eventually all European Jews that moved

relatively slowly through stages of discrimination, ghettoization, ethnic cleansing, and

then outright genocide.116 Thus, as tenuous as fascist morality on good and evil may

seem, it cannot be ignored and it is directly related to prior Western notions since fascist

thought and movements are potential products of Western culture.

Palmieri next turned his attention to the issue of war and peace. He framed the

issue of war and peace as a one of social morality. He claimed that war and peace is an

issue that has seen more attention than any other problem, so much so, that it has become

a subject that suffers from dull repetition. However, he argued that the fascist approach to

war and peace is an original consideration of the issue. The central principle to fascist

conceptualization of war and peace relies on fascist ethic’s ideal of life and equilibrium.

According to fascist ethics, life is the constant destruction and renewal of equilibrium; the

completion of this cycle final equilibrium signifies death. Palmieri contented that this

cycle of equilibrium is true not only for individual lives, but for nations as well.

Therefore, the life of the nation will have moments of construction and deconstruction.

Furthermore, anything to achieve these moments of construction or deconstruction are

justified, even war, if it is necessary. This means, according to Palmieri, that war is a part

of life itself. Peace on the other hand is not life. Instead, peace serves as an affront to the

116
Mosse, The Crisis of German Ideology, 88-9, 106-7; Donny Gluckstein, The Nazis,
Capitalism, and the Working Class (Chicago: Haymarket Books, 2012), 11-3; David Beisel, “Building the
Nazi Mindset” The Journal of Psychohistory 37 no.4, (Spring 2010), 368.
 53

process of life.117 Peace, in other words is inactivity and “perpetual peace means the end

of all competition, the want of all ambition, the defeat of all efforts; it means in short

lethargy instead of activity, regress instead of progress, death instead of life.” 118

Consequently, fascist ethics views war as a crucial aspect of life. Moreover, war

according to fascism is neither good nor evil, it is just a part of life. He described the

relationship between war and life, “War is an experience of the race; an experience

justified and explained by the whole historical process which has made of mankind the

social, moral and political organism of our times.” 119

Palmieri discussed another central aspect of fascist ethics in relation to war. This

was the importance of suffering and sacrifice. According to fascist ethics, suffering

should not be avoided, but embraced. Palmieri argued that humanity must have the

courage to rise above the pain of suffering whenever it becomes necessary for the

triumph of an ideal. He described suffering and dying to advance an ideal as something

akin to glory, that “to die or to suffer for such a triumph is not to die or to suffer at all, it

is to live forever.” Ergo, suffering is not a byproduct of pain that should be avoided, but

instead a product of life that is to be embraced in order to make humanity stronger. Thus,

fascism recognized that suffering is a higher form of life. He explained, “The recognition

of Fascism that only through sorrow are we able to apprehend the higher things in life.

And he who suffers is not to be pitied, but envied.” This is true not only in war but in

117
Palmieri, 79-81.

118
Ibid., 83.

119
Ibid.
 54

society as well. This sentiment that suffering and sacrifice should not be shunned but

embraced as a central part of human life is found throughout fascist thought since it

eliminated—in theory—personal and individualistic aspirations. For this reason, not only

did fascist leadership advocate for such sentiment from the masses, but they also used

language that presented themselves as sacrificing their lives and suffering in the service

of the state—meeting the requirements of the hero leader. For instance, Mussolini

presented himself as the tireless leader and Hitler and his inner circle presented

themselves as a prophet (Hitler) and his disciples (his inner circle) who tirelessly worked

for the state.120

The final characteristic of fascist ethics that Palmieri discussed was its redefining

of the relationship between the individual and society—another assault on the individual.

Palmieri argued that fascist ethics acknowledges that the individual does not confer

meaning upon society; instead, society gives humanity meaning. Fascist ethics replaces

the individual as the center of the “universe” with the collective expression of humanity

in the form of the nation. Therefore, according to fascist ethics the individual is

subordinate to that of the nation. This of course means that because the state is at the top

of this hierarchy because it is the ultimate expression of the nation. To explain how this

relationship is achieved Palmieri turned to another fascist thinker Antonio Pagano who

claimed that the family is the tool used to subjugate the individual to society and then

society to the state. It is through this relationship that a person is transformed into an

ethical individual and becomes part of a moral universe. Once the individual is made into

120
Palmieri, 83; Falasca-Zamponi, Fascist Spectacle, 126, 66-8; Ullrich, Hitler, 205.
 55

a moral being through the relationship described by Pagano, Palmieri argued that they

might then focus on their relationship with their fellow human beings. The central

concern of this relationship is for the moral individual to “do whatever is in his power to

elevate them to that higher level of consciousness where ethical norms reign supreme.” 121

When humanity has been elevated to this consciousness of ethical norms they would no

longer be enslaved by the morals of individualism and materialism. For this reason, under

fascism the family receives duel (and contradictory) purposes as both a distant institution

of the state—tasked with preparing or fostering the individuals’ spirit and patriotic duty.

As well as a private institution tasked with mediating between the needs of the individual

and the complex demands of state or in other words the family shelters the individual

from their duty to the nation.122

Fascism and Liberty

The final chapter of Part 1 is Palmieri’s discussion on the relationship between

fascist philosophy and the concept of liberty. Palmieri’s conception of fascism and liberty

began with his argument that the ideal life is one that is the expression of human

spiritualism. The fascist meaning of life—in short—is the manifestation of this ideal that

seeks to benefit the whole rather than the individual. Because the fascist ideal of life

rejects the notion of individualism, it finds itself in conflict with the theory of liberty.

Palmieri explained, “It is from this contrast between the claims of the whole that the

121
Palmieri, 85.

122
Palmieri, 85-7; De Grazia, How Fascism Ruled Women, 79.
 56

problem of Liberty arises.”123 This conflict serves as the central point of Palmieri’s

discussion on fascism and liberty.

Palmieri argued that fascism from the outset seeks to take away personal liberty

and in doing so, it is and must be a fundamental aspect of any fascist movement. He

claimed the reason for taking away personal liberty is the realization of “the liberty of the

Spirit.” Palmieri believed that the liberty of the spirit was the superior form of liberty that

expressed the “true goal of life.” Therefore, two different concepts of liberty—fascist

conception of liberty and the individualistic conception of liberty—are in conflict with

one another. Furthermore, he specified that these two concepts are so dissimilar that they

could never be brought together because “there is no hope that the abyss which separates

them can ever be bridged.” Palmieri contended that under the fascist concept of liberty, to

be free means to no longer be a “slave to one’s own passions, ambitions or desires; means

to be free to will what is true, and good and just, at all times, in all cases.” In contrast, the

individualistic concept of liberty means “to follow the call of one’s own nature; to

worship one’s own God; to think, to act, or to speak according to the dictates of one’s

own mind; to earn, to spend, to save or to hoard at will; to accumulate property and deed

it following one’s own whims or fancy, to reach all edonistic goals; wealth, health,

happiness or pleasure.” Hence, the individualistic concept of liberty opposes everything

for which fascism stands for; it gives the individual control of their life and allows them

to act without regard for anyone else and the welfare of the state. Furthermore, he

exclaimed that this concept allows individuals to live “unhindered by compulsions,

123
Palmieri, 89.
 57

restrictions, prohibitions, rules, codes and laws.” In other words, individualistic liberty

permits the masses to act on their own in contrast to the collective good of the national

community and the state. 124

Palmieri accused liberty of being an ideal that enslaves humanity to their animal

instincts.125 He claimed that the desire and need to fulfill these instincts has increased a

“thousand fold” with the advancement of civilization because “the more developed, the

more complete, the more complex a civilization becomes, the more it offers in the way of

comfort, attraction, pleasure, the more does the individual become a slave of increased

needs, or increased desires.”126 Civilization, in consequence, has created new instinctual

behaviors and has provided more avenues to fulfill them. Meanwhile, the advent of

liberty has allowed humanity to pursue fulfilling their instincts without restrictions.

According to Palmieri in their natural state humanity was not free to pursue this

fulfillment of their desires and needs. Despite the increased needs and desires and the

increased methods to act them out humanity can never fully satisfy them. Therefore,

Palmieri’s argument against liberty is that it claims to allow humanity the fulfillment of

its needs and desires, but such a claim is against the reality that humanity cannot come to

realize its needs and desires. Consequently, liberty with its false claim of fulfillment

124
Ibid., 90, 91.

125
Palmieri’s precise meaning of instincts is never explained. Considering the words he uses to
describe his ideas on the matter it seems to be multifaceted on one level he eludes to basic survival
activities such as eating, sleeping, procreation, etc; at the same time he includes new non-survival activities
such as consumerism, worship, accumulation of property, sexual promiscuousness, and entertainment
created through the act of civilizing. It us likely his first set is what he means by “needs” and his second is
classified by his use of the term “desire.”

126
Palmieri, 92.
 58

drives humanity to a never ending and dangerous frenzy of decadent consumption. As

such, he declared that the unrestricted freedom of liberty is anarchy and an enemy of the

cultured state. 127

Palmieri proposed that the true cultured state means a state in which “ethical

values reign supreme, and ethical values presuppose, in all cases, limitations of individual

freedom.” Thus, no one should have the ability to “do what he likes without taking heed

of the consequences wrought by his thoughts, his words, or his actions.” He contended

that individuals should only pursue the choice that not only benefits their own welfare,

but the choice that benefits the prosperity of the collective whole. Furthermore, in doing

so, he reasoned, that the individual has earned their humanity. 128

According to Palmieri, fascism recognizes these issues of individualistic liberty

and strives to replace it with liberty of the spirit. Only liberty of the spirit can free

humanity from “all bounds, all fetters, all chains born from the world of nature and

substitute to them those originating from the vision and the realization of moral Law . . . ”

Fascist liberty seeks to renew a sense of responsibility in human life that is lost with the

freedom of individualistic liberty. Furthermore, fascism transforms liberty from a right

into a duty. Palmieri claimed that the common individual lacks the intelligence to know

how to use their freedom except to satisfy their needs and desires; furthermore, “the

ordinary human being DOES NOT KNOW how to use his freedom, or rather he knows

simply how to use it for the satisfaction of his instincts and desires.” Fascism seeks

127
Ibid., 92-3.

128
Ibid., 93-4, 94.
 59

through the liberty of the spirit to control the individual’s instincts allowing them to

become master of their self and of their fate. 129

Conclusion

Part 1 of Palmieri’s book focused on the philosophical foundations of fascism.

Within it, he discussed the nuanced thought that grounded the movement. Fascism is not

a movement that is anti-intellectual; instead, it is one with its own philosophical base. 130

This foundation centers on thought that challenges the conventional political, social, and

economic structures of liberalism/conservatism and one that is adamantly against

individualism and materialism. The philosophy of fascism seeks to replace these ideals

with one that returns humanity to the spiritual realm. In doing so, fascist thought

advocates for the obliteration of the social fetters of the liberal/conservative structure. It

creates its own conduct of life based on its own ethics. All these elements come together

to bring new meaning to human life that renews spirituality by reinforcing the crucial

cults of the church, family, nation, and state, thereby reestablishing the bond that

connects humanity—this is the fascist way of life.

The fascist way of life sought to alter radically the political, social, and economic

structures of human life. Fascists like Palmieri claimed this new way of life was superior

to the existing one based on individualism and materialism. Furthermore, they offered

fascism as an alternative to the other movements—communism, socialism, and

anarchism. To oppose all of these ideals, fascism in all of its forms also needed its own

129
Ibid., 95, 96.

130
A. James Gregor, Mussolini’s Intellectuals: Fascist Social and Political Thought (Princeton,
NJ: Princeton University Press, 2005), 1-3.
 60

philosophy. Knowing this intellectual basis of fascism is imperative for understanding

what the movement(s) stood for and what they sought. We cannot know what fascism is

both past and present if we do not understand the thought that served as its foundation.
 61

CHAPTER 2

FASCIST GOVERNMENT AND ECONOMICS

Introduction

In Part 2 of The Philosophy of Fascism, Palmieri turned attention to his notions on

fascist politics and economics. At the core of Palmieri’s political and economic theories

is the fascist philosophy he laid out in Part 1. Specifically, the political and economic

structures of a fascist state rely on the masses’ internalization of the cult of the family, the

church, the nation, and the state. In addition, the anti-individualism and anti-modernism

that is a central perception of these concepts are fundamentally present in his ideas on the

political and economic structures of the ideal fascist state. Therefore, the structures

explained by Palmieri in this section of the book are intended to be the realization of the

philosophical attributes of fascism from Part 1.

Palmieri organized this section into five chapters, each focused on a specific issue

concerning political and economic structures of the fascist state. The first, chapter seven

is Palmieri’s explanation of fascism’s adversarial stance on democracy and the problems

that fascists believe to be inherent with democratic government. The second, chapter

eight is his definition of the state under the philosophy of fascism. The third, chapter nine

differs from the previous chapters in the sense that it reads almost as a justification for

why Fascism in Italy has not reached all of its claims. In addition, Palmieri asserted

throughout the chapter that fascism is not simply a new form of a dictatorship. The fourth
 62

chapter, chapter ten, is his explanation of the Fascist economic structure, which has

become known as corporativism. Finally, the fifth chapter, chapter eleven reads much

like chapter nine meaning it reads like an attempt to explain away the failures of the

Fascist government to meet its promises of the corporative system. Like the previous

chapter, I will discuss the chapters of Part 2 in the order that they appear. Aside from

chapters ten and eleven, each chapter will have their own dedicated section. I have

decided to combine the discussions of the last two chapters because they deal with the

same subject.

Fascism and Democracy

Before discussing the political and economic structures of the fascist state,

Palmieri dedicated the first chapter of Part 2 to discussing fascism’s adversarial stance to

democracy. He began with this discussion on democracy for the simple reason that

fascism’s political structures are meant to be an alternative to the democratic system. To

properly discuss how and why fascism is going to be that alternative, Palmieri needed to

explain the problems he believed to be inherent within democracy.

Fascism’s stance on democracy stems from its anti-individualism and anti-

liberalism. Palmieri questioned democracy’s core tenet that the common person knows

what is best for them; thus, democratic philosophy places faith on the masses. The

foundation of this belief is that anyone can be taught the “wisdom” necessary to embody

the intellectual and moral virtues of a democratic system. Thus, democracy has become a

utopian goal that hinges on the education of the masses. He described modern history as

the struggle to realize the establishment of the democratic utopia. Consequently, he

 63

claimed that this can never happen because human society is not and will never be ready

for the democratic ideal.131

Palmieri believed that the time in human history to realize a democratic utopia is

ending. The reason being that humanity is beginning to understand that they cannot learn

the wisdom necessary for the common person to self-govern, such wisdom lays beyond

the possibilities that nature endowed within human instincts. The inability to teach the

common person the essential wisdom to necessitate democracy is the crux of Palmieri’s

argument. He viewed the drive to create a democratic state as a fool’s errand and a crime.

He wrote, “It is almost criminal to keep alive in mankind the hope of true realization of

the democratic ideal.”132 To him the attempt to reach the democratic ideal has hindered

human growth and he advocated abandoning democracy.

Since Palmieri saw democracy as an unfeasible goal that will forever be doomed

and promptly argued that fascism recognizes its impending failure. Fascists see that

democracy is always susceptible to falling into the hands of the powerful few whether

they are militarists or capitalists. Accordingly, he professed, “Fascism recognizes

therefore at the outset that Democracy wherever it has been tried, it has degenerated

sooner or later into an oligarchy of tyrannical autocrats—be they military, as of old, or

financial, as of modern times.”133 Palmieri determined that the reason for this

susceptibility is that democracy relies on the masses. He argued that since the common

131
Palmieri, 105.

132
Ibid., 106-7.

133
Ibid., 107.
 64

person is unfit for self-rule then fundamentally humanity must be governed. He

exclaimed, “the truth that the mass of men is created to be governed and not govern; is

created to be led not lead . . . ”134 Palmieri is hardly the only fascist to argue this position.

In fact, he turned to Mussolini to qualify his claims quoting excerpts from speeches given

on November 17, 1922 and July 23, 1933. In the November 1922 speech, Mussolini

declared that Fascists desired to uplift the lives of the people both materially and

spiritually but not through democracy. He declared, “Not because we think that number,

mass, quantity may create some special types of civilization in the future.” 135 In the

speech from July 1933, Mussolini claimed that humanity desires, especially in times of

crisis, to be governed—coinciding with Palmieri’s argument. 136 Palmieri identified two

key concepts of fascism that lend to its dislike of democracy, these are “a lack of faith in

the masses”137 and the goal of lifting the material and spiritual conditions of the people.

Because fascism places no faith in the masses, its relationship with the common

person is vastly different that the democratic system. Palmieri clarified that fascism

rejected the claim of democracy that “all men are created equal” and instead finds that

people are unequal. He noted, “Fascism holds instead that all men are created unequal in

intellectual, spiritual, and moral and physical attributes.”138 By rejecting equality,

134
Ibid.

135
Benito Mussolini, “November 1922 Speech,” in The Philosophy of Fascism (Chicago: The
Fortune Press, 1936), 108.

136
Benito Mussolini, “July 1933 Speech,” in The Philosophy of Fascism (Chicago: The Fortune
Press, 1936), 108.

137
Palmieri, 108.

138
Ibid., 108-9.
 65

Palmieri advocated that humanity’s only common trait is that they are the servants of one

cause. Through fascism, this rejection replaces political democracy with spiritual

democracy and in the eyes of the state; it brands the masses as the same ultimate worth.

Palmieri explained that by rejecting democracy and its faith in the masses fascism

does not inherently suggest the establishment of a dictatorship. Indeed, he scoffed at the

accusation that fascists merely seek the establishment of a dictatorship. He clarified that

fascism is not synonymous with dictatorship simply because fascism is something more.

This lays in the fact that fascism’s political organization is a tool that seeks to build the

“nation’s life.” Palmieri claimed, “this tool may be used or discarded in turn as the

occasion arises and the needs demand it, without affecting in the least the essential truth

of Fascism.”139 This is fascism’s most complex attribute, it is a movement that possesses

a fluid nature; essentially, it will adjust itself to the political climate to ensure its success.

Palmieri follows up with what is a seemingly contradictory statement in which he

explains that fascism’s fluidity opens itself to using democracy:

That Liberalism may still evolve so as to accept as fundamental reality of Life, the
duality between possibilities inherent to Man as individual and those inherent to
Man as a social being and abandon forever its utopian belief in Man as master of
the whole Universe and that, finally, the new Democracy may be enabled to select
heroes for leaders; true heroes, not demagogic puppets, and become thus another
form of Fascism under a different name. 140

Fascism’s rejection of democracy does not lay in authoritarian rule, Palmieri argues, but

within democracy’s incompatibility with the reality of humanity’s social and political

makeup.

139
Ibid., 110.

140
Ibid.
 66

Finally, Palmieri ended the chapter with a discussion on fascism’s contempt for

parliamentarianism.141 He mentioned that the distrust of parliamentarianism is not

necessarily new nor an original concept created by fascist thinkers. He attributed Filippo

Tommaso Marinetti—the founder of the Futurist Movement—as the earliest dissident to

the parliamentary system, at least in Italy. Palmieri quoted his declaration from 1910 that

avowed “the parliamentary system is almost everywhere a wasted form.” 142 Marinetti

reasoned that the system was broken because the people do not know how to select

representatives who will actually serve them. For this reason, the people will “always

remain outside the government.”143

Aside from the broken nature of the system, Palmieri—again quoting Mussolini—

provided two other reasons why parliamentarianism was no longer useful, these were

syndicalism and journalism. Mussolini determined that syndicalism weakened the

parliamentary system because it concentrated the interests of the people into particular

associations. Therefore, stripping parliament of its major purpose—guiding the interests

of the people. On the other hand, journalism stripped parliamentarianism of its monopoly

over discourse. This meant that virtually anyone could discuss the issues the state faced;

141
Palmieri’s use of parliamentary and parliamentarianism refers to democracy and the
democratic system.

142
Filippo Tommaso Marinetti, Unknown in The Philosophy of Fascism (Chicago, The Fortune
Press, 1936), 111.

143
Ibid.
 67

consequently, eliminating the main purpose of a specific group of people who serve in

parliament.144

The criticisms of democracy provided by Palmieri and Mussolini, whom he

echoes, are not entirely original. Palmieri and in extension fascism reflect the scrutiny the

liberal/conservative capitalist system faced during the turn of century from European

intellectuals. These thinkers and artists, like Marinetti, grew dissatisfied and

disenfranchised with the liberal/conservative political, social, and economic model. They

sought to break from what they saw as cultural, intellectual, and creative regression and

participate in a new watershed moment that would revitalize and evolve Western

civilization. This movement that questioned the narrative of Enlightenment rational, now

labeled “the revolt against positivism,” had its obvious influence on fascists and their

own movement as seen by Palmieri’s rejection of liberal/conservative democracy. 145

The Fascist State

Palmieri’s emphasis in chapter 8 is the state. His discussion primarily focused not

on the mechanics of running the state, but what the state means according to fascist

philosophy. For this reason he concentrated on explaining the difference between the

nation and the state and their relationship. Moreover, he discussed the role of the state in

the lives of individuals and their role within the state. Additionally, he explained how the

144
Benito Mussolini, “June, 8, 1923” in The Philosophy of Fascism (Chicago: The Fortune Press,
1936), 111.

145
Cassels, Fascism, 3, 11; Roger Griffin, “ ‘I am no longer Human. I am a Titan. A god! The
Fascist Quest to Regenerate Time,” in A Fascist Century: Essays by Roger Griffin (New York: Palgrave
MacMillan, 2008), 4-5.
 68

fascist state differs from the manifestation of the state within the liberal/conservative

framework.

Continuing his assault on democracy from the previous chapter Palmieri restated

that fascism is fundamentally against democratic rule, of course, the principle reason

resting on the fact that fascism does not trust the merit and intelligence of the masses.

