PART IV

MUSSOLINI THE “FASCISTA”

THE THREE DECLARATIONS AT THE FIRST FASCISTA MEETING

Speech delivered at Milan, 23rd March 1919, at the first Fascista

meeting.

In the spring of 1919, the most critical period through which Italy

has passed, the attempt initiated by Benito Mussolini to summon the

men prepared to fight Bolshevism, that apparently triumphant beast,

seemed absolute madness. A handful of bold spirits, for the most

part ex-soldiers coming from the extreme interventionist sections,

responded to the appeal. But the gravity of the moment and the

danger of physical sacrifice to which they exposed themselves were

not sufficient to lessen their ardour and determination for an

immediate counter-offensive. This had its conclusive expression in

the assault upon and the burning of the offices of the newspaper

_Avanti_, which took place on a day of general strike, when two

hundred thousand workmen marched defiantly through the streets of

Milan.

First of all, a few words about the proceedings. Without too much

formality or pedantry, I will read you three declarations which seem to

me worthy of being discussed and voted upon. Then in the afternoon we

will resume the discussion of the declaration of our programme. I tell

you at once that we cannot go into detail. Wishing to act, we must take

salient facts as they exist.

The first declaration is as follows:

The Meeting of the 23rd March first salutes with reverence and

remembrance the sons of Italy who have fallen for the cause of the

greatness of the country and the liberty of the world, the maimed

and disabled, and all the fighters and ex-prisoners who fulfilled

their duty, and declares itself ready to uphold strongly the

vindication of rights, both material and moral, advocated by the

“Association of Fighters.”

As we do not wish to form a Party of ex-soldiers, because something in

that line has already been done in various cities in Italy, we cannot

say exactly what this programme of vindications will be; those

interested will do so. We declare simply that we will uphold them. We do

not wish to classify the dead, to look into their pockets to find out to

which party they belonged; we leave this sort of occupation to the

Official Socialists. We include in one single loving thought all the

fallen, from the general to the humblest soldier, from the most

intelligent to the most ignorant and uncultured. But you must allow me

to remember with special, if not exclusive, affection our dead, those

who were with us in the glorious May: the Corridoni, Reguzzoni, Vidali,

Deffenu, and our Serrani—all that marvellous youth which went to fight

and remained to die. Certainly when one speaks of the greatness of the

country and the liberty of the world, there may be someone who will

sneer and smile ironically, because it is the fashion now to run down

the war, but war must be either wholly accepted or wholly rejected. If

this line is to be taken up, it will be for us to do so and not the

others. Besides, wishing to examine the situation in the light of facts,

we say that the active and passive sides of so immense an undertaking

cannot be established with cut-and-dried figures. One cannot put on one

side the “quantum” of that which has been accomplished and that which

has not; the “qualifying” element must be taken into account.

From this point of view we can, with complete certainty, maintain that

the country is greater to-day, not only because it extends as far as

the Brenner—reached by Ergisto Bezzi, to whom my thoughts

turn—(Applause.)—not only because it extends as far as Dalmatia; Italy

is greater, even if small minds try their little experiments, because

we feel ourselves greater inasmuch as we have the experience of the

war, inasmuch as we willed it, it was not forced upon us and we could

have avoided it. The choosing of this path was a sign that there are

elements of greatness in our history and our blood, because if it were

not so, we, to-day, should be the least important people in the world.

The war has given us that for which we asked. It has yielded its

negative and positive advantages: negative, in as far as it has

prevented the Houses of Hapsburg and Hohenzollern from dominating the

world—and this result, which all can see, is enough in itself to

justify the war; and positive, because in no nation has reaction

triumphed. Everything moves towards a stronger political and economic

Democracy. In spite of certain details which may injure the more or

less intelligent elements, the war has given all that we asked.

And why do we speak of ex-prisoners also? It is a burning question.

Evidently there were those who surrendered themselves, but those are

called deserters. The large majority of the mass which fell prisoner did

so after having fought and done their duty. If this were not so, we

could begin to brand Cesare Battisti and many brave and brilliant

officers and men who had the misfortune to fall into the hands of the

enemy.

_The National Vindications._ Second declaration:

The Meeting of the 23rd March declares that it will oppose

Imperialism in other peoples which would be prejudicial to Italy,

and any eventual Imperialism in Italy which would be prejudicial to

other nations, and accepts the fundamental principle of the League

of Nations, which presupposes the geographical integrity of every

nation. This, as far as Italy is concerned, must be realised on the

Alps and the Adriatic with the annexation of Fiume and Dalmatia.

We have forty million inhabitants and an area of 287,000 square

kilometres, divided by the Apennines, which reduce still further the

availability of the land capable of cultivation. In ten or twenty years’

time we shall be sixty millions, and we have a bare million and a half

square kilometres of land in the way of colonies, which to a large

extent is barren, and to which we certainly can never send the surplus

of our people. But, if we look round, we see England, with forty-seven

million inhabitants, and a colonial empire of fifty-five million square

kilometres, and we see France, with a population of thirty-eight

millions, and a colonial empire of fifteen million square kilometres.

And I could prove to you with figures that all the nations of the world,

not excluding Portugal, Holland and Belgium, have colonies which they

cling to, and are not in the least disposed to relinquish for all the

ideologies which come from the other side of the ocean. Imperialism is

at the base of the life of every people which desires economic and

spiritual expansion. That which distinguishes the different kinds of

imperialism is the method adopted in its pursuit. Now the method which

we choose, and shall choose, will never resemble the barbaric

penetration of the Germans. And we say, either everybody idealist or

nobody. One cannot understand how people who are well off can preach

idealism to those who suffer, because that would be very easy. We want

our place in the world because we have a right to it. I reaffirm the

principle of the Society of Nations, but we must beware lest this

principle mean only protection of the material interests of wealthy

nations.

_In View of the Elections._ Third declaration:

The Meeting of the 23rd March pledges the Fascisti to prevent by

every means in their power the candidature of neutralists of any

party.

You see I pass from one subject to another, but there is logic in it, an

underlying thread. I am not an enthusiast for ballot-paper battles, so

much so that for some time I have abolished the chronicles of the

Chamber, and nobody is sorry. My example, too, has caused other papers

to do the same, within the limits of strict necessity. It is clear in

any case that the elections will take place before the end of the year.

The date and the system to be followed are not yet known, but this year

these electoral campaigns and ballot-paper battles will take place.

Now, whether one likes it or not, the war having been of late the

dominant event of our national life, it is clear that in these elections

the subject of the war cannot be avoided. We shall accept the battle

precisely on the topic war, because not only have we not repented of

that which we have done, but we go further and say, with that courage

which is the result of our individuality, that if the same condition of

things which existed in 1915 were repeated in Italy, we should demand

war again as in 1915.

Now it is very sad to think that there are those who formerly were in

favour of intervention and who now have changed. Only a few have done

so, and it has not always been for political reasons. Some have changed

for those reasons, and this I do not wish to discuss, but there has also

been defection due to physical fear. “In order to pacify these people

let us cede Dalmatia, let us renounce something!” But their calculations

have piteously failed. We shall not only refuse to take up this

political line, but we shall not give way to that physical fear which is

simply absurd. One life is of the same value as another, and one

barricade is as good as another. If there is to be a fight, we shall

engage also in that of the elections.

There have been neutralists also among the official Socialists and the

Republicans. We shall go and examine the passports of all these people,

both the ultra-neutralists and those who accepted the war as a painful

burden; we shall go to their meetings, we shall present candidates and

find every possible means of routing them. (Prolonged applause.)

OUTLINE OF THE AIMS AND PROGRAMME OF FASCISMO

Speech delivered at Milan, 22nd July 1919, at the Liceo Beccaria.

The evening before the general international strike of the 20th

and 21st of July 1919, called by the federal organisations as a

reaction to the rash movement, the National Socialists, the

Republicans, the Democrats and the Fascisti met in order to share

the responsibilities for possible complications and to demonstrate

the inconsistency of so-called revolutionary attitudes.

This manifestation, according to the intention of its organisers,

had also the object of marking the beginning of a political

concentration of the Left, composed of ex-interventionists. But the

attempt afterwards failed, chiefly on account of want of

understanding on the part of the Republican Party, and because of

the development of the spiritual crisis within the mass of Italian

Fascismo.

I think that it will depend upon the sincerity and loyalty with which we

join in this meeting whether it will become an historical event, or a

little fact of everyday life destined to pass without leaving any trace.

