THE ITALY WE WANT WITHIN, AND HER FOREIGN RELATIONS
This Speech was delivered 20th September 1922.
The four following speeches are undoubtedly the most important of this collection, because they depict Mussolini as the polemic, the agitator, the warrior, the leader, travelling to his political maturity. In reading them one recognises the condottiero who is quite sure of himself, who is near the end of his march, and is certain of reaching his final goal.
Except for a gradually accelerated rhythm, proportionate to the precipitation of events, the tone of the four speeches is almost the same. There is no pause, no perplexity, nothing which might induce the reader to think of a change of direction, of a truce, of the relinquishing of the struggle. But rather one notices the close march of a compact and well-equipped army, determined to struggle on and to win at whatever cost.
At Udine, that strong old town, the sentinel of the country, dear to the heart of all Italian soldiers, the leader of Fascismo initiates the spiritual and physical mobilisation of the “black shirts,” while he hurls the first challenge at the old political caste and lays down the fundamental points of the imminent national revolution.
The speech which I intend to make to-day is going to be an exception to the rule which I have imposed upon myself of limiting my speeches, as far as I can. Oh! if it were only possible to do as the poets advise and strangle the verbose, inconclusive oratory which has side-tracked us for so long! I am certain, or at any rate I hope, that you do not expect anything from me in a speech which is not eminently Fascista, that is to say straightforward, hard, bare facts.
The Unity of the Country. Do not expect a commemoration of the 20th September. Certainly the subject would be tempting and there would be ample material for reflection in re-examining by what prodigies of immeasurable force, and through how many and how great sacrifices, Italy has been able to achieve her not yet complete unity. I say not yet complete, because perfect unity cannot be spoken of until Fiume and Dalmatia and the other territories have come back to us, thus fulfilling the proud dream which we carry in our hearts. Instead, I ask you to consider that throughout the Risorgimento—which began with the first attempt at rebellion on the part of a small section of a cavalry regiment at Nola, and ended with the breach of Porta Pia in ’70—two forces were brought into play: one, the traditional and conservative force, of necessity rather stationary and sluggish, the force of the Savoy and Piedmont tradition; the other, the rebellious and revolutionary force which sprang from the best elements among the bourgeoisie especially. And it was only as the result of the reconciliation and balancing of these two forces that we were able to realise the unity of the Country. Perhaps something of the sort can be found to-day, and of this I shall go on to speak later.
Rome! Have you ever asked yourselves why the unity of the country is summed up in the symbol and the name of Rome? We Fascisti must forget the more or less ungrateful welcome we received at Rome in the October of last year, otherwise we should show ourselves to be mean-spirited, and we must have the courage to own that part of the responsibility for what happened belongs to us, on account of some elements among us which were not on the high level the situation required.
And Rome must not be confused with the Romans; with those hundreds of so-called “fugitives of Fascismo” which are to be found at Rome, Milan and other centres in Italy, who effectively arouse harmful anti-Fascista feeling in the country. But if Mazzini and Garibaldi tried three times to arrive at Rome, and if Garibaldi gave his “red shirts” the tragic and inexorable alternative of “Rome or death,” this means that, to the best men of the Risorgimento, Rome already had an essential function of the first importance to perform in the new history of the Italian nation.
Let us then, with minds pure and free from animosity, lift up our thoughts towards Rome, which is one of the few spiritual cities which exist in the world; because at Rome, among those seven hills so pregnant with history, occurred one of the greatest spiritual miracles which have ever taken place—that is, the transformation of an Eastern religion, not understood by us, into a universal one, and which has succeeded, under another form, to the Empire that the Roman legions had carried to the extreme ends of the earth. And we want to make Rome the city of our ideals, a city cleaned and purified of all those elements which corrupt and defile her; we wish to make Rome the throbbing heart, the living spirit of the Italy of which we dream.
Somebody might object, saying: “Are you worthy of Rome? Are you capable of inheriting and transmitting the ideals and glories of an Empire?” And then surly critics busy themselves with trying to find signs of uncertainty in our young, exuberant organisation!