Palmieri maintained that Democracy and its principle philosophy that the masses are fit

to self-rule has been disproven in the events of contemporary history. He determined that

the cost of the democratic experiment is that the world is in “a condition of anarchy and

decadence.”146 Out of this anarchy and decadence is the possibility of something far more

threatening—the spread of communism. Palmieri demeaned communism as a backward

system that produced a society akin to insects “the communist folly bringing the world

suddenly back to the primitive state of a society of ants or bees.” 147

Warning against the eventual rise of communism, fascism offers itself up as the

political, economic, and social system that can reverse the ills of the democratic

experiment that has provided an opportune environment for communist revolution.

Palmieri explained that the “State as an Ideal” is fascism’s response and solution to

ending the current state of affairs. He claimed that no other philosophy recognizes that

the state is an organic essence with its own life. Instead, political commentators only see

the state as “an outgrowth of the original tribal group of the primitive age.” He saw this

view of the state—as a lifeless growth from premodern social structures—as the root

146
Palmieri, 115.

147
Ibid.
 69

problem. This perspective left humanity with no connection to the state since

liberal/conservative state structures are soulless and void of life. Without life, the state is

nothing but a simple symbol; one that humanity has been made to fear and hate. With this

revelation, Palmieri argued it is no surprise that the people do not want to participate

within the state. He wrote, “No wonder then that the soldier found military service

unbearable, the citizen found the payment of the taxes a burden, the educator found

education to be a perpetual lie, the priest found that his mission conflicted with the

mission of the state, and so forth and so on.” Alienated from the state the masses find no

reason to live a life that is a part of the state; fascism seeks to reverse this relationship and

restore the state’s role in the lives of the masses. 148

Since he saw the state as an organic entity, Palmieri denounced the idea that the

state is the creation of a social contract. Therefore, fascism outright rejects the idea that

the state is nothing more than a social contract devised by people. Palmieri declared,

“The reason of being of the State is not to be found instead, according to Fascism, in

external causes like, for instance, a social contract.” The risk of the state only existing as

an abstract idea—a social contract—lies in who or what has control over the state. He

explained that in this system the parties or people responsible for creating the contract

have a blatant dominance over the state since “it would remain always at the mercy of the

contracting parties; all power of directing the life of the commonwealth would not reside

with the State, but with these parties.” Accordingly, the social contract as the basis of a

state’s existence creates a power dynamic that places people in control of the state, which

148
Ibid., 116.
 70

stands against the basic fascist belief that the state is the dominating force in life. Instead

of the state existing as a social contract, fascism contends that the state is found in the

ethical collective expression of the nation.149

The fascist state’s power is one that is based on supremacy over everything.

Palmieri described its main characteristic as “the capacity to will and to act, to legislate

and to command, the capacity, in other words, of operating as an ethical personality.” 150

Such a capacity makes the state the dominating force over all individuals and their lives.

The purpose of this capacity directly collates with fascist spirituality and its goal of

fulfilling humanity’s return to the spiritual world. Palmieri used the creation of the

Fascist Labor Charter in Italy to further explain the state’s capacity. He claimed that the

Labor Charter ushered in a “new chapter” in human society that revitalized an Idealism

that once again gave human life meaning through the expression of spiritual energy. He

chronicled the creation of the Charter and the understanding of what the fascist state is

through Mussolini’s eventual description. In November 1922, Mussolini declared that the

problem was not that there was an absence of programs to alleviate the issues people

faced, but instead a lack of will. He revealed that the state had to become that will to

combat the problems of the inter-war crises. He affirmed because of Fascism’s rise to

power “[t]he State represents today this firm and determined will.” 151 Therefore, fascism

maintains that the state must be something more than a regulator and executor of

149
Ibid., 117.

150
Ibid.

151
Benito Mussolini, “November 16, 1922” in The Philosophy of Fascism (Chicago: The Fortune
Press, 1936), 118.
 71

programs—it must be the people’s will to act. 152 By 1923, Mussolini further evolved the

capacity of the state when he dismissed the interests of the people and made the state the

ultimate authority by proclaiming its interests are more important. He announced, “The

State exists for all the people, but is above the people, and, if necessary, against the

people . . . It is against them whenever they attempt to place their particular interests

above the general interests of the Nation.” 153 When he dismissed the interests of the

people, Mussolini attempted to render all power to the structures of the state. Making the

state the determining facilitator of the masses’ lives and the nation—not the realities of

day-to-day life.

Mussolini further solidified the state’s agency over that of the people and its

power to define the nation in a speech given on August 8, 1925:

It is the purpose of Fascism to unify the Nation through the sovereign State, the
State which is above all and can be against all, because it represents the moral
continuity of the Nation. Without State there is no Nation. 154

In this speech, Mussolini finished describing the power of the state. His declaration “the

State which is above all and can be against all,” confirmed the omnipotent nature of

state’s power in the Fascist structure. Furthermore, his decree that the nation cannot exist

without the state represented fascism’s most potent and most visible characteristic, ultra-

nationalism. At its core, the fascist concept of the state and its power rested on the idea of

152
Palmieri, 118.

153
Benito Mussolini, “January 7, 1923” in The Philosophy of Fascism (Chicago: The Fortune
Press, 1936), 119.

154
Benito Mussolini, August 8, 1925” in The Philosophy of Fascism (Chicago: The Future Press,
1936), 120.
 72

nationalism.155 Palmieri jubilantly echoed the ideas of Mussolini on state supremacy and

nationalism. He contended that the nation did not create the state; conversely, the state

produced the nation since “through the State a Nation first rises to the consciousness of

itself . . . ”156 Through such a dichotomy, fascist nationalism establishes that the people

do not decide the political, social, and moral dimensions of the nation or for the state.

Instead, fascism maintains that the resolution of said issues rests solely in the hands of the

state. He wrote, “The State gives to the people that political, social, and moral unity

without which there is no possibility of a true natural life.” 157 Therefore, under fascism

the state becomes the will and the single embodiment of the people; individualism

becomes less significant because the “individual loses all of that importance which it had

assumed in the modern times.”158

The fascist state being the superior power presides over the lives of the people. In

other words, the fascist state assumes functions that are not presently a part of the

democratic structure. Accordingly, Palmieri concluded that the fascist state is not only

concerned with social order, political organization, and economic problems, but with

morality and religion as well. He contended that the state assumes the responsibility of

155
In “defining” nationalism, I defer to E. J. Hobsbawm and his book Nations and Nationalism
since 1780 (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1990). Hobsbawm discusses the altering
characteristics of nationalism beginning with just prior to the Age of Revolution, the Age of Revolution,
the late-nineteenth century, and the twentieth century; borrowing heavily from prior ideas of Benedict
Anderson’s Imagined Communities. Anderson established that the nation is an imagined community and
that nationalism is the support mechanism of said community.

156
Palmieri, 120.

157
Ibid.

158
Ibid.
 73

being the manifestation of the masses moral and religious life calling the fascist state “the

Ethical State.”159

Palmieri described three presumptions the fascist state holds in order to be what

he called the “Ethical State.” First, the fascist state presumes humans are social beings

and for this reason willing and compelled to be under some form of “disciplinary

authority” for the benefit of the whole. Second, that there is a highest law and it is a

moral law that defines right from wrong, good and evil; furthermore, this higher moral

law is beyond individual judgement. Finally, the nation-state is an organic life on its own.

This life of the nation-state transcends that of the individual and its development, growth,

and laws that humans cannot disregard or alter determine progress, they can only

discover and obey these laws. Through these presumptions, the fascist state becomes

something more than the term that denotes the complex system of individuals, classes,

and organizations. Instead, it becomes those people, classes, and originations it becomes

a living thing and the spiritual entity of the nation it becomes the ethical state. 160

To support his claims of the fascist state being a living entity and the nation as the

will of the people Palmieri turned to two Fascist intellectuals, Giovanni Gentile and

Alfredo Rocco. He used Gentile’s explanation of how fascists view the living status of

the state. He claimed, “We affirm our belief that the State is not a system of hindrances

and external juridical controls from which men flee, but an ethical being, which like the

conscience of the individual, manifests its personality, and achieves its historical growth

159
Ibid., 121.

160
Ibid., 121-2.
 74

in human society.”161 Palmieri’s claims about the living ethical state echoed Gentile’s

argument that the ideal form of a state should not just be a structure of hindrances and

juridical administrations, which is how the state is manifested through the

liberal/conservative system. Beginning at the turn of the century intellectuals began to

lash out at the inherent failures of democratic system and its inability to alleviate the

problems of the period.162 The later fascist critique—building off of the prior criticisms of

the liberal/conservative system—communicated to the masses that fascism had an answer

to liberal democracy’s inaction, by giving the state the power to act through accepting it

is a living entity. Once again, Palmieri found support of the nation’s place as the will of

the masses in Gentile’s prior work. He argued, “The Nation is that will, conscious of

itself and of its own historical past, which as we formulate it in our minds, defines and

delineates our nationality, generating an end to be attained, a mission to be realized.” 163

Rocco further supported Palmieri’s claims on the nation. On the subject, he asserted

“[t]he Nation is that living, moral entity, which although composed of individuals,

transcends the scope and life, of its components . . . ”164

Finally, Palmieri stressed that if the fascist state is an ethical one, then it is also a

sovereign state. His meaning is that the state is free from any control or interference from

161
Giovanni Gentile, “Unknown” in The Philosophy of Fascism (Chicago, The Fortune Press,
1936), 122.

162
Mazower, Dark Continent, 18, 22.

163
Giovanni Gentile, “Unknown” in The Philosophy of Fascism (Chicago, The Fortune Press,
1936), 122-3.

164
Alfredo Rocco, “Unknown” in The Philosophy of Fascism (Chicago, The Fortune Press,
1936), 123.
 75

the people, from parliament, and from royalty. He wrote, “its power, therefore, is not

conditional to the will of the people, the parliament, the King, or any other of its

constituent elements . . .”165 Once again, this is Palmieri lashing out at liberal ideals,

which he argued had forced the state to concede its sovereignty to the masses. In turn, the

concessions made to liberal doctrine allowed for the rise of socialism and communism,

which has weakened the state further. Fascism through the doctrine of the Ideal State

rejects the diminishing of the state’s sovereignty and seeks to restore it; of course with

the idea that the state is above all individuals, organizations, castes or classes, particular

interests, and ambitions. Consequently, fascism reverses the roles of the liberal

democratic doctrine and forces the masses into a place of “secondary importance” and the

nation-state into the primary one.166

The remaining four pages of Palmieri’s chapter are a direct and continuous quote

from Mussolini that further support his claims about the state and the nation in fascist

philosophy. In the interest of trying to avoid repetition, I have decided not to discuss this

section in great detail. The quote looks to be from Mussolini’s The Doctrine of

Fascism167 and it supports much of what Palmieri argued. Specifically, it links liberal

doctrine to individualism and to the weakening of the state, which in turn is why fascism

is against liberal democracy. Furthermore, the quote addresses the superiority of the state

165
Palmieri, 126.

166
Ibid., 126-7.

167
Benito Mussolini and Giovanni Gentile, The Doctrine of Fascism, (Rome: Ardita Publishers,
1932).
 76

over the people, again supporting what Palmieri, himself, claimed. 168 After quoting from

Mussolini, Palmieri closed the chapter with one final paragraph. In it, he exclaimed that

given what he discussed about the state the philosophy of fascism proves to rise above

the philosophy of individualism. Simply put, this is because fascism supports the concept

of the Ethical State, which gives credence to the supremacy of the nation-state; thus,

providing humanity with a purposeful life.169

The Organization of the Italian Fascist State

The title of Palmieri’s ninth chapter is without a doubt misleading. The title “The

Constitution of the Fascist State” is contradictory considering that the previous two

chapters of his book go into detail on dispelling liberal/conservative democratic doctrine

(which the constitution is a cornerstone of). Furthermore, in the previous chapter on the

fascist state he declared that the state could not be held to any restrictions or conditional

documents. Therefore, why would Palmieri write a chapter about the constitution of the

fascist state? However, Palmieri is not describing a document that defines, establishes,

and restricts the structures of the Fascist government in Italy. Instead, he described the

organization of the government in Italy. This chapter has less theoretical language than

the previous chapters discussed. For this reason, this chapter seems to be less about the

philosophical nuances of the Fascist government. Instead, it seems to focus on explaining

the logic behind the current structures of the government and how they keep with

168
Palmieri, 128-31.

169
Ibid., 131.
 77

fascism’s more radical ideas. Additionally, the chapter reads as if Palmieri is justifying

the duopoly between Fascist rule—manifested through Mussolini—and the King.

The Fascist government established after the March on Rome was not the radical

new order that Fascists called for. Instead, Mussolini’s newly created government

established a coalition between the Fascists, conservative Nationalists, the Popolari, and

other parties. In his first two years in power, Mussolini—to the frustration of radical

Fascists—made multiple concessions to various liberal/conservative demands. He did not

abolish or make any real moves to abolish parliament or the constitution and actively

sought to work within its confines. He also, reported directly to the King twice a week. In

Germany, Hitler and the Nazi party took a similar stance of concession and cooperation

with traditional political structures and elites when they first took power. Nazi dominance

of Germany’s political sphere did not materialize completely until the late 1930s—

especially around 1937-8 when traditional civil servants become disillusioned by the

regime and start distancing themselves from the government or resigned from their posts

altogether.170

Under such circumstances, it makes sense that Palmieri would want to explain

away these issues and create a narrative that clarified that these were all part of the

Fascist program. He began the chapter with a defensive tone by explaining that fascism

(both generically and in the Italian case) is not simply a dictatorship. He wrote, “May it

not be instead that Dictatorship is not an element of Fascism at all, and that Fascism is

170
Cassels, 48-50; Paxton, 119-20; Jeremy Noakes, “German Conservatives and the Third Reich:
An Ambiguous Relationship,” from Martin Blinkhorn ed., Fascists and Conservatives (London: Unwin
Hyman, 1990), 90.
 78

firmly opposed to all forms of Dictatorship, political as well as otherwise?” 171

Responding to criticism that fascist ideology simply lies in a dictatorship Palmieri

insisted that to understand that fascism is not a dictatorship one must look into the how

the fascist state is organized. To do so he used Italian Fascism as an example.

He began by reiterating his argument from the previous chapter that the Fascist

state is a sovereign state, which establishes the state as the ultimate authority. To express

that authority and the sovereignty of the state he claimed that it is necessary to recognize

the government’s power. To achieve this necessary recognition of the government’s

authority he argued that the executive branch must be strengthened at the expense of the

legislative. Palmieri described the structure of the Fascist government as follows. In the

Italian Fascist State legislative power belonged to both Parliament and the King. Ideally,

the King executed his legislative power though his Secretary of State allowing him to

refuse any bill he disliked to go through parliamentary procedure. Furthermore, Palmieri

argued that the executive branch must be allowed to conduct juridical power without the

consent of the legislative branch “whenever the supreme good of the State may require

it.” By allowing the executive branch this power he believed that it would place rigid

limits on the activities of parliament; therefore, bringing in the legislators who have been

given to much power through liberal-democracy. He argued it was necessary to “bring

this activity back to that true function of legislation so often misinterpreted in the

degradation of the liberal-democratic doctrines.” By weakening the legislative branch,

Palmieri claimed that fascism denies the power of the people and forces the legislature to

171
Palmieri, 133.
 79

adopt its true function as collaborator of the state. To realize its collaboration with the

state, the main body of the legislator—the Chamber of Deputies—must be transformed

from a political entity made of heterogeneous individuals into a specialized homogeneous

body of “experts on the various aspects of life.” This action takes the power from the

masses to choose representatives with political aims and provides them with

representatives, chosen by the Fascist Grand Council, who will act with expertise instead.

Accordingly, parliament would become a tool of the state and not a center of “political

passion.”172

Adding to the power of the executive branch in the Fascist State is the new role of

ministers. Palmieri despised the position of ministers in the liberal/conservative state. He

explained that in the Fascist state the ministers no longer held any responsibility to

parliament, but now only to their Premier who then answered to the King. Palmieri

believed that this hierarchy would eliminate the need for political fortune among the

ministers for them to do their jobs; subsequently, bringing stability and continuity to the

government. Furthermore, it eliminated the main attribute of liberal democracy the

separation of the executive and legislative branches, which he saw as limitation to

government functionality.

So far, the King and Premier have been mentioned a few times, but there have

been no real elaboration on their roles in the Fascist state. According to Palmieri, all

powers of the state belong to the King. Moreover, the monarchy personifies the authority

of the state and delegates the duties of the executive, legislative, and judiciary branches.

172
Ibid., 134-5.
 80

This authority makes the King the sovereign of the state—not the people. Therefore, the

King in the Fascist state is the highest figure. Second to him is the Premier who is

simultaneously the Secretary of the State and the Head of the Government. The role of

the Secretary of the State allows the Premier to act as the intermediary between the King

and parliament, effectively allowing them to act for the King. Under the title of Head of

the Government, the Premier is given even more power. Palmieri described it as the

highest office of the Fascist Government and as “the idealistic conception of hierarchy of

human values.”173 Thus, the Head of the Government is the intermediary between the

King and the people.

Once again, Palmieri addressed the issue of dictatorship especially concerning the

powers that he just described for the Premier’s Head of the Government title. He refuted

that the Head of the Government is given dictatorial power over the people and the state.

To make his point Palmieri discussed the original intent and meaning of dictatorship and

its more modern manifestation. First, he defined original dictatorship as the event when

the people elected a dictator who they delegated their authority to for a time. Therefore,

the dictator was the servant and not the master of the people; working in their interest and

for the interest of the state. According to Palmieri, the modern variant of dictatorship is

vastly different. He explained that “[i]n our times, instead a dictator is he who stands

opposite to the People and in contrast to the People as the Power which is the State, and

that this Power is able to exercise as he sees fit or believes right . . . ” 174 Subsequently, he

173
Ibid., 136.

174
Ibid., 137.
 81

continued, modern dictators do not necessarily act for the good of the state, but rather for

themselves. For this reason—that dictators do not act in the interest of the state—he

declared that there is no room for a dictator in the Fascist State. This line of logic keeps

with typical fascist language that attempted, at times, to distance itself from the label of

dictatorship. For example, the Nazi Party with zeal proclaimed that its purpose was to

save and preserve civil liberties and democracy. Mussolini declared in his Doctrine of

Fascism that Fascism is the truest form of democracy because the state acts on the quality

of the ethical conscience of the nation—created by historic ethnic hegemony—not the

quantitative based whim of individuals.175

Finally, while discussing the Head of the Government Palmieri addressed one

final aspect of the person who is to fulfil this role. Whomever it is or is going to be the

Head of the Government must possess within them heroic qualities. This trait allows the

Head of the Government “to shadow all other elements of the State combined.” 176 The

heroic personality of the Head of the Government permits them to take the necessary

actions to stave off the crises created by liberal/conservative democracy. Likewise, other

fascists would have similar claims about how they envisioned the leader of their states.

For instance, early in the Nazi movement members dreamed for the hero leader that

would rise above the politics of the time—as seen in Rudolf Hess’s for mentioned prize

winning essay from 1922. As Hitler rose to prominence in the party his closest followers,

such as Hess, Dietrich Eckart, and Alfred Rosenberg, projected his role as the hero

175
Palmieri, 137; Franz Neumann, Behemoth: The Structure and Practice of National Socialism,
1933-1944 (Chicago: Ivan R. Dee, 2009), 42; Mussolini and Gentile, Doctrine of Fascism, 3.

176
Palmieri, 138.
 82

leader—especially after the success of Mussolini and his so-called “March on Rome” in

October 1922.177

The final structure of the Fascist State that Palmieri discussed was the Gran

Consiglio or Grand Council of the Fascist Party. He pronounced the Grand Council as a

purely Fascist creation that is a new organ of the government and has no comparable

counterpart in any other country. Furthermore, he described the Council as the voice of

the Fascist Party—the only recognized party in Italy. This status granted the Council the

position of being the only recognized political edifice in the Fascist State. 178

Palmieri designated the Grand Council’s role as the intermediary between the

people and the government. He described it as “the interpreter of the one and the adviser

of the other.” Furthermore, the Council had one other important role, it was meant to

wield Fascist power within the state. This did not mean that the Council had the power to

pass legislation and enforce or repel laws. Instead, the Council was meant to conduct an

action that was far more important; its main function was the maintaining of “Fascist

tradition.” In other words, the Grand Council was to ensure that Fascism continued to

hold power. Palmieri identified the major functions of the Council so it could maintain

Fascist tradition. The first he identified was that the Council had the power to approve the

King’s successor when the need arose. Second, the Council had the power to designate to

the Crown the Head of the Government and the Ministers. Third, the Council would draw

up the list of people submitted to various vocational groups for the election of their

177
Ullrich, Hitler, 124-6.

178
Palmieri, 138-9.
 83

deputies. Finally, the Council will discuss and decide on any changes to the constitution

of the Fascist state and all issues that may affect the Fascist party. With these functions,

the Grand Council was designed to disseminate Fascist ideals into Italian life. Palmieri

described Council as so “[i]n brief, the Grand Council is not the Crown, not the People,

not the Government, not the Party; it is simply the organ through which Fascism will

perpetuate itself in the Italian nation . . . ”179

Lastly, Palmieri focused on the tertiary sources of power in his final discussion on

the structure of the Fascist state. These would be the low-level local leaders such as

mayors. The primary goal was to deconstruct the structures established through

liberal/conservative democracy and reestablish the authority of the central executive

power base over that of the local leaders. He explained that Fascism replaces the elective

mayor with the Podestá who is nominated by the executive and is responsible not to the

people, but to the Head of the Government. Under these systems, local struggles,

ambitions, and interests will no longer interfere with the law and order that should be

concerned with the regulation of communal life.

