I might carry this analysis farther but what I have already said is
sufficient to show that the rise of a Fascist ideology already gives
evidence of an upheaval in the intellectual field as powerful as the
change that was brought about in the XVII and XVIII centuries by the
rise and diffusion of those doctrines of _ius naturale_ which go under
the name of "Philosophy of the French Revolution." The philosophy of
the French Revolution formulated certain principles, the authority of
which, unquestioned for a century and a half, seemed so final that
they were given the attribute of immortality. The influence of these
principles was so great that they determined the formation of a new
culture, of a new civilization. Likewise the fervor of the ideas that
go to make up the Fascist doctrine, now in its inception but destined
to spread rapidly, will determine the course of a new culture and of a
new conception of civil life. The deliverance of the individual from
the state carried out in the XVIII century will be followed in the XX
century by the rescue of the state from the individual. The period of
authority, of social obligations, of "hierarchical" subordination will
succeed the period of individualism, of state feebleness, of
insubordination.
This innovating trend is not and cannot be a return to the Middle
Ages. It is a common but an erroneous belief that the movement,
started by the Reformation and heightened by the French Revolution,
was directed against mediaeval ideas and institutions. Rather than as
a negation, this movement should be looked upon as the development and
fulfillment of the doctrines and practices of the Middle Ages.
Socially and politically considered the Middle Ages wrought
disintegration and anarchy; they were characterized by the gradual
weakening and ultimate extinction of the state, embodied in the Roman
Empire, driven first to the East, then back to France, thence to
Germany, a shadow of its former self; they were marked by the steady
advance of the forces of usurpation, destructive of the state and
reciprocally obnoxious; they bore the imprints of a triumphant
particularism. Therefore the individualistic and anti-social movement
of the XVII and XVIII centuries was not directed against the Middle
Ages, but rather against the restoration of the state by great
national monarchies. If this movement destroyed mediaeval institutions
that had survived the Middle Ages and had been grafted upon the new
states, it was in consequence of the struggle primarily waged against
the state. The spirit of the movement was decidedly mediaeval. The
novelty consisted in the social surroundings in which it operated and
in its relation to new economic developments. The individualism of the
feudal lords, the particularism of the cities and of the corporations
had been replaced by the individualism and the particularism of the
bourgeoisie and of the popular classes.
The Fascist ideology cannot therefore look back to the Middle Ages, of
which it is a complete negation. The Middle Ages spell disintegration;
Fascism is nothing if not sociality. It is if anything the beginning
of the end of the Middle Ages prolonged four centuries beyond the end
ordinarily set for them and revived by the social democratic anarchy
of the past thirty years. If Fascism can be said to look back at all
it is rather in the direction of ancient Rome whose social and
political traditions at the distance of fifteen centuries are being
revived by Fascist Italy.
I am fully aware that the value of Fascism, as an intellectual
movement, baffles the minds of many of its followers and supporters
and is denied outright by its enemies. There is no malice in this
denial, as I see it, but rather an incapacity to comprehend. The
liberal-democratic-socialistic ideology has so completely and for so
long a time dominated Italian culture that in the minds of the
majority of people trained by it, it has assumed the value of an
absolute truth, almost the authority of a natural law. Every faculty
of self-criticism is suppressed in the minds and this suppression
entails an incapacity for understanding that time alone can change. It
will be advisable therefore to rely mainly upon the new generations
and in general upon persons whose culture is not already fixed. This
difficulty to comprehend on the part of those who have been thoroughly
grounded by a different preparation in the political and social
sciences explains in part why Fascism has not been wholly successful
with the intellectual classes and with mature minds, and why on the
other hand it has been very successful with young people, with women,
in rural districts, and among men of action unencumbered by a fixed
and set social and political education. Fascism moreover, as a
cultural movement, is just now taking its first steps. As in the case
with all great movements, action regularly outstrips thought. It was
thus at the time of the Protestant Reformation and of the
individualistic reaction of the XVII and XVIII centuries. The English
revolution occurred when the doctrines of natural law were coming into
being and the theoretical development of the liberal and democratic
theories followed the French Revolution.
At this point it will not be very difficult to assign a fitting place
in history to this great trend of thought which is called Fascism and
which, in spite of the initial difficulties, already gives clear
indication of the magnitude of its developments.