Fascista Discipline. People speak to us of Fascista autonomy. I tell the Fascisti and citizens that this autonomy has no importance whatsoever. It is not an autonomy of ideas and prejudice. Fascismo has no prejudices; they are the sad privilege of the old parties, associations scattered over all countries, whose members, having nothing better to do or to say, end by imitating those sordid priests of the East who discussed all the questions of the world while the Byzantine Empire perished. The few and sporadic attempts on the part of Fascisti to establish autonomy are either frustrated or nearly so, because they represent only revenge of a personal nature.
We come to another question: discipline. I am in favour of the most rigid discipline. We must first sternly discipline ourselves, otherwise we shall not have the right to discipline the nation. And it is only by the discipline of the nation that Italy can make herself heard in the councils of the other countries. Discipline must be accepted. If it is not, it must be imposed. We put aside the democratic dogma that one must for ever proceed by sermonising and lecturing in a more or less liberal manner. At a given moment discipline must show itself under the form of a command or of an act of force.
I exact discipline, and I do not speak to the men of the Friulian district, who are—let me say—perfect as regards sobriety and correctness, austerity and quiet living, but I speak to the Fascisti of all Italy, who, if they must have a dogma, must have one which bears the clear name of discipline. Only by obedience, by the humble and sacred pride in obedience, can the right to command be conquered. And only when it is conquered can it be imposed upon others; otherwise, no! The Fascisti of Italy must take note of this. They must not interpret discipline as a call to order of the administrative kind or as the fear of shepherds who foresee the scattering of their flock. This cannot be, because we are not shepherds and our forces cannot be called, by any means, a flock. We are an army, and it is just because we have this special organisation that we must make discipline the supreme pivot of our life and action.
Violence! I come now to the question of violence. Violence is not immoral. On the contrary it is sometimes moral. We dispute the right of our enemies to bewail our violence, because, compared with that which was committed in the unlucky years of ’19 and ’20 and with that of the Bolshevists in Russia—where two million people have been executed and another two million still pine in prison—our violence is child’s-play. On the other hand violence is decisive, because at the end of July and August, after having made use of it systematically for forty-eight hours, we got results which we should not have obtained in forty-eight years of sermons and propaganda. When, therefore, violence removes a gangrene of this sort, it is morally sacred and necessary.
But, my Fascista friends, and I speak to the Fascisti of all Italy, our violence must have certain Fascista characteristics. The violence of ten to one is to be disowned and condemned. There is a violence that frees and a violence that binds; there is moral violence and stupid, immoral violence. Violence must be proportionate to the necessities of the moment, and not made a school, a doctrine or a sport. The Fascisti must be careful not to spoil with sporadic, individual and unjustifiable acts of violence, the brilliant and splendid victories of August.
This is what our enemies are waiting for. As the result of certain episodes—let us frankly admit disagreeable episodes—such as that at Taranto, they have been led to believe and to hope that violence has become a sort of second habit, and that when we no longer have a target upon which to practise, we shall turn against ourselves and against each other, or the Nationalists. Now the Nationalists differ from us on certain questions, but the truth is this, that in all the battles we have fought we have had them by our side. It may well be that among them there are leaders who do not see Fascismo as we see it, but it must be recognised and proclaimed that the “blue shirts”[[9]] at Genoa, Bologna and Milan, and in another hundred centres, were with the “black shirts.” In consequence the occurrence at Taranto was most displeasing, and I hope that the leaders of Fascismo will act in such a way that it remains an isolated incident to be forgotten in a local reconciliation and in a national manifestation of sympathy and solidarity.
[9]. The Nationalists.
