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.
[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.
2. The economic annexation of Fiume to Italy, or the care of the Italians resident in Dalmatia.
3. The gradual economic emancipation of Italy from abroad by the development of her productive forces.
4. The renewal of relations with the enemy countries—Austria, Germany, Bulgaria, Turkey and Hungary—but with dignity and holding fast to the supreme necessity of maintaining our northern and eastern boundaries.
5. The creation and intensification of friendly relations with the peoples of the East, not excluding those governed by the Soviet and South-eastern Europe.
6. The vindication of the rights and interests of the nation as regards the colonies.
7. The abandonment of the old systems and the replacement of all our diplomatic representatives with others from the special university faculties.
8. The furtherance of the Italian colonies in the Mediterranean and beyond the Atlantic by economic and educational means and by rapid communications.
Towards a New Italy. I have enormous faith in the future greatness of the Italian people. Ours is the most numerous and homogeneous of the peoples of Europe.
The war has enormously increased the prestige of Italy. “Long live Italy!” is now cried in far-off Lettonia and still more distant Georgia.
Italy is the tricolour wing of Ferrarin, the magnetic wave of Marconi, the baton of Toscanini, the revival of Dante, in the sixth centenary of his departure. Let us prepare ourselves by energetic everyday work for the Italy of to-morrow of which we dream; an Italy free and rich, resounding with song, with her skies and seas populated with her fleets, and her earth fruitful beneath her ploughs. And may the coming citizens be able to say what Virgil said of ancient Rome: “Imperium oceano, famam terminavit astris” (The Empire ended with the ocean, but her fame reached the stars.)
HOW FASCISMO WAS CREATED
ITS EVOLUTION AND ESSENCE
Speech delivered at the Teatro Comunale of Bologna, 3rd April 1921.
Bologna, the capital of the so-called red region of Emilia, a region thought to be lost to the Italian State as far as laws and authority were concerned, from the 2nd to the 4th of April passed through truly memorable days.
The learned and noble city, with its fine patriotic traditions, whose very walls recall the popular and patrician insurrection against the Austrians, welcomed Benito Mussolini with manifestations of solidarity and veneration such as were accorded to Giuseppe Garibaldi. For if the latter was a liberator from foreign tyranny, the former had been no less a liberator from an equal tyranny, arising from similar causes, although materialised through different means and by different agents living in our midst.
All who witnessed those enthusiastic manifestations instantly perceived that the problem of Italian internal politics was now solved by the definite defeat of that parasitic, anti-National Socialism, the enemy of liberty, which had chosen the Valle Padana as the most suitable experimental field for the fecundation of the microbes of Collectivist Utopia, and incidentally for the exploitation of the masses of the proletariat.
Fascisti of Emilia and Romagna—Citizens of Bologna! I feel that I might be carried out of that sphere of eloquence which is mine by all the circumstances of this meeting, beginning with the welcomes of yesterday evening and the songs of last night, and ending with this magnificent sea of heads and the greeting which I received with the greatest veneration from the widow of our unforgettable Giulio Giordani, and the presence of two heroic women, the widows of the two heroes, Battisti and Venezian. (Applause.) But as I hope, and am almost certain, that you do not expect eloquence from me, but a short abrupt speech as is my habit, I will proceed to speak clearly in the Fascista manner.
How Fascismo was born. I thank my friend Grandi for having presented me to you and with such flattering words. I do not think, however, that I am guilty of the sin of pride if I accept them. I think I may say, in accordance with Socrates, that I know myself. (Applause.)
How then was this Fascismo born; amid what conflicting passions, sympathy, hatred, and lack of comprehension? It was not only born in my mind and heart, in that meeting held in March 1919 in the little hall at Milan, it was born of the profound and perennial need of this our Mediterranean and Aryan race, which felt the essential foundations of its existence threatened by a tragic folly which will crumble to pieces, to-day, upon the ground on which it was raised.
We felt then—we, who were not penitent Magdalens; we, who had always had the courage to uphold intervention and reason in those days of 1915; we, who were not ashamed of having barred the way to Austria on the Piave and having crushed her at Vittorio Veneto; we, who wished for a victorious peace, felt at once, almost before the exultation of victory had passed, that our task was not ended, and I, myself, felt that my work was not done. As a matter of fact, at every turn of events it was said that my task and the task of the forces I lead was accomplished. In May 1915, when the Fascismo of Revolutionary Action had swept away all neutralists from the streets and squares of Italy, even in the smallest villages, it was said: “Mussolini has no more to say to the nation.” But when the tragic days of Caporetto came and Milan was grey and ghastly for those who felt that if the Austrians passed and came to the city of the Cinque Giornate it would be the end of Italy, then we felt that we still had a word to say. And again, after victory, when there arose the more or less democratic school of renunciation which was intent upon mutilating the victory, we Fascisti had the supreme and unprejudiced courage to proclaim ourselves Imperialists and against all renunciation.