Palmieri concluded the chapter with an explanation that the Italy the Fascist State

has reformed the structures of power. He asserted that Fascism has reoriented power to its

proper hierarchical order. He wrote, “The true essence of the Fascist Constitution of the

State lies thus with the derivation of authority from above rather than from below . . . ” 180

He claimed, Fascism in Italy took the power from the people that liberal democratic

179
Ibid., 139.

180
Ibid., 141.
 84

doctrine handed over to them and returned it to the central power of the executive branch.

Therefore, reiterating that the power base of the fascism is not in the people, but in the

authoritative offices of the state.

Fascist Economics: The Corporative State

The last two chapters of Palmieri’s Part 2 focus on the economic model of the

Italian Fascist state. The economic model of Fascism has become known as

Corporativism; however, this name has led to confusion about the model’s structure and

the goal of this system. Further, into chapter 10 Palmieri addressed the principle reason

for this confusion, its name. Corporativism does not call for more power to individual

private corporations. Instead, it is something more that adheres or is meant to adhere to

the more basic principles of fascist philosophy. The assumption that corporativism is an

economic theory that favors corporations derives from the poor and unavoidable

translation of the Italian word corporazione into the English word corporation. The better

translation, according to Palmieri, would have been guilds. 181 This is an important

distinction if one is to understand the economic theories Fascists advocated for in Italy.

Palmieri began his discussion on Fascist economics by first explaining the issues

with capitalism and communism. By doing so, he was clearly attempting to set Fascist

economics as far away as possible from these two philosophies. First, he concentrated on

capitalism listing 10 summarizing conceptions of capitalism:

1) The economic life of man is a field of action which can be abstracted and
separated from all other fields of action of his spiritual activity.
2) The economic life of man is determined only by materialistic factors.
3) Economic progress can derive only from the free play of human egoisms and
human ambitions.

181
Payne, 23; Palmieri, 151.
 85

4) Private, individual interests, are the only moving force of all economic
initiatives.
5) Increase of wealth can derive only from open competition.
6) The wealth of a community can be measured in terms of the riches of single
individuals.
7) The only proper function of the State in the economic life of the nation can be
summed up by the formula: Laissez-Faire, a formula devised by the liberal
school but fostering only the interests of a reactionary class.
8) The war of classes is a natural phenomenon and is unavoidable. The important
thing in this war, as in all wars, is for those in power to retain, and if possible,
to assert this power even more forcefully.
9) Production of goods is the main function in the economic life of a nation, and
increase of production the only desirable aim. It is assumed that distribution of
these goods will take care of itself somehow in a mysterious but infallible way
and will adjust itself invariably to conditions, according to the working of
such empiric laws as for instance, the law of supply and demand.
10) Private wealth, obtained by the individual in any amount and through any
device he has seen fit to use, is sacred and inviolable.182

These 10 points that Palmieri defined capitalism with were in his mind the very reason

why the current state of chaos and despair broke out in modern capitalist nations during

the inter-war period. However, he believed that communism was far more dangerous and

that capitalist leaders must acknowledge this threat.

Of course, to make his point that communism was the real threat; Palmieri

provided his definition of the ideology. Unlike his description of capitalism, he did not

provide a list of concise characteristics, but instead discussed the tenets of communism as

he saw them. However, he related these characteristics to those of capitalism, providing a

narrative that linked the two philosophies into an unavoidable relationship. He began

with the issue of the Marxist concept of class warfare. In the above eighth point of

capitalism, Palmieri stated that class warfare is both a natural phenomenon and is

unavoidable within the capitalist system. Furthermore, the goal of class warfare in the

182
Palmieri, 143-4.
 86

capitalist system is to advance the supremacy and protect the positions of those in power.

He explained that communism also recognizes the Marxist concept of the natural and

unavoidable inevitability of class warfare’s existence. Yet, communism unlike capitalism

seeks the triumph of those who are not in power, the proletariat. The issue Palmieri takes

with the communist stance on class warfare is that communists seek to up lift the

proletariat at the expense of all other classes. Furthermore, class warfare challenges the

supremacy of the state; thus, communism’s main purpose through class warfare is to take

power from the state and give it to individuals from the proletariat. 183

Other fascist movements also took issue with communism, socialism, and class

warfare and these concept’s challenge of the state’s supremacy. For instance, Hitler’s

anti-communist platform for the Nazi Party similarly echoed Palmieri’s apprehension of

class warfare, although he of course injected anti-Semitism into the language. He saw

class warfare as the sole hindrance for the creation of the national ethnic popular

community for which the state draws its existence and power from; as with many from

the period Hitler’s romanticized memory of his stint in the military during World War I

served as the basis for his vision of a classless society. In several speeches, Hitler warned

of communism’s goal of destroying the nation and the state’s supremacy through Marxist

class warfare.184 For example, in a speech from April 24, 1923 in Munich he declared

communism as an “instrument for gaining of that which is his [the Jewish-Marxist]

183
Ibid., 145.

184
Gluckstein, 26; Ullrich, 204; Richard Evans, The Coming of the Third Reich (New York:
Penguin, 2003), 321.
 87

ultimate goal, World supremacy, the destruction of the national States.” 185 Class warfare,

then was not a condition of inequitable economic distribution, but a question of the

individual’s nationalist zeal and their support for the state’s right for supremacy—as well

as, especially for the Nazi regime, their ethnic and racial identity and loyalty.

The second defining factor that Palmieri discussed was communism’s stance on

the function of the state. He clarified that communists viewed the state as a mere tool to

advance the private interests of individuals because they accept materialist interests as the

only motivational force in human life; even enthroning them as new gods to serve,

worship, and even die for. Finally, Palmieri claimed communism is a product of

capitalism that emphasizes—even exacerbates—the issues (individualism and

materialism) at the center of the capitalist system. Consequently, he defined communism

as the logical and fatal conclusion of economic individualism.186

After defining capitalism and communism, Palmieri described how fascism

differed from these two ideologies. To first distinguish fascism from the others he

declared that fascism is the antithesis of individualism and is for this reason against the

practice of any economic model that stresses individualism such as capitalism and

communism. To further describe how fascism differs from these two economic

philosophies he again turned to a concise list of characteristics. These were:

1) The economic life of man cannot be abstracted and separated from the whole of
his spiritual life. In the words of Mussolini: “The economic man does not exist.
Man is integral; he is political, economic, religious, saint and warrior at the same
time.”
2) The economic life of man is influenced, if not determined, by idealistic factors.

185
Adolf Hitler, “Munich Speech of April 24, 1923,” 1.

186
Palmieri, 145.
 88

3) True economic progress can derive only from the concerted effort of individuals
who know how to sacrifice their personal egoism and ambitions for the good of
the whole.
4) Economic initiatives cannot be left to the arbitrary decisions of private, individual
interests.
5) Open competition, if not wisely directed and restricted, actually destroys wealth
instead of creating it.
6) The wealth of a community is something intangible which cannot be identified
with the sum of riches of single individuals.
7) The proper function of the State in the Fascist system is that of supervising,
regulating and arbitrating the relationships of capital and labor, employers and
employees, individuals and associations, private interests and national interests.
8) Class war is avoidable and must be avoided. Class war is deleterious to the
orderly and fruitful life of the nation, therefore it has no place in the Fascist State.
9) More important than the production of wealth is its right distribution, distribution
which must benefit in the best possible way all the classes of the nation, hence,
the nation itself.
10) Private wealth belongs not only to the individual, but, in a symbolic sense, to the
State as well.187

These ten points of how fascism views economics is a total rejection of capitalism and

communism. Furthermore, it is obviously derived from the spiritualism, anti-

individualism, state supremacy, and ethics established by fascist philosophy. Palmieri

provided further elaboration on the philosophic foundation of these ten points. First, he

focused on fascist economics and its adherence to the central ideal of fascist doctrine that

the state is a sovereign one. Because the state is sovereign, this means there can be no

individual economic interests that are above those of the state and every initiative that

falls into the realm of economics must submit to state control. The second concept that

Palmieri focused on was the ethics of the fascist state and its relation to economics.

Fascist philosophy establishes the fascist state as an “Ethic State” that subscribes to the

domination of moral law. Therefore, the economics of the fascist state must also submit

187
Ibid., 145-6.
 89

to the domination of moral law, which is transmitted through the supreme law of the

state. Palmieri postulated that “all the factors influencing the life of the nation: the

economic, the social, the political, etc., are brought into the Fascist State under the

dominion of the moral law . . . ”188 Thus, fascist economics must submit to the

domination of the moral law.

The economic ideals of fascism directly correspond with the concepts that served

as the foundations of fascist philosophy. Similar to those concepts he claimed that the

bind between people was a deciding central factor behind fascist thought on economics.

This theory of the invisible bond that ties together humanity lies at the center of the

fascist concept of ethics and of fascist economics. It dictates that the welfare of the whole

nation must receive prominence over that of the individual. Accordingly, by

acknowledging this bind fascism seeks to change the economic organization of the state;

giving it more control over the economic relationships of labor and capital, the landowner

and the farmer, and the employer and employee. Palmieri described this bind in economic

relationships as follows, “[w]e see thus the Fascist State resolutely enter the economic

field to dictate what shall be from now on the relationship between capital and labor,

employer and employee, landowner and farmhand, industrialist and worker.” 189 Giving

direct control over the economic relationships of the nation to the state allows it to

combat the two large problems inherent within capitalism.

188
Ibid., 147.

189
Ibid., 147.
 90

Direct state control of economic processes challenges the inherent importance of

class warfare. As stated before and seen in point eight, fascism rejects the notion that

class warfare is an absolute element of economic relations. Of course, to support his

argument about class warfare Palmieri once again turns to Mussolini. First, Mussolini

claimed in a speech from January 2, 1923, that class warfare is nothing but a transitory

aspect of human life and that it cannot remain a permanent fixture simply because it

would mean the end of wealth, something that fascism does not seek. 190 Mussolini further

clarified why fascism rejects class warfare. In a December 1923, speech Mussolini

declared that Marxism’s concept that a nation is made of two classes that are in perpetual

conflict is erroneous. He stated, “The mistake of Marxism is that of believing that a

nation is made of two classes only. A mistake even greater is that of believing that these

two classes are in perpetual state of war.” 191 He freely admitted that there is “a contrast of

interests,” however; this conflict is not systematic nor perpetual. Instead, he argued the

conflict between classes is to be short period that will lead to collaboration. 192 Finally, in

The Doctrine of Fascism, Mussolini wrote fascism denounces class warfare because it

rejects the Marxist theory of historical materialism. According to him historical

materialism reduces humanity’s role in the control of their own destinies. He claimed, “ .

. . historical materialism, which sees in man mere puppets on the surface of history,

appearing and disappearing on the crest of the waves, while the real, directing forces

190
Benito Mussolini, “January 2, 1923” in The Philosophy of Fascism (Chicago: The Fortune
Press, 1936), 148.

191
Benito Mussolini, “December 20, 1923,” in The Philosophy of Fascism (Chicago: The Fortune
Press, 1936), 148.

192
Ibid.
 91

move and work in the depths.”193 Therefore, by rejecting historical materialism fascism

denies that class warfare can be a natural product of economics because “Fascism also

denies the immutable and irreparable character of the class struggle which is the natural

outcome of this economic conception of history.” 194 After explaining fascism’s rejection

of class warfare, Palmieri turned his attention to the other economic issue capitalism fails

to solve, “adequate production and efficient distribution.”

To address the issues surrounding production and distribution, fascism simply

rejects the regulation of the relationship between capital and labor. Instead, Palmieri

explained that it wishes to completely overhaul production and distribution. Keeping to

fascism’s adversity to individualism, Palmieri explained that the means of production

must be taken from the control of individuals and given to the state. He maintained, “The

productive forces of the nation cannot be any longer at the mercy of the individual’s

selfishness and greed, but must be brought, instead, under the supreme discipline of the

State.”195 The goal of placing the means of production in the control of the state is to

harmonize production and distribution to the actual needs of the nation. According to

Palmieri through this economic model fascism can achieve what no other system has

accomplished the coordination of economic forces that frees people’s lives from strikes,

unemployment, class war, concentrated wealth, and widespread misery. 196

193
Mussolini and Gentile, Doctrine of Fascism, 6.

194
Ibid.

195
Palmieri, 149.

196
Ibid., 150.
 92

To achieve the economic transformation fascism advocates, Palmieri promoted

the use of syndicalism. However, the form of syndicalism that he suggested to put into

action is not the same as the syndicalism endorsed by the Left. Instead, Palmieri rejected

the current form of syndicalism that he claimed was a form of class war. This version of

syndicalism organized workers into various organizations that only sought to protect the

material welfare of their members. In doing so this form of syndicalism did nothing more

than organize the masses to stand against the interests of the state. Therefore, the fascist

form of syndicalism must be inherently different and seek to unify people to act within

the interests of the state. To accomplish this Palmieri elucidated that the concept of

syndicalism must be enlarged from its original narrow meaning. This enlarged

manifestation of syndicalism would include all classes, professions, trades, and creeds.

He named this new manifestation National Syndicalism. Palmieri explained that through

National Syndicalism fascism would take control of the economic process of individuals

and give it to the state. He declared, “This National Syndicalism represents the first

attempt to bring the egotistic claims of the individual under the discipline of the

Sovereign State.” Doing so pushes the attention of economics from the welfare of the

individual to the prosperity of the whole nation. 197

To create National Syndicalism fascism employed the corporazione or

corporation. These corporations or guilds were meant to serve as social instruments to

bring the masses into the control of the state. Palmieri described the corporations as “an

instrument of social life destined to exercise the most-reaching influence upon the

197
Ibid., 150-1.
 93

economic development of the Fascist States.” 198 He further explained the corporations

were devices that would integrate the interests of employers, employees, consumers, and

producers. Of course, keeping to the central point of fascist economics these interests

were under the aegis of the state. Thus, the purpose of these corporations is that they

would provide the state an avenue to intervene in the economic life of the individual:

Through these corporations the State may at any time that it deems fit, or that the
need requires, intervene within the economic life of the individual to let the
supreme interests of the nation have precedence over his private, particular
interests, even to the point where his work, his savings, his whole fortune may
need be pledged, and if absolutely necessary, sacrificed. 199

The corporations of National Syndicalism differ from the other forms of syndicalism

because they did not function to recognize the needs of individuals or to strengthen their

positions. Instead, fascist National Syndicalism sought to fold individuals into one mass

that answered only to the state and served the state. Fascist economist Giuseppe Bottai

described fascist syndicalism in these terms, “the corporations, instead are organs of

administration of the State . . . the corporative function is uniquely of the domain of the

State . . . ”200 Building off Bottai, Palmieri described fascist corporations as the social

entities that organize and submit the masses to the authority and discipline of the state;

thereupon, making them an instrument for the development of the nation’s economic life.

Palmieri continued his descriptive discussion on corporativism or National

Syndicalism by stressing fascist ethics and its role in this economic model. He claimed

198
Ibid., 151.

199
Ibid., 151-2.

200
Giuseppe Bottai, "The Corporative State," in The Philosophy of Fascism (Chicago: The
Fortune Press, 1936), 152.
 94

that fascist corporativism is the manifestation of ethics in economics “because it is first of

all, and above all, a translation of Ethics into Economics, an application of Ethical

principles to economic facts.” In fascism, economic ethics has nothing to do with

material interests. Its ideal of economic justice is not the enrichment of humanity’s

material wealth, but the fortification of their spiritual worth. To achieve this

corporativism/national syndicalism seeks to end the strife between classes that divides the

nation by transforming the people into one mass that is under the aegis of the state.

Palmieri noted, “The infinite good that this principle has done in bringing about the

disappearance of fratricidal struggle within the nation and contributing toward the

formation of unity, totalitary, integral State.” Yet, as much as Palmieri hails

corporativism, he reminded that fascist thinker Balbino Guiliano argued that it is not

meant to always dominate fascist economic theory since corporativism is only to be used

as long as it is useful. 201

Finally, before ending the chapter, Palmieri reiterated that fascist economics does

not seek to satisfy human life through material welfare. It maintains that the answer to the

problem of satisfactory human life cannot mean individualism and it cannot be found

through communism. This is because these philosophies only seek the security of the

individual’s material welfare. Fascism stands against these ideas. Palmieri clarified that

in fascism “[e]conomic security cannot be more than the gateway to the life of the spirit;

material welfare can never be exchanged or bartered for the welfare of the soul.” He

continued to explain that fascism wants humanity to build a new society “where man,

201
Palmieri, 155, 156.
 95

free of the struggle for existence, may devote his energies to the greater aim of

concerning himself with those things which . . . ‘outlast the centuries and partake of the

truth.’”202

Chapter 11 entitled “The Corporative System” is Palmieri’s final chapter in Part 2

of his book. As the title suggests the chapter’s topic is about corporative system;

however, it is not necessarily a philosophical discussion of the system, this was obviously

the subject of chapter 10. Instead, this chapter reads more as an idealized explanation of

how Italy adopted the corporative system once the Fascist Party took control.

Furthermore, like chapter 9 “The Constitution Fascist of the Fascist State,” chapter 11

serves more as an explanation of why the Fascist Party and Corporativism have not meet

all its revolutionary claims. Indeed, Palmieri began the chapter with an apologetic

paragraph that declared fascism and its economic model corporativism as an incomplete

revolution that is still in progress. With this apologetic paragraph he described the Fascist

program as “[a] gradual and progressive unfoldment of Fascist practice and theory,

testifying to the truth that Fascism is still in the making because the Fascist revolution is

far from being an accomplished fact.” 203 However, the main take way from this chapter is

Palmieri’ breakdown of the ideal structure of fascist syndicates.

In the chapter, Palmieri focused on three major legislative measures passed by the

Fascist government in Italy that focused on the structuring of the syndicates. These were

the Syndicates and Collective Relations of Labor Law passed on April 3, 1926, the

202
Ibid., 158.

203
Palmieri, 161.
 96

Functions of the Syndicates and Collective Relations of Labor Royal Decree made on

July 1, 1926, and the Labor Charter promulgated by the Fascist Grand Council on April

21, 1927. The April 3, 1926 Syndicates and Collective Relations of Labor Law had three

main functions, first it placed syndicates in the state’s control. The law read, “This law

specifies clearly that syndicates, being an integral part of the nation’s life, must obtain the

legal recognition of the State if they expect to continue in existence.” 204 Second, the law

established the Labor court, an institution that would settle contract disputes, regulate

labor, and handle other issues created by the complex relationship between capital and

labor. Finally, and most importantly this law eviscerated the power of workers with the

inclusion of Article Number 18, which delegalized lockouts and striking. 205

The July 1, 1926, Royal Decree established the structuring of the fascist

syndicates. First, it specified who may join, established legal recognition of syndicates,

established various grades of syndical associations, and created liaison organizations

between associations of workers and employers. It created separate first level

professional and trade associations for workers and employers these were the local

syndicates. These local organizations were then grouped into higher-grade syndicates

called Federations or National Federations. The Federations each represented a different

class of people who worked in the same occupation. In turn, the Federations belonged to

a Confederation, which were based on “four branches of activity” banking, industry,

commerce, and agriculture. One final confederation consisted of a syndicate for

204
Ibid.

205
Palmieri, 161-2; Falasca-Zamponi, Fascist Spectacle, 131.
 97

intellectual workers or anyone who engaged in the “arts and professions.” Within this

framework, there were a total of nine syndicates, four employer and four employee

associations in each of the four branches and the one intellectual syndicate. 206

Each of the three classes of syndicates held specific duties. The local syndicates

held the following duties:

a) stipulate collective labor contracts for the workers in the territory of its
jurisdiction;
b) settle labor disputes;
c) organize social welfare services and professional training courses for its members;
d) appoint representatives to sit at boards or committees where the entire category
should be represented.207

In turn the National Federations duties were:

a) protect the interests of all categories represented and favor their economic and
technical development;
b) examine and settled economic and social questions concerning each of the
categories represented;
c) stipulate collective labor contracts between categories;
d) regulate economic relations between them;
e) supervise social welfare work and the technical and mental training of members;
f) promote the development and improvement of production;
g) appoint representatives of the various categories to sit at corporations and other
councils where such categories should be represented.208

Palmieri explained the duties of the confederations were similar to those of the National

Federations; however, at a “wider and deeper range of action.” 209 Aside from these

duties, Palmieri also mentioned that the confederations were semi-political instruments

206
Ibid., 162-3.

207
Ibid., 163.

208
Ibid., 164.

209
Ibid.
 98

because they were empowered to act as intermediary between the syndicates and the

national government. Furthermore, these confederations were empowered by the state to

supervise and control—on its behalf—the activities of local syndicates and their

members. These two laws established the roles and rules of the syndicates and made them

official instruments of the state therefore bringing them into state control. The April 27,

1927 Labor Charter further solidified this relationship by concentrating on the main

principles by which the system of corporations were meant to build. These principles

focused on “class collaboration and the preeminence of private initiative over state

intervention in the economy, and it reaffirmed the value of the nation and the role of the

state as the ultimate guardian of the nation’s interests.”210 Accordingly, the charter

reiterates that the core principle of the system is that syndicates are an instrument of the

state. Moreover, the syndicates bring the working masses into the aegis of the state.

For the remaining pages of the chapter, Palmieri listed the different articles of the

Labor Charter and their relation to the corporativist system. However, there is another

intriguing facet of the charter or at least one that Palmieri gave it. He claimed that the

charter provides fascism with the power to overstep “the national boundaries of the

Italian State and the limits of time of the Fascist Revolution, to project itself across the

whole western world and through the centuries yet to come.” 211 This claim in itself is

interesting as its meaning is not entirely clear nor does he does it resurface in the

remaining pages of the chapter. On the surface, the statement seems to be a remark on

210
Falasca-Zamponi, 131.

211
Ibid.
 99

Fascism’s historical purpose. However, the line about Fascism’s right to overstep the

national borders and project fascism across the western world brings up two distinct

issues (for a lack of better a word). First, Palmieri seems to be declaring Italy’s right to its

imperial aspirations. Indeed, imperialism was part of the Fascist platform and it was part

of other fascist platforms in other countries. 212 However, the clause “project itself across

the whole western world” is another issue in its own right; this seems to be Palmieri’s

further support of generic fascist action in other countries; an issue he brought up earlier

in the book where he declared that fascism cannot be only regulated to Italy itself.