Our Syndicalism. Another argument which raises the hopes of our enemies is the existence of the masses. You know that I do not worship the new divinity, the masses. It is a creation of Democracy and Socialism. Just because they are numerous, they must be right. Not a bit of it, the opposite has often proved to be true that the masses are against the right. In any case history proves that it has always been the minorities, a handful from the first, that have produced profound changes in human society. We do not adore the masses, even if they have got work-worn hands and brains. We shall bring, instead, into our examination of social life, ideas and elements new at any rate in Italian circles. We could not turn away the masses; they came to us. Ought we to have received them with kicks on the shins? Are they sincere? Do they come to us as the result of conviction or fear, or because they hope to get from us what they failed to obtain from the Socialists? These questions are really superfluous, as no one yet has found the way to penetrate into their inmost minds.
We have, therefore, had to adopt syndicalism, and we are doing so. They say: “Your syndicalism will end by being in every way exactly like that of the Socialists, and you will have, of necessity, to promote class war.” The democracy, or a section of them, that section which does not seem to have any better object than stirring up the mud, continue from Rome (where they print too many papers, many of which do not represent anybody or anything) to work in this direction. But our syndicalism differs from that of the others, because we do not allow strikes in public services under any pretext, and we are in favour of co-operation among the classes, especially in a period like the present one of acute economic crisis. We try to make this conception penetrate the brains of our syndicates. But it must be made equally clear that the industrial workers and their employers must not blackmail us, because there is a limit which must not be passed; and these workers and their masters—the bourgeoisie in a word—must take into account that the nation also consists of the people, a mass which labours, and one cannot think of the greatness of the nation if this portion is restless and idle. The task of Fascismo is to make the people organically one with the nation, so that they may be ready to-morrow when the nation has need of them, as the artist takes his raw material in order to create his masterpiece. Only with the masses forming an intimate part of the life and history of the nation can we have a foreign policy.
Foreign Policy. And now I come to the subject which, at the present moment, is of the greatest positive importance. It is evident that at the end of the war it was not understood how to make peace. There were two alternatives: the peace of the sword, and the peace of approximate justice. But, under the influence of a pernicious democratic mentality, the peace of the sword was not made by occupying Berlin, Vienna and Budapest, and neither has the approximate peace of justice been accomplished.
Men, many of whom were ignorant of history and geography (and it seems that these famous experts who thus disarrange and rearrange the map of Europe at their will really know as little about it as their masters), have said: “The moment the Turks give trouble to the English, we will suppress Turkey; but the moment that Italy, in order to become a Mediterranean power, ought to have the Adriatic as her inland gulf, we deny Italy her Adriatic rights.” What is the result? The result is that this kind of treaty naturally falls to pieces before the others. But, since everything depends upon the making up of these treaties, since they are all connected with each other, so the failure of the Treaty of Sèvres may possibly involve the failure of all the others. Moreover, if the position becomes more involved, you will see the indestructible Russian Cossack, who changes his name but not his nature, coming forward again. Who armed the Turkey of Kemal Pasha? France and Russia. Who may possibly arm Germany to-morrow? Russia. Considering what we aim at in our foreign policy, it is very fortunate that besides our national army, of glorious tradition, there is the Fascista army.
Our Ministers for foreign affairs ought to know how to play this card too, with the warning: “Be careful; Italy no longer follows a policy of renunciation and cowardice, cost what it may!” So it has come about that while in other countries men are beginning to realise the force represented by Italian Fascismo, in the field of foreign policy our Ministers still remain in a yielding attitude. We are asked what is our programme. I have already answered this question, which was meant to be insidious, at a little meeting held at Levanto in the presence of thirty or forty Fascisti, and I did not think that a little homely speech would have such a vast echo.
Our Programme. The Crisis of the Liberal State. Our programme is simple: we wish to govern Italy. They ask us for programmes, but there are already too many. It is not programmes that are wanting for the salvation of Italy, but men and will-power.
There is not an Italian who does not think that he possesses the one sure method by which the most acute problems of our national life may be solved. But I think you are all convinced that our political class is deficient. The crisis of the Liberal State has proved it. We have made a splendid war from the point of view of collective and individual acts of heroism. From having been soldiers, the Italians, in 1918, became warriors. I beg you to note the essential difference. But our political class carried on the war as if it had been work of ordinary administration. These men whom we all know, and whose very features are familiar to every one of us, now appear men of the past, ruined, tired and beaten.