That was the first battle, fought in the theatre of the Scala in January 1919. But how did it happen? We had won; we had sacrificed the flower of our youth, and they came to us with bills of usury and extortion! They disputed with us the sacred boundaries of the country, and there were Democrats in Italy, whose democracy consisted in Imperialism for others and no Imperialism for us, who threw this ridiculous accusation at us, because we intended that Italy should be bounded on the north by the Brenner, as she shall be while there is Italian blood in Italy! We intended that the eastern boundaries should be at the Nevoso, because that is the just and natural confine of our country; and they accused us because we did not turn deaf ears to the appeal of Fiume, because we feel in our hearts the sufferings of our brothers in Dalmatia, because, in fact, we feel those bonds of race to be alive and vital which bind us, not only to the Italians of Zara, Ragusa and Cattaro, but also to those of the Canton Ticino and Corsica, to those beyond the oceans, to all that great family of fifty million men whom we wish to unite in the same pride of race. (Applause.)
Already we have noticed the first signs of the Socialist offensive. On 16th February, Milan was the witness—to the fear and terror of the trembling middle classes—of a procession of 20,000 Bolshevists, who, after having hymned Lenin from the top of the castle towers, proclaimed that the Bolshevist revolution was imminent.
The Pride of Victory. On the morrow of that day I issued an article,[[8]] which made an impression also among some friends, and which was entitled, “The Return of the Triumphant Beast.” In it was said: “We are ready to dig trenches in the squares of Italy and set up barbed wire, in order to win and fight to the last against the enemy.” And the sabotage, begun with that parade, lasted all the summer.
[8]. Popolo d’Italia, 17th Feb. 1919.
Also, in those days, we Fascisti had the courage to defend certain actions which, measured by the standard of current morals, perhaps were indefensible. But, gentlemen, war is like revolution, it must be taken as a whole; detail cannot and must not be gone into. But, meanwhile, the campaign had its results upon the elections. One million eight hundred and fifty thousand electors registered their vote with the symbol of the sickle and the hammer. One hundred and fifty-six deputies were returned to the Chamber. The catastrophe seemed imminent. Then I was fished out, a suicide(!) of the waters—not by any means too limpid—of the old Naviglio!
But one thing had been forgotten—our tenacious spirit and sometimes indomitable will. I, proud of my four thousand votes—and those who saw me in those days know how immovably I accepted that electoral response—said, “The battle goes on!” Because I firmly believed that the day would come in which the Italians would be ashamed of the elections of 16th November, that the day would come in which the Italians would no longer elect in two cities that ignoble deserter whom I do not wish to name. And it has proved true, because this man to-day, not being able to maintain his part in the drama, has descended from the stage and, having despised the Guardie Regie, now asks them for protection.
But has the growth of this movement of Fascismo, this young ardent and heroic movement, finished yet? I, who vindicate the paternity of this, my creature so overflowing with life, feel sometimes that it has already overstepped the modest boundaries I laid down for it. Now we Fascisti have a clear programme; we must move on led by a pillar of fire, because we are slandered and not understood. And, however much violence may be deplored, it is evident that we, in order to make our ideas understood, must beat refractory skulls with resounding blows.
Necessary Violence. But we do not make a school, a system or, worse still, an æsthetic of violence. We are violent when it is necessary to be so. But I tell you at once that this necessary violence on the part of the Fascisti must have a character and style of its own, definitely aristocratic, or, if you prefer, surgical.
Our punitive expeditions, all those acts of violence which figure in the papers, must always have the character of a just retort and legitimate reprisal; because we are the first to recognise that it is sad, after having fought the external enemy, to have to fight the enemy within, who, whether they like it or not, are Italians. But it is necessary, and as long as it is necessary, we shall continue to carry out this hard and thankless task.
Now the Democrats, the Republicans and the Socialists accuse us of various things. The Socialists, hitherto, have said that we were sold to the profiteers and the agrarians. Now there are not enough profiteers in the whole of Italy to support a movement like ours, and in any case I must say that they would be rather stupid profiteers, because from the March of 1919 we, in our Fascista programmes, have laid down fiscal provisions which are pretty heavy and in any case anti-profiteer. The accusations of the Democrats are equally ridiculous, and also those of the Republicans. I cannot explain to myself why the Republicans are against a movement which has republican tendencies like ours. I could understand them being against us if we were in favour of the monarchy. They say to us: “You have no preconceptions.” We have not, and we are proud of it. But you must explain the phenomenon of the anger and the incomprehension of the Socialists. The Socialists had formed a State within a State. If this new State had been more liberal, more modern, nearer the old type, there would have been nothing against it. But this State, and you know it by direct experience, is more tyrannical, illiberal and overbearing than the old one; and for this reason that which we are causing to-day is a revolution to break up the Bolshevist State, while waiting to settle our accounts with the Liberal State which remains. (Applause.)
The Socialist Crisis and the Fascista Attitude to the Elections. There are those who think that the Socialist crisis is only a crisis limited to a few men; but it goes deeper, my dear friends, and it represents a general upheaval.