This being the case, it will not surprise you if I speak with a

frankness almost brutal. I add at once that the friendly confusion of

this moment of reunion after schisms and separations will not eliminate

the necessity of settling certain personal and political questions,

otherwise this union, which we wish to be eminently fruitful, cannot be

other than painfully sterile.

What are we looking for, we who are members of U.S.M., the Fascio of

Fighters, the Association of Fighters, the Association of Arditi, the

Union of Demobilised, the Association of Volunteers, the Association of

Garibaldians, the Republican Party, the Italian Socialist Union, the

Corridoni Club, etc.—we who are together represented in the Committee of

Intesa e Azione[5] which was formed at the time of the movement against

the high cost of living? We are looking for the least common denominator

for this understanding and action. Shall we find it? Yes! We come from

different schools; we have different temperaments, and temperaments

divide men more widely than ideas; we belong to an individualist people;

but all this does not prevent something else bringing us together and

binding us both in these present contingencies and in that which has to

do with the action of to-morrow.

Footnote 5:

Understanding and Action.

_The Basis of Unity._ There can be a thousand shades of ideas among us,

but upon one important point we are all agreed, and that is in regarding

the Socialist manifestation as a bluff, a comedy, a speculation and

blackmail. Also we are all agreed in making a differentiation between

the Socialist Party and the mass of the workmen. The Socialist Party has

usurped up to yesterday the name of being a pure revolutionary

organisation, of being the protector and the exclusive, genuine

representative of the working masses. This is all nonsense and must be

cleared up. Referring to statistics, we find that out of forty-two

millions of Italians, hardly sixty thousand were enrolled in the

Socialist Party in the August of 1919, and the dominating element is a

group composed of lower-middle-class people in the most philistine sense

of the word.

In the unlikely and absurd event of a triumph on the part of the

Leninist revolutionaries, ten of these idiots would be, to-morrow, the

ten Ministers of the Italian nation. The Socialist Party is one thing,

and the organised mass of working men another, and the disorganised mass

yet another and seven times larger than the rest put together.

We must not allow ourselves to approach the working classes in the

sometimes unctuous, sometimes theatrical, manner of the demagogues. The

masses must be educated and for this reason must have the straight

truth. Many of the crowds which the Socialists sway are not worthy of

blandishments, because they consist of masses of brutes infected and

barbarised by the “Red” gospel. Our working-class colleagues know all

about it, because they have had to leave certain factories. We must not

present ourselves to the masses as charlatans, promising Paradise within

a short time, but as educators who do not seek either success,

popularity, salaries or votes.

_Produce! Produce! Produce! The Admonition of Merrheim._ The way in

which the working masses should and must be spoken to has been shown us

by Merrheim, one of the thinking heads of French Syndicalism. Last

January he made a very important speech, and it would be a good thing to

run over those parts of it which are now of most importance, especially

those touching upon the relations between economics and politics and the

necessity of production.

“The militant Socialists must tell the truth, and all the truth, to the

masses, even if the truth brings hatred and slander. Now the truth is

for all those who reflect, that the bad conditions of life, which are

the trouble of the masses, are not going to be remedied by a solution

based on an increase of wages which is not only inoperative, but

entirely in opposition to economic laws. The masses must be told that

the régime of production and distribution of commodities must undergo a

transformation, if efficacious and lasting remedies are to be found for

existing bad conditions, and that this can be arrived at by means of the

force of organisation.”

“... It is pleasant to provoke loud applause by telling the audience at

meetings that we are overstocked with commodities, and that they can

consume without limit and enjoy comfort by imposing wages proportionate

to their desires without increasing production.”

“Courage lies in repeating to the masses that each man is at the same

time a producer and consumer, and that the continued increase of

production is necessary and indispensable.”

“Courage lies in saying that it is not only impossible to satisfy those

normal needs, natural to everyone, without normal production, but that

it is absolutely impossible to obtain general comfort for everyone if at

the same time individual production in the general interest is not

increased.”

“Courage lies in proclaiming that the purely political revolution, which

inflames the people’s minds, would not solve the social problem, the

solution of which has been precipitated and rendered essential by the

war.”

“Courage lies in repeating untiringly to the masses that the revolution

which must be brought about must be economic, and that it is not to be

brought about in the streets by a delirious crowd destroying for the

sake of destruction.”

“Courage lies in saying that an economic revolution draws its substance

from labour, and that it is strengthened, advanced, and carried out by

the intensification of production whether in the fields or in the

factories, and by a further utilisation of scientific processes and

methods of production.”

_The Italian Situation._ We agree upon a third point, in connection with

existing circumstances, that is in maintaining that our national

situation is critical, though far from being desperate. Briefly, it is

this. From the 1st July we have been defaulting debtors of England.

Since the 31st July other financial agreements with the United States

must be faced. To save the situation a loan of one milliard dollars

(seven to eight milliard lire) must be arranged. The railways have a

coal supply for only fifteen more days. There are enough provisions for

another twenty days, that is to say until the end of the month. Two

million tons of food must be imported to save us from immediate hunger.

But these financial and economic agreements depend upon the political

ones at Paris.

The possibility, almost a certainty, has presented itself to us of

obtaining large concessions in Asia Minor, with the coal mines of

Heraclea. Clémenceau has made difficulties about it, but Lansing told

him that he could not see any obstacle, given that Italy approved of the

exploitation of the Saar mines on the part of France. We may also obtain

oil wells in Armenia.

But these acquisitions in the East are in their turn subordinate to the

Adriatic agreements. The solution of the problem of Fiume is already

compromised by the work of the preceding Delegation, which had already

accepted the principle of a Free State. But the project of Tardieu

presented future dangers as far as the safeguarding of the Italian

character of Fiume is concerned, because the Italian majority in the

city would be overwhelmed by the mass of Slavs in the country. It is a

question, then, of reducing these dangers to the smallest possible

limits by the introduction of another plan which would substitute for

the idea of a Free State that of a Free City with limited boundaries.

In Dalmatia it is only possible for us to save the centres which have an

Italian majority, with guarantees for the safeguarding of those Italian

minorities scattered in the other centres. The eventual loss of

Sebenico, which had strategic and not national value, would be

compensated for by some other strategic point to be given to Italy.

Lansing said that this would be eventually sought for in the

Mediterranean.

Given this situation, it is no exaggeration to say that the general

Socialist strike is a real attempted crime against the nation. And note:

I could understand a strike which had as its object the setting up of

the Soviet in Italy, but I do not understand or admit this one, which is

without aim, object or justification. It must and will fail, because the

leaders themselves are in the _cul de sac_ of this dilemma: either

tragedy, because the State at this moment has its repressive machinery

in full working order; or comedy, in the event of a revolt on the part

of the workmen already outlined, and due to their being tired of serving

a Socialist Party mostly composed of middle-class elements.

Perhaps it is worth while in passing to confute the objection in the

_Stampa_ of Portogruaro, which would like to deny our right of rising up

against the strike on the ground that we were in favour of war. “What,”

it says, “is the damage done in two days of strike compared with that

done in four years of war?” We crush these gentlemen with the reply that

four years of neutrality would have damaged us more, besides having been

to our lasting and ineffaceable moral shame.

_Reactionaries and vice versâ._ For me revolution is not an attack of

St. Vitus’ dance or an unexpected fit of epilepsy. It must have force,

aims, and above all, method. In 1913, when the Socialist Party was

already rotten, it was I who put into circulation the words which made

the pulses of the big men of Italian Socialism beat: “This proletariat

is in need of a bath of blood,” I said. It has had it, and it lasted for

three years. “This proletariat is in need of a day of history.” And it

has had a thousand.

It was necessary then to shake up the masses, because they had fallen

into a state of weakness and insensibility. To-day this situation exists

no longer. To-day the only way not to live in fear of a revolution is to

think that we are now in the full swing of one, that it began in the

August of 1914 and that it is still going on. It is not a question, as

some think, of entering into a revolution as one passes from a state of

tranquillity to a state of action. The task of really free spirits is

different. If this great and immense process of changing the world

stagnates or becomes confused, we can hasten it on; but if it is already

progressing at a frantic rate, then our task is to apply the brakes and

slow it down, in order to avoid disintegration and ruin. To be

revolutionaries, in certain circumstances, time and place, can be the

pride of a lifetime, but when those who speak of revolution are a lot of

parasites, then one must not be afraid, in opposing them, to pass as a

reactionary. One is always a reactionary and revolutionary for somebody.