I do not deny, in my absolute objectivity, that this middle class, which might, with a world-wide title, be called Giolittian, has its merits. It certainly has. But to-day, when Italy is still under the influence of Vittorio Veneto—to-day, when Italy is bursting with life, vigour and passion, these men, who are above all accustomed to Parliamentary mystification, do not appear to us to be big enough for the situation. It is necessary, therefore, to consider how to replace this political class which has of late consistently surrendered to that swollen-headed puppet, Italian Socialism.
I think that this replacement has become necessary, and that the more complete it is the better. Certainly Fascismo, in taking the entire forty-seven millions of Italians under its care, will assume a great responsibility. It is to be foreseen that many will be disappointed, because, in any case, there is always disappointment sooner or later, whether things are accomplished or not.
Friends! Like the life of the individual, the life of the nation brings with it a certain amount of risk. One cannot hope to run for ever on the Decauville track of daily regularity. At a given moment both men and parties must have the courage to shoulder heavy responsibility and to adopt a daring policy. They may succeed; they may fail. But there are also unsuccessful attempts that suffice to ennoble and uplift for all time the soul of a movement such as Italian Fascismo.
The Question of Régime. The Monarchy and Fascismo. I had intended to repeat this speech at Naples, but I think that I shall have other things to deal with there. Do not let us delay, therefore, about entering on the delicate subject of régime.
Many of the controversies which were raised by the question of the nature of my tendencies are forgotten, and everybody is convinced that they were not formed suddenly, but represented a settled idea. It is always like that. Certain attitudes appear improvised to the general public, which is neither fitted nor obliged to follow the slow changes which take place in a restless spirit desirous of making a profound examination of certain problems. But there is inward pain and toil, which is sometimes tragic. You must not think that the heads of Fascismo do not know what this individual, and above all national, travail is.
The much-talked-of republican tendency had to be a kind of attempt at separation from the many elements which had come to us simply because we had won. These elements do not please us. These people who always side with the victor, and who are ready to change their flag with a change of fortune, must be looked upon with suspicion and carefully watched by the Fascisti. Is it possible—here is the question—to bring about a profound transformation in our political régime and to create a new Italy without touching the monarchic system? What is the general attitude of the Fascisti as regards political institutions? Our attitude does not commit us in any sense. In truth, perfect régimes are only to be found in books of philosophy. I think that it would have been disastrous for the Greek city if the theories of Plato had been literally applied. A people content under a republic never dreams of having a king. A people not accustomed to a republic longs to return to a monarchy.
It was in vain that the Germans tried to make the Phrygian cap fit their square heads. The Germans hate a republic, and the fact that it was imposed by the Entente and that it has been a kind of ersatz, is another reason for their hating it. So that, generally speaking, political forms cannot be approved of or condemned for ever, but must be examined from the point of view of their direct relation with the mentality, the economic condition and the spiritual force of any particular people. (A voice cries: “Long live Mazzini!”)
Now, I think that the régime can be largely modified without interfering with the monarchy. In reality—and I refer to the cry of my friend—the same Mazzini, republican and advocate of republicanism, did not consider his doctrines incompatible with the monarchic aspect of Italian unity. He resigned himself to it and accepted it. It was not his ideal, but the ideal cannot always be realised.
We shall, then, leave the monarchic institution outside our field of action, which will have other great objects, because we think that a great part of Italy would regard with suspicion a change in the régime which was carried thus far. We should have regional separatism, perhaps, because it is always so. To-day there are many indifferent to the monarchy who to-morrow would be its supporters, and who would find highly respectable and sentimental reasons for attacking Fascismo, if it had dared to aim at this target.
I do not think that the monarchy has really any object in opposing what must now be called the Fascista revolution. It is not in its interests, because by doing so it would immediately make itself an object of attack, in which case we could not spare it, because it would be a question of life or death for us.
Those who sympathise with us must not withdraw into the shade; they must stay in the light. They must have the courage to remain monarchists. The monarchy would represent the historical continuity of the nation; a splendid task and one of incalculable importance.