Furthermore, this edition of this book that is meant for an American audience—

something made even more obvious with the additional appendix chapter titled “Fascism

and America,” which supports the idea that in this paragraph Palmieri was arguing for the

expansion of fascism.

Conclusion

Part 2 of Palmieri’s book took on a different tone than that of Part 1. While no

less steeped in theoretical prose, the chapters in this section of the book contain less lofty

ideas and focus more on the multifaceted mechanics of running a state according to the

philosophy of fascism. Furthermore, chapters 9 and 11 possess a different attitude when

compared to the rest of the book due to the issues—mostly the up-to-date failures of

Italian Fascism—that he addressed in them. For the most part, the concepts that Palmieri

discussed in Part 2 were never truly realized. Whether this means the political, social, and

economic concepts of inter-war fascists were unattainable or too idealistic can never be

212
Cassels, Fascism, 74; Mazower, Dark Continent, 71-3.
 100

known. Political and economic realities dictated to fascist movements what policies they

could enact. Subsequently, these realities often undermined fascist theories on political

rule and economics. Chapters 9 and 11 of Palmieri’s book are obviously a response to

this unavoidable problem.213

The challenge of reality obstructing philosophy remained true for both of the

major fascist regimes of the inter-war period. Both Hitler and Mussolini struggled

between the demands made by the radicals in their movements and whims of the

conservative and liberal elites that sought to use the Nazi and Fascist regimes in their

countries. Fascists needed the economic and military resources controlled by

conservatives and liberals who in turn needed fascists for their mass support to protect

their power. Consequently, fascists, conservatives, and liberals staved off eliminating one

another in order to keep the radical Left at bay (an issue that fascists, conservatives, and

liberals unanimously agreed about). 214 Furthermore, both regimes could not wrestle

complete control over the social structures of their countries. The consequence being the

creation of “islands of separateness,” a method of individual resistance, formed by the

people living in these regimes.215 However, the realm of economics is where the fascist

regimes made the most concessions.

Both regimes possibly out of shrewd necessity conceded their economic plans to

the wishes of their conservative and liberal allies. In both regimes their economic

213
Cassels, 72; Paxton, Anatomy of Fascism, 145.

214
Paxton, 124.

215
Paxton, 122. Carl Friedrich and Zbigniew Brzezinski conceptualized the theory of “islands of
separateness” to explain the elements of society that have survived within a totalitarian regime.
 101

programs would be run by or cooperate with business elites. 216 Without a doubt many of

the more radical ideas discussed by fascists like Palmieri were curbed by these business

elites. Of course, other reasons curbed the economic ideas of fascism such as internal

strife. For example, Hitler’s appointment of Dr. Kurt Schmitt as minister of the economy

instead of Otto Wagner whose views aligned more with fascist economic theory. He

advocated for the replacement of “egoistic spirit of profit of the individual person with

common striving in the interest of the community.” 217 Wagner found himself the victim

internal party strife when Hitler expelled him from the Nazi Party after Hermann Goering

exposed to Hitler that Wagner was campaigning within the Nazi leadership for the

appointment to the minister of the economy position. Thus, instead of Wagner becoming

the minister of the economy the position went to Dr. Schmitt, the head of Germany’s

largest insurance company—Allianz. In addition, the lead up to and the outbreak of war

made arms production a requirement, which necessitated that economic policy to be

“driven by the need to prepare and wage war.” 218 This further obstructed the radical

overhaul of economic structures advocated by fascists. While political and economic

realities restricted the radical overhauls fascists demanded. Fascist leadership and

intellectuals continued to use this rhetoric and advocate for this overhaul—Palmieri’s

language in chapters 9 and 11 demonstrate this.

216
Inter-war contemporary Daniel Guerin discussed this relationship between fascists and
business interests in his book Fascism and Big Business (New York: Pathfinder, 1939); Paxton, 145.

217
Paxton, 146.

218
Ibid., 145.
 102

While it is important to point out the historical reality of what occurred under the

Nazi and Fascist regimes it remains imperative to understand that those regimes stood for

and sought to enact the political and economic concepts detailed by Palmieri and others.

Whether these two regimes were successful in realizing these ideals is a topic for another

time. What is most important here is that these were the political and economic goals of

fascism. It is imperative to understand that fascism advocated the transformation of both

the political and economic realms of the nation for ones that reflected the philosophic

ideas of fascist thought. The chapters that Palmieri wrote in this Part 2 of his book deliver

a glimpse into those ideas and the political and economic goals of fascism. Therefore,

providing a look into the nuanced thought that fascist political and economic ideas are

based upon.
 103

CHAPTER 3

FASCIST HISTORY

Introduction

Part 3 of Palmieri’s book comprises of five chapters. The first three attempt to

place the Italian Fascist movement within historical context. This effort includes

Palmieri’s own interpretation of Italian history prior to the rise of the Fascist Party,

intellectuals he considered as precursors to Fascism, and his explanation of Roman

history and the memory of it within the Fascist regime. The final two chapters seem to act

as attempts to clarify two concepts he discussed in earlier parts of the book—the first

being the hero as leader and the second being fascism as a revolutionary act.

Part of Palmieri’s attempt to place the rise of Italian Fascism into historical

context included a chapter on Roman history titled “The Legacy of Rome.” I have elected

not to analyze this chapter simply for the reason that Roman history is not a topic I

specialize in and to that end, I do not hold the necessary knowledge to identify any issues

within Palmieri’s discussion on that era. However, I do not wish to completely ignore this

chapter because of my ignorance of Roman history. The focus of the first three chapters,

including “The Legacy of Rome,” is his attempt to establish a historical connection for

not only Italian Fascism, but also generic fascism. Therefore, Palmieri tried to establish a

cult of antiquity as part of his fascist philosophy—of course; he did not use this term or

phrase to describing this process.

 104

I have borrowed the term or concept of the “cult of antiquity” from historian Ben

Kiernan. Kiernan used “cult of antiquity” as part of his methodology to assess the history

of genocide in Blood and Soil: A World History of Genocide and Extermination from

Sparta to Darfur.219 The cult of antiquity is one of the five “common ideological features

of genocide” that Kiernan identified in numerous cases. Simply, the internalization of

these five ideologies, such as the cult of antiquity, in the minds of the masses of a society

serve to justify their perceived difference from others; therefore, allowing the

perpetration of genocide. According to Kiernan, cult of antiquity is the perception of a

culture’s pure historical origin—often equated to racial purity. Within the historical

consciousness of that culture, it is alleged that the purity of the nation’s historical origin

is in decline; thus, an ancient utopia is at risk. This sentiment turns to a program of

restoring the purity of the nation’s cultural basis with the expressed intention of

rebuilding the ancient cultural utopia that has been lost. 220

The concept of cult of antiquity is present in fascist thought and in Palmieri’s

arguments. It gives fascism and its brand of nationalism—often race based—the right to

exist by creating a historical precedence. It serves as a fetter for fascist concepts—

allowing its philosophy and its institutions to claim legitimacy through a purified

historical narrative. While all of the ideologies identified by Kiernan can likely be

recognized in Palmieri’s book, the focus here is the cult of antiquity since it is a

prominent issue in the first chapters of this part of the book. Palmieri’s chapter on Rome

219
Ben Kiernan, Blood and Soil: A World History of Genocide and Extermination from Sparta
and Darfur (New Haven: Yale University Press, 2007).

220
Kiernan, 21-33, 27.
 105

and its link to the rise of fascism is clearly an example of the cult of antiquity and its

presence in fascist philosophy. However, it is not the only chapter to focus on building a

cult of antiquity for Italian Fascism or generic fascism. The others “The Historical

Background of Fascism” and “Two Forerunners of Fascism” serve this purpose as well.

A Fascist Interpretation of Italian History

Palmieri began Part 3 with a chapter dedicated to the historical processes in Italy

that occurred before the rise of Fascism. He explained the purpose behind this chapter

was to elucidate that in order to know what Fascism means one must understand its place

in history. He wrote, “Fascism, to be rightly understood, must be placed in relief against

its own historical background.”221 Like other chapters in the book, Palmieri’s use of

fascism has a double meaning. Certainly, in many places in this section he still described

fascism as a generic movement—one that is meant to spread to different countries.

However, his attention in this chapter is singular, meaning he focused solely on Fascism

in Italy.

After declaring, “in order to understand Fascism one must know its historical

background,” Palmieri listed the specific questions that were supposedly going to be

addressed in the chapter. These questions were “Why did fascism have its birth in Italy

and not elsewhere; why was the man Benito Mussolini chosen by destiny to give concrete

shape to the new social and economic gospel; why did the reaction to Individualism as a

way of life, begin only with the advent of Fascism and not before?”222 While these

221
Palmieri, 173.

222
Ibid., 173.
 106

questions are brought up, they are never mentioned again later in the chapter in any

obvious way and are never earnestly discussed in any meaningful way nor answered.

There is an assertion of why Fascism found favor in Italy due to its history and a lengthy

discussion on individualism. However, Palmieri never overtly claimed any historical

event proves why Fascism first appeared in Italy. In addition, the topic of Mussolini

being destined as the creator of Fascism also does not receive any real attention.

Therefore, the purpose of these “questions” seems to serve as a poor method to support

his assertion that Fascism needs a relevant historical context.

Palmieri does not begin his chapter with a traditional chronological history of

Italy up to the rise of Fascism—something along this line is saved for the final few pages.

Instead, he opened with a lengthy discussion on the philosophic or even spiritual history

of Italy. He began by arguing that “three spiritual forces” shaped the West—these were

the Renaissance, the Reformation, and the Revolutions—the French and American

Revolutions. Each of these events had a profound effect on Western culture, which

brought about the rise of individualism. He claimed the Renaissance released the pent-up

energy within the “Being” that had accumulated over the centuries. Furthermore,

Palmieri believed that this discharge of energy in the form of the Renaissance produced

individuality. Next, the Reformation reaffirmed the cause of individualism by proving the

individual with the “freedom of belief,” in consequence, granting the individual’s

spiritual life independence from the Church. Finally, the Revolutions ushered in the rise
 107

of liberalism and the final “triumph” of individualism, which started the decay of human

institutions (the nation, the church, the family, and the state). 223

These three spiritual forces shaped Western culture; however, Palmieri argued

that Italy did not fully face the brunt of this cultural influence. He claimed that Italy only

experienced the full impact of the cultural explosion of the Renaissance while it was left

out of the Reformation and was only indirectly affected by the Revolutions. Therefore, he

argued since Italy did not feel a direct impact of all three events it cannot claim to be a

representative of the culture shaped by the Renaissance, Reformation, and Revolutions.

According to Palmieri, this played a significant role in Fascism’s rise in Italy. He

reflected, “the historian who attempts thus to trace the fundamental cause for the Italian

birth of Fascism cannot fail to attribute it primarily to this difference of causes and

effects; of action of outside spiritual forces and reaction of the inner essence of a

nation.”224 Since Italy did not face the full impact of the three spiritual forces this means

the country demonstrates the inadequacy of the instruments of those forces. Palmieri

identified the instruments of the spiritual forces as intellectual means, social means,

political means, and economic means. These four instruments and the spiritual forces that

shaped the West allowed individualism to “conquer” so-called Western Civilization.

While the rest of the West succumbed to the philosophy of individualism,

Palmieri claimed that Italy—for the most part—fended off this philosophy. While he

supported the idea that every country of the West contained its own cultural differences,

223
Ibid., 173-4.

224
Ibid., 174.
 108

Palmieri did not believe that this was enough to explain why Italy remained outside the

tutelage of individualism. Instead, he surmised that individualism and the inadequacy of

its institutions to alter completely Italy’s political, social, and economic structures had

more to do with the core nature of the nation itself. Correspondingly, he argued

individualism’s failure to dominate Italian structures and consequently the rise of

Fascism depended on the alien nature of individualism philosophic doctrines to Italian

national identity. These doctrines materialism, liberal theory, democracy, and capitalism

all worked hand in hand to advance individualism’s dominance over the West. Palmieri

believed that these doctrines failed to truly take hold in Italy.

He expanded on each doctrine’s failure to dominate Italian culture. Each of these

doctrines and Palmieri’s thoughts on them have been thoroughly discussed in previous

sections of this thesis; nevertheless, it is important to briefly discuss Palmieri’s further

views on them from this chapter. He began with discussing materialism and what he

deemed as its inability to find a foot hold due to its alien nature to the spirit of Italian

culture because “no philosophical doctrine could be more utterly alien to the spirit of

Italy than Materialism.” He continued to argue that materialism at its core negates what

he deemed the true life and mission of humanity, the sense of the existence of God,

fatherland, soul, and ideals. Furthermore, materialism denied life’s real meaning and

worth by allowing the individual to reject the fulfillment of their duties through the

spiritual process of sacrifice and sorrow. Therefore, materialism is a doctrine that

glorifies the individual and makes them and their materialistic goals the center of the
 109

universe. A doctrine such as this, according to Palmieri, cannot and will not find any

stable basis in Italian culture. 225

Next, Palmieri focused on liberal theory and its relevance to individualism as well

as its inadequacy in Italian political life. Specifically, he lashed out at the liberal concept

of laissez-faire, deregulating it from a theory supporting free market non-governmental

interference in economics to a doctrine that encompasses all relationships within the

context of liberal social, political, and economic structures. Keeping with the tone of

inadequacy, Palmieri declared that liberal theory and its ideals of absolute freedom were

incompatible with Italian society. Liberalism’s disconnection with the Italian nation was

based on two conditions that he identified as necessary for the theory to work. The first

was that humanity must desire the freedom offered by liberalism so much that they are

willing to give up all other ideals and purposes in order to realize the freedom of liberal

theory. Second, he declared that in order for liberal theory to work the economic,

political, and social relations must be in palace to accept fully the liberal doctrine. The

problem he identified with these conditions was that they are near impossible to achieve.

Palmieri argued that the second—the arranging of the ideal economic, political, and

social structures for liberalism—has never been realized in any country. The first—the

desire for freedom—has never been achieved in Italy. Palmieri went so far as to explain

that the desire for freedom could not be realized in Italy because it is an alien concept to

the Italian character. His claim is one of national racial identity—he argued that the

“Italian race” could not be tempted with the ideal of freedom because the Italian people

225
Ibid., 176-7.
 110

will always hold respect for authority and that respect holds precedence over the desire

for liberty.226

To support his claim about the Italian national character Palmieri turned to

Mazzini utilizing a quote from the Italian nationalist that questioned absolute liberty. In

the quote used by Palmieri, Mazzini argued absolute liberty would create a division

amongst the people and cause unending conflict between them:

the liberty of the one will inevitably clash with the liberty of others; constant strife
will arise between individual and individual . . . The liberty of all, if ungoverned
by any general directing law, will but lead to a state of warfare among men . . . 227

Palmieri used the words of Mazzini to declare that this was the expression of all Italians

on the subject of liberal ideas of freedom, thus, allowing him to argue that freedom and

its governing philosophy of liberalism is a foreign ideal to the Italian character. 228

Another concept Palmieri discussed in relation with individualism was

democracy, more specifically, parliamentary democracy. Palmieri described democracy

as the “specific application” of the principles of liberalism in the field of politics. In his

short discussion of democracy, he defined it as a legislative body that acts as the supreme

power of the state with an executive body that is responsible to the legislative. Finally, he

argued that the whole system rested on the foundation of the election of individuals to

represent the interests of the people. Descriptions and definitions aside, Palmieri’s most

important claim was his belief that democracy depended on a nation’s desire and

226
Ibid., 178-9.

227
Giuseppe Mazzini, “Unknown,” in The Philosophy of Fascism (Chicago: The Fortune Press,
1936), 179-180.

228
Palmieri, 180.
 111

experience regarding self-governance. He reasoned that in order for the democratic

system to function properly a country must first desire democratic rule and must have a

historical experience of independence from authoritative control. He stated, “the

successful working of this system requires that a long practice of self-government has

made the people capable of being independent from high authorities.” 229 These concepts,

Palmieri maintained, were foreign to Italy. He asserted that prior to the Risorgimento the

desire for self-governance did not exist in Italy. Furthermore, he declared the short period

of democratic rule in Italy beginning with the passing of the first Italian constitution in

1848, hardly constitutes a long enough length of time for Italians to master or become

enthusiastic followers of representative government. Correspondingly, parliamentary

democracy is incompatible with Italy and cannot hope to become a viable form of

governance in the country. 230

Finally, Palmieri discussed capitalism as the last doctrine of liberal theory. His

discussion on capitalism in this part the book is rather short. Unlike the other discussions

on the doctrines of individualism, Palmieri only focused on one specific characteristic of

capitalism. He declared capitalism is a system that subjugates people and nations into a

type of standardization. Palmieri described capitalism’s conquest of people as “capitalism

is based on the subjection of a whole class of people to a standardization of personal

work; the subjection of the whole nation to a standardization of national taste; the

229
Ibid., 180.

230
Ibid., 180-1.
 112

subjection of each national State itself to a common international standard of life.” 231 He

argued that capitalism and its desire for standardization is the “antithesis and nemesis” to

the true Italian spirit, which is the reason why it has failed have any real success in

capturing the country’s economic imagination. Moreover, he claimed that capitalism’s

failure to take hold in Italy proves that it is a system destined to fail. In the case of Italy,

he asserted, capitalism’s only success is that its inherent failure paved the way for

Fascism as a response to individualism. Therefore, arguing that fascism is an inherent

possibility directly tied to the failure of capitalism as viable political, social, and

economic system.

After these brief discussions on the doctrines of individualism, Palmieri changed

his focus from individualism to the history of Italy. His purpose here was to place the rise

of Fascism within the historical context of Italy. He sought to ensure that the reader

understood that Fascism was a natural and inherent movement within Italian history and

in a broader sense in Western history. Palmieri claimed there are two important years in

the history of Italy, 456 and 1870. The first year, 456, marks the year the Roman Empire

fell. The second, 1870, is the year Palmieri claimed Rome became the capital of unified

Italy.232 He noted that fourteen centuries mark the time gap between these two events.

During the fourteen centuries that separate these two important years Italy (or the region

231
Ibid., 181.

232
Much of the Italian Kingdom was unified prior to 1870; however, Rome remained outside the
fledgling nation-state. Rome’s inclusion to the new Italian state would not occur until 1870 with the
conclusion of the Franco-Prussian War. Defeated, Napoleon III withdrew his garrison from Rome and the
Italian Kingdom promptly reclaimed the city. Accordingly, Rome an important symbol of the historic
Italian national myth that displayed not only unity, but also strength became the new nation’s capital filling
in a void of presumed weakness that plagued the liberal Italian State’s collective psychology. Riall,
Risorgimento, 35, 147.
 113

that the Italian state comprises) and the Western world witnessed a multitude of events

that shaped their history. This includes the growth of Papal power, the Renaissance, the

Reformation, the “discovery” of the Americas, the spread of printing, the use of gun-

powder, the Liberal Revolutions, the Napoleonic Wars, and the Industrial Revolution to

name a few. Each of these events, Palmieri argued, made the Italian peninsula a region of

numerous political and social organizations with different conflicting goals, interests,

laws, traditions, and customs. Consequently, he argued that Italy was the most

unprepared country to support a liberal parliamentary democracy with a capitalist

economy.233

His declaration that Italy was unprepared for liberal government is not one against

the Risorgimento. Palmieri (and in extension Fascism) was not against the unification of

Italy—such a stance would be against the nationalism of the movement. Instead, he

claimed he wanted to prevent further detachment from Mazzinian Ideals (named after the

pre-Risorgimento nationalist Giuseppe Mazzini). He indicated that Mazzinian Ideals

advocated a devotion to God, Fatherland, and family, which stressed duty, sacrifice, and

respect for authority as the basis for the individual’s life. Palmieri held that these ideals

inspired the Risorgimento and guided the nation up to 1870. Increasingly, the Italian

nation forgot the ideals of the Risorgimento and moved away from them. He asserted the

replacement of the “Old Guard” right-wing cabinet with a Leftist cabinet in 1876

233
Palmieri, 182-3.
 114

represented this departure from Mazzinian Ideals—Fascism of course is a return to these

principles.234

Palmieri lamented the Leftist cabinet’s extension of voting rights, citing the new

leadership’s indifference to whether or not Italian peasants were ready for the power

granted to them through the democratic institution of voting. He described the cabinet’s

indifference to the ignorance of peasants as follows “little did the men in power care

whether those whom they gave the right to vote were prepared, spiritually and materially,

to exercise this right.”235 The extension of voting rights, Palmieri believed, flowed into

increasing corruption, bribery, and crime that came to represent parliamentary

democracy. He identified the increase in political parties as part of the problem insisting

that these parties no longer represented the concerns of the masses, but instead the

concerns of materialistic ideologies. Therefore, he maintained the standard of Italian

politics fell lower every subsequent year after 1870. Finally, the degradation of Italian

political life was further expressed with the inclusion of class warfare within parliament

and consequently the encroachment of socialism. He alleged that Parliament became a

battleground were the parties ignored the welfare of the state and fought for how to take

the biggest share of the state’s spoils. This paralleled the industrial growth of Italy and

the ever-growing support for socialism and communism from working class leaders,

which Palmieri blamed on the lassie-fare attitudes of the liberal government. 236

234
Ibid., 183-4.

235
Ibid., 185.

236
Palmieri, 186-8.
 115

Much of what Palmieri detested about the Italian state’s social, political, and

economic climate were quite real. However, the reasons for these issues were not entirely

based on those he provided. The unification of Italy left the new country racked with

numerous socio-economic issues including a massive national debt and budget deficit.