The liberal-democratic speculation both in its origin and in the
manner of its development appears to be essentially a non-Italian
formation. Its connection with the Middle Ages already shows it to be
foreign to the Latin mind, the mediaeval disintegration being the
result of the triumph of Germanic individualism over the political
mentality of the Romans. The barbarians, boring from within and
hacking from without, pulled down the great political structure raised
by Latin genius and put nothing in its place. Anarchy lasted eight
centuries during which time only one institution survived and that a
Roman one--the Catholic Church. But, as soon as the laborious process
of reconstruction was started with the constitution of the great
national states backed by the Roman Church the Protestant Reformation
set in followed by the individualistic currents of the XVII and XVIII
centuries, and the process of disintegration was started anew. This
anti-state tendency was the expression of the Germanic spirit and it
therefore became predominant among the Germanic peoples and wherever
Germanism had left a deep imprint even if afterward superficially
covered by a veneer of Latin culture. It is true that Marsilius from
Padua is an Italian writing for Ludwig the Bavarian, but the other
writers who in the XIV century appear as forerunners of the liberal
doctrines are not Italians: Occam and Wycliff are English; Oresme is
French. Among the advocates of individualism in the XVI century who
prepared the way for the triumph of the doctrines of natural law in
the subsequent centuries, Hotman and Languet are French, Buchanan is
Scotch. Of the great authorities of natural law, Grotius and Spinosa
are Dutch; Locke is English; l'Abbé de St. Pierre, Montesquieu,
d'Argenson, Voltaire, Rousseau, Diderot and the encyclopaedists are
French; Althusius, Pufendorf, Kant, Fichte are German.
Italy took no part in the rise and development of the doctrines of
natural law. Only in the XIX century did she evince a tardy interest
in these doctrines, just as she tardily contributed to them at the
dose of the XVIII century through the works of Beccaria and Filangeri.
While therefore in other countries such as France, England, Germany,
and Holland, the general tradition in the social and political
sciences worked in behalf of anti-state individualism, and therefore
of liberal and democratic doctrines, Italy, on the other hand, clung
to the powerful legacy of its past in virtue of which she proclaims
the rights of the state, the preeminence of its authority, and the
superiority of its ends. The very fact that the Italian political
doctrine in the Middle Ages linked itself with the great political
writers of antiquity, Plato and Aristotle, who in a different manner
but with an equal firmness advocated a strong state and the
subordination of individuals to it, is a sufficient index of the
orientation of political philosophy in Italy. We all know how thorough
and crushing the authority of Aristotle was in the Middle Ages. But
for Aristotle the spiritual cement of the state is "virtue" not
absolute virtue but political virtue, which is social devotion. His
state is made up solely of its citizens, the citizens being either
those who defend it with their arms or who govern it as magistrates.
All others who provide it with the materials and services it needs are
not citizens. They become such only in the corrupt forms of certain
democracies. Society is therefore divided into two classes, the free
men or citizens who give their time to noble and virtuous occupations
and who profess their subjection to the state, and the laborers and
slaves who work for the maintenance of the former. No man in this
scheme is his own master. The slaves belong to the freemen, and the
freemen belong to the state.
It was therefore natural that St. Thomas Aquinas the greatest
political writer of the Middle Ages should emphasize the necessity of
unity in the political field, the harm of plurality of rulers, the
dangers and damaging effects of demagogy. The good of the state, says
St. Thomas Aquinas, is unity. And who can procure unity more fittingly
than he who is himself one? Moreover the government must follow, as
far as possible, the course of nature and in nature power is always
one. In the physical body only one organ is dominant--the heart; in
the spirit only one faculty has sway--reason. Bees have one sole
ruler; and the entire universe one sole sovereign--God. Experience
shows that the countries, which are ruled by many, perish because of
discord while those that are ruled over by one enjoy peace, justice,
and plenty. The States which are not ruled by one are troubled by
dissensions, and toil unceasingly. On the contrary the states which
are ruled over by one king enjoy peace, thrive in justice and are
gladdened by affluence.[2] The rule of the multitudes can not be
sanctioned, for where the crowd rules it oppresses the rich as would a
tyrant.[3]
Italy in the Middle Ages presented a curious phenomenon: while in
practice the authority of the state was being dissolved into a
multiplicity of competing sovereignties, the theory of state unity and
authority was kept alive in the minds of thinkers by the memories of
the Roman Imperial tradition. It was this memory that supported for
centuries the fiction of the universal Roman Empire when in reality it
existed no longer. Dante's _De Monarchia_ deduced the theory of this
empire conceived as the unity of a strong state. "Quod potest fieri
per unum melius est per unum fieri quam plura," he says in the XIV
chapter of the first book, and further on, considering the citizen as
an instrument for the attainment of the ends of the state, he
concludes that the individual must sacrifice himself for his country.