Fritz Adler, revolutionary in the time of Sturck, is a reactionary

to-day compared with the Communists. I am not afraid of the word. I am a

revolutionary and a reactionary. Really, life is always like this. I am

afraid of the revolution which destroys and does not create. I fear

going to extremes, the policy of madness, at the bottom of which may lie

the destruction of this our fragile mechanical civilisation, robbed of

its solid moral basis, and the coming of a terrible race of dominators

who would reintroduce discipline into the world and re-establish the

necessary hierarchies with the cracking of whips and machine-guns.

_The Compass._ At the same time, as regards reaction and revolution, I

have a compass in my pocket which guides me. All that which tends

towards making the Italian people great finds me favourable, and—_vice

versâ_—all that which tends towards lowering, brutalising and

impoverishing them finds me opposed.

Now Socialism comes into the second category. I find it odd that my

friend Carli, the founder of the National Association of Fighters and a

valiant soldier, puts the Socialists among the advanced parties,

storming them with a succession of “whys,” as he did in the last number

of the _Roma Futurista_.

I deny the title of vanguard to Socialism. I deny the use and timeliness

of any co-operation with this party. I maintain that a reactionary party

in 1914, ’15, ’16, ’17, and ’18 cannot become revolutionary in ’19. I

maintain that this serenading of the Socialists is useless, and this

making of advances not clean. One day, in the culminating moment of the

history of humanity, they embraced the cause of reaction represented by

the Germany of the Hohenzollerns and Sudekum. Besides, it is idiotic and

dangerous to lavish blandishments upon the official Socialists; we

cannot reconcile ourselves with these people. There have been those who

have attached themselves to the movement of to-day, but the Socialists

have disdained that help, because they are megalomaniacs and nourish,

among other things, the fatuous vanity of splendid isolation.

_The Revision of the Treaty of Versailles._ The Peace of Versailles is

not a sufficient motive for the courted collaboration. Things must be

made clear. The Socialists talk of annulling the peace; we wish simply

to revise it. We do not condemn wholesale a peace which a German, and

not one of the most insignificant, Edward Bernstein, has called nine

parts just. The revision of the peace must not mean condemnation of the

war. The Florentine Republican Union has published a manifesto which

defines the limits of protest against the Treaty of Versailles.

“We do not wish to conceal,” say the Florentine Republicans, “that,

although requiring radical amendments, the Treaty is, after all, the

consecration of the fall of four Imperial autocracies, the fall of

numerous dynasties, the creation of as many republics, the

re-establishment of Poland, the reconquest of Alsace and Lorraine, and

of Trento and Trieste by Italy, and of Jerusalem by civilised Europe.

All this would suffice, as long as emendations were made, to bear

witness to the supreme sanctity of the Italian intervention in the

atrocious war let loose by the brutal German Hohenzollerns and

Hapsburgs.”

“We do not approve, however, of the proposed general strike as a form of

protest, because—and we say so with the traditional sincerity of our

party—the country is thirsty for fruitful work, and this deluge of

strikes certainly does not help in that.”

“The Peace of Versailles must be corrected and brought into keeping with

the progress of humanity.”

This is also our idea. Rather than seek or beg for useless co-operation,

let us outline a programme of our own of understanding and action. I

refuse, after having got rid of the old, to accept the new dogmas. I

think that it is possible to create a strong economic organisation in

Italy based upon these principles:—

1. Absolute independence from all parties, groups and sets.

2. Federation and autonomy.

3. Abolition, as far as possible, of all paid officials.

4. No steps to be taken without having consulted regularly, by means of

a referendum, the masses interested.

The means of obtaining this end may be altered according to time and

place. The organisation will promote at times co-operation, and at times

war between the classes and the expropriation of class. It will not

always be for co-operation, but neither will it always be in favour of

class preservation; and when it expropriates, it will not be to make all

poor, but to make all rich. In the conquest of a colonial market and in

certain questions connected with the customs, the middle classes and the

proletariat can work together. When there is division of booty, then

class war; but class war in times of under-production is destructive

nonsense.

_In the Political Field._ The Electoral Reform will pass. The scrutiny

of lists and proportional representation will pass. That will determine,

for obvious reasons, the great coalitions—the Socialist-Leninist, the

Clerical-Popular, and, lastly, ours, which might be called the “Alliance

for the Constituent,” the Republican Alliance or the group of the

“interveners” of the Left.

Our programme is to present candidates who pledge themselves to place

the problem of constitutional revision before the new Chamber in the

first session.

This is the Constituent as I understand it. This is the lowest

denominator to which all of us can pledge ourselves and around which we

can all form a union. The moment is particularly propitious for such an

organisation. I think that all we who are represented in this Milanese

Committee of Intesa e Azione can follow this path.

It is a case of “nationalising” this attempt, of making it general all

over Italy. We could, if we wished, number not thousands, but millions

of followers. I myself refuse, in the actual delicate economic situation

in Italy, to adhere to any movement which makes the path clear for

Bolshevism and ruin. The victory cannot and must not be destroyed. I

understand a certain impatience, but I beg you to reflect that if the

lives of individuals are counted in years, the lives of nations are

counted in centuries, and we must not refer egoistically to ourselves

that which is of a general nature. Good strategy is calculation and

audacity. We do not wish to govern by recourse to the bayonet alone,

because that would be dictatorship, which we condemn. We wish first to

sound the masses by the coming elections. Once having had our principles

accepted, we will spring to action.

The revolution which we desired and obtained in 1915 will be ours again

by the victorious peace in its conclusive phase, and it will be called

“Well-being,” “Liberty” and, above all, “Italy.” (Loud applause.)

FASCISMO AND THE RIGHTS OF VICTORY

Speech delivered at Florence, 9th October 1919, at the first

Congress of the Fascisti.

At Florence was held the first Congress of the “Fasci Italiani di

Combattimento,” which was the name originally given to the Fascista

movement. This Congress succeeded the improvised, unorganised

meeting of 19th March at Milan, and was held in an atmosphere of

isolation and hostility, amid continuous tumult and interruption; so

much so, that the members of the Congress were repeatedly obliged to

suspend their proceedings and go out into the streets to defend

themselves against hostile demonstrations.

At that time Florence, the cradle of art, and famed for courtesy and

hospitality, had been temporarily submerged under waves of

Bolshevism; Serrati and Lenin, referring to the Italian situation,

could point to the capital of Tuscany as “the most fertile soil for

the imminent revolutionary harvest.”

But even on that occasion Italian Fascismo was able to hold the

centre successfully, in spite of the numbers of the adversary.

Fascisti comrades! I do not know if I shall succeed in giving you a very

connected speech, as I have not had the opportunity of preparing it, as

is my habit. I had intended to make a Fascista speech to-morrow morning

for a personal reason which might also interest you, and which gave me

the right to ask some hours of rest.

The other day I left Novi Ligure in a “S.V.A.” with a magnificent pilot,

and, having crossed the Adriatic, came down at Fiume, where D’Annunzio

gave us a great welcome. Returning yesterday, we were caught in a storm

on the Istrian tablelands, and were obliged to go out of our course and

to come down at Aiello.

At Fiume I lived in what D’Annunzio justly calls “an atmosphere of

miracles and prodigies.” In the meantime, I bring you his message; he

was thinking of writing one especially for our meeting. (Applause.) My

arrival at Fiume coincided with the capture of the ship _Persia_, about

which Captain Giulietti of the “Federation of the Sea” was so agitated.

The situation at Fiume is splendid from every point of view. There are

supplies for three months. The Yugoslavs have no intention of moving.

Not only that; the Croats, to a certain extent, are supplying the town,

which shows how inappropriate and insidious the movement was which tried

to stir up the people and make them believe that we were on the verge of

a war against the Yugoslavs. Nothing of this exists. D’Annunzio has not,

so far, fired a single shot against those who are on the other side of

the line of the armistice; on the contrary, he has issued a proclamation

to the Croats, which is a magnificent document both from the political

and the human point of view. It ends with these words: “Long live the

Italian-Croat brotherhood! Long live the brotherhood on the sea!”

Now, as regards international relations, the position of Fiume is

perfectly clear. D’Annunzio will not move, because everything is in his

favour. What can the plutocratic powers of Western capitalism do against

him? Nothing! Absolutely nothing, because to strive against a _fait

accompli_ would be to let loose a still greater calamity which nobody

thinks of either in France or England. In France—and we can say so with

tranquillity—there is a sacred horror of further bloodshed; and as for

the English, they have made war very well and brilliantly, but now all

their ideas are contrary to any warlike undertakings and any adventures

of even a slightly complicated nature. To-morrow Fiume would be a _fait

accompli_ for everybody, because nobody would have the strength to

modify it. If the Government had been less cowardly, the problem of

Fiume would be settled by now, and the Allies would have had to accept

it.

