To what extent was Mussolinis transition from Socialist to Fascist a result of his desire for power?

        Now a free agent, Mussolini, though still adamant on the necessity of revolution, began to swing from the Marxist focus on the class struggle in favour of a cohesive national identity. Italy entered the war in 1915, calling Mussolini into service; his military career was cut short, however, when he was gravely injured. A radical shift towards nationalism and away from the left, a product of his exposure to noted Italian nationalist, Gabriele D’Annunzio, was observable.  Being an ex-serviceman helped endear people to his nationalist programme. This was comprised of emulating the nation above individuals/classes, with an emphasis on industrial development and control of the masses. His military experience also came to dominate his thoughts. Popolo d’Italia changed to a ‘Servicemen’s and Producer’s Daily,’ and was used to slander the Socialists. In 1919, Benito founded a movement to usurp the now hated Socialists: the Fasci di Combattimento, consisting largely of republicans, anarchists, syndicalists, radical revolutionaries and dissatisfied socialists. 

        Through the weak post-war government, Mussolini saw his path to power unfold. Backing the reformist Giolitti Liberals Mussolini assumed political prominence; he also became closely associated with the violent squads run by powerful warlords. He flattered and rewarded them in return for their services in terrorizing the Socialists, and they soon became closely identified with his growing Fascism, now imported to parliament. Realizing that Church support was vital, Mussolini began to publicly praise the Vatican; he retracted his anti-monarchy views, as only the King could constitutionally award power. 

        In 1922 Mussolini assumed prime ministership. This did not come about through the longed-for revolution, but through crafty manipulation of the government and king. His early government, which included socialists, democrats, liberals, nationalists and Popolari, was not radically Fascist or revolutionary.

Part C: Evaluation of Sources  

        Young Mussolini and the Intellectual Origins of Fascism was written by American A. James Gregor, professor of political science at the University of California, who has authoured numerous works on the topic of Fascism.  Gregor writes to “reconstruct the intellectual and ideological development of Mussolini’s political convictions,” in order to dispel the myth that Fascism was “devoid of intellectual content.” Gregor tries to convince readers that Fascism was not a “synthesis of contradictions” to assist Mussolini in his pursuit of power, but an ideology evolving from Marxism.

        By focusing exclusively on Mussolini’s early life this source is apt at addressing the topic of inquiry, Mussolini’s early political development. Additionally, Gregor has made Fascism the centre of his research for thirty years, giving him time to formulate informed theories. An extensive bibliography includes the texts of ideologists whom Mussolini himself was influenced by, not just analyses of Mussolini by other writers, giving Gregor an objective idea of Fascism’s roots. Speaking to Mussolini’s wife, Rachele, afforded Gregor a rare and intimate look at Mussolini. Understandably, Rachele’s perspective of Mussolini is fraught with prejudice; her narrative is, however, an invaluable primary source. Frequently referring to obscure thinkers/ideologists, this work is aimed at academics, limiting it’s accessibility to most people. Gregor also has well-known opinions about Fascism, many of which are contrary to popular thought; he has argued that Fascism is a left-wing ideology and any connections he draws between Marxism and Fascism should be viewed critically.

        With his focus on Italian history, Mussolini makes an appropriate addition to the repertoire of works by British authour, Martin Clark. His other books include Modern Italy 1871-1995 and The Italian Risorgimento. Clark was formerly a reader in politics at the University of Edinburgh, Scotland. By examining his personality Clark analyzes the link between Mussolini’s character and the way he wielded power. Clark argues that he had the qualities needed to attain power, not to maintain it.

        Though tending towards the ‘Great Man’ version of history, useful for this inquiry, Clark gives Mussolini contextual placement, his specialization in Italian history allowing him to draw connections that Gregor fails to make. Clark does not passively present events, but interprets and analyzes them within clear parameters laid out early in the work. Though he traveled to the foreign ministry archives in Rome, the city where Mussolini spent a great deal of time, many of his sources are secondhand (books by other authours) not primary, colouring his initial research with others’ prejudices. Because Clark examines the entirety of Mussolini’s life, the evolution of his ideology is not explored as thoroughly as it was by Gregor, a drawback for this investigation. Mussolini is written for the general public and is thus somewhat dramatized; therefore the reader should be cautious when interpreting the piece.

Part D: Analysis  

        Mussolini’s fathering of Fascism, an ideology based in principles of militarization and nationalism, was a startling contrast to his earlier Socialist beliefs. His mercurial change in philosophy is often viewed from two distinct perspectives; that he was evolving “as a political thinker” or that he fluttered “from opinion to opinion, looking for the winning formula” that would help him seize power.  This dichotomy either casts Mussolini as a sincere idealist, founder of a great revolutionary movement, or as a despotic tyrant, willing to marry any ideas in order to gain power.