"Si pars debet se exponere pro salute totius, cum homo siti pars
quaedam civitatis ... homo pro patria debet exponere se ipsum." (lib.
II. 8).
The Roman tradition, which was one of practice but not of
theories--for Rome constructed the most solid state known to history
with extraordinary statesmanship but with hardly any political
writings--influenced considerably the founder of modern political
science, Nicolo Machiavelli, who was himself in truth not a creator of
doctrines but a keen observer of human nature who derived from the
study of history practical maxims of political import. He freed the
science of politics from the formalism of the scholastics and brought
it close to concrete reality. His writings, an inexhaustible mine of
practical remarks and precious observations, reveal dominant in him
the state idea, no longer abstract but in the full historical
concreteness of the national unity of Italy. Machiavelli therefore is
not only the greatest of modern political writers, he is also the
greatest of our countrymen in full possession of a national Italian
consciousness. To liberate Italy, which was in his day "enslaved, torn
and pillaged," and to make her more powerful, he would use any means,
for to his mind the holiness of the end justified them completely. In
this he was sharply rebuked by foreigners who were not as hostile to
his means as they were fearful of the end which he propounded. He
advocated therefore the constitution of a strong Italian state,
supported by the sacrifices and by the blood of the citizens, not
defended by mercenary troops; well-ordered internally, aggressive and
bent on expansion. "Weak republics," he said, "have no determination
and can never reach a decision." (Disc. I. c. 38). "Weak states were
ever dubious in choosing their course, and slow deliberations are
always harmful." (Disc. I. c. 10). And again: "Whoso undertakes to
govern a multitude either in a régime of liberty or in a monarchy,
without previously making sure of those who are hostile to the new
order of things builds a short-lived state." (Disc. I. c. 16). And
further on "the dictatorial authority helped and did not harm the
Roman republic" (Disc. I. c. 34), and "Kings and republics lacking in
national troops both for offense and defense should be ashamed of
their existence." (Disc. I. c. 21). And again: "Money not only does
not protect you but rather it exposes you to plundering assaults. Nor
can there be a more false opinion than that which says that money is
the sinews of war. Not money but good soldiers win battles." (Disc. I.
II. c. 10). "The country must be defended with ignominy or with glory
and in either way it is nobly defended." (Disc. III. c. 41). "And with
dash and boldness people often capture what they never would have
obtained by ordinary means." (Disc. III. c. 44). Machiavelli was not
only a great political authority, he taught the mastery of energy and
will. Fascism learns from him not only its doctrines but its action as
well.
Different from Machiavelli's, in mental attitude, in cultural
preparation, and in manner of presentation, G.B. Vico must yet be
connected with the great Florentine from whom in a certain way he
seems to proceed. In the heyday of "natural law" Vico is decidedly
opposed to _ius naturale_ and in his attacks against its advocates,
Grotius, Seldenus and Pufendorf, he systematically assails the
abstract, rationalistic, and utilitarian principles of the XVIII
century. As Montemayor justly says:[4] "While the 'natural jurists',
basing justice and state on utility and interest and grounding human
certitude on reason, were striving to draft permanent codes and
construct the perfect state, Vico strongly asserted the social nature
of man, the ethical character of the juridical consciousness and its
growth through the history of humanity rather than in sacred history.
Vico therefore maintains that doctrines must begin with those subjects
which take up and explain the entire course of civilization.
Experience and not ratiocination, history and not reason must help
human wisdom to understand the civil and political regimes which were
the result not of reason or philosophy, but rather of common sense, or
if you will of the social consciousness of man" and farther on (pages
373-374), "to Vico we owe the conception of history in its fullest
sense as magistra vitae, the search after the humanity of history, the
principle which makes the truth progress with time, the discovery of
the political 'course' of nations. It is Vico who uttered the eulogy
of the patrician 'heroic hearts' of the 'patres patriae' first
founders of states, magnanimous defenders of the commonwealth and wise
counsellors of politics. To Vico we owe the criticism of democracies,
the affirmation of their brief existence, of their rapid
disintegration at the hands of factions and demagogues, of their lapse
first into anarchy, then into monarchy, when their degradation does
not make them a prey of foreign oppressors. Vico conceived of civil
liberty as subjection to law, as just subordination, of the private to
the public interests, to the sway of the state. It was Vico who
sketched modern society as a world of nations each one guarding its
own imperium, fighting just and not inhuman wars. In Vico therefore we
find the condemnation of pacifism, the assertion that right is
actualized by bodily force, that without force, right is of no avail,
and that therefore 'qui ab iniuriis se tueri non potest servus est.'"