_The Forces of the Socialist Party._ And now we come to our affairs. We

must keep the Socialist Party within sight. Let us look a little closer

at their forces. They have had lately to number their forces, and 14,000

of its 80,000 members have disappeared. They are the disbanded. As many

as 500 sections were not represented in what they call the Assizes of

the Italian Proletariat. Nothing of very great importance was said or

done during the congress. Bordiga is not a great general. He is only a

little above mediocrity. What he said to the tribune was what I told the

crowd in 1913. Only Turati’s speech was of any real significance. All

the other unlimited speeches did not, in the end, give practical

indications of that which the Socialists wish or ought to do.

Our statements are much more definite than theirs, and we tell you at

once that we must present an ultimatum to the Government, saying that,

if the censor is not abolished, we Fascisti will not take part in the

elections. It is necessary to protest against an enforced censorship

during the period of the elections, otherwise we shall seem to show that

we are ready to accept an arbitrary act. To this we can add another

positive and effective protest. As for the Socialists, the larger part

of them are distinguished by physical cowardice. They do not like

fighting, they do not wish to fight; fire and steel frighten them.

On the other hand, and I want to draw your attention to this, we must

not confuse this creation, which is for the most part artificial, with a

party of which the proletariat is a lowest minority, while those members

abound who want a seat in Parliament, or in the communal councils and in

the organisations. It is really a political clique which wishes to

substitute itself for the ruling clique. We must not confuse this group

of mediocre politicians with the immense movement of the proletariat

which has a reason for its existence, development and brotherhood.

_Against every Idol._ I repeat here what I said before. No demagogism.

Work-worn hands are not yet enough to show that a man is capable of

upholding a State or a family. We must react against these “cajolers”

and these new semi-idols, in order to uplift these people from the moral

and mental slavery into which they have fallen. We must not approach

them in the attitude of partisans. We are syndicalists, because we think

that by means of the mass it may be possible to determine an economic

readjustment, but this readjustment involves long and complicated

consideration. A political revolution is accomplished in twenty-four

hours, but the economic constitution of a nation, which forms part of

the world system, is not overturned in twenty-four hours.

But we do not, by this, mean to be considered as a kind of “bodyguard”

of the bourgeoisie, which, especially where it is composed of the new

rich, is simply unworthy and cowardly. If these people do not know how

to defend themselves, they must not hope for protection from us. We

defend the nation and the people as a whole. We desire the moral and

material welfare of the people.

I think that, with this as our attitude, it will be possible to approach

the masses. In the meantime, the Federation of Seamen has separated

itself from the General Federation of Labour; the railwaymen have proved

in the big strike that they are Italian and wish to be Italian; and

while the upper bureaucracy of the public administration is, on the

whole, in favour of Nitti and Giolitti, the proletariat of the same

administration tends to sympathise with us. For fifty years generals,

diplomats, and bureaucrats have been taken from the upper classes and

from a certain limited number of persons of rank and position. It is

time to put an end to all this, if we want to infuse new energy and new

blood into the body of the nation.

_For the Elections._ And now we come to the elections. We must deal with

them, because whatever happens it is always a good thing to keep

together and not to burn one’s boats. It may happen that in this month

of October events may be hurried on at such a rate that the elections

may be side-tracked. It may be, on the other hand, that they will take

place. We must be ready also for the second contingency. And then we

Fascisti must do our utmost by ourselves, we must come out clearly

marked and numbered, and if we are few, we must remember that we have

only been in the world six months. Where there is no probability of

isolated success, a union with the “interveners” of the Left might

possibly be formed, which must vindicate, on the one hand, the utility

of the Italian intervention in the name of humanity and the nation

against all those who opposed it, whether followers of Giolitti,

Socialists or Clericals. On the other hand, this programme cannot

exhaust our action; and we shall then have to present to the masses the

fundamental principles upon which we wish to build up a new Italy. Where

the situation may prove more complicated we might also be able to

identify ourselves with a group of “interveners” in a wider and fuller

sense of the word.

_After Vittorio Veneto._ But we wish, above all, to reaffirm solemnly at

this meeting of ours the great Italian victory, vindicating it before

all those who wish to deny and forget it.

We have subdued an Empire which was our enemy, which had advanced to the

Piave, and whose leaders had endeavoured to overthrow Italy. We now

possess the Brenner, the Julian Alps and Fiume, and all the Italians of

Dalmatia. We can say that between the Piave and the Isonzo we have

destroyed that Empire and determined the fall of four autocracies.

(Enthusiastic applause.)

THE TASKS OF FASCISMO

Speech delivered at the Politeama Rossetti at Trieste, 20th

September 1920.

The following speech may be considered as the first of the series of

those which belong to the period of elaboration of the Fascista

programme. The moment chosen was not the most favourable, because it

coincided with two manifestations equally critical both with regard

to internal and to foreign policy. We refer to the occupation of the

factories, then at an acute and threatening stage, and to the

Legionary occupation of Fiume, the first anniversary of which was

celebrated at this time.

Benito Mussolini, although taking into due account these two

important events, destined not to be ignored by history, could and

did rise above the circumstances of the moment. As a far-seeing

statesman looking forward to resistance and final victory, he drew

the attention of his hearers to a sane conception of the problems of

foreign policy, not included in the enterprise of Ronchi, and, at

the same time, heartening all Italians who were panic-stricken under

the arrogant tyranny of Social-Bolshevism.

I do not consider you, men of Trieste, as Italians to whom the whole

truth cannot yet be spoken, because I think of you as among the best in

the country, and your enthusiasm to-day has confirmed me in my opinion.

The event, which had its counterpart in Rome on the 20th September 1870,

was a magnificent picture in a poor frame, but upon this I am not going

to dwell.

_A Comforting Balance._ After a lapse of fifty years since the breach of

Porta Pia, we must undertake the examination of our consciences. A

nation like ours, which had issued from many centuries of disunion,

which had barely achieved unity, had not then muscles strong enough to

bear the weight of a world policy. A great Italian thinker[6] broke this

tradition. In fifty years Italy has made marvellous progress. In the

first place she has a sure foundation, and that is the vitality of our

race. There are nations which every year scan the birth-rates with a

certain preoccupation, because, gentlemen, it is just the want of

balance in this sphere which produces the great crises—you know to what

I allude. But Italy is not thus preoccupied. Italy had twenty-seven

million inhabitants in 1870, she has now fifty million; forty million of

whom live in the Peninsula, and represent the most homogeneous block in

Europe, because, compared with Bohemia, for instance, where five

millions of the Czecho race govern seven millions of other races, Italy

has only 180,000 German subjects on the Upper Adige and 360,000 Slavs,

all the rest forming one compact whole. And besides these forty

millions, there are ten millions who have emigrated to all the

continents and beyond all the oceans; there are 700,000 Italians in New

York alone, another 400,000 in the state of San Paulo, 900,000 in the

Argentine and 120,000 in Tunis.

Footnote 6:

Francesco Crispi.

_National Discipline._ It is a pity that foreigners know us so little,

but it is still more serious that Italians know Italy so little. If they

knew her a little better, they would realise that there are peoples

beyond her boundaries who are more retrograde than she is; they would

learn, for instance, that Italy possesses the most powerful

hydro-electric plant in the world.

Do not speak to me of reactionary forces in Italy. Those who talk to me

of a reactionary Government make me laugh, especially if they are

immigrants or renegades from Trieste. Because if there is a country in

the world where liberty is in danger of degenerating into licence, and

where it is the inviolable patrimony of every citizen, it is Italy.

There has not yet been seen in our country that which has been seen in

France, where, as the result of a political strike, the Republic

dissolved the General Confederation of Labour, locked up the leaders and

keeps them still in prison. Nor have we seen that which has been

witnessed in England, where so-called undesirable elements are sent over

to the other side of the Channel; or in the ultra-democratic republic of

the United States, where, in one single night, five hundred rebels were

seized and sent over the Atlantic. If there is something to say, it is

this: it is time to impose an iron discipline upon the individual and

upon the masses, because social renovation is one thing—and this we are

not against—but the destruction of the country quite another. As long as

transformation is spoken of we are all agreed, but when instead it is a

question of a leap in the dark, then we put our veto upon it. You will

pass, we say, but it will be over our bodies; you will have to overcome

our resistance first.