The new state imposed heavy taxes on the poverty-stricken peasantry in an attempt to

relieve these monetary issues and pay for their state building programs. This not only led

to an inequitable class division, but also alienated workers and peasants. Social

conditions further came to ahead when Prime Minister Giovani Giolitti passed liberal

reforms between 1900 and 1913. Frustrated with the social progression that these

programs ushered in, young middle-class Italians took an aggressive and militant stance

against the reforms further exacerbating class strife. 237 Palmieri’s bellicosity fails to

consider these issues; he ignored the pitfalls of the nineteenth century nationalist

movement and the aggression of young bourgeois nationalist militancy that hindered

fixing Italian social, political, and economic issues in the twentieth century.

Fascism, Palmieri declared, was the salvation from Italy’s degradation. However,

before there was the rise of Fascism there was one other event that he placed great

importance on—The First World War. Palmieri believed the Great War served as a brief

moment of salvation from “the disintegration and decay” of the Western world. He

believed the experience of the war brought together the inner opposing interests and class

struggles within the belligerent nations claiming “the war reconciled for a time all

opposing interests, all class struggles, all enemy forces, within each of the national

237
De Grand, Italian Fascism, 5-6, 11-3.
 116

boundaries.”238 Consequently, fascism was born from the realization that the war, for a

time, delayed the internal strife of the nation because these competing groups worked

together in the name of the state. Palmieri argued that after the war no other philosophy

had the answers that may stop the disintegration and decay brought on by individualism.

However, he insisted that World War I does not belong in the background of the history

of Fascism as the previous events and processes discussed. He argued the war was not a

“prime mover” that brought about the rise of Fascism, but a symptom of the causes of the

decline of Western civilization. Part of his reasoning for this was that the war is not a past

event, but contemporary one that is still fresh in the minds of the masses. Furthermore, he

clarified that Fascism is not an answer to the war itself; instead, it is a movement that

responded to the issue that produced the war—the decay of the West created by

individualism and its doctrines.

Forerunners of Fascism

The forerunners of fascism (movements, groups, and persons that convey fascistic

qualities prior to the rise of fascism) have long been an interest to historians who study

the history of fascism. Therefore, it should be no surprise that such a topic would interest

a fascist, let alone a fascist intellectual who tried to define their movement and its place

in history. However, Palmieri’s interest is not on movements that occurred before the

Fascist party such as the Futurist movement or the occupation of Fiume by Gabriele

D’Annunzio.239 Instead, he focused on two Italian thinkers Gianbattista Vico and

238
Palmieri, 188.

239
In the case of Italian Fascism many historians have considered Marinetti’s Futurist movement
as a proto-fascist movement. Certainly, the Futurists had an influence on many Fascists and Mussolini not
to mention Marinetti not only worked with the Fascists but also helped create the militant squadrismo when
he attacked the offices of Avanti! Moreover, their intellectual basis shared much with Fascist philosophy
 117

Giuseppe Mazzini. Writing about these two men and their ideas was Palmieri’s attempt to

connect their ideas to the Fascist movement in Italy further establishing a cult of antiquity

that places the movement in the context of Italian history. Clearly, in Palmieri’s mind

fascism belonged to the processes of history. He believed fascism was a modern

movement there is no doubt about this since he claimed, “fascism is a creature of the

twentieth century.”240 However, he did not deny fascism’s place in history or that it was a

product and response to forces and events grounded in human history. Palmieri saw that

the contemporary events of the twentieth century were rooted in the events of the past;

thus, fascism too had its roots in the past.

Palmieri began with a description of the thoughts of Gianbattista Vico. He mostly

focused on the ideas of his New Science, the first draft of which was published in 1620.

Palmieri, seeking to establish a connection between fascism and Vico’s ideas, interjected

into each section how fascist thought either mirrored or is directly built on Vico’s

philosophy. Consequently, each discussion is less about Vico’s ideas and more about how

the movement interprets these subjects and how Vico’s theories justify those assessments.

The most important aspect of Palmieri’s discussion on Vico’s concept of New

Science is that he claimed it supports many of the claims made in his first chapter. For

including a palingenetic mythos of national regeneration, detest for Liberalism/Conservativism, and an

obsession with technological progression. However, Gabriele D’Annunzio’s nationalist-corporativist
movement that seized Fiume in 1919 to establish a proto-fascist city-state named the so-called “Regency of
Carnaro” had the most influence on the Fascist movement. His Fiume experiment—as it has become
known—ran similarly to the ideas stressed by Palmieri in The Philosophy of Fascism, specifically his
application of corporativist system. Furthermore, D’Annunzio’s occupation had another unintended effect
on the Fascist movement; mainly when the Italian military expelled his Fiume League from the city by
Mussolini’s Fascist movement became the only fascist movement in Italy. Griffin, Nature of Fascism, 59,
65.

240
Palmieri, 191.
 118

instance, his argument on anti-individualism that focused on the idea that humanity is

connected through an invisible bind. Moreover, Palmieri used Vico to support his

argument that history is a process of continuous cycles. He noted, “according to Vico, a

law of cycles ‘Corsi e Ricorsi’ is at work throughout the course of human history.” 241

This law of cycles, Palmieri argued, negates the idea that history is a tale of progress or

regression; therefore, civilizations are their own spiritual entity. Furthermore, Vico

conceptualized history as a spiritual entity that only exists in the “Divine Mind” and can

only be realized through actual events. Palmieri and his ideas on spiritualism throughout

the book echo Vico’s. Palmieri even claimed Fascism accepted Vico’s arguments on

spiritualism and the need for it to return to the forefront of human thought and social

theory.242

Palmieri shifted his attention from Vico’s more general ideas to those on specific

concepts beginning with science. Palmieri claimed Vico’s New Science found itself at

odds with that of scientific reason, as did Fascism. He argued that science had committed

a “great wrong” to humanity by demanding them to pledge their energies to scientific

pursuit. The consequence was that humanity gained knowledge of the “external world” at

the cost of minimalizing their understanding of the internal world (spiritual world).

Correspondingly, Fascism seeks to reverse this wrongdoing by adopting Vico’s New

Science. Palmieri insisted New Science proved that believing science could explain “the

ultimate truth” was naïve. He insisted that Vico dispelled the argument that modern

241
Palmieri, 193.

242
Ibid., 192-193, 194.
 119

human thought based on scientific thought and reason alone can deduce life’s truth.

Instead, just as Fascism has argued the knowledge of “the true nature of things” can only

be accomplished through two distinct paths, science, and philosophy. Palmieri indicated

that only science could grant people knowledge on the concepts of facts, matter, time and

space, action, and movement while philosophy must be used to provide an understanding

of the notions of being, ideas, and values. 243

Palmieri’s next concept he related to Vico was law and punishment. He claimed

that in the area of law and punishment Vico “threw the inquisitive beam of light” 244 on

the subject. The heart of Palmieri’s conceptualization of law and punishment was that it

is a process of human relationships and the realization of the ideal human life. Palmieri,

building off his understanding of Vico’s thoughts, declared that law and punishment must

be an internal concept. Moreover, his ideas on the subject mirror those of Michel

Foucault’s sweeping analysis on power and the justice system, Discipline and Punish245

published some thirty-nine years after The Philosophy of Fascism. Using Vico, Palmieri

argued that humans are a social animal that naturally submit to law because they seek

harmony between the individual and the social organism. Therefore, law must concern

itself with the maintaining of social relationships instead of dealing out external

punishment. This line of thought resonates with Foucault’s theory that using overt

violence as a form of punishment has consequences for power relationships. He identified

243
Ibid., 195, 196, 197.

244
Ibid., 197-8.

245
Michel Foucault, Discipline and Punish: The Birth of the Prison (New York: Vintage Books,
1995).
 120

that in the late eighteenth century those tasked with conducting discipline realized that

external punishment that sought revenge was counterproductive in maintaining the

relationship between those who ruled and those ruled. Hence, it was decided that criminal

justice should no longer seek vengeful violence against criminals, but merely internally

punish. By the nineteenth century, the penal system began to target the humanity within

the criminal; thereby, seeking to reform and transform them. This in turn established a

new power dynamic that may be summed up as constraint by idea, which Foucault

summed up as “a stupid despot may constrain his slave with iron chains; but a true

politician binds them even more strongly by the chain of their own ideas.” 246 This

concept of constraint by idea is heavily present in Palmieri’s ideas of law and punishment

inspired by Vico. Palmieri believed punishment should concentrate on the spirit of the

person who committed the crime. He stated, “The greatest punishment that the guilty

individual can ever be subjected to is the feeling of having violated the inner law of his

conscience.”247 Palmieri not only saw the social relationship within law and punishment,

but also the inner spiritual element of the subject. 248

Palmieri’s conceptualization of law and punishment also concerned the role of the

state—the ultimate being of the social relationship. He argued that the state’s role “is not

the task of building always bigger and better jails.”249 Instead, Palmieri envisioned the

246
Foucault, 102-3.

247
Palmieri, 198.

248
Palmieri, 197-8; Foucault, 73-4, 102-3.

249
Palmieri, 199.
 121

state’s role in the discipline and punishment of criminality as a facilitator for a system of

spiritual rehabilitation:

the task of making always a little brighter the light within, of raising the general
level of conscience of the people, of bringing the people to understand and to
acknowledge the nobler claims of moral life, and lead them, thus, by a
continuous, progressive, constant process of education, to the vision, of the higher
things of life, the only things that truly matter and are worth living for. 250

Palmieri’s ideas of law and punishment had further links to Foucault’s theories; this time

around, Palmieri’s concepts match that of Foucault’s “docile bodies.” Arguably, Foucault

identified this concept as the final product of discipline and punishment. He argued, the

masses are rendered into docile bodies by the corrosion tactics of constraint by idea—

among many others. Using the soldier as an example, Foucault recognized that through a

myriad of processes the individual can be molded into an ideal person who conforms to

social norms. Fittingly, he called the final product a docile body, an individual who may

be molded and conformed into anything the controlling interest sees fit. 251 Palmieri’s idea

of the state’s role in law and punishment is a method that reflects this theory of coercion

and molding of the individual. Such thought kept to Mussolini’s idea that the masses are

a malleable object that must be shaped into an ideal structure—comparable to how a

sculptor molds clay or marble.252 Thus, in his discussion on law and punishment Palmieri

is noting a method for which the fascist state can conform the masses to the social norms

of fascist philosophy. As before, Vico served to establish a historical legitimacy for

250
Ibid.

251
Foucault, 135-7, 168-9.

252
Falasca-Zamponi, 20-1.
 122

Palmieri’s concepts on the idealized form of law and punishment within the fascist state

that stressed social relationship, spiritual consciousness, and conformity through

corrosion guided by the state ideal.

The final two concepts Palmieri discussed in relation to Vico’s ideas are authority

and liberty. In the case of authority, Palmieri claimed Vico argued that the ultimate

standard of the conduct of life was a rigid conception of authority. Furthermore, he

asserted that Vico thought that authority should be vested exclusively in the power of the

state. Of course, the state’s right to be the ultimate authority is spiritual because it alone

has a “fuller, higher, and immediate relationship with the Divine.” 253 Furthermore,

Palmieri explained that Vico argued that authority should be independent from the will of

people—echoing his arguments on the sovereignty of the state in earlier parts of the

book. The discussion on Vico’s thoughts on the last concept of liberty also satisfies

Palmieri’s arguments. Palmieri claimed Vico stood against the advancement of

individualism and its call for freedom from all “constraints” in the form of liberty. He

continued to explain that Vico supported a different form of liberty that advocated for

power over one’s own natural instincts. Palmieri believed that Vico’s ideas on liberty

echoed that of fascism’s. He alleged that liberty—in Vico’s meaning—meant that true

freedom is reached through placing the individual’s life in control of a higher authority to

insure a moral life for all society.254

253
Palmieri, 199.

254
Ibid., 199-201.
 123

The second Italian thinker Palmieri attempted to draw a connection to was famed

Italian nationalist Giuseppe Mazzini. The twelve pages that Palmieri dedicated to

Mazzini’s ideas is not the only place in this book that he was mentioned. Indeed, Mazzini

is mentioned repeatedly in Palmieri’s book, clearing showing that Mazzini and his ideas

held an important influence over Palmieri. The discussion dedicated to Mazzini’s ideas in

this chapter focus on a core element that has proven central to Palmieri’s meaning of the

fascist movement, which is anti-individualism. This attack on individualism will include

attacks on the concept’s core foundation, rights. Then Palmieri transitioned to the

importance of religion as functionary of the state, a concept Mazzini himself apparently

championed.

Palmieri credited Vico with being the first person to react against individualism

and he described Mazzini as being greatest advocate against the concept. He described

Mazzini as not only a great Italian patriot, but as a profound mystic and prophet who was

the first modern person to realize the danger that individualism represented. Palmieri’s

analysis of Mazzini’s anti-individualism began with Mazzini’s description of the fall of

Rome, which he called a dark period that resembled the present—by present he is

referring to Mazzini’ period. Palmieri’s attempt here is to draw a connection between the

social and political issues of the inter-war period and those of Mazzini’s era in the mid-

nineteenth century. Palmieri listed the issues of the inter-war period as a loss of ideals,

religion, and morality, the disregard of authority and law; the worship of wealth; and

finally the destruction of the family; however, he argued that not all was lost. Instead, he
 124

looked to Mazzini’s anti-individualism that centered on an attack on individualism’s core

ideal, “the Rights of Man.”255

Mazzini attacked the concept of rights in his The Duties of Man.256 Mazzini’s

book discredits the concept of rights as the herald of a better life. He argued that instead

of providing a better existence for humanity rights are the downfall of human civilization

(Western). As an alternative, Mazzini believed in exulting the duties of the people. By

doing so people would not work for their own advantage, but instead for the benefit of all

within society. At least this is how Palmieri interpreted Mazzini’s Duties of Man.

Palmieri assumed Mazzini unknowingly developed an early working of fascist

philosophy with his criticism of rights and individualism.

Palmieri asserted that Mazzini questioned the integrity of a society based on the

people’s rights. He claimed Mazzini lamented what he called the irony and deception of

rights. Mazzini questioned any social construct that based itself off of individualism

through the theory of rights, but ignored the economic, social, and political injustices that

prevented people from actually enjoying those rights. According to Palmieri, Mazzini

recognized that if duty and sacrifice replaced rights as the central characteristic that

human society based itself on then those injustices could be eliminated. With this

understanding, Palmieri argued that fascism was the direct heir to Mazzini’s theory

because it furnishes humanity with “a new framework for the development of a

255
Palmieri, 201-2.

256
Giuseppe Mazzini, The Duties of Man (London: Chapman and Hall, 1862).
 125

meaningful individual life and a satisfactory social life.”257 By drawing this connection to

the ideas of Mazzini, Palmieri sought to legitimatize Fascism’s claim to power in Italy.

However, he continued to use language that suggested this linage should be included with

generic fascism by reminding that Mazzini did not only speak of Italy but of all Western

Civilization.

Palmieri’s discussion shifted focus from The Duties of Man to Mazzini’s religious

musings. The issue of religion is the essence of human history Palmieri and Mazzini

argue. Subsequently, the greatest moments of human history occur when the religious

ideal is at the forefront. Palmieri insisted that because the modern liberal and democratic

states hold an indifference to religious idealism they have sanctioned the decay of the

religious spirit. This is not to claim that religion depends on the state for existence.

However, he held that the state without religion losses the help of the greatest force to

mold the character of its citizens. Therefore, without religion the state is vulnerable to

decay as exemplified by liberalism.258

The importance of religion for fascism is rooted in the notion of common identity.

Nationalism is a prominent feature of fascism and an important facet of nationalism is

that of the imagined community as masterfully described by Benedict Anderson in his

book Imagined Communities.259 Accordingly, to legitimize fascist nationalism Palmieri

needed to advocate for the necessity of a common identity. Religion, more precisely

257
Palmieri, 205.

258
Ibid., 205-7.

259
Benedict Anderson, Imagined Communities: Reflections on the Origin and Spread of
Nationalism (London: Verso, 2006).
 126

Mazzini’s conception of the religious ideal, played a role in Palmieri’s theories on

fascism—both generic and the Italian variant. To make his case on the importance of

religion as a tool to generate a common identity he quoted Mazzini on the subject.

Mazzini described the importance of religion as “no true society can exist without a

common belief and a common aim. Religion declares the belief and the aim.” 260 Mazzini

argued that politics is the regulation of socio-economic institutions to realize the belief

and aim established by religion or in his words “religion represents the principle; politics

the application.”261 Therefore, Mazzini declared that religion is a community since it

establishes a common origin, a common principle, and unites all into a common center.

Yet again, Palmieri claimed that Fascism was heir to this concept and sought to make it a

reality.

Finally, in the discussion on religion Palmieri gave attention to one other topic,

the belief in God. He spoke plainly from the beginning “There is no place indeed in

Fascism for an atheistic conception of the Universe, or for any other conception derived

through the analytical powers of the mind.” He argued that fascism believes in the

existence of God and that humanity cannot learn the truth of God without religion.

Consequently, Palmieri scoffed at the idea of the state existing without religion by

declaring, “An irreligious State is not a State at all.” This of course meeting with prior

ideas established to Mazzini. Palmieri used Italy as a case study. He asserted that Fascism

in Italy must use the religious ideas of the Catholic denomination. This is not to argue

260
Giuseppe Mazzini, “Unknown,” in The Philosophy of Fascism (Chicago: The Fortune Press,
1936), 208.

261
Ibid.
 127

that Fascism is inherently Catholic or that a generic fascist movement must be Catholic

only. Palmieri’s intention here is to preserve the common identity necessary for mass

appeal. He stated that Catholicism is a tradition tightly woven within the Italian

experience for this reason it cannot easily be dismissed. Moreover, he asserted that since

Catholicism is a part of Italy’s past it is thus a part of Fascism. To dispel the notion that

his discussion on religion implies that fascism is not a generic movement that can take

root in other countries Palmieri ended the chapter with a quote by Mazzini on the nature

of ideas. The quote, according to Palmieri, is Mazzini’s argument that the ideas are

universal. Therefore, ideas transcend nations and borders of countries. Palmieri wrote,

“His words were addressed to Italy and to the Italians, but they do not belong to one

country and only to certain men; they were meant for all men: as part of the universal

commonwealth of thought they are truly part of the patrimony of the race.” His implied

meaning by ending the chapter with this statement is that fascist philosophy also is meant

to transcend borders.262

By discussing the ideas of Vico and Mazzini, Palmieri attempted to draw a link

between fascism and their concepts. In some instances, he claimed that fascism was the

very continuation of their theories. He knew that fascism required a connection to

historical thinkers and events in order to legitimize fascism as well as garner mass

support. Correspondingly, establishing a cult of antiquity—in this case by linking Italian

Fascism to two Italian thinkers—served as an important opportunity for Palmieri.

262
Palmieri, 209, 210, 213.
 128

The Hero as Leader

In chapter fifteen Palmieri turned his attention back to an earlier theory he had

discussed; this was the concept of the hero leader. The theory of the hero leader is not

Palmieri’s original thought; instead, it is a concept originally developed by Thomas

Carlyle. Developed in a series of six lectures, Carlyle believed it was best to have a

social, political, and economic system that is overseen by the strongest men of that

society—the heroes. Palmieri sought to add another “lecture” to his series; this chapter is

meant to be that seventh lecture. The chapter is a short one that seemed to have two major

goals the first to flesh out the theory of hero as leader and the second to affirm that Benito

Mussolini was the hero leader of the Italian Fascist movement.

Palmieri began by describing the Carlylean hero. He claimed the hero is a man (it

is clear the hero to Palmieri is gender specific) that possesses a mystic power to see and

understand all things. He can rediscover all truths because of his belief in the divine

world, and he already contains a spirit that resides in in the realm of reality. These

character traits allow the hero to act according to the inner voice that directs him by the

“heart of man,” which is one of difficulty, abnegation, martyrdom, and death. Palmieri

continued to explain the purpose of the hero, no matter if they are in the form of prophet,

saint, warrior, poet, or king the hero’s purpose is to deliver a message to humanity. The

message here is that a person’s life is only fulfilled if their life is devoted to and if

required sacrificed for the triumph of an ideal. Moreover, he insisted that such a life is the

only way to find happiness on earth. Finally, he claimed that the hero belongs to

history—the hero is born according to the needs of the times to deliver their message.

That message cannot be in the form of a religious book, a prophecy, or a poem; instead,
 129

he claimed it must be delivered in the form of a new way of life—one that will lead

humanity from their present misery.263

With the meaning of the hero and his message detailed, Palmieri turned his

attention to the conduct of the hero. Most importantly, Palmieri declared that the hero

must live their life according to their message. He exclaimed, “We must ask of him first

of all, and above all, that through his speech, his actions, his influence, his example, his

whole life, in short, he live the very message he is delivering to us.” The hero leader must

live by his message, but Palmieri does not end the requirements of the hero leader’s life

there. He adds that living his message is not enough to know that the hero is not a fake or

an imposter. The hero must display three qualities to prove he is not a fraud; he must

display sincerity, courage, and belief. These three qualities prove his disposition and his

merit as a hero. Sincerity proves the hero has purpose in his actions. Courage shows the

hero’s actions have value because he is free from fear. Belief demonstrates that the hero

knows his destiny and his powers will change the world. Finally, these qualities are

underlined by a foundation of knowledge from intuition. The person with these attributes

is assured to be the hero since “once we find all these qualities within the soul of one man

. . . then we may rest assured that we have found a man entitled to our admiration, a true

hero worthy of inclusion within the sacred cohort of the Carlylean heroes.” 264

Palmieri claimed that heroes could not rise from the current liberal democratic

society nor from socialist or communist societies. Instead, it is only possible to find

263
Palmieri, 229-30.

264
Ibid., 231, 232.
 130

heroes as leaders in a fascist system, like that of Italian Fascism. Of course, in the Italian

case, there is one current hero who resists the liberal/conservative democratic system and

has presented an alternative to socialism/communism; this man is Benito Mussolini. One

more thing must be mentioned before continuing, which is, Palmieri insisted that Fascism

does not belong to Mussolini himself nor to only Italy. He again asserted the fascism is a

philosophy and movement that belongs to the whole of Western civilization because it is

devised by it.265

The final pages of the chapter are Palmieri’s justification of Mussolini being a

man who fits Carlyle’s hero leader. Certainly, given the year of the book’s publishing,

Mussolini had successfully gained power over the party, ousted all political rivals, and

established a cult of personality that Mussolini embodied. 266 Therefore, it should be no

surprise that Palmieri would dedicate sections of the book on Mussolini and his

importance. Yet, Palmieri reminded the reader that while he embodies the hero leader

Mussolini is still just a man and the qualifications described earlier remain far more

important. According to Palmieri, Mussolini’s importance is that he is a “mouthpiece

chosen by destiny” that could change the world. His position is only necessary and exists

only because there is a need for his message.267

Palmieri credited Mussolini with two accomplishments that proved that he

possessed the qualities of Carlyle’s hero leader. First, Mussolini stood against

265
Ibid., 233-5.

266
F.L Carsten, The Rise of Fascism (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1971), 71-3;
Falasca-Zamponi, 51-3, 64-88.