Among other absurd things, there has been that of baptising Socialism as scientific. Now there is nothing scientific in the world. Science explains the “how” of things, but does not explain the “why.” If, then, there is nothing scientific in what are called the exact sciences, what is more absurd than to try and pass off as scientific a vast, uncertain, underground and dark movement such as Socialism has been, even though it may have had a useful function at first, when it directed the oppressed peoples towards new ways of life, because you will agree with me that there is no turning back? Foolish reactionary and Conservative contraband practices must not be carried on under the Fascista flag. To wrench from the masses the conquests, they have obtained through sacrifice would be impossible. We are the first to recognise that a State law should grant the eight-hour day, and that there should be a social legislation corresponding to the exigencies of the new times. And this is not because we recognise the importance of the proletariat. We look at the question from another point of view. We realise that there cannot be a great nation, capable of doing great things, if the working masses are constrained to live under brutalising conditions. It is necessary, then, that by preaching and practising the reconciliation of right and duty, which I call Mazzinian, this enormous mass of tens of millions of people who work shall be raised to an ever higher level of life.
Brothers, not Enemies! It is absurd to depict us as the enemies of the working classes. We feel ourselves to be brothers in spirit of all those who work; but we do not make distinctions, we do not put work-worn hands into the first rank. We do not place the new divinity, manual labour, upon the altar. For us all work—the astronomer who in his observatory consults the trajectory of the stars, the lawyer, the archæologist, the student of religion and the artist, if they are increasing by their work the sum total of spiritual wealth which is at the disposal of mankind. We wish to see the realisation of a communion between spirit and matter, between the arm and the brain, the realisation of the solidarity of the race.
Fascismo is then the blast of heresy which beats at the doors of all the churches and says to the old and more or less tearful priest: “Get out of the way of these temples which threaten ruin to you, for our triumphant heresy is destined to bring light to all brains and all souls!” And we say to all men, great and small, upon the national political scene: “Make way for the youth of Italy which wishes to affirm its faith and passion. And if you do not make way spontaneously, you will be overwhelmed in our universal punitive expedition, which is to collect all the free spirits of Italy and bind them together in a Fascio.” (Applause.)
We are now face to face with a fact, which is that of the elections. The Chamber being old, and more than old, worn out, the protagonists of this semi-tragedy being tired and misled, it is time to make that new appeal to the electors which is imperative. Do you not feel that, if the elections of 1919 had the character of sabotage, the elections of 1921 will be definitely Fascista? Do you not feel that the helm of State will never return to the old men of the old Italy?
I received a message to-day on the strength of which I feel I can state that the difference, more or less artificially created, which existed between the defenders of Fiume—to whom we pay the homage of our gratitude—and us, her defenders at home, has no more raison d’être. And this difference, which, rather than by the legionaries, was created by certain politicians who were not even at Fiume when it was attacked seriously, will be put an end to by Gabriele d’Annunzio.
The Day consecrated to Fascismo. Another characteristic of Fascismo is pride of nationality. And, in connection with this, I am pleased to tell you that we have already decided the Fascista day. If the Socialists have May Day, if the Popular Party have 15th May, and other parties other days, we Fascisti will have one, too, and it shall be the day of the birth of Rome, 21st April. Upon that day, in token of the eternity of Rome, in memory of that city which gave two civilisations to the world and will give a third, we Fascisti will gather together, and the regional legions will file past in the Fascista order, which is neither military nor German, but simply Roman. We have abolished the procession and substituted this ancient form of manifestation, which imposes individual control on each participator and order and discipline upon all. For we wish to introduce strict national discipline, without which Italy cannot become the Mediterranean and world nation of which we dream. And those who blame us for marching like the Germans must remember that it is not we who imitate the Germans, but they who imitate the Romans, for which reason it is we who go back to the original, who return to the Roman style, the Latin and Mediterranean style.
We have no prejudices, because we are not a church, we are a movement. We are not a party, we are a band of free men. If anyone is tired of being Fascista, there are twenty shops, twenty churches at whose doors to knock and ask for hospitality. We have not institutions either, we consider them superfluous. Ours is an army characterised by enthusiasm and voluntary discipline, and known, above all, not in the light of guardian of some party or faction, but as guardian of the nation. We are known for the love we bear to Italy, to her history and her civilisation, as well as to her inhabitants and geographical constitution.
Yesterday, while the train carried me to Bologna, I felt myself in harmony with all things and all men. I felt bound to this earth; I felt myself an infinitesimal part of that great river which flows from the Alps to the Adriatic; I recognised my brothers in the peasants, those peasants with the grave attitudes of those who work the soil; I saw myself in the blue sky, which awakened my inextinguishable passion for flight; I recognised myself in all the aspects of nature and man. And a profound prayer arose in my heart. It is the prayer that every Italian should make, when the sunrise illumines the sky and the twilight descends over the earth. “We, Italians of the twentieth century, who have witnessed the great tragedy which has brought about the fulfilment of our nationality; we, who carry in the depths of our souls the memory of the dead, who are our religion; we, citizens of Italy, shall make one oath, one single resolution: that we only shall be the modest but persevering builders of her present and future fortunes.” (Applause.)