_The Greatness of Victory._ Now, after this half-century of the life of

Italy which I have thus roughly sketched, Trieste is Italian and the

tricolour waves over the Brenner. If it were possible to pause one

moment to measure the greatness of the event, you would find that the

fact of the tricolour on the Brenner is of capital importance, in the

history not only of Italy, but also of Europe. The tricolour on the

Brenner means that the Germans will no longer descend with impunity upon

our lands. Glaciers have now been placed between us and them, and on

these glaciers are the magnificent Alpine soldiers who went to the

assault of Monte Nero, who were sacrificed at Ortigara, and who have on

their flag the motto “No passage this way.” (Loud applause.)

Now it is a most important fact that Trieste has come to Italy after a

great victory. If we were not so occupied with the daily material

necessities of life and the solution of commonplace and banal problems,

we should know how to appreciate all that which took place on the banks

of the Piave and at Vittorio Veneto. An Empire was destroyed in an hour,

an Empire which had outlasted a century, an Empire in which necessity

had developed a superfine art of government which consisted in the

eternal “Divide et impera,” according to the wisdom of Budapest and

Vienna. This Empire had an army, a traditional policy, a bureaucracy,

and had bound all its citizens together in a universal suffrage. This

Empire, which seemed so powerful and invincible, fell before the

bayonets of the Italian people.

The Italian Risorgimento is only a struggle between a people and a

State, between the Italian people on one side and the Hapsburg State on

the other, between the live forces of the future and the dead past. It

was inevitable that, having passed the Mincio in 1859, and the Upper

Adige in 1866, we had, in 1915, to pass the Isonzo and get beyond; it

was so far inevitable that the neutralists themselves have had to

acknowledge that Italy could not, under pain of death, and what is

worse, dishonour, have remained neutral.

This vindication of our intervention is the fact which gives us the

greatest satisfaction. And what does it matter if I read in a gloomy and

pessimistic book that the acquisition of Trento, Trieste and Fiume still

represents a deficit in the balance of the war? This way of arguing is

ridiculous. In the first place, historical events cannot be regulated

like a page of book-keeping with receipts and payments, debit and

credit. It is impossible to make out an estimate of historical facts and

expect it to agree with the final balance.

All this is the result of a melancholy philosophy which was widespread

over Italy after the war. But let us hope it will soon pass to leave

room for a little optimism and pride. This after-war period is certainly

critical; I fully recognise the fact. But who can expect that a gigantic

crisis like that of five years of a world-war will be settled at once,

that the world will return to its previous tranquil state in less than

two years? The crisis is not limited to Trieste, Milan or Italy, it is

world-wide and is not yet over.

_The Necessity of Struggle._ Struggle is at the bottom of everything,

because life is full of contrasts. There is love and hate, black and

white, night and day, good and evil, and until these contrasts are

balanced, struggle will always be at the root of human nature, as the

supreme fatality. And it is a good thing that it is so. To-day there may

be war, economic rivalry and conflicting ideas, but the day in which all

struggle will cease will be a day of melancholy, will mean the end of

all things, will mean ruin. Now this day will not come, because history

presents itself as a changing panorama. An attempt to return to peace

and tranquillity would mean fighting against the existing dynamic

period. It is necessary to prepare ourselves for other surprises and

struggles. “There will not be a period of peace,” they say, “unless the

nations indulge in a dream of universal brotherhood and stretch out

their hands beyond the mountains and the oceans.” I, for my part, do not

put too much faith in these ideals, but I do not exclude them, because I

never exclude anything; everything is possible, even the impossible and

absurd. But to-day, being to-day, it would be fallacious, criminal and

dangerous to build our houses on the quicksands of international

Christian-Socialist-Communism. These ideas are very respectable, but a

long way from the truth. (Applause.)

_The Patriotism of Fascismo._ What is the position of Fascismo in this

difficult post-war period? The foundation-stone of Fascismo is

patriotism; that is to say, we are proud of being Italian. Now it is

just this which separates us from a great many other people, who are so

ridiculous and small and hide their patriotism, because eighty per cent.

of the Italian population was once illiterate. This does not mean

anything, for narrow, poor, elementary education may be worse than pure

and simple illiteracy. It is an outworn idea that one who knows how to

write must needs be more intelligent than one who does not know how to.

Now we vindicate the honour of being Italian, because in our wonderful

Peninsula—wonderful, although there are inhabitants who are not always

wonderful—there has been enacted the most marvellous story of humanity.

Do you think that a man who lives in far Japan or in America or in any

other far-off spot can be counted educated if he does not know the

history of Rome? It is not possible.

_Rome._ Rome is the name which filled history for twenty centuries. Rome

gave the lead to universal civilisation, traced the roads and assigned

the boundaries; Rome gave the world the laws of its immutable rights.

But if this was the universal task of Rome in ancient times, we have now

another universal task. Our destiny cannot become universal unless it is

transplanted to the pagan ground of Rome. By means of Paganism Rome

found her form and found the means of upholding herself in the world.

Note that the task of Rome is not yet completed. No! Because the story

of Italy of the Middle Ages—the most brilliant story of Venice, which

lasted for ten centuries, with her ships in all seas and her ambassadors

and her government, the like of which is no longer to be found to-day—is

not closed. The story of the Italian communes is full of wonders,

grandeur and nobility. Go to Venice, Pisa, Amalfi, Genoa and Florence,

and you will find in the palaces and in the streets the signs and

vestiges of this marvellous and not yet decayed civilisation.

Now, my friends, after this period, in the beginning of 1800, when Italy

was divided into seven little States, there arose a generation of poets.

Poetry also has its task to perform in history, in arousing enthusiasm

and in kindling faith, and not for nothing the greatest modern Italian

poet—whether second-rate writers, who do not know how to express the

smallest idea, recognise it or not—Gabriele d’Annunzio, represents in a

magnificent union of thought and sentiment, the power of action which is

characteristic of the Italian people.

_The Dolomites of Italian Thought._ We are proud of being Italians, and

not only for reasons of exclusivism. The modern spirit reaches out

towards beauty and truth. One cannot think of a modern man who has not

read Cervantes, Shakespeare, Goethe and Tolstoy. But all this must not

make us forget that we were great when the others were not yet born,

that while German Klopstock was writing his verbose _Messiade_, Dante

Alighieri had been a giant for centuries. And we have also the sculpture

of Michelangelo, the painting of Raffaello, the astronomy of Galileo,

and the medicine of Morgagni, and with these the mysterious Leonardo da

Vinci who excelled in all fields. And then, if you want to pass to

politics and war, there is Napoleon and, above all, Garibaldi, most

Italian of all.

These are the Dolomites of Italian thought and spirit; but beside these

almost inaccessible peaks are lower summits in great numbers, which show

that it is quite impossible to think of human civilisation without the

gigantic contribution made by Italian thought. And this must be repeated

at our boundaries, where there are tribes chattering incomprehensible

languages who would pretend, simply on account of their numbers, to

supplant our marvellous civilisation which has endured two millenniums

and is ready for a third.

_The Sincerity of Fascismo._ The second foundation-stone of Fascismo is

represented by anti-demagogism and pragmatism. We have no preconceived

notions, no fixed ideas and, above all, no stupid pride. Those who say,

“You are unhappy, here is the receipt for happiness,” make me think of

the advertisement “Do you want health?” We do not promise men happiness

either here or in the next world; differing thus from the Socialists,

who pretend that they can set the Russian mask on the face of the

Mediterranean.

Once there were courtiers who burned incense before the king and the

popes; now there is a new breed, which burns incense, without sincerity,

before the proletariat. Only those who hold Italy in their hands have

the right to govern her, they say, while these do not know even how to

control their own families. We are different. We use another language,

more serious, unprejudiced and worthy of free men. We do not exclude the

possibility that the proletariat may be capable of using its present

forces to other ends, but we say that before it tries to govern the

nation it must learn to govern itself, must make itself worthy,

technically and, still more, morally, because government is a

tremendously difficult and complicated task. The nation is composed of

millions and millions of individuals whose interests clash, and there

are no superior beings who can reconcile all these differences and make

a union of life and progress.

_Fascismo is not Conservative._ But we are not, on the other hand,

traditionalists, bound hand and foot to the stones and débris.

Everything must be changed in the modern city. The ancient streets will

no longer stand the wear and tear of the trams and motor traffic,

because through them passes the whole of civilisation. It is possible to

destroy in order to create anew in a form more beautiful and great, for

destruction must never be carried out in the method of a savage, who

breaks open a machine in order to see what is inside. We do not refuse

to make changes in our spiritual life just because the spirit is a

delicate matter. No social transformation which is necessary, is

repugnant to me. In this way I accept the famous control of the

factories and also their co-operative management by companies; I only

ask that there shall be a clear conscience and technical capacity, and

that there shall be increased production. If this is guaranteed by the

workmen’s unions, instead of by the employers, I have no hesitation in

saying that the former have the right to substitute the latter.

