When discussing the origin and development of Fascism, traditional history likes to put the focus on the so called “Right Wing” influences on it, such as Nationalism, Religious conservatism, patriarchal genders roles, and doctrines of racial supremacy. This focus is misplaced and often simply incorrect. Fascism, as developed in Italy and France in the years before, during, and after the First World War, came overwhelmingly from the Marxist left.
In 1895, Karl Marx’s closest friend and primary source of financial support, Frederick Engels, died. In the last several years of his life, Engels was involved with the nascent Social Democratic Party of Germany (SPD), jump starting the careers of several highly influential politicians like Karl Kautsky, Eduard Bernstein, August Bebel, and Wilhelm Liebknecht. These were the years of the “Anti Socialist laws” of Chancellor Otto von Bismarck, which, contrary to their objective, only increased the popularity of the SPD, to the point that by 1912, the SPD was the largest single party in the German Reichstag. The line of “Orthodox Marxists” like Kautsky was that the proletarian revolution, while inevitable, was not to be “hurried”, and the role of the SPD was to wait until the conditions were ready for such a revolution.
This caused a bit of a split in the party leadership in the late 1890s, known as the “Crisis of Marxism”, when Eduard Bernstein began to call into question certain precepts of the “Orthodox Marxists” at the time, such as the imminent collapse of Capitalism, and the preparation for a Proletarian seizure of power. Bernstein pointed out that the SPD, through plain and simple electioneering, had already catapulted itself into one of the most powerful and influential political forces within German society. Bernstein, against figures like Kautsky or Luxemburg, did not believe a Proletarian revolution was possible or even desirable, and that socialism’s best bet was to continue to win elections and pass reforms to elevate the working class’s material life. In Bernstein’s words, “The movement is everything, the goal is nothing”.
A similar phenomenon was happening in nearby France. Jules Guesde, a correspondent of Marx’s who’s French Worker’s Party programme was written by him, belonged to the “Orthodox” Marxists of the time, and adopted a similar strategy as the SPD. The Bernstein in this scenario was one Jean Juares, a “possibilist”, and leader of the French Socialist Party. The two tendencies would unite in 1905 to form the French Section of the Worker’s International (SFIO), who’s main goal was to contest elections and win reforms for the working class. Though Guesde was an “Impossibilist”, who believed in the futility of reform, and that the role of the party was to hold the line until revolution, and Jaures a “possibilist”, who though reforms the only way forward, they were both united in the immediate tasks of the SFIO, which was to be the “Vanguard” of the French Workers, in effect, to “represent” them in Parliament and enact reforms on their behalf.
This brings us to French syndicalism, and specifically, to Georges Sorel, a much overlooked figure in the history of Marxism albeit arguably one of the most important in its development. As a Syndicalist, Sorel understood Socialism as a constant movement of the Proletariat. In this he was united with Bernstein, however, where the latter understood the worker’s movement as mostly peaceful or legal, Sorel understood the worker’s movement as a complete opposition to the dominant bourgeois state. In his work “Reflections on Violence”, anticipating many of the arguments made by Lenin in “The State and Revolution”, Sorel, while not opposed to parliamentary participation in principle, understood that the Worker’s movement could not rely on legal forms as a means of struggle, and indeed, only through destroying the bourgeois state could the proletariat finally take power. This informed a major idea in the syndicalist movement in France at the time, that of direct action against the ruling class.
But the criticism did not end there. Inspired by French irrationalist philosopher Henri Bergson, who advocated immediate intuition over “rational thought”, Sorel understood the Proletariat, the active, producing class, as being the only real class that could bring society to the point of violent struggle that was necessary for social change. Much more than being an owning class, the bourgeois was a lazy class, favoring class collaboration, business unionism, electoral reformism, and all sorts of legal means to pacify the proletarian movement and turn it into an agent of this or that party.
“To reduce unions to being mere associations of resistance means opposing a formidable barrier to the development of the proletariat; it means putting it at the mercy of the influence of bourgeois demagogues; it means preventing it from elaborating the principles of a new right in line with its way of life; it is, in one word, to deny to the proletariat the possibility of becoming a class for itself.” -Georges Sorel, “L’Avenir Socialiste des Syndicats”
Far from being opposed to Marxism, Sorel conceived of his thought as indeed “rescuing” Marx from the bastardizations and pacification that the contemporary Social Democrats made. While men like Kautsky were focused on the “deterministic” aspects of Marxist thought, that the Proletarian revolution was an inevitable law of history, to arrive sooner or later based on capitalist crisis or material conditions, Sorel saw the revolution as an active process, of each strike, each riot, each factory occupation, each mass movement of the working class and trade unions.
This conception of the workers movement as an active, constantly developing and moving process, as opposed to a fixed event in some point in time, informed Sorel’s understanding of myth. For Sorel, the “myth” was an animating idea that galvanized the worker’s movement, inspired it to action, destruction, and above all, violence towards the existing state. Against what he considered to be “Blanquist” elements in most Socialist parties, he recovered Pierre-Joseph Proudhon’s conception of Socialism not just as a political movement but a new way of life, with new morals, values and ethics, that would inspire the current movements while laying the groundwork for a future system based on an entirely new concept of life.