On the other hand, the Fascista revolution must also avoid risking everything. Some firm ground must be left, so that the people shall not feel that everything is falling to pieces, that everything must be begun again, because in that case the first wave of enthusiasm would be followed by a wave of panic. Now everything is very plain. The social-democratic superstructure must be destroyed.
The State we want. We must have a State which will simply say: “The State does not represent a party, it represents the nation as a whole, it includes all, is over all, protects all, and fights any attempt made against her inviolable sovereignty.”
This is the State which must arise from the Italy of Vittorio Veneto. A State which does not acknowledge that the strongest power is right; which is not like the Liberal State, which, after fifty years of life, was unable to install a temporary printing press so as to issue its paper when there was a general strike of printers; a State which does not fall under the power of the Socialists; which does not think that problems can be settled only from the political point of view, as machine-guns do not suffice if there is not the spirit behind to keep them going. The whole armoury of the State falls to pieces like the old scenery in an operatic theatre when it is not inspired by the most deep-rooted sense of the necessity of the fulfilment of duty—nay, of a mission.
That is why we want to remove from the State all its economic attributes. We have had enough of the State railwayman, the State postman and the State insurance official. We have had enough of the State administration at the expense of Italian tax-payers, which has done nothing but aggravate the exhausted financial condition of the country. It still controls the police, who protect honest men from the attacks of thieves, the masters responsible for the education of the rising generations, the army which must guarantee the inviolability of the country and our foreign policy.
It must not be said that the State thus shorn will remain very small. No! It will remain very great, because it will still have all the spiritual dominion, having given up only material power.
Citizens, I have placed my ideas before you as a whole, it is enough, to my mind, for you to individualise them.
To Friends and Enemies. If this mentality of ours was not sufficient, there are our methods, there is our daily activity, which we do not mean to give up, though watching at the same time that it is not carried to extremes, that it does not over-reach itself and so harm Fascismo. But when I say these words, I say them with intention, because if Fascismo was a movement like all the rest, the attitude of the individual or of the group would have a relative importance. But blood has been shed for our movement, and this must be remembered when there are attempts at autonomy and lack of discipline. The recent dead must be thought of before all things. It must be remembered that such autonomy and lack of discipline serve to arouse the miserable instincts of the Socialists, who, though subdued, still secretly hatch plots for revenge, a revenge which we shall prevent by collective action and the avoidance of bloodshed.
After all, the Romans were really right; if you want peace you must show yourself prepared for war. Those who are not prepared for war do not have peace, and are defeated into the bargain. So we say to all our enemies: “It is not enough for you to go planting the tricolour all over the place. We wish to see you put to the proof. You will have for a little while to undergo a sort of spiritual and political quarantine. Your leaders, who might again infect us, must be sent where they can do no harm.” Only by thus avoiding the lure of the mistaken idea of quantity shall we succeed in saving the quality and the spirit of our movement, which is no ephemeral one, since it has already lasted four years, equal in this tempestuous century to forty. Our movement is still in its prehistoric period and in process of formation; its real history begins to-morrow. All that Fascismo has accomplished thus far has been negative. Now it must begin to reconstruct. In this way its force, its spirit and its nobility will appear.
Friends, I am sure that the Fascisti officers will do their duty. I am sure, too, that the men will do theirs. Before proceeding to the great task we must make an inexorable selection from the rank and file. We cannot carry useless impedimenta; we are an army of velites, with a rearguard of solid territorials. We do not wish to have untrustworthy elements amongst us.
I salute Udine, this dear old Udine to which I am bound by so many memories. Many generations of Italians who were the flower of our race have passed by its broad ways. Many of its young men now sleep their last sleep in the little isolated cemeteries of the Alps or beside the Isonzo, now once again the sacred river of Italy.
Men of Udine! Fascisti! Italians! Take upon yourselves the spirit of these our unforgettable dead and make of it the burning emblem of our immortal country! (Loud applause.)