        Mussolini’s early beliefs were mostly defined in the negative: anti-monarchial, anti-nationalistic, anti-clerical, anti-militaristic, anti-reformist, anti-parliamentary. His devotion to revolution, control of the masses and the prevalence of a strong leader were the three core values retained throughout his political career.

His first ideological divergence occurred in Trentino; under the tutelage of Battisti, Mussolini reconciled himself with nationalism. Upon speculation it seems likely this was not so much a product of feverish love for Italy as it was a recognition of nationalism’s power to enable it’s wielder to, in Mussolini’s own words, “control the masses like an artist.” He associated with the syndicalists for similar reasons, for “these men knew a good deal about mass movements…and how they [were] organized.” This brief period certainly supports that Mussolini was prone to “choosing what appealed” to him in a philosophy and “discarding the rest,” as he shortly abandoned the pro-war syndicalists in order to ascend to power among the pacifist Socialists, with the arrival of the Libyan War.   His sincerity as a pacifist is doubtful; as a child he is frequently described as “aggressive and unruly,” characteristics, which, as his fanatical and violent revolutionary principles indicated, had hardly mellowed with maturity.   Giving credit to this theory, he discarded neutrality in World War I for pro-war advocacy, claiming it was in Italy’s “national interest.” Both Gregor and Clark speculate however, that Mussolini’s real motivation was “the inculcation of revolutionary consciousness [in the masses] through heroic and violent enterprise” he imagined the war would bring.  When he realized the Socialists could never be made revolutionary, Mussolini resigned from the Directorate, discarding the Party like he had the syndicalists; it was no longer useful in realizing his three goals.  

Mussolini’s military involvement (World War I) marks yet another departure from his original and anti-military philosophy. The collective purpose, efficiency, discipline, control and the potential embodiment of nationalism found in the military appealed to Mussolini.  Gregor also proposes another reason for Mussolini’s militarism. Throughout the war “Italian socialism had set it’s face against the military as it fought,” and as the Fascist squads were “composed in large part of veterans” it was “unlikely that the military would…[defend] the socialists against those…who had fought for the nation.” In this way Mussolini’s military allegiance allowed him to intimidate the Socialists while authorities turned a blind eye.

Finally, Mussolini’s sudden revocation of his anti-clerical and anti-monarchy views could plausibly be attributed to nothing more complex than his desire to become Prime Minister. There is no evidence that Mussolini suddenly underwent vast and profound ideological transitions that demanded his acceptance of these forces, indicating that Fascism only tolerated influences other than itself (the Vatican and king) in Italy because they enabled it’s reign. Significantly Gregor, an avid defender of Fascism’s ideological integrity, does not mention this political concession.

Part E: Conclusion  

        In his early career, Mussolini’s political beliefs underwent a multitude of unexpected revisions. Many of these appeared totally random adoptions and were awkward in synthesis with his other beliefs or former values. The only commonality they shared was that, in one way or another, they assisted Mussolini in his quest for revolution, mass mobilization and power. Syndicalism, pacifism, the class struggle, socialism, anti-clericalism; he casually discarded philosophies that had outlived their use. In light of Mussolini’s seemingly opportunistic selection of ideals, it is difficult to say that the perspective championed by Gregor, that Fascism was a sincere and intellectually developed system, can be entirely justified. That his transition from Socialism to Fascism was founded upon aims of revolution and domination, not necessarily coherent political thought, appears much more plausible.

Part F: Bibliography

Clark, Martin. Mussolini. London: Pearson Education Limited, 2005.

Gregor, A. James. Young Mussolini and the Intellectual Origins of Fascism.  California:  University of California Press, 1979.

Ludwig, Emil. Talks with Mussolini. Boston: Little Brown and Company, 1933.

Smith, Denis Mack. Mussolini’s Roman Empire. London: Longman Group Limited, 1976.  

“Mussolini, Benito.” Britannica Micropedia Ready Reference, Volume 8. 15th ed. 2003

“A. James Gregor.” University of Berkeley. Ed. 2008. Retrieved on 1 November 2008. <http://www.polisci.berkeley.edu/Faculty/bio/permanent/Gregor,A/>.

---

Benito Mussolini, ‘Benito Mussolini,’ in History Learning Site, http://www.historylearningsite.co.uk/benito_mussolini.htm (accessed 20 November 2008).

Benito Mussolini, ‘Benito Mussolini: Socialist Party,’ in Lycos Retriever, http://www.lycos.com/info/benito-mussolini--socialist-party.html (accessed 20 November, 2008).

---