It is not difficult to discern the analogies between these
affirmations and the fundamental views and the spirit of Fascism. Nor
should we marvel at this similarity. Fascism, a strictly Italian
phenomenon, has its roots in the Risorgimento and the Risorgimento was
influenced undoubtedly by Vico.
It would be inexact to affirm that the philosophy of Vico dominated
the Risorgimento. Too many elements of German, French, and English
civilizations had been added to our culture during the first half of
the XIX century to make this possible, so much so that perhaps Vico
might have remained unknown to the makers of Italian unity if another
powerful mind from Southern Italy, Vincenzo Cuoco, had not taken it
upon himself to expound the philosophy of Vico in those very days in
which the intellectual preparation of the Risorgimento was being
carried on.
An adequate account of Cuoco's doctrines would carry me too far.
Montemayor, in the article quoted above, gives them considerable
attention. He quotes among other things Cuoco's arraignment of
Democracy: "Italy has fared badly at the hand of Democracy which has
withered to their roots the three sacred plants of liberty, unity,
and independence. If we wish to see these trees flourish again let us
protect them in the future from Democracy."
The influence of Cuoco, an exile at Milan, exerted through his
writings, his newspaper articles, and Vichian propaganda, on the
Italian patriots is universally recognized. Among the regular readers
of his _Giornale Italiano_ we find Monti and Foscolo. Clippings of his
articles were treasured by Mazzini and Manzoni, who often acted as his
secretary, called him his "master in politics."[5]
The influence of the Italian tradition summed up and handed down by
Cuoco was felt by Mazzini whose interpretation of the function of the
citizen as duty and mission is to be connected with Vico's doctrine
rather than with the philosophic and political doctrines of the French
Revolution.
"Training for social duty," said Mazzini, "is essentially and
logically unitarian. Life for it is but a duty, a mission. The norm
and definition of such mission can only be found in a collective term
superior to all the individuals of the country--in the people, in the
nation. If there is a collective mission, a communion of duty ... it
can only be represented in the national unity."[6] And farther on:
"The declaration of rights, which all constitutions insist in copying
slavishly from the French, express only those of the period ... which
considered the individual as the end and pointed out only one half of
the problem" and again, "assume the existence of one of those crises
that threaten the life of the nation, and demand the active sacrifice
of all its sons ... will you ask the citizens to face martyrdom in
virtue of their rights? You have taught men that society was solely
constituted to guarantee their rights and now you ask them to
sacrifice one and all, to suffer and die for the safety of the
'nation?'"[7]
In Mazzini's conception of the citizen as instrument for the
attainment of the nation's ends and therefore submissive to a higher
mission, to the duty of supreme sacrifice, we see the anticipation of
one of the fundamental points of the Fascist doctrine.
Unfortunately, the autonomy of the political thought of Italy,
vigorously established in the works of Vico, nobly reclaimed by
Vincenzo Cuoco, kept up during the struggles of the Risorgimento in
spite of the many foreign influences of that period, seemed to exhaust
itself immediately after the unification. Italian political thought
which had been original in times of servitude, became enslaved in the
days of freedom.
A powerful innovating movement, issuing from the war and of which
Fascism is the purest expression, was to restore Italian thought in
the sphere of political doctrine to its own traditions which are the
traditions of Rome.
This task of intellectual liberation, now slowly being accomplished,
is no less important than the political deliverance brought about by
the Fascist Revolution. It is a great task which continues and
integrates the Risorgimento; it is now bringing to an end, after the
cessation of our political servitude, the intellectual dependence of
Italy.
Thanks to it, Italy again speaks to the world and the world listens to
Italy. It is a great task and a great deed and it demands great
efforts. To carry it through, we must, each one of us, free ourselves
of the dross of ideas and mental habits which two centuries of foreign
intellectualistic tradition have heaped upon us; we must not only take
on a new culture but create for ourselves a new soul. We must
methodically and patiently contribute something towards the organic
and complete elaboration of our doctrine, at the same time supporting
it both at home and abroad with untiring devotion. We ask this effort
of renovation and collaboration of all Fascists, as well as of all who
feel themselves to be Italians. After the hour of sacrifice comes the
hour of unyielding efforts. To our work, then, fellow countrymen, for
the glory of Italy!
* * * * *