_The Bolshevist Mask._ That which we Fascisti are opposing is the

Bolshevist element in Italian Socialism. It is strange that a race which

has produced Pisacane and Mazzini should go in search of gospels first

to Germany and then to Russia. Pisacane and Mazzini ought to be studied,

and then it would be seen that some of the truths which it is pretended

have been revealed in Russia, are only truths already consecrated in the

books of our great Italian thinkers.

How can Communism be thought possible in the most individualistic

country in the world? It is only possible where every man is a number,

not in Italy where every man is an individual, and more, has

individuality. But after all, my dear friends, does Bolshevism exist in

Russia? It does not any longer. There are no longer councils of the

factories, but dictators of the factories; no longer eight hours of

work, but twelve; no longer equal salaries, but thirty-five different

categories, not according to need, but according to merit. There is not

in Russia even that liberty which there is in Italy. Is there a

dictatorship of the proletariat? No! Is there a dictatorship of the

Socialists? No! There is a dictatorship of a few intelligent men, not

workmen, who belong to a section of the Socialist Party, and their

dictatorship is opposed by all the other sections.

This dictatorship of a few men is what is called Bolshevism. Now we do

not want this in Italy. The Socialists themselves, realising what they

have seen in Russia, recognise, when you question them, that that which

has gone badly in Russia cannot be transplanted into Italy. Only they

are wrong in not saying so openly; they are wrong in playing with

equivocations and deceiving the masses. We repeat, we are not against

the working classes, because they are necessary to the nation, sacredly

necessary. The twenty million Italians who work with their hands have

the right to defend their interests. What we oppose is the deceitful

action of politicians to the detriment of the working classes; we fight

these new priests who promise, in bad faith, a paradise they do not

believe in themselves. Those who are the most ardent advocates of

Bolshevism here in Trieste take up this attitude in order to make

themselves popular with the Slav masses who live near. And if I have a

profound lack of esteem for the Bolshevist leaders in Italy, and despise

many of them, it is because I know them all well and have been in

contact with them. I know perfectly well that when they play the lion

they are rabbits, and that they are like certain monks in Heinrich Heine

who openly preach the drinking of water and drink wine themselves in

secret. We wish to see this shameful speculation finish, because it is

against the interests of the nation.

_Always against Italy._ Can you tell me by what curious chance the

Socialists are always against Italy in all questions? Can you tell me

why they always side with those who are against Italy? With the

Albanians, the Croats, the Germans and others? Can you tell me why they

shout “Long live Albania!” who is fighting for Valona, which is

Albanian, and do not shout “Long live Italy!” who is fighting for Trento

and Trieste, which are Italian? By what criterion are they always

against Italy, shouting, “Down, down!” Four Arabs revolt in Libya and

they shout, “Down with Libya!” Six thousand Albanians attack Valona and

it is, “Down with Valona!” And if to-morrow the Croats of Dalmatia

attack us it will be, “Down with Dalmatia!” And if, upon the burning

mountain of the Carso, an insurrectional movement develops against

Trieste, I am afraid the Italian Socialists would cry, “Down with

Trieste!” But there are Italians here and elsewhere who would strangle

the fratricidal cry in their throats.

It was the same with their opposition to the war. War is a horrible

thing in itself. Those who have been through it know. But it is

necessary to explain. If they say, “War in itself and for itself, for

whatever reason, in whatever latitude, under whatsoever pretext, must

not be made,” then I respect these humanitarians and Tolstoyans. If they

say, “I abhor that blood shall be spilled under any pretext,” then I

respect them and admire them, although I find this impracticable. But

when they cry, “Down with the war!” when Italy makes it, and “Long live

the war!” when Russia makes it, it is a different matter. They had a

paper which was very happy when the so-called Bolshevists were marching

towards Warsaw, and employed the military style: “While we are writing

the cannons....” etc.; we know it all by heart. Is not this war then the

same thing? Does not the Russian war make widows and orphans? Is it not

made with guns, aeroplanes and all the innumerable instruments which

tear and kill human bodies? Either they must be contrary to _all_ wars,

in which case we can discuss together, or if they make distinctions

between war and war, between the war which can be made and the war which

cannot—well, we can tell them that their humanitarianism is simply

horrible. And if they have reason to make war, we had reason to make it

for the destinies of the country in 1915. (Applause.)

_The Epic of D’Annunzio._ What, then, is to be the task of Fascismo? It

is this: to bridle Demagogism with courage, energy and impetuosity.

Fascismo is called the Fascio of Fighters, and the word “fighters” does

not leave any doubts about its aims, which are, to fight with peaceful

arms, but also with the arms of warriors. And this is normal in Italy,

because all the world is arming itself, and so it is absolutely

necessary that we Italians arm ourselves in our turn.

But the task of Fascismo here is more delicate, more difficult, and more

necessary. Fascismo here has a reason for existence, and finds a natural

field for development. I have unlimited faith in the future of the

Italian nation. Crises will succeed crises, there will be pauses and

parentheses, but we shall arrive at a settlement, and the history of

to-morrow cannot be thought of without the participation of Italy.

There have been many orders of the day, many articles in the papers,

much more or less senseless talk, but the only man who has achieved a

real revolutionary stroke, the only man who for twelve or thirteen

months has held in check all the forces ranged against him is Gabriele

d’Annunzio with his legionaries. Against this man, of pure Italian

blood, are leagued all the cowards, and it is for this reason that we

are proud to be with him, even if all this tribe turn against us too.

This man also represents the possibility of victory and resurrection.

And this possibility exists because we have made war and won. It is

ridiculous that those who most profited by it in wages, votes and

honours are those who, to-day, turn round and revile it. In any case I

think, as indeed this meeting of yours bears witness, that the hour of

the vindication of our national efficiency has struck. While on the one

hand there is a vast world of wretched, poor creatures, there is also a

world which does not forget and does not ignore our victory. (Applause.)

_The Re-birth of Ideals._ Just as I was leaving Milan, I received from

the mayor of Cupra Marittima, a little town of Central Italy, an

invitation to be present at their commemoration of the fallen. I did not

accept, because I do not like making speeches. But this episode, like

the pilgrimage of the Ortigara, the pilgrimage to the Grappa, the

pilgrimage of the 24th October to the rocky Carso, tells you that all

ideals are not lost, but are, on the contrary, being re-born. We wish to

assist this spiritual re-birth in every way possible.

Yesterday, I experienced a moment of great emotion when passing over the

Isonzo. Every time that I have passed that river with my pack on my

back, I have stooped to drink of its crystal waters. If we had not

reached the other side of that river, the tricolour would not to-day be

flying from San Giusto.

This is the real and true meaning of the war. If the tricolour flies

from San Giusto, it is because twenty years ago a man of Trieste was the

forerunner; it is there because in 1915 Italian soldiers threw

themselves upon the Austrian defences, and all Italy took part in that

act, from the Alpine detachments of the mountains of Piedmont, Lombardy

and Friuli to the magnificent infantry of the Abruzzi, Puglie and Sicily

and the soldiers of the generous island of Sardinia, too much neglected

by the Government! And these generous sons have not yet risen up to take

reprisals against the demagogues of Italy, because they are always ready

to fulfil their duty.

Men of Trieste! The tricolour of San Giusto is sacred, the tricolour on

the Nevoso is sacred, and still more so is that on the Dinaric Alps. The

tricolour will be protected by our dead heroes, but let us swear

together that it will be defended also by the living. (Prolonged

applause.)

FASCISMO AND THE PROBLEMS OF FOREIGN POLICY

Speech delivered at the Politeama Rossetti, Trieste, 6th February

1921.

Just as, a few months before, at the time of Italy’s darkest hour,

when the Bolshevist movement was at its zenith, Mussolini had

addressed to the people of Trieste wise words of faith, so in the

spring of 1921, the spring famous for anti-Socialist reaction,

Trieste was once more the city he chose as the place best suited for

the exposition of his analysis of the problems of foreign policy. On

that occasion the patriotic and liberated town, which gave the first

impulse of assault in the energetic offensive against the local

Austrian Bolshevists, accorded to the leader of the new Italy hearty

manifestations of general assent.

In order to indicate the direction which Italian foreign policy should

take in the immediate future, it is a good thing to give a glance first

at the general situation in the world, and at the forces and currents

which are at work, with a view to finding out what may be the possible

developments and results.

All the States of the world are in a condition of fatal interdependence.