“Marx supposed that the bourgeoisie had no need to be incited to employ force; but we are faced with a new and very unforeseen fact: a bourgeoisie which seeks to weaken its own strength. Must we believe that the Marxist conception is dead? By no means, because proletarian violence comes upon the scene at the very moment when the conception of social peace claims to moderate disputes; proletarian violence confines employers to their role as producers and tends to restore the class structure just when they seemed on the point of intermingling in the democratic morass.” -Georges Sorel, Reflections on Violence
Sorel, though a relatively minor figure for his time, managed to gather a few followers, who would in 1911 would form the “Cercle Proudhon” based on his ideas. The Cercle united Sorel’s disciples Edouard Berth and Georges Valois, as well as Action Francaise leader Charles Maurras. Maurras was by no means a Socialist, instead favoring a sort of decentralized, organic Monarchy, hostile to Jews, Protestants, and Freemasons, and based on Catholic Social Teaching. Maurras and Action Francaise appreciated the Cercle Proudhon for its anti statism, it’s support for worker’s syndicates and co-ops, and it’s exaltation of violence as a driving force of history.
In Italy, a similar movement was also taking shape. Despite Italy being a very young nation (only 30 years old by 1900), the class struggle had developed very rapidly. King Umberto I’s government cracked down harshly on peasant movements in the South of Italy, such as the so called “Fasci Siciliani”, as well as gunning down striking workers in Milan in 1898. In 1892, the Italian Socialist Party was formed, and quickly became dominated by the reformist elements also found in France and Germany. This meant that the revolutionary socialists in the time turned to Syndicalism. Figures like Alceste de Ambris, Arturo Labriola, and Filippo Corridoni were involved in major actions such as the 1908 Parma Strikes or the 1914 “Red Week” in Italy. They were joined in this effort by a young Benito Mussolini, a part of the left wing, revolutionary faction of the PSI.
After the failure of the Red Week in 1914, Mussolini was expelled from the PSI, ostensibly for his pro-war stance, but in reality for opposing the PSI’s capitulationist stance regarding the mass strikes in 1914. Upon his expulsion, Mussolini, together with de Ambris and Angelo Oliverio Olivetti, formed the “Union of Revolutionary Action” (Fasces d’Azione Rivoluzionaria). Aligned with the Futurist movement of Filippo Tomasso Marinetti, they took a pro-Interventionist stance regarding the First World War. In their mind, the war would galvanize a revolutionary spirit within the Italian people, seen still as too “peasant” and agrarian, and therefore backwards and passive. The war would also lead to the Liberation of Italian majority lands held by Austria, as well as the destruction of the Austrian Empire, seen as a major bastion of reaction and autocracy in Europe, oppressing many of its subjects and supporting Monarchist and Conservative causes worldwide. After the war had ended, they hoped to use to energetic spirit to bring about domestic revolution as well, overthrowing the conservative and passive Italian monarchy.
Their stance, while extremely controversial for most of the reformist socialists, gained them the support of Italian Nationalists such as Errico Corradini and Gabriele D’Annunzio. Developments in military tactics during the war gave rise to the Italian Special Forces known as the “Arditi”, or “Daring Ones”, who would charge Austrian and German trenches armed with nothing but knives in their teeth and grenades in their hands. To the Socialists, as well as to men like Marinetti and D’Annunzio, the Arditi were the perfect example of the spirit they wished to cultivate in wider Italy, a spirit of action, daring, and “Me Ne Frego!” (I don’t give a damn!) towards danger and conflict. The motto of the Arditi, “we win or we all die”, reflected this desire for struggle and action that informed later Fascism.
When the war ended, Italy emerged on the victorious side of the Entente, receiving many territories from Austria including Tyrol and the Istrian peninsula. However, the city of Fiume (now Rijeka, Croatia) remained a sore spot. Italian Nationalists had claimed the city for many years, given its substantial Italian population, though after the war it was to remain a “Free City” instead of given to Italy. This angered many of the nascent Fascists, especially Gabriele D’Annunzio, who called the peace treaty a “Mutilated Victory”. In 1919, with 2,500 Arditi veterans, D’Annunzio, together with Alceste de Ambris, marched on Fiume, successfully taking it over. Yet in spite of the common assumption at the time, the city was not handed over to Italy, but was declared as the “Italian Regency of Carnaro”.
The Carnaro Regency was to be the womb of which fascism would later fully birth as it’s own movement. True to the spirit of the Arditi, D’Annunzio would lead Carnaro in an energetic style, exhorting the spectacular will and action of his fellow soldiers, and of workers more generally. Drug use was commonplace, and sexual promiscuity and public homosexuality was rampant especially among the Arditi themselves. This all reflected the revolutionary nature of Fascism, which sought to animate the people with a new desire for life and the will to take action. “Me Ne Frego” became more than just an expression, almost a commandment, understanding the individual as one who needs action and violence in order to truly live. The Charter of Carnaro, written by de Ambris, incorporated many Syndicalist elements, establishing Nine “Corporations” of economic sectors, which would work for the benefit of all workers instead of the profits of a few owners. A Symbolic Tenth was included to represent the “Higher” individuals that D’Annunzio sought to cultivate.
The Carnaro Regency was not to last however, as in 1920 Italy would reclaim the city. Yet many Arditi present joined the newly formed “Italian Fasces of Combat”, formed by de Ambris and Marinetti, with Mussolini at its head. At the same time, Sorel’s close follower Georges Valois formed the “Faisceau” league in France, clashing with both Communists and Maurras’s “Action Francaise” alike. In both cases, it was the call to action, violence, and struggle that attracted members, against the stagnant capitalist state and the many reformists socialists who supported it.
Syndicalism, as a means of rescuing Marxism and the worker’s struggle from socialists who attempted to subordinate it to peaceful means, therefore had an important role to play in the development of Fascism. While Syndicalism itself may not be “Fascist”, the thought and doctrines of people like Sorel, Valois, de Ambris, and Corridoni, were instrumental in developing the Fascist consciousness. The will to action and violence reflected a revolutionary spirit that was meant to be a new, true Vanguard of a higher society, a society that valued all the aspects of life. Thus, Fascism, not only as a political movement, but a truly all encompassing and total movement, for all its members.
The Seamusite Fascisti 