PREFACE
T HE march on Rome of October 28th, 1922, marked the advent to power of the Fascist Party in Italy under the leadership of Benito Mussolini. The seizure of the government through a coup d tat was justified by the claim that Italy had to be rescued from the imminent danger of a Bolshevist revolution. Before the eyes of a world horrified by the tragedy of Russia, Italian Fascism assumed the role of the knightly Saint George who had slain the red dragon of Communism. The legend appealed to the imaginations and soothed the fears of all the good people of Europe and America. It became the sacred myth around which was woven the early Fascist propaganda.
Meanwhile Fascist institutions were developing in Italy, and at the end of 1926 the personal dictatorship of Mussolini emerged. Dictatorship was not a new political system, nor did it enjoy a high reputation in the records of history. Mussolini did not relish the idea of passing down in history as a mere imitator of old discredited experiments. Therefore a new and greater myth had to take the place of the early anti-Bolshevist myth, if the existence of what was now the Fascist State was to be justified. Fascist thinkers abandoned the anti-Bolshevist myth, which had outlived its usefulness, acknowledged that in 1922 Italy had been neither on the verge of ruin nor under the menace of a Communist revolution,1 and clothed Fascism in a brand-new mantle, the mantle of the Corporative State. Fascism was no longer to be regarded negatively, as a mere measure of defence against Communism in Italy, but positively, as a new social systemthe corporative systemdestined not only to supersede the outmoded institutions of democracy in Italy, but also to lead the whole world to a higher form of civilisation.
The new myth had been advertised all over the world by a propaganda which equals, if it does not excel, in efficiency the elaborate organisation which Soviet Russia employs for similar purposes.
As a result of this wonderfully organised propaganda, the Fascist Corporative State has awakened curiosity, hope, and even enthusiasm. Italy has become the Mecca of political scientists, economists, and sociologists, who flock there to see with their own eyes the organisation and working of the Fascist Corporative State. Daily papers, magazines, and learned periodicals, departments of political science, economics, and sociology in great and small universities, flood the world with articles, essays, pamphlets, and books, which already form a good-sized library, on the Fascist Corporative State, its institutions, its political aspects, its economic policies, and its social implications. No details are omitted, no problem concerning its origins and sources is left unexplored, no connection or comparison with philosophical and economic systems is overlooked. The Italian Corporative State is hailed as the most amazing creation of Fascism for the solution of the thorny problem of the relations of capital and labour, and as an extraordinary achievement, worthy of the closest study and admiration.1
Yet, strange and amazing as it may seem, it was only on November 10th, 1934, with the formal inauguration of the corporations, that the wheels of Premier Mussolinis new Corporative State started turning (New York Times, November 10th, 1934). And when the wheels started turning, all saw that they were turning to no purpose. As has been observed by an English scholar, who has known how to seek and to discover the realities behind the words, the term corporative has been used, if not invented, to rouse a sense of wonder in the people, to keep them guessing, to provoke enquiry, and to contrive, out of the sheer mystification of an unusual word, at once to hide the compulsion on which the Dictatorship finally depends and to suggest that a miraculous work of universal benevolence is in the course of performance.... The Corporate State is a tool of propaganda.1 From 1926 to 1935 the sole reality in Italian political life was the dictatorship of a man and his party. But side by side with this reality a new myth had grown to gigantic proportionsthe myth of the Corporative State.
To be sure, not all writers were so blind as to fail to perceive that the Fascist corporations existed only on paper. But in most cases the writers who claimed first-hand knowledge of the Italian situation were either superficial observers without much time at their disposal, who were satisfied with the official explanations given by the Fascist guides to whom they appealed for assistance, or propaganda agents whose purpose was not to make an objective study of the subject, but to sing the praises and benefits of the dictator who was maintaining them at the expense of the Italian taxpayer. On the other hand the Fascist terminology itself seems to have been invented for the purpose of spreading confusion and mis-information. The associations of employers, the unions of employees, and the associations of professional classes are called either syndicates or corporations or guilds. The term syndicate is of French origin and is applied in French only to the unions of employees. It has no such significance in English. The terms corporation and guild in English do not denote anything resembling the syndicates or guilds of Fascist terminology. Moreover, the term corporation is used by the Fascists to indicate not only the associations of employers and the unions of employees but also those bodies which are supposed to stand above the associations and the unions and to co-ordinate their activities. It is easy to understand how chaos may be engendered in the mind of a non-Italian reader when all these terms are used without any clear definition.
Add that the Fascist legal documents often are obscure and inconsistent. In most cases, the legislator himself either had no clear idea of the institutions he was creating, or he purposely left room for misunderstanding. When from juridical texts one passes to political and philosophical treatises the confusion becomes even worse confounded. As a Fascist high personage, Signor Farinacci, has said, each one vies with the other to create interpretations and philosophies always more and more in contradiction with one another; the multitude of those who have an average culturewithout speaking of the workmen who also have some right to understand somethingends up by not understanding anything.1
The result of such ambiguities and confusion is that even a person who is thoroughly conversant with Italian finds himself between the horns of a dilemma when he tries to translate the Italian text into another language. If he seeks to make intelligible the thought of the original text, he adds something that is not there, substituting an undesired clarity for an intentional ambiguity. If, on the other hand, he makes a literal translation, he runs the risk of being unfair to the author by making him seem to be a fool, whereas in actual fact he used ambiguous language not because he was a fool, but for the purpose of fooling others. Or the foreign reader, behind the equivocal words which are handed out to him, will see institutions which have nothing in common with those which function in actuality.