The period for splendid isolation is passed for everyone. It can well be

said, that with the war the story of mankind has acquired a world

movement. While Europe, severely weakened, struggles to recover her

economic, political and spiritual balance, already beyond the boundaries

of the old Continent a formidable clash of interests is shaping itself.

I allude to the conflict between the United States and Japan, and to the

accounts of recent episodes, from the Affair of the Cable to the Bill

against the Yellow Immigration in California, which have occupied the

papers. Japan has a population of 77 millions, and the United States 110

millions. That it was known that a struggle between these two States was

inevitable is proved by the very significant fact that the book which

had the widest circulation among all classes in Tokio was called _Our

Next War with the United States_, a book which outlined the war between

the continents for the dominion of the Pacific. The centre of world

civilisation is tending to alter its position. Up to about 1500 it was

in the Mediterranean; after the discovery of America, it shifted to the

Atlantic; to-day its passage to the biggest ocean of the planet is

indicated. I said, last time I spoke here, that we were approaching the

“Asiatic” century. Japan is destined to be the fermenting element of all

the Yellow world.

As the result of shifting the centre of civilisation from London to New

York (which has already seven million inhabitants and will soon be the

largest agglomeration of human beings on the earth), and from the

Atlantic to the Pacific, there are those who foresee a gradual economic

and spiritual decay of our old Europe, and of our wonderful little

continent, which has been, hitherto, the guiding light of all the world.

Shall we live to see the eclipse of the European rôle in the history of

mankind?

_The European Situation._ To this disquieting and depressing question we

answer, “It is possible.” The life of Europe, especially that of Central

Europe, is at the mercy of the Americans. Europe presents a troubled

political and economic panorama, a thorny maze of national and social

questions, and it happens that Communism is sometimes the mask of

Nationalism and _vice versâ_. European “unity” does not seem to be any

nearer realisation. Egoism and the interests of nations and classes

exist in proud contrast. Russia is no longer an enigma from the economic

point of view. In Russia there is neither Communism nor Socialism, but

an agrarian revolution of the democratic lower-middle-class kind. She

only remains an enigma from the political point of view. What foreign

policy does Russia follow? Is it a policy of peace or war? The variety

of facts which reach our ears make us continually waver between one

opinion and another. Perhaps under the emblem of the sickle and the

hammer is hidden—or not hidden—the old Panslavism, which to-day is

dominated, besides, by the immediate necessity of extending the

revolution to the rest of Europe, in order to save the Government of the

Soviet in Russia. If Russia adopts a policy of war, the fate of the

Baltic States (Lithuania, Lettonia and Esthonia) will be sealed. The

fate of Poland would also be uncertain, and she might find herself

driven against the unfriendly German wall by an eventual breaking loose

of the Russian forces. There are serious conflicting interests between

the different States of those north-east shores. There is a disagreement

between Poland, Lithuania and Russia as regards Wilna and Grodno. The

rights on the basis of history and statistics are with Poland. There are

263,000 Poles in the district of Wilna as compared with 118,000

Lithuanians, 8000 White Ruthenians and 83,000 Jews. The same figures,

proportionately, are found in Grodno. As for Upper Silesia, which keeps

the Polish and German worlds in a state of continuous agitation, the

German statistics give these returns: 1,348,000 Poles, 588,000 Germans.

Upper Silesia is, therefore, Polish, but its final destiny will be

decided by the plebiscite summoned for the 15th March.

_The Treaties of Peace._ The Great War has resulted in six treaties of

peace up to the present: Versailles, St. Germain, Trianon, Neuilly,

Sèvres, Rapallo. Not one of these treaties has wholly satisfied the

victors; not one, even the Treaty of Rapallo, which was supposed to be a

masterpiece of friendly and peaceful negotiation, has been accepted by

the vanquished. As far as the Treaty of Versailles, the greatest of all,

is concerned, even at this moment the important question of the

indemnity which Germany ought to pay is still under discussion. It is a

figure which makes us feel giddy and the last word has not yet been

said. All the settlements, especially those made by diplomats, have an

ironically provisional character.

The Germans, who have formed the “sacred union” of non-payment, announce

that they will make counterproposals by the same representatives who

will speak at London in a few weeks’ time. Our opinion is, that if the

Germans can pay they ought, as far as it is possible, and the experts

must ascertain the truth of this possibility. We must not forget, before

allowing ourselves to pity the Germans—who had already fixed our

indemnity at 500 milliards of gold, in the case of their victory—that it

was the Germans who began the war, and that the first Irredentism was

directed against Italy, on account of those minorities which had

descended, without right, into the Upper Adige.

_German Austria, Macedonia and Smyrna._ The present Austrian Republic

was the result of the Treaty of St. Germain. Can it continue to live,

formed as it is at present? It is generally thought not. There remains

the alternative of a Danube Confederation with its centre at Vienna and

Budapest, but the “Little Entente” sees to it that there shall be no

return, under any form, of the old régime. We think that, by the force

of events, an economic Danube Confederation will be formed sooner or

later, in which case the conditions of Austria, and especially of

Vienna, would improve until she had arrived at the point of lessening

the pro-German annexationist movement. From the standpoint of justice,

and whenever there was a clear manifestation of the will of the people,

Austria would have the right of separating herself from Germany. This

possible eventuality cannot leave us indifferent, because of the

boundaries of the Brenner, which is a question of life or death for the

Paduan valley. A hungry and pauper Austria cannot organise a dangerous

Irredentism against us; but as the result of union with Germany the

question of the Upper Adige would certainly become more acute.

As for Hungary, she can certainly expect a revision of the treaty which

mutilates her on every side. It must be added, however, that the chapter

of Fiume is definitely closed in Hungarian history.

Centres of infection for another war exist all over the Balkan world.

Let us quote Montenegro and Albania, for example. We are in favour of

the independence of both these States, provided that they show

themselves capable of enjoying it. Bulgaria has a right to Macedonia[7]

and also to a port on the Ægean. And this is of capital importance for

the economic expansion of Italy in Bulgaria. The Treaty of Sèvres

crushed Turkey in order to exalt the Greece of Venizelos and

Constantine, which gave the European war the sacrifice of 787 “euzoni.”

We consider, as far as the Eastern Mediterranean is concerned, that

Italy, on the whole, should follow a pro-Turkish policy.

Footnote 7:

Population: 1,181,000 Bulgarians, 499,000 Turks, and 228,000 Greeks.

_The Treaty of Rapallo._ Immediately after the signing of the Treaty of

Rapallo, the Central Committee of the Fascio passed its judgment upon

it, finding it “acceptable for the Eastern boundaries, inacceptable and

deficient as regards Fiume, and insufficient and to be rejected as

regards Zara and Dalmatia.” At three months’ distance this judgment does

not seem to be contradicted by successive events. The Treaty of Rapallo

is an unhappy compromise, against which pages of criticism were printed

in the _Popolo d’Italia_, which it is now useless to repeat.

It must be explained why victorious Italy ever arrived at the point of

signing the Peace of Rapallo. And the explanations do not need much

mental exertion. Rapallo was the logical consequence of the line of

foreign policy followed by us or imposed upon us before, during and

after the war. It is explained by Wilson and his so-called experts and

the absolute lack of Italian propaganda abroad and the dead-tiredness of

the people. Rapallo is explained by the meeting of the oppressed

nationalities held at Rome in April 1918, which meeting can be directly

connected with the ill-fated story of Caporetto. Everything is paid for

in this life. On 12th November 1920, we paid at Rapallo for the

breakdown of 24th October 1917. Had there been no Caporetto, there would

have been no Pact of Rome. In that congress the Yugoslavs threw dust in

our eyes because in reality they did nothing towards breaking up the

Dual Monarchy from within, of which they were the faithful slaves to the

last, with traditional Croat loyalty. Not for nothing did the Hapsburg

monarchy, upon its decease, try to present the Jugoslavs with its navy.

But it was in the April of 1918 that the irreparable was committed, with

the consent of all currents of Italian public opinion, including ours

and the Nationalists—that is to say, our worst enemies were raised to

the rank of effectual and powerful allies, and naturally, when the

victory was obtained, there was no accepting of the rôle of vanquished,

but they adopted that of co-operators with a relative share in the

common booty. After the Pact of Rome it was no longer possible to place

our knee on the chest of Yugoslavia—this is the truth. And so it

happened that the Italian people—tired, impoverished and unnerved by two

long years of useless negotiations, demoralised by the policy of the

Government and the tremendous wave of after-war sabotage (against which

only the Fascisti reacted powerfully)—accepted, or rather suffered, the

Treaty of Rapallo, without manifestations of grief or joy. And, in order

to finish it once and for all, many people would also have accepted the

terrible line of Montemaggiore. All the parties of all the grades of

Left and Right accepted the treaty as a lesser evil. We, too, submitted

to it, considering it merely as a transitory and ephemeral act (has

there ever been anything definite in the world, much less upon the

moving sands of diplomacy?), and with the intention of gathering our

forces to be ready for the revision which, sooner or later, would

improve the treaty and not make it worse, would carry our boundaries to

the Dinaric Alps, but never again allow the boundaries of Yugoslavia to

reach the Isonzo.