267
Palmieri, 236.
 131

communism. He praised Mussolini for challenging communists and socialists. Palmieri

argued that Mussolini provided a new way of life (Fascism) that championed heroism,

asceticism, martyrdom, and death above the materialistic characteristics of comfort,

cowardice, safety, and wellbeing. Furthermore, Mussolini pushed a new way of life that

again “worshiped” the ideas of the Fatherland, the state, the family, and the church.

Finally, he rejuvenated the concepts of authority, responsibility, and duty that resist the

decay of individualism and liberty. The second accomplishment Palmieri attributed to

him was that Mussolini fulfilled the theories and ideas of the nineteenth century thinkers

and philosophers who imagined a new and better life. Palmieri claimed Mussolini

personified the ideas of notable intellectuals such as Nietzsche, Carlyle, Emerson, and

Mazzini. He asserted that Mussolini made the words and ideas of these thinkers and more

a reality in the form of Fascism in Italy. He made the people accept ideas and formed that

acceptance into a new life. Moreover, the people were willing to believe in, work for, and

suffer and if necessary die for this new way of life.268

The Fascist Revolution and Palmieri’s Conclusion

Fascism is a revolutionary movement; much of Palmieri’s book is dedicated to

advancing this argument. Appropriately, the last chapter of his book is a final discussion

on the revolutionary goals of fascism. The fascist revolution seeks to completely change

human life—trading the current form of life for their ideal one. The present way of life is

based on the philosophy of individualism, which fascism seeks to eliminate and replace.

This current philosophy and way of life is manifested through institutions, the primary

268
Ibid., 236, 237-8.
 132

two of which Palmieri identified as capitalism and democracy. Consequently, he argued

that fascism must obliterate these institutions if its revolution is to be a success. However,

before discussing capitalism and democracy Palmieri addressed the other revolution and

the intellectual who is most often attributed to it—communism and Karl Marx.

Palmieri’s discussion about Marx is a denouncement of his philosophies and

naturally the communist movement. Palmieri reminded the reader that at its base the

fascist revolution is against any person, movement, and condition that advocates for

individualism. Palmieri declared, “The Fascist Revolution is at bottom a revolution

against the men, the ideas and the conditions which let the individual’s consciousness of

the self begin and end with the limits of the individual’s personality.” 269 In other words,

fascist thought denounces the idea that the person’s worth is defined within the good of

their own individual self; instead, a person finds purpose within the context of the greater

“good” of the social whole. Palmieri believed communism could not provide a better life

for all of society. The reason for this laid at the heart of Marx’s philosophy and that of

communism, which emphasized human history as a product of materialistic determinism.

Palmieri refuted Marx’s main argument on the nature of human history, what has been

called historical materialism or the materialist theory of history. Historical materialism is

the cornerstone of Marx’s philosophy that centers on technology as the basis of historical

progression.270 Palmieri argued that fascism takes issue with this philosophy because

Marx’s ideas place materialism at the forefront of human history and not spirituality.

269
Palmieri, 239.

270
Peter Singer, Marx: A Short Introduction (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1980).
 133

Palmieri stated, “A fundamental characteristic of the culture of the western world has

always been the emphasis placed on the free activity of the human spirit as prime mover

of the forces shaping the course of human history.” 271 He continued to explain that

inherently communism conflicts with the above fundamental characteristic of western

culture because of communism’s central “emphasis placed on materialistic historic

determinism . . . ”272 Palmieri believed, Marx and other champions of communism and

socialism over emphasized the role of economics in human life. Simply put Palmieri

argued that fascism rejects this notion.

Fascism sought another means to create a better life that did not champion class

warfare and did not argue for equality of income—a position that Palmieri claimed would

never satisfy the aspirations of humanity. He viewed class warfare as only the triumph of

one class over the other at the expense of all others, which he believed could only bring

more chaos, unhappiness, and despair. Instead, Palmieri declared what is needed is a

fascist revolution, which seeks to destroy the obsolete institutions; teaches people that

there is more to life than materialism; and creates a co-operative society based on

hierarchy and harmony, led by an elite of aristocratic spirits, and promotes spiritual

greatness not wealth. Palmieri claimed the aims of the fascist revolution are peacefully,

which does not disqualify its revolutionary nature. This seems to be a defense of the

March on Rome still being a revolutionary act despite the lack of physical violence;

furthermore, he may have made this comment due to the lack of civil war during the rise

271
Palmieri, 240.

272
Ibid.
 134

of fascisms during the inter-war period—save of course the Spanish Civil War. 273

Additionally, Palmieri argued that the fascist revolution was incomplete and that it will

possibly take the whole of the twentieth century to finish. He continued to proclaim that

the fascist revolution would be complete when individualism has been completely

eradicated from humanities social consciousness. 274

To accomplish this feat of annihilating individualism Palmieri argued the fascist

revolution has devised to destroy the obsolete institutions of individualism, capitalism,

and democracy. These systems are the source of humanity’s problems and nothing could

be done, according to Palmieri, to salvage them. First, he focused on capitalism and its

faults and why it must be abolished. Palmieri identified four “forces” that serve as the

inherent defects of capitalism. The first is the contradictive nature of the relationship of

production and personal profit of capitalist economics. Palmieri argued that capitalism’s

mode of production is a social organism; yet, its purpose is to use social productive

means to create individualistic means of profit. Accordingly, capitalism conflicts with

fascist ideals since fascism maintains that human production should benefit all by

producing for the state not the individual. The second force that he identified is the role

of machinery. Palmieri considered machinery an “outside agent” that displaced human

labor. Furthermore, by replacing human workers, machinery creates surplus commodities

that cannot be disposed because it decreases the number of salaried laborers who then

cannot consume the surplus—Palmieri never mentioned what the ideal balance should be.

273
Mosse, Fascist Revolution, 6.

274
Palmieri, 240-1.
 135

The third fault he identified is capitalism’s inherent anti-social and retrogressive nature,

which stems from its exploitation of the many for the few. The fourth and final fault he

identified is capitalism’s very structure. He saw the structuring of capitalism with its

growing trusts and monopolies, absentee ownership of production, the necessity of ever

growing markets, the conflict between private interest and the interests of the nation as

whole, and the control over the destines of people and nations as the final destructive

force of capitalism. He insisted these four forces of capitalism stand at odds with human

life. Therefore, to achieve its better life fascism must seek capitalism’s total removal

from life.275

The other institution he identified as source of the problems that modern society

faced was democracy. Here Palmieri does not recognize any distinct “forces” in

democracy that represent its faults, instead he expressed the belief that in modern times

democracy lacks any true meaning—as in it does not live up to its lofty ideals of equality

and direct mass rule. Part of this is that he recognized that democracy could not truly

exist with a capitalist system because for democracy to work there must be economic

freedom. Palmieri maintained that capitalism eliminates economic freedom rendering

democracy defunct because “capitalism has succeeded, within the brief span of a century

of time, in destroying its very possibility of realization.” He further stated, “Democracy

has lost all meaning. What meaning can Democracy have for the masses, when the rights

of free speech, free vote, free press, have become ghastly parodies of the very right to

life?” However, democracy’s failure did not only lie in the rise of capitalism. Palmieri

275
Ibid., 242.
 136

argued that it contained its own philosophical faults. He claimed that democracy could

not provide humanity with a better life because its ideal of leveling will crush all

originality, individuality, and moral spiritual greatness. 276

After discussing the obsolete nature of capitalism and democracy Palmieri

returned to discounting Marx and his ideas. He admitted that Marx saw the

incompatibility of capitalism and democracy. However, keeping to his discrediting of

Marx, he criticized Marx for only seeing communist revolution as an alternative. Palmieri

exclaimed that Marx lacked the imagination to dream of the other alternative—the fascist

revolution. Palmieri continued to explain what made the fascist revolution the preferred

alternative. He claimed that fascism does not promise the materialization of a lofty utopia

on earth, unlike Marx and communism. Instead, fascism is the realization of a new life

“founded on everlasting, life-inspiring Ideals.” Furthermore, Palmieri clarified that

fascism teaches humanity that there is more to life and human history than class struggle

and that class warfare can be ended by granting the state all power. He explained, “There

is a way to end the war of classes and that way is found in placing all classes under the

protection, the aegis, and the discipline of the State.” Finally, fascism rejects the premise

that social justice is the uprising of the workers to overthrow the elites. On the contrary, it

is the cooperation of classes “for their own good and the good of the nation as a whole.”

Therefore, as described by Palmieri, fascism completely rejects the ideas of Marx and of

276
Ibid., 243.
 137

communism. Instead, it is another revolution, an alternative to the current system and that

of the other socialist/communist systems.277

Fascism of course is more than a rejection of Marx and communism or socialism.

Palmieri described fascism as a revolutionary philosophy that provides a new idea for a

better life. Fascism renews the power of state, places economic production in the hands of

state and forces it to serve the nation not the individual. It is a revolt against

individualism, materialism, liberalism, and democracy. Palmieri argued fascism is

revolutionary because it is more than a rebellion that can only destroy and not rebuild. To

defend this claim he deferred to Mazzini who exclaimed, “[a] religion or a philosophy

lies at the base of every revolution.”278 Correspondingly, a revolution is an idea with a

philosophic base. For this reason, Palmieri argued fascism had a theoretical base, which

made it something more—something revolutionary. He stated “[t]he idealistic philosophy

which lies at the base of the Fascist Revolution makes of it something more than a revolt,

something constructive, creative, spiritual.” 279 Fascism ends individualistic and

materialistic life and builds a new way of life that merges the individual into the social

organism of the state—this building of a new life makes fascism a revolutionary

philosophy.

Palmieri ended his book with a short conclusion—approximately one and half

pages long. The conclusion covers nothing new, but merits a short discussion. Palmieri

277
Ibid., 244, 245.

278
Giuseppe Mazzini, “Unknown,” in The Philosophy of Fascism (Chicago: The Fortune Press,
1936), 246.

279
Palmieri, 246.
 138

began it with the assertion that the world is moving towards a new stage of human life

that shifts emphases from the individual to the whole of humanity. He argued through

biological, psychological, social, and mystic forces the world will transform from one of

disconnected, chaotic, and conflicting purposes into one of harmony guided by common

good. The new harmonious world that evolves humanity from an autonomous animal into

a moral and spiritual being will have no room for a philosophy of life based on

individualism. He claimed the continuation of a philosophy of individualism will only

“retard the progress of man.” He declared that the final goal of life is the spiritualization

of humanity. Therefore, he explained there must be a philosophic doctrine that teaches

humanity that asserting their individuality and cherishing it as their greatest possession is

a false way of life. Furthermore, the new doctrine must treat any creed that advocates for

individualism as an evil one. Finally, that doctrine must advocate for a new way of life—

a spiritual way of life that denounces individualism and materialism. In their place, this

doctrine must promote cooperation, duty, and devotion. Palmieri finished by asking the

reader “Is Fascism the new way of life. To the reader the answer.” Following this line he

ended with a paragraph reminding the reader that fascism is indeed the answer. 280

Fascism and America

The English language version of The Philosophy of Fascism published and

distributed in the United States contained an extra section in the form of an appendix

chapter titled “Fascism and America.” As one can guess, in this additional section

Palmieri focused on advocating for a fascist movement in the United States. This segment

280
Ibid., 247, 248
 139

pushed and supported Palmieri’s assertions that fascism is a movement that cannot be

contained to any one country. For the majority of the chapter he focused on why fascism

is needed in the United States and what this means. In the last few pages Palmieri’s

attention changed, he no longer focused on the US. Instead, his focus became wider and

shifted back to the grander meanings of fascism and why the movement is necessary.

Finally, the last pages of this appendix chapter seem to read more like a conclusion for

the book than the page and half he dedicated to his official conclusion.

Palmieri began the chapter by addressing the national myth of the United States—

that the US is built on a foundation of rugged individualism. He claimed the common

logic that accompanies this myth is that if said foundation of individualism is weakened

then the country—especially its democratic principles—will fail. Palmieri found this

myth and its supplemental logic superficial to the “transcendent” process of nation

building. Furthermore, he asserted that such a stance creates a distrust towards ideas that

are based on the true nature of things—more specifically the ideas of anti-individualism.

He continued to explain that the claim, individualism and democracy is necessary for the

existence of the US, is so ingrained in peoples’ minds that if they were told the US could

go on without these ideas then the they would denounce such a statement as absurd and

irrational. Palmieri attempted to refute this disbelief by explaining that if the US (or any

nation for that matter) is what it claims to be—if its myth is true—then the rise and fall of

philosophies such as democracy, individualism, liberalism, and fascism will have no

effect on the “life” of the country. Conversely, if the US is an empty shell of its supposed
 140

myth that relies on the ideas of these philosophies to be propped up on, then they are truly

needed and their rise and fall are relevant.281

After his assessment of individualism in the US, Palmieri reiterated arguments

that he made throughout the book and applied them to the realities of the country. He

started with asserting that the fascist way of life is the only way forward from the present

state of despair. Therefore, he claimed that if people want to be their true selves they

must admit the ideas that form the core of fascism are precisely what humanity needs.

Fascism according to Palmieri becomes a necessity in order to break the corruption of

individualism, democracy, and capitalism. Palmieri claimed these three concepts

bankrupted the morals of the United States rendering the common person a hostage in an

incoherent world. Fascism is the answer to this unintelligible world, but he argued it

cannot be forced and the fascist movement in the US cannot be a copy of the movement

in Italy. Instead, it must be distinctly American; thus, keeping to his assertion in earlier

sections of the book that fascism will differ from country to country. Finally, returning to

the cause of the common person Palmieri suggested that the time is coming when

humanity will realize that liberties and rights could not protect them from exploitation,

injustice, sickness, and death. Thus, the masses must realize that it would be best for

them to entrust their lives to a regime that can protect their families, give humanity back

their dignity, and make human society part of a moral universe. Palmieri contended that

fascism is this regime.282

281
Ibid., 249-50.

282
Ibid., 252-54
 141

Palmieri insisted that the United States cannot ignore fascism—it is its future. He

stressed that if the West is going to avoid its utter ruin then it must adopt the new fascist

way of life. Fascism is a test to the US because it challenges its myth that the country was

built by the ideal of individualism and the people of the United States must accept that

challenge. He argued the history of the US is one of conquering of a new land and

continent offered “to quench our indomitable thirst for life, for more life.” Greedily, he

explained, the European colonists conquered this land and transformed it into a vast

empire of material achievements with a root of rugged individualism. However, Palmieri

asserted that this material achievement is not enough—this individualism is not the true

soul of the great American empire. He stated, “Something more is needed . . . something

which has to do with our social world, with the world of our fellow men.” He alleged that

the current state of the world was a miserable one. All of the possibilities of a satisfactory

life have been stamped out, the chasm between have and have not has grown larger, and

the spread of communism is part of this despair not the solution. The cause of this current

state of affairs is naturally individualism—this argument being present throughout the

book. He declared that humanity worshiped individualism as a false idol and now that

idol has fallen. With the idol of individualism gone or on its way out, he claimed that

humanity was free to search their inner self for the something more—a new way of

life.283

The new life cannot merely be academic words it must be action, he proclaimed.

Just as he argued throughout the book, he contended in the final pages of this section that

283
Ibid., 255, 256.
 142

in order to stave off decay this new life had to be conducted differently. Every structure

needed to be destroyed and reformed. Palmieri declared what was necessary is “a radical

change of our whole outlook on life.” 284 A radically different life, a fascist way of life, is

needed to end the plight of individualism. Only fascism can save the United States and

the West.

Conclusion

Palmieri’s Part 3 focused on fascism’s place within history. The purpose of this

served to legitimize fascism’s call for power by establishing a cult of antiquity. Doing so

afforded fascism the ability to call itself a natural progression of Western history instead

of an oddity—or momentary event disconnected from history. Meanwhile, he reiterated

many concepts he discussed in the other two parts of the book. Indeed, the final two

chapters seem dedicated to hashing out the details concerning many of the concepts he

discussed, primarily the hero as leader and fascism’s revolutionary credit. Finally, an

appendix chapter that focused on fascism and the United States follows the last part of

the book.

In Part 3 Palmieri constructed a cult of antiquity needed to legitimize fascism.

While his focus was mostly on Italian Fascism, he also further established a case for

generic fascism. Palmieri attributed fascism—both generic and Italian, to the processes of

history. In the case of Italy, Fascism became a logical conclusion of the events that

dominated Italian history, the Renaissance, the Risorgimento, and Italian participation in

World War I to name a few. Aside from being, a product of history Palmieri also linked

284
Ibid., 259.
 143

Fascism to two Italian thinkers, Gianbattista Vico and Giuseppe Mazzini. Palmieri

claimed that Fascism was the inheritor of these two Italian thinkers, again lending

validity to the movement’s claim to power in Italy. Furthermore, this was the goal of his

fourteenth chapter “The Legacy of Rome.”

Historical links were not the only subjects of Palmieri’s Part 3. He also focused

on concepts from the first two sections of the book. First, he focused on the Carlylean

hero as leader theory. The fundamental aspect of this theory being that a person deemed

to have the qualities of a “hero” should be considered the logical person to lead the

nation. Palmieri attempted to add to Thomas Carlyle’s original series of six lectures by

adding a seventh that connects fascism to this notion. He argued that the hero leader

cannot merely advocate a set of better morals, but they must also live by those principles

and even this is not enough since the hero must prove themselves by showing sincerity,

courage, and belief. The final pages of Palmieri’s chapter on the hero leader are dedicated

to arguing that Mussolini fulfils the requirements to be considered a hero leader.

The last chapter of Palmieri’s third part is dedicated to supporting fascism’s

revolutionary creditability. He denounced Marx and his philosophy and insisted that

communism and socialism were not the solutions to the problems that humanity faced—

instead he claimed that these philosophies were only part of the problem. He believed a

new way of life was needed—one that was not based on individualism, which was the

source of humanity’s sorrow. He identified capitalism and democracy as the institutions

of individualism and advocated for their removal. In their place, fascism, as the new way

of life, would create a better world. According to Palmieri, this was truly revolutionary.
 144

The final appendix chapter “Fascism and America” closed the English edition of

Palmieri’s book. In the chapter, he advocated for a fascist movement in the United States.

This final chapter of the book is one of the strongest indicators that Palmieri defined

fascism as a transnational movement—one that could not be contained in Italy or Europe.

Furthermore, he reiterated the lofty claim that fascism is the only movement that can save

the West from the decay that it has witnessed because of individualism’s strangle hold.
 145

CONCLUSION

The Philosophy of Fascism

Fascism remains a topic that receives a plethora of attention. It is a complicated

and troublesome phenomenon of human history—both past and present. A never-ending

debate has been waged over its meaning since it emerged during the inter-war period in

the twentieth century. This thesis is neither meant to be the end of that debate or the

definitive answer to it. Instead, it is meant to be merely a part of it. Historians have

devised several ways to discuss fascism and its meaning. Today two methods seem to

stand above the others: the first is by defining fascism through various methods like

through comparison as advocated by Stanley Payne or the “ideal type” as advocated by

Roger Griffin; while the second is “historical analysis of how fascism unfolded” as

promoted by Robert Paxton. These approaches are by no means wrong nor should they be

abandoned—that is not the argument here. Instead, what is being argued here is that there

exists another method that in conjunction with these other approaches can be used to

understand fascism. This technique is to fully investigate and understand how fascists

defined their own movement—in other words what does fascism mean to fascists.

Traditionally historians have given a large amount of attention to the documents

and speeches created by the largest figures of inter-war fascism: Adolf Hitler and Benito

Mussolini. Meanwhile, other fascist leaders and thinkers are given little to no attention

save for a few exceptions. This has skewed our understanding of fascism. By only
 146

focusing on more known figures of fascist movements and their ideas, we fail to see what

it means to others and consequently develop a more encompassing meaning of fascism.

Therefore, it is necessary to include midlevel fascist leaders and lesser-known fascists if

we are to understand fascism. Mario Palmieri’s The Philosophy of Fascism is one source

that allows for such an approach. In English there is not much written on Palmieri

himself. Furthermore, many historians who focus on fascism seem to have overlooked his

book. Palmieri clearly invested himself into Italian Fascism and believed in it. Moreover,

he undoubtedly saw fascism as a generic movement meant to spread to other countries.

This book was his attempt to explain to the world the meaning he found in the movement

and why. Subsequently, this makes Palmieri’s book an incredibly valuable source for

understanding fascism. It is only one book; however, when examined on its own it

supports and dismantles many of our assumptions on fascism. For example, it dismisses

the argument—championed by historians such as Gilbert Allardyce—that fascism is not a

movement and that it lacked any kind of intellectual basis. Meanwhile, it supports the

claims of historians such as Stanley Payne, Roger Griffin, and George Mosse that fascism

is a generic movement with an intellectual and ideological basis. All the while it provides

an insight into what that intellectual thought and ideology is and much more. This is only

one example of the insight that Palmieri’s book provides; moreover, The Philosophy of

Fascism is only one source.

