In the spring of 1919, the most critical period through which Italy has passed, the attempt initiated by Benito Mussolini to summon the men prepared to fight Bolshevism, that apparently triumphant beast, seemed absolute madness. A handful of bold spirits, for the most part ex-soldiers