The fate meted out to Dalmatia makes us very sad. But the fault does not

lie wholly with the negotiators of the eleventh hour; the renunciation

had already been made in Parliament, in the papers and in the

universities themselves, where a professor printed a book, which was

naturally translated at Zagabria, in which he proved, in his own way,

that Dalmatia is not Italian. The Dalmatian tragedy lies in this

ignorance, bad faith and want of understanding; faults which we hope to

repair with our work by making Dalmatia known, loved and defended.

The treaty, once signed, could be annulled in one of two ways: by

outside war or internal revolution. Both equally absurd. You do not make

the people throng the squares in order to change a peace treaty after

five years of bloodshed. Nobody is capable of working such prodigies. It

was possible to cause a revolution in Italy in order to obtain

intervention; but to cause a revolution in November 1920, in order to

annul a peace treaty which, good or bad, had been accepted by

ninety-nine per cent. of the Italian people, could not be considered. I

do not mind much about coherence, but there are stenographic records

which bear witness to the fact that I steadily refused to go against the

treaty either by promoting outside war or internal revolution. I

considered that it was also dangerous to get mixed up in an armed

resistance to the treaty.

_The Tragedy of Fiume._ Two months of polemics and daily articles during

November and December bear witness to my support of the cause of Fiume,

and my open and strong opposition to the Parliament.

It is a pity that oblivion falls so quickly on the words of a daily

paper; and I have not the melancholy habit of unearthing what I publish.

But the undeniable truth is this: that day after day I fought so that

the Government at Rome should recognise the Government at Fiume; so that

the representatives of the Regency should be invited to Rapallo; and so

that the Government at Rome should avoid any armed attack on Fiume. At

the outset I called the attack of Christmas Eve an enormous crime, and I

always upheld the spirit of justice, liberty and free-will which were

the inspiration of the legions of Ronchi.

_The Audience in the Gallery._ It sometimes happens in history as in the

theatre, that there is an audience in the gallery, which, having paid

for its tickets, demands that the performance shall run to a close at

all costs. Thus in Italy to-day there are two types of individuals:

those who blame D’Annunzio for having lived to see the end of the Fiume

tragedy, and those who blame Mussolini for not having brought about that

easy, pretty little thing which is called a revolution! I have always

disdained the cowardly method by which, in Italy, impotence, anger and

misery are laid upon the heads of real or imaginary scapegoats. The

Fasci had never promised to bring about revolution in the event of an

attack on Fiume, nor have I ever written or made known to D’Annunzio

that revolution depended upon my caprice. Revolution is not a

Jack-in-the-box which can be worked at will. I do not carry it in my

pocket, any more than those who fill their noisy mouths with its name

and in practice do not get beyond disorders in the squares after

unimportant demonstrations accompanied by a providential arrest to avoid

any more serious complications. I know the breed. I have been in

politics for twenty years. In the war between Caviglia and Fiume, either

great things should have been accomplished, or else, for reasons of

self-respect, excessive shouting and raising of smoke, which vanished at

once without trace and without bloodshed, should have been avoided.

_With Whom and Where?_ History learned from far-off events teaches men

little; but that which we see written daily under our eyes ought to be

more successful. Now these chronicles of every day tell us that

revolution is made with an army and not against an army; with arms, not

without arms; with movements of trained squadrons, not with the

untrained masses called to meetings in the squares. They succeed when

they are made in an atmosphere of sympathy on the part of the majority;

if this is lacking they die down and fail. Now in Fiume the army and

navy did not fail. A certain revolutionary spirit of the eleventh hour

did not take definite shape; it was the work sometimes of anarchists and

sometimes of Nationalists. According to some emissaries it was possible

to put the devil and holy water together, the nation and that which was

against the nation: Misiano and Del Croix. Now I reject all forms of

Bolshevism, but if I were obliged to choose one, I should choose that of

Moscow and Lenin, if for no other reason because at least it has

gigantic, barbaric and universal proportions. What revolution was it to

be, then? National or Bolshevist? A great uncertainty, complicated by a

great many minor considerations, confused men’s minds, while the nation,

in a mood of revolt against that which had happened round Fiume,

abandoned itself to an attitude of grief, in which the only bright spot

was the hope that the episode would retain its local character and come

quickly to a peaceful conclusion.

_Hypotheses and Certainties._ If there had been an insurrection on our

part—and this was not possible owing to the armed forces which the

Government had at its disposal—there must have been one of two results:

defeat or victory. In the first case, everything would have been

irretrievably lost in the abyss of civil war. Let us, for the sake of

argument, presuppose the second hypothesis: that of victory with the

fall of the Government and of the régime. After the more or less easy

period of demolition, what form would the revolution take? Social, as

some Bolshevists wish—those with the motto “Always further Left,” the

equivalent of the grotesque “Go to the reddest”—or national, Dalmatian

and reactionary, as others desire?

There is no possibility of reconciliation between the two currents. In a

revolution of the social order, what importance would the territorial

questions, and more precisely that of Dalmatia, have had? In the other

event of a national revolution against the Treaty of Rapallo, everything

would have been limited to a formal annulment of the treaty and to a

substitution of men; to be followed later by another treaty in another

Rapallo, in order that one day or another the nation might have her

peace. An episode of civil war was not remedied by letting loose a

bigger war in times like these through which we are passing, and nobody

is capable of prolonging and creating artificially historical situations

which are over and done with. Only the man who knows how to lift himself

above common passions, who knows how to draw conclusions from

conflicting elements and how to distinguish the pure grain from the

equivocal chaff, is able to understand that Fiume Christmas, which can

be called the tragic crossroads between the reasons of the State and of

the ideal: the meeting-place of all our deficiencies and all our

greatness.

_Suspended Problems._ The first is that of Fiume. We do not feel the

necessity of reaffirming our sympathy for the sacrificed city. We have

given the most tangible proofs, recently, of our solidarity with the

Fascio of Fiume, in order to put it in a position to undertake the

struggle against the Croats, who are now beginning to show signs of

life. The action of the Fascisti must tend, for the moment, towards

economic annexation of Fiume to Italy, to arousing the interest of the

Government and private individuals, and at the same time keeping alive,

by every means, the torch of Italy, so that in due time economic will be

followed by political annexation. We shall achieve this in spite of

everything. All the Fascista force, national and parliamentary, must be

concentrated on Zara, so that the little city shall be able to

accomplish her important and delicate mission in history. There must be

efficacious education for the Italians who have remained in the

principal cities of Dalmatia, and no separate constituencies for the

Slavs in Istria and the Germans in the Upper Adige. It is not possible

to establish such a precedent, as it would carry us far. The French of

the Val d’Aosta, who are in reality excellent Italians, have no special

constituencies and privileges of that sort. These duplicate

constituencies would be a grave mistake. It is up to the Fascisti of

Trento and Trieste to prevent this happening at any cost.

_Old and New Directions._ The lines of the programme laid down at the

meeting at Milan in May last year have not become out of date or in need

of revision. Fascismo has the name of being “imperialist.” This

accusation goes together with that of being reactionary. Fascismo is

against renunciations when they mean humiliation and diminution.

Given these general premises—_first_, that Fascismo does not believe in

the principles of the so-called League of Nations nor in its vitality;

_secondly_, that Fascismo does not believe in the Red Internationals,

which die, reproduce themselves, multiply and die again: for they are

small, artificial organisations, small minorities compared to the masses

of the population, which, living, dying, progressing or retrogressing,

finishes by deciding those changes of interests before which the

international organisations of the first, second and third order crumble

to pieces; _thirdly_, that Fascismo does not believe in the immediate

possibility of general disarmament, and _fourthly_, considers that

Italy, in the present historical period, should follow a policy of

European equilibrium and conciliation—it follows that the Italian Fascio

of Fighters demands:—

1. That the treaties of peace shall be revised and modified in those

parts which have proved inapplicable, or which might prove in

application the cause of formidable hatred and new wars.