The Philosophy of Fascism is a wealth of information concerning the intellectual

ideals that serve for the basis of fascism. It is organized into three parts that each cover

the various principles that serve as fascism’s foundation. Each part contains its own

specific topic. Part 1 is focused on the philosophical theories of fascism; Part 2 is the
 147

political and economic makeup of fascism, specifically Italian Fascism; and finally Part 3

covered the historical basis of fascism and reiterates and/or elaborates on some concepts

that Palmieri discussed in his other parts of the book. Additionally, the English edition of

the book printed in the United States discussed the need for a fascist revolution in the US.

Palmieri predominantly described fascism as a philosophy—one created from the

issues facing modern Western society. He explained, at its core, fascism is an anti-

individualist philosophy. Its primary goal is to deconstruct individualism and

materialism, which he identified as the two main causes of the deterioration of human

social, political, and economic life. To reverse this decline fascism held that humanity

must break free from the institutions and ideas of the current system—

liberal/conservative capitalism. Moreover, this philosophy denounced democratically

elected representation and favored a political system based on Carlylean leadership

through heroes; however, Palmieri maintained that this did not mean dictatorship. He

claimed the present system lacked a true ethical and moral base while fascism held a

superior and more spiritually based ethical code. To reverse the ills of the present

Palmieri argued that fascism’s new way of life that stressed the superiority of the state

bolstered by the institutions of the church, the family, and the nation replace the

degenerate institutions of individualism and materialism. In this way fascism offered

itself as the alternative to liberalism and conservativism; furthermore, it condemned

socialism and communism—labeling both as continuations of individualistic and

materialistic philosophy.

Palmieri did not only concern himself with fascist thought. He also focused on

what he believed were the ideal political and economic structures of fascism. Although he
 148

never explicitly provided a detailed explanation of how a fascist state’s political system

should be structured—as in how it was to be run day by day. Instead, he stuck to more

ideological constructs by describing his ideal vision of the political makeup of fascism

that is strictly anti-liberalist, anti-individualistic, and anti-democratic. Again, he refuted

that it is simply a dictatorship. Politics in fascism, according to Palmieri, is nothing more

than a mere tool to be used to ascertain fascism’s revolutionary goals. This creates a

certain fluidity in the political make up of fascism that allows it to adapt and evolve with

the political climate of the given time. He used this to explain away the failures of the

Italian Fascist government and likely to reassure the more radical members of the Italian

movement—this is made clearer when in Part 3 he stated that the fascist revolution is an

ongoing process. The economic theories of fascism were decidedly anti-capitalist

although as pointed out by Robert Paxton fascist anti-capitalist sentiment radically

differed from socialist, communist, and anarchist sentiment and had varied amongst

fascist movements in tone and severity.285 In the place of capitalism, Palmieri advocated

for an economic system that he likened to syndicalism; this was the corporativist model

or corporativism. This was the economic system developed by Italian Fascists—although

its success and actual practice is a subject of debate. Complicating the matter even more

is that fascist economics became almost a hybrid of their ideas and of capitalist economic

systems. Therefore, the subtitle for Daniel Guerin’s chapter on fascist economics “‘anti-

285
Mosse, Fascist Revolution, 7; Paxton, Anatomy of Fascism, 10.
 149

capitalist’ capitalism,” in Fascism and Big Business becomes an appropriate name for

fascist economics.286

The political and economic structures that Palmieri described in the book were

based on models advocated by Italian Fascists. He described these concepts to serve as an

example for other fascist movements to build off; however, there is room to slightly

modify these ideas—keeping with his argument that movements will have differences

from country to country. Palmieri did not demand for the exact replication of Italian

Fascist political and economic structures, but rather required fascists to obey the basic

message of the philosophy behind them. Fascism is an anti-democratic, anti-

individualistic, anti-materialistic, anti-capitalist philosophy that demands state supremacy

through the hailing of the church, the family, and the nation—these are the only

structures that hold any importance.

In Part 3, Palmieri changed his focus from the economic and political structuring

of fascism to its connection with human history. Fascism is a reaction to and a product of

the course of human history. Palmieri made this connection early on in his book when he

linked fascism to the progression of history in chapter 1—from there throughout the book

Palmieri made as many possible connections between fascism and history. However, it is

in Part 3 where Palmieri really asserted a theoretical connection between historical events

and fascism. In prior parts of the book, history served to explain what fascist thought is

reacting to and is addressing; in the first three chapters of Part 3, Palmieri used historical

events and figures to justify fascist philosophy. He established “a cult of antiquity” that

286
Paxton, 145; Guerin, Fascism and Big Business, 105.
 150

provides fascism the credibility needed to call itself a natural product of human history.

Doing so creates a bond to the people that fascism seeks to rule. This relationship is a

necessity if fascism is going to be considered an alternative to the political, social, and

economic structures it opposes. Without this cult of antiquity and the connection that it

creates with the masses of the nation, fascism cannot hope to achieve its goal of

establishing state superiority based on anti-individualism and anti-materialism.

Palmieri’s The Philosophy of Fascism provides an insight into how fascists define

themselves and their movement. The study of fascism has primarily concentrated on

defining fascism and describing its history (traditionally confined to the inter-war period

and the Second World War). These two approaches are not in any way incorrect nor can

it be argued that they have not helped in producing a better understanding of fascism.

However, there is something missing. Both approaches have utilized primary sources

from fascists and their movements—to argue otherwise is erroneous. However, many of

these sources have not been allowed to speak for themselves; instead, they are used

merely as pieces to support an argument on or about fascism and not make the claim

themselves. Again there is nothing inherently wrong with this, it is necessary. Yet, to

understand these documents, the people who wrote them, and fascism as a movement and

more we must give these sources our full attention. Fascism was far more than just a

speed bump or diversion in human history—it was/is a product and actor of history, as

were/are its followers and advocates. Just as it is necessary to discuss fascism as an ideal

type or its historical course, it is imperative to look at fascism on its own terms. To

understand that fascists had their own thoughts on how to define themselves and their

movement—their own way of life.

 151

The Reemergence of Fascism

The importance of studying and understanding fascism in the inter-war period lies

not in providing a dictionary definition to the term, but in the ability to identify emerging

fascist movements and prevent their rise to power. Currently, there has been a resurgence

of fascist thought as a viable alternative to the current political, social, and economic

structures of the world—that being neoliberalism/neoconservatism. The present

emergence of fascism parallels that of the inter-war period. Many have become frustrated

with the failings of the current structure—specifically the economic woes created by the

2008 recession—and are looking for a new life. For some fascism offers that new life just

as it did before and subsequently new fascist movements have risen throughout Europe

and the United States. Recently many of the movements have enjoyed some form of

popular support—enough to afford these movements and parties a minority presence in

their countries’ legislative body or some form of influence on the political and social

discourse of their nations.

Presently, there are numerous fascist and fascistic287 movements around the

globe. The movements and countries I cover here barely represent a fraction of the

movements around the world that merit consideration. As of now there are three well

organized parties in Europe that without a doubt are fascist, these are the Golden Dawn in

Greece, the Jobbik in Hungary, and the National Front in France. Meanwhile, in the

United States there are numerous fledgling fascist and fascistic movements. Two main

issues emerge with identifying current fascist movements. The first stems from fascism’s

287
Fascistic refers to movements or groups that show signs of fascist thought, but do not
necessarily show a complete adherence to it.
 152

adaptive nature, none of the movements today are exact duplicates of inter-war fascist

movements. Fascism today has evolved not only its aesthetic appearance, but also its

language. The second is various present day movements vigorously challenge the label of

fascist. These movements and groups recognize the inherent—and well deserved—stigma

of the term fascism/fascist; therefore, they refute the term as a label for their movements.

However, once researched it is clear that these groups are indeed fascist.

Modern fascism in Europe can be identified in several countries—Hungary and

Greece serve as two examples. Several of these movements fervently argue that they do

not deserve the label fascist and instead claim they are merely nationalist parties.

However, as I stated above upon deeper review these groups clearly display an adherence

to fascism. For instance, the Jobbik party in Hungary claims on its website that it is not a

far-right extremist party.288 In a section of its website called “Frequently Refuted Lies”

the leaders of the party, make the claim that the party has “the best democratic

credentials” and it is a “grass roots political organization.” 289 Further along it states

Jobbik is a “Christian conservative nationalist party. And the nationalism we promote is

directly comparable to that accepted as the norm.” 290 Through language like this, many

modern fascist parties attempt to disconnect themselves from past forms of fascism

eliminating any stigma for their movement as well as normalizing the movement they

promote.

288
Far-right extremism is the label most commonly used today to describe groups that are
possibly fascist.

289
Jobbik.com

290
jobbik.com
 153

Since I have already addressed some of the language the Jobbik uses to normalize

itself, I will begin this discussion of present fascist movements with this group in

Hungary. The Jobbik were established in 2003 under the full title: Jobbik, the Movement

for a Better Hungary (in Hungarian Jobbik Magyarországért Mozgalom).291 Until

recently, the party remained a fringe movement picking up broader support under Prime

Minister Viktor Orbán’s conservative government. Orban’s conservative party, Fidesz,

has historically used the Jobbik to garner support and votes—recently taking up the

party’s anti-immigrant rhetoric as its own to address the surge of Syrian refugees using

Central Europe as route to escape the conflict in their country. 292 However, the Jobbik are

far from being just a political tool for the present Fidesz government. The Jobbik have

enjoyed an increasing presence within the political structure of Hungary. In 2009, it won

14.77 percent of the vote in the European Parliament elections; in 2010, it won 16.67

percent of the vote in the Hungarian parliamentary elections making the Jobbik the third

largest party in Hungary at the time.293 The party’s greatest success came when it won its

first by-election in April 2015, where the party’s candidate Lajos Rig defeated the Fidesz

candidate for the Topolca seat in the National Assembly. 294

291
jobbik.com

292
Paul Lendval Hungary: Between Democracy and Authoritarianism; “A Race to the Far Right
in Hungarian Politics,” October 12, 2015, npr.org/sections.

293
András Bíró Nagy, Tamás Boros, and Zoltán Vasali, “More Radical that the Radicals the
Jobbik Party in International Comparison” in Right-wing Extremism in Europe (Berlin: Friedrich Ebert
Stiftung, 2013) 229.

294
Matthew Day, “Hungary's Far-Right Jobbik Party Wins First By-Election,” The Telegraph,
April 13, 2015.
 154

Growing popular support; however, does not make the Jobbik Party a fascist

movement. The language employed and the ideas expressed by the Jobbik are what

determine its status as a fascist movement, which can be found in its 2003 founding

charter the party calls its manifesto and in its 2010 electoral manifesto. These documents

detail the party’s political, social, and economic stances—embedded in these texts is

language that suggests its fascist inclinations even if the party actively denies them. In its

2003 manifesto, the Jobbik declare that the past Communist regime overtly degraded “the

natural human communities” of the church, the family, and the nation subsequently

hinting at the destruction of the Hungarian state. Furthermore, this destruction continued

under the new liberal regime established after the fall of Communism. 295 The manifesto

reads, “While the Communist regime was openly destructive of natural human

communities, national identity, historical churches, local patriotism and families, today's

network, under the aegis of a media-controlled multi-party political system, is making

covert efforts to disintegrate them.”296 Further, in its manifesto the party declares that its

vision for the future of Hungary lies in the revitalization of the church, the family, and the

nation—they also add the local community, which was not present in the previous

statement at the start of the document. Language such as this is also present in the 2010

election manifesto. For example, it contains a section on their family based policies. In it,

they address the decline of Hungarian population growth arguing that to reverse this

295
jobbik.com

296
jobbik.com
 155

decline will require “the promotion and protection of the institution of the family.” 297 For

the Jobbik this population crisis is a perceived degradation of the Hungarian state that

must be reversed and the quote advises that the only possible way to do so is by

revitalizing the family. This language made by the Jobbik in their documents parallels

that of Palmieri’s primary argument that fascist philosophy seeks to restore state power

through the institutions of the church, the family, and the nation.

Much more can be said on the Jobbik and their fascist language. What has been

discussed here is only a small example of what makes up the Jobbik platform. Their

founding manifesto also contains spiritual ethic morality that is similar to what is

discussed by Palmieri.298 Furthermore, in their 2010 election pamphlet the Jobbik argued

the necessity of establishing ties for the people to the historical myth of Hungary in order

to strengthen the state—reminiscent of Palmieri’s attempt to create a cult of antiquity in

Part 3 of his book.299 Despite their attempts to convince people otherwise, the Jobbik

Party is very much a fascist movement. Their ability to convince outsiders that they are

not fascist and their well-documented cooption of what are otherwise contradictory

policies300 all the while adhering to the core philosophical ideas of fascism represents

fascism’s ability to evolve with the political environment.

297
Radical Change: A Guide to Jobbik’s Parliamentary Electoral Manifesto for National Self-
determination and Social Justice (Budapest: Jobbik Foreign Affairs Committee, 2010), 9.

298
jobbik.com

299
Radical Change, 14-5.

300
This practice is better detailed in András Bíró Nagy, Tamás Boros, and Zoltán Vasali, “More
Radical that the Radicals the Jobbik Party in International Comparison.”
 156

Another movement that represents the reemergence of fascism in Europe today is

the Golden Dawn in Greece. The Golden Dawn shares a similar background to that of the

Jobbik, in that it once sat festering in political insignificance then suddenly exploded into

national prominence. Founded by its current leader Nikos Michaloliakos in 1983, as the

People’s Association—Golden Dawn, the party remained inactive until 1993 when it first

gained political relevancy during the outburst of Greek nationalism over the creation of

Macedonia. Since then the party has gained more popular support, which is specifically

due to the economic woes of Greece that was hit especially hard by the 2008 economic

crash. The Golden Dawn’s political breakthrough occurred in 2010 when the party won

5.29 percent of the local election in Athens placing its leader, Michaloliakos, on a city

council seat. By 2012 the party would enjoy a “twenty-fold electoral growth;” 301 in 2015

the party emerged as the third largest party, taking 7 percent of the vote or support from

around 500,000 Greeks in that year’s general election.302

The ideological foundation of the Golden Dawn contains similar ideas to that of

inter-war fascism. Like other newly emerging fascist groups in Europe, the Golden Dawn

has attempted to re-label its movement in an attempt to distance itself from those of the

inter-war period and World War 2.303 However, the Golden Dawn has never refrained

from admitting that those movements serve as their inspiration. For instance in a 2012

301
Antonis Ellina, “The Rise of the Golden Dawn: The New Face of the Far Right in Greece,”
South European Society and Politics 18, no.4 (2013): 549.

302
George Bistis, “Golden Dawnor Democratic Sunset: The Rise of the Far Right in Greece,”
Mediterranean Quarterly 24, no 3 (Summer 2013): 39, 43, 45-6; Antonis Ellinas, “The Rise of the Golden
Dawn,” 548-9; Helena Smith, “Neo-Fascist Greek party takes third place in wave of voter furry.” The
Guardian, September 20 2015.

303
Bistis, 43.
 157

interview when asked about the creation of the Golden Dawn, Michaloliakos answered

“Back in the 1980s, we flirted with all sorts of ideas of the interwar years, including

National Socialism and fascism. But by the 1990s, we had settled the ideological issues

and positioned ourselves in favor of popular nationalism.” 304 Further worry comes from

the party and its founder’s nostalgic view of the former military junta that ruled over

Greece from 1967-1974.305 However, once one delves into the language of the Golden

Dawn and their ideas it is obvious the party is a fascist movement and Michaloliakos’

statement is a tactical one to separate the party from the stigma of 1920s-1940s fascism.

Unfortunately, the Golden Dawn has not published its ideology in English so I

must rely on English language secondary sources to discuss the party’s ideas. The

cornerstone of the Golden Dawn’s platform is ultra-nationalism, which it regards as “the

third major ideology of History.” 306 The party seeks to rejuvenate the Greek state by

establishing a “state grounded and built on this ideology that nurtures and guides

individual and collective life.”307 Such language holds to the palingenetic nationalist

concepts of fascism that seeks to utilize nationalism to create a state that dominates the

individual lives of the people as discussed by Palmieri. Further keeping with Palmieri’s

synopsis of fascist philosophy the Golden Dawn strives to radically transform Greek

304
Ellinas, 548.

305
Bistis, 43, 35.

306
Ellinas, 549.

307
Ibid.
 158

civilization by creating a “new society and a new individual.”308 The features of the

Golden Dawn’s new way of life are “new moral, spiritual, social, and mental values,” 309

that are only attainable through revolutionary nationalism.

The Golden Dawn’s nationalism has taken on a racial element that is reminiscent

to that of the Nazis in the 1930s and 1940s—which often leads to the Golden Dawn being

called a neo-Nazi movement. The racism of the Golden Dawn has recently been the main

subject of news coverage concerning the party. In 2012, the BBC reported on the party’s

handing out of food packages to Greeks only—such “chartable actions” has helped the

party’s image and has increased its voter base.310 The racism of the Golden Dawn is

interwoven into its nationalist concepts; the party’s nationalism focuses on a biological

based defining of Greek ethnicity. Therefore, inherently included in their political

platform are claims that a strong Greek state can only be possible with explicitly tough

anti-immigration laws and regulations on the lives of immigrants or any additional racial

other (as of recently Syrian refugees face the brunt of the Golden Dawn’s racially based

anti-immigration sentiment).311 Sentiment such as this found in the Golden Dawn, is

based on the manifestation of the nation as defined by a racially purified mythos that is

found in the expression of fascist nationalism. Therefore, racism is an inherent

308
Ibid.

309
Ibid.

310
Bistis “Golden Dawn or Democratic Sunset,” 47, 49; “Golden Dawn nationalists hand out
‘Greek only’ food,” BBC News, August 1, 2012.

311
Ellinas, 549, 551; Yiannis Baboulias, “The EU’s Woeful Response to the Refugee Crisis has
Revived Golden Dawn,” The Guardian, September 21, 2015.
 159

characteristic within fascist movements although it is displayed in various degrees of

extremism and often towards a range of different defined racial others. 312

The above discussion is only the surface of the fascist qualities displayed by the

Golden Dawn. There is far more about this troubling party that link it to fascist

philosophy; however, this thesis is not concerned with just the Golden Dawn or any

specific movement. Like the Jobbik and other European fascist movements, the Golden

Dawn’s claims that it is not fascist prove otherwise. Their rhetoric and philosophy

suggest they parallel the language of prior fascist movements. These two parties do not

exhaust the examples of fascist or fascistic movements in Europe. Currently there are

number of fascist movements throughout the region including France, Austria, Finland,

the United Kingdom, and several others.313 Furthermore, the reemergence of fascism is

not isolated in Europe it has spread throughout the world. For example, in the United

States there are several indications that suggest the possibility of emerging fascist and

fascistic sentiment.

Since the 2008 economic crash, the United States, like Europe, has witnessed a

steady acceptance of fascistic and fascist thought. However, similar to Europe these

movements did not just appear in 2008 and many can be traced to prior movements and

events in the country’s history. Furthermore, these are not limited to only inter-war

period movements. Many begin the assessment of US fascism (or the potential for US

fascism) with the emergence of the Ku Klux Klan (KKK) after the American Civil War—

312
Griffin, Nature of Fascism, 48; Mark Neocleous, “Racism, Fascism, and Nationalism,” in The
Fascist Reader, ed. Aristotle Kallis (London: Routledge, 2003), 350, 353-356.

313
Alban Bargain-Villéger, “The European Extreme Right Yesterday and Today,” Active History,
November 24, 2015, activehistory.ca.
 160

some historians even argue that the KKK can be considered a proto-fascist movement. 314

Of course, the United States witnessed various movements during the inter-war period

some that were indeed fascist, but others that were fascistic. Furthermore, many

movements of the time that have been labeled fascist were not in the slightest and

remained something more akin to traditional conservative or Christian conservative

movements.315 This issue remains today; many so-called fascist groups in the US lack

any adherence to fascist philosophy or display only partial characteristics similar to

fascist movements (fascistic). However, in the sea of false equivalencies of radical

movements in the US being labeled fascist, some groups truly do represent authentic

fascist sentiment or at the minimum the possibility of becoming fascist or advancing a

progression towards fascist thought.

The first group to come under consideration is the movement that has been

deemed the Tea Party—the obvious cult of antiquity being the movement’s claim to

being the resurgence of populace revolutionary energy of the Boston tea party. 316 In

recent years, the Tea Party has received an abundant amount of attention from both the

left and the right in the United States. Most positive attention originates from the right—

at first from the Fox News Network that served as an organizing entity with its obsessive

coverage of the group and its activities that even included broadcasting from their

314
Paxton, 49.

315
Ibid., 201.

316
Vanessa Williamson, Theda Skocpol, and John Coggin, “The Tea Party and the Remaking of
Republican Conservativism,” Perspectives on Politics 9, no. 1 (March 2011): 26. Emanuel-Mihail Socaciu
and Radu-Bogdan Uszkai, “Fusionism, Religion and the Tea Party,” Journal for the Study of Religions and
Ideologies 11, no. 33 (Winter 2012): 96.
 161

events.317 After its emergence as a protest when President Barack Obama took office in

2009, activists from the Tea Party successfully entrenched themselves into the

Republican party beating out the party’s officially endorsed candidates—some of which

were incumbents—in the 2010 midterm elections.318 As such, this has launched the Tea

Party into the United States’ political stage, granting it a significant amount of influence

on the country’s political sphere, especially in the 2012 general election resulting in both

positive and negative results for the movement.319

The Tea Party is not actually a political party, but a lose collection of different

“Tea Party” branches originating from different states and cities across the United

States.320 However, they each share what can be loosely defined as an ideology that is a

mess of ill-informed contradictions and contrived stances based on factless “sound bites”

mixed with conspiracy theories.

Primarily, the Tea Party’s ideology focuses on government spending—

particularly in the form of alleged handouts. This first stance represents one of the party’s

first contradictory ideas. Supporters do not completely oppose assistance programs; on

the contrary, they support large Government programs such as Medicare, Social Security,

and other aid programs they have used. Instead, they observe these programs as earned

entitlements through their labor (or even age). Therefore, their objection to government

317
Williamson, Skocpol, and Coggin, 29-30.

318
Leigh A. Bradberry and Gary C Jacobson, “The Tea Party and the 2012 Presidential Election,”
Electoral Studies 40, (2015): 500; Williamson, 35-6.

319
Bradberry and Jacobson, 507-8.

320
Williamson, Skocpol, and Coggin, 26.
 162

spending is not entirely based on free-market economic philosophy. Instead, they base

their objections on government spending on assistance programs on their assumptions of

themselves and of others.

Tea Party supporters identify themselves as “workers” who deserve government-

based entitlements while other “nonworkers” are people they perceive as unproductive

elements of society that do not contribute; thus, they take money at the expense of

American workers. Ironically, for many Tea Partiers worker does not implicitly mean

actual employment as this “worker vs nonworker” mentality is found in members who

identify as nonworking students, unemployed, or retired; thus, the definition of worker

and nonworker is culturally grounded—as we will see, it is also based on race. When

pressed to define nonworkers Tea Partiers often rely on anecdotal stories that focus on

black sheep family members, youth entitlement, or racial stereotypes, which leads to the

party’s next ideologies.321

The Tea Party is profoundly anti-immigrant (often based on race), is anti-youth,

and racist; all three represent Tea Partiers White resentment and anxiety to the changing

political and social demographics of the United States. Their anti-immigration stance is

based on both members’ assumptions on workers vs nonworkers and on race. First, Tea

Partiers believe immigrants, primarily undocumented immigrants, belong to the

nonworking classification. In essence, they believe immigrant groups simply come to the

US not in search for work, but instead to exploit governmental programs at the expense

of taxpayers. This “logic” ignores data that proves otherwise such as the fact that

321
Williamson, Skocpol, and Coggin, 32-3.
 163

undocumented workers cannot receive government assistance in the form of welfare or

food stamps and that they do indeed pay taxes.322 The most recent survey by the Institute

on Taxation and Economic Policy, proved that in reality undocumented immigrants

payed some $11.64 billion in local, state, and federal taxes around the country in 2013. 323

Tea Party sentiment on immigration does not rest on nonworker logic alone. A large

amount of their anti-immigration sentiment is grounded in racism, particularly toward

Latinx immigrants and especially people from Mexico. They express this through various

assumptions and statements. The most common is an obsession with the state of the

US/Mexico border.324 Furthermore, their attention to immigration shows resentment and

anxiety towards the changing racial and ethnic demographic of the United States as

shown by the conspiracy perpetrated by Tea Partiers that argues President Obama

“intends to grant amnesty to all illegal immigrants in order to develop a new bloc of

potential voters. The support of these new voters, Tea Partiers argue, would allow the

Obama administration to continue to ignore the interests of current American citizens.” 325

Next to government spending, immigration is the Tea Partiers second major

concern. The other elements of their ideology their anti-youth sentiment and racism are

side issues—although are no less important or problematic. Their anti-youth sentiment is

322
“Ten Myths about Immigration,” Teaching Tolerance: A Project of the Southern Poverty Law
Center, Spring 2011, tolerance.org; Maria Santana, “5 immigration myths debunked” November 20, 2014,
CNNMoney.com.

323
Lisa Christensen Gee, Matthew Gardner, and Meg Wiehe, “Undocumented Immigrants’ State
and Local Tax Contributions,” Institute on Taxation and Economic Policy, (February 2016): 1.

324
Williamson, Skocpol, and Coggin, 33, 34.

325
Williamson, Skocpol, and Coggin, 33.
 164

often intermixed with their stance on government spending, as older members see youth

as nonworkers. They believe younger generations are filled with a sense of entitlement

and lack a willingness to work. Tea Partiers ignore the realities faced by younger

generations. Older Tea Partiers like to apply false equivalencies to their experience as

young adults as compared to the experiences faced by today’s youth in the US, especially

concerning labor and school cost. They often levy judgment on students demanding

affordable tuition with the erroneous statement “when I needed money in college, I got a

job.”326 This statement and such sentiment disregard the continuous rise in the cost for an

education, which forces many students to work multiple jobs and/or take on an incredible

amount of debt.327 Racism within the Tea Party is manifested mostly in its workers versus

nonworkers concept, their hostility to President Obama, and White resentment that its

members host. The Tea Party’s inherent racism is complicated by the fact that some

groups within the Tea Party umbrella manifest explicit racism while others actively

discourage overt racism and finally other groups stand indifferent. However, it is

undeniable that racism underlines the Tea Party’s ideology even if a number of individual

groups oppose overt racism.328

With the ideology of the Tea Party outlined, we can assess whether it can be

considered truly a fascist element in the US. The answer is no. The ideological stances of

the Tea Party explained here do not come close to the philosophic basis of fascism. While

326
Ibid.

327
Neil Swidey, “The College debt crisis is even worse than you think,” Bostin Globe, May 18,
2016; Anya Kamenetz, “A New Look at the Lasting Consequences of Student Debt,” NPR, April 4, 2017.

328
Eric Knowles, Brian Lowery, Elizabeth Shulman, Rebecca Schaumberg, “Race Ideology, and
the Tea Party: Longitudinal Study,” PLoS One 8 no. 6 (2013); Williamson, Skocpol, and Coggin, 34-5.
 165

the Tea Party does exhibit a nationalist predisposition, it seems steeped in traditional US

nationalism/exceptionalism329 instead of a palingenetic mythos that seeks to rebuild the

sovereignty of the state. Furthermore, the Tea Party’s concern over what they call “big

government” intruding into the lives of everyday people prohibits any notion that they

would advocate for fascism since it believes in the superiority of the state over

individuals. While on the surface with its xenophobia and activist oriented structure the

Tea Party may seem fascist, but the finer details of this bothersome movement lack any

real connection to fascist philosophy. Instead, the Tea Party seems to be an awkward and

sometimes contentious fusion of libertarian and traditional conservative philosophies. 330

However, the energy and sentiments of the Tea Party does and has played a role in the

disturbing emergence of fascist thought throughout the United States. The primary reason

being the movement and its followers have paved the way for more extreme philosophies

and groups, including fascists, to emerge in the country.

Anti-government paramilitary organizations—commonly referred to as militias—

in the United States represent another dangerous step in the emergence of fascist

philosophy. As of now there has not been a militia group that has announced themselves

as fascist—and like the rhetoric of Europe’s emerging fascist organizations suggests any

group in the US doing so is unlikely. Additionally, many of these militias lack any form

of ideology; however, these groups display several dangerous attitudes that range from

extreme nationalism, xenophobia, anti-government sentiment, and acceptance for or the

329
Which is by no means a benevolent or positive factor in the US’s political or social/cultural
spheres.

330
Williamson, Skocpol, and Coggin, 35, 37; Emanuel-Mihail and Radu-Bogdan, “Fusionism,
Religion and the Tea Party,” 101.
 166

potential use of violence. Many of these organizations claim they are lawful, citing the

US constitution, the second amendment, and United States Code, Title 10, section 311—

Militia: Composition and Classes (10 U.S. Code § 311); however, 41 states explicitly

prohibit private paramilitary organizations.331 Arguably, the first US militia organization

to emerge after the Second World War was the Posse Comitatus, founded by White

supremacist William Potter Gale in 1971. 332 By the 1990s, the number of anti-

government militias grew to the hundreds. Their popularity dropped after the 1995

Oklahoma City bombing perpetrated by Timothy McVeigh who had ties to multiple

militia groups. The number of militias declined further during the presidency of George

W. Bush. However, after the election of Barack Obama the number of paramilitary

organizations skyrocketed eightfold according to the Southern Poverty Law Center; today

the number sits somewhere at 275 groups in 41 states. 333

While many of these groups have yet to display any solid connection to fascist

philosophy, the paramilitary organizations around the United States parallel the wave of

para-military activity that plagued Germany post-World War One. These militia groups

such as the Freidkorps, consisted of extreme right agitators and ex-soldiers disillusioned

by the loss of the war that all detested the wave of communist/socialist movements in

331
Shane Bauer, “I Went Undercover with a Border Militia. Here’s What I Saw.” MotherJones,
October 25, 2016, 11; law.cornell.edu/uscode.

332
Sara Rathod, “Patriot Games: A Brief History of Militias in America” Mother Jones (October
25, 2016), 2.

333
Bauer, 7.
 167

immediate postwar Germany.334 Present day paramilitary groups in the US share a similar

make-up, their members consist of active and retired soldiers, police, first responders

(Paramedics and Firefighters), and “civilians” with various backgrounds. Their claimed

purpose is to resist the rise of perceived tyranny from the overbearing US government,

stopping so-called rampant illegal immigration from Mexico, attack from Islamic

terrorists, and protecting the Constitution of the United States. Most of these purposes

inspired by their belief in conspiracy theories that run a gambit of paranoid horror

scenarios including concentration camps ran by the Federal Emergency Management

Agency (FEMA), occupation by the United Nations, and invasion from Mexican drug

cartels.335 The danger of these paramilitary groups is that they serve as a destabilizing

element and could serve as a route to the adaptation of fascist ideas amongst their

members just as what occurred the militias of post-war Germany. 336

Finally, the 2016 US Presidential Election has also displayed the emergence of

fascist thought in the country. Neither candidate truly ran a platform based on fascist

philosophy; however, Donald Trump had either knowingly or unknowingly tapped into

and/or awakened fascist energy. His campaign had been endorsed by several outlining

political extremists including former high ranking members of the KKK David Duke and

Don Black, the national organizer of the KKK affiliated Knights party Rachel

334
Eric Weitz, Weimar Germany (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 2007), 97; Evans,
Coming of the Third Reich, 74, 75.

335
“About US” and “orders We will not Obey,” oathkeepers.org; Bauer, “I Went Undercover
with a Border Militia,” 5, 8-9, 12, 15; Ryan Lenz and Mark Potok, “Seeds of Sedition” Intelligence Report
(Summer 2016): 37-9.

336
Weitz, Weimar Germany, 97; Ullrich, Hitler, 94.
 168

Pendergraft, several paramilitary members, Matther Heimbach the leader of the White

nationalist Traditionalist Worker Party, and many more.337 Finally, the leader of the

American Nazi Party, Rocky J. Suhayda, also endorsed Trump’s presidential campaign.

His comments on the year’s election have been particularly troubling and telling of how

fascist and fascistic groups viewed Trump’s candidacy and presidency. He described the

2016 election and the possibility of Trump winning as “Now if Trump does win, OK, it’s

going to be a real opportunity for people like white nationalists, acting intelligently to

build upon that.”338 Suhayda further commented on the opportunity afforded to fascists

and extremist groups in general by Trump’s campaign, by pointing out “Donald Trump’s

campaign statements, if nothing else, have shown that our views are not so unpopular.” 339

The fact that fascists and other extremist groups view Trump’s candidacy as an

opportunity to advance their cause, exemplified by the comments made by the leader of

the American Nazi party is troubling, and displays a number of developments in the US

political landscape. It demonstrates that the country’s political, social, and economic

structures are fractured and that fascists and fascistic groups understand this. This means

these groups are waiting for the right moment to pronounce themselves—last year’s

election possibly serves as that moment or most likely as a stepping-stone for it.

Furthermore, it illustrates that the US is not immune to such energy and that a large block

of US voters will align themselves with a candidate with extreme political, social, and

337
David Neiwert and Sarah Posner, “Meet the Horde of Neo-Nazi, Klansmen, and Other
Extremist Leaders Endorsing Donald Trump.” Mother Jones, September 21, 2016.

338
Martin Pengelly, “American Nazi Party Leader Sees ‘a Real Opportunity’ with a Trump
Presidency” The Guardian, August 7, 2016, 1.

339
Neiwert and Posner, 2.
 169

economic views, which Trump has expressed in statements throughout his campaign. 340

Voter allegiance to the Republican party despite their frustration with Trump winning the

party’s nomination shows another danger—that US voters are apathetic towards

extremism due to their party loyalty.

Fascism is a danger in the US because fascist groups have been emboldened by

the extreme rhetoric of Donald Trump’s campaign and now his presidency as well as the

decisive nature of the US’s political and social environment. The question of a fascist

thought being adopted in the US as the norm is not one of when or even is it possible, but

of how. Robert Paxton assertively explained the nature of how fascism would/could

become the norm in the US:

The language and symbols of an authentic American fascism would, of course,

have little to do with European models. They would have to be as familiar and
reassuring to loyal Americans as the language and symbols of the original
fascisms . . . No swastikas in an American fascism, but Stars and Stripes (or Stars
and Bars) and Christian Crosses. No fascist salute, but mass recitations of the
pledge of allegiance. These symbols contain no whiff of fascism in themselves, of
course, but an American fascism would transform them into obligatory litmus
tests for detecting the internal enemy.
Around such reassuring language and symbols and in the event of some
redoubtable setback to national prestige, Americans might support an enterprise
of forcible national regeneration, unification, and purification. 341

Like an ominous warning Paxton’s statement here describes fascist thought in the US as

distinctly American since it will adopt its political/social language and symbols. As such,

this insightful comment makes one realize that fascism in the US will not be foreign, but

instead it will reflect the elements that make up the culture of the US. The road to fascism

340
Stephen Piggott, “Hate in the Race,” Intelligence Report (Summer 2016): 14-21; Timothy
Snyder, “Donald Trump and the New Dawn of Tyranny,” Time, March 3, 2017.

341
Paxton, 202.
 170

will be paved by popular figures with a disregard for the language they use in their

campaigns to drum up support. It will include reactionary acts of “patriotism” and overt

nationalist exceptionalism targeted at and denouncing both common people and high

profile figures—such as athletes—who reject spectacle driven nationalist rituals and offer

instead constructive critiques of real issues in the US such as the history of racial

division, police brutality, and class strife. It will envelope the fear and resentment of

demographic change declaring those whom look and are of a different faith do not belong

and present a danger to the country’s racial hegemony. It will question gender equity and

decide for women what control they have over their bodies. It will highlight the economic

woes of the country. Most importantly, it will offer a philosophy that presents a new way

of life that seems to be a normal solution for the country’s political, social, and economic

issues.
 171

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Allardyce, Gilbert. “What Fascism is Not: Thoughts on the Deflation of a Concept.” The
American Historical Review 84, no. 2 (April 1979): 367-388.

Anderson, Benedict. Imagined Communities: Reflections on the Origin and Spread of

Nationalism. London: Verso, 2006.

Bargain-Villéger, Alban. “The European Extreme Right Yesterday and Today,” Active
History, November 24, 2015, activehistory.ca.

Bauerkamper, Arnd. “A New Consensus? Recent Research on Fascism in Europe. 1918-

1945.” History Compass 4, no. 3 (2006): 536-566.

Beisel, David. “Building the Nazi Mindset.” The Journal of Psychohistory 37, no.4,
(Spring 2010): 367-374.

Bistis, George. “Golden Dawnor Democratic Sunset: The Rise of the Far Right in
Greece.” Mediterranean Quarterly 24, no. 3 (Summer 2013): 35-55.

Blinkhorn, Martin, ed. Fascists and Conservatives. London: Unwin Hyman, 1990.

Bradberry, Leigh A., and Gary C Jacobson. “The Tea Party and the 2012 Presidential
Election.” Electoral Studies 40, (2015): 500-508.

Carlyle, Thomas. On Heroes, Hero Worship, and the Heroic in History. New York:
Frederick A. Stokes and Brother, 1888.

Carsten, F. L. The Rise of Fascism. Berkeley: University of California Press, 1971.

Cassels, Alan. Fascism. Arlington Heights, IL: Harlan Davidson, 1975.

Césaire, Aimé. Discourse on Colonialism. New York: Monthly Review Press, 2000.

Codreanu, Corneliu Zelea. For My Legionaries. Sibiu, RO: Editura, 1936.

De Felice, Renzo. Interpretations of Fascism. Translated by Brenda Huff Everett.

Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1977.

De Grazia, Victoria. How Fascism Ruled Women: Italy, 1922-1945. Berkeley: University
of California Press, 1992.
 172

Ellina, Antonis. “The Rise of the Golden Dawn: The New Face of the Far Right in
Greece,” South European Society and Politics 18, no.4 (2013): 543-565.

Falasca-Zamponi, Simonetta. Fascist Spectacle: The Aesthetics of Power in Mussolini’s

Italy. Berkeley: University of California Press, 1997.

Feldman, Matthew, ed. A Fascist Century: Essays by Roger Griffin. New York: Palgrave
MacMillan, 2008.

Finchelstein, Federico. “On Fascist Ideology.” Constellations 15, no. 3 (2008): 320-331.

Foucault, Michel. Discipline and Punish: The Birth of the Prison. New York: Vintage
Books, 1995.

Gee, Lisa Christensen, Matthew Gardner, and Meg Wiehe. “Undocumented Immigrants’
State and Local Tax Contributions.” Institute on Taxation and Economic Policy,
(February 2016): 1-22.

Gluckstein, Donny. The Nazis, Capitalism, and the Working Class. Chicago: Haymarket
Books, 2012.

Gregor, A. James. Interpretations of Fascism. Morristown, NJ: General Learning Press,

1974.

Gregor, A. James. Mussolini’s Intellectuals: Fascist Social and Political Thought.

Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 2005.

Griffin, Roger. “Debate on Fascism: What Fascism Is Not and Is, Thoughts on the Re-
inflation of a Concept.” Fascism: Journal of Comparative Fascist Studies 2,
(2013): 259- 261.

————. Modernism and Fascism: The Sense of a Beginning Under Mussolini and
Hitler. New York: Palgrave MacMillan, 2007.

————. The Nature of Fascism. New York: St. Martin’s Press, 1991.

Guerin, Daniel. Fascism and Big Business. New York: Pathfinder, 1939.

Hobsbawm, E. J. Nations and Nationalism since 1780. Cambridge: Cambridge University

Press, 1990.

Kallis, Aristotle A., ed. The Fascist Reader. New York: Routledge, 2003.

Kiernan, Ben. Blood and Soil: A World History of Genocide and Extermination from
Sparta to Darfur. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 2007.

Knowles, Eric, Brian Lowery, Elizabeth Shulman, Rebecca Schaumberg. “Race

Ideology, and the Tea Party: Longitudinal Study.” PLoS One 8, no. 6 (2013): 1-
11.
 173

Lendvai, Paul. Hungary: Between Democracy and Authoritarianism. Translated by Keith

Chester. London: Hurst & Company, 2012.

Mazower, Mark. Dark Continent: Europe’s Twentieth Century. New York: Vintage
Books, 2000.

Mazzini, Giuseppe. The Duties of Man. London: Chapman and Hall, 1862.

Mosse, George. Nazi Culture: Intellectual, Cultural, and Social Life in the Third Reich.
Madison: University of Wisconsin Press, 1966.

———. The Crisis of German Ideology. New York: Howard Fertig, 1988.

———. Fascist Revolution: Toward a General Theory of Fascism. New York: Howard
Fertig, 1999.

Mussolini, Benito and Giovanni Gentile. The Doctrine of Fascism. Rome: Ardita
Publishers, 1932.

Nagy, András Bíró, Tamás Boros, and Zoltán Vasali. “More Radical that the Radicals the
Jobbik Party in International Comparison.” In Right-wing Extremism in Europe,
229-254. Berlin: Friedrich Ebert Stiftung, 2013.

Neumann, Franz. Behemoth: The Structure and Practice of National Socialism, 1933-
1944. Chicago: Ivan R. Dee, 2009

Palmieri, Mario. The Philosophy of Fascism. Chicago: The Fortune Press, 1936.

Passmore, Kevin. Fascism: A very Short Introduction. Oxford: Oxford University Press,
2002.

Paxton, Robert. The Anatomy of Fascism. New York: Vintage Books, 2004.

Payne, Stanley. Fascism: Comparison and Definition. Madison: University of Wisconsin

Press, 1980.

Radical Change: A Guide to Jobbik’s Parliamentary Electoral Manifesto for National

Self-determination and Social Justice. Budapest: Jobbik Foreign Affairs
Committee, 2010.

Riall, Lucy. Risorgimento: The History of Italy from Napoleon to Nation State. New
York: Palgrave Macmillan, 2009.

Said, Edward W. Orientalism. New York: Vintage Books, 1979.

Salvador, Alessandro. “Fascism Without Borders: Transnational Connections and Co-

operation Between Movements and Regimes in Europe from 1918 to 1945.”
Fascism: Journal of Comparative Fascist Studies 3, (2014): 153-161.
 174

Singer, Peter. Marx: A Short Introduction. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1980.

Socaciu Emanuel-Mihail, and Radu-Bogdan Uszkai. “Fusionism, Religion and the Tea
Party,” Journal for the Study of Religions and Ideologies 11, no. 33 (Winter
2012): 89-106.

Spengler, Oswald. The Decline of the West. Vol. 1, Form and Actuality. New York:
Knopf, 1926.

———. The Decline of the West. Vol. 2, Perspectives of World-History. New York:
Knopf, 1928.

Traverso, Enzo. The Origins of Nazi Violence. New York: The New Press, 2003.

———. Fire and Blood: The European Civil War 1914-1945. Translated by David
Fernbac. London: Verso, 2016.

Ullrich, Volker. Hitler: Ascent 1889-1939. Translated by Jefferson Chase. New York:
Alfred Knopf, 2016.

Weitz, Eric. Weimar Germany. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 2007.

Williamson, Vanessa, Theda Skocpol, and John Coggin. “The Tea Party and the
Remaking of Republican Conservativism.” Perspectives on Politics 9, no. 1
(March 2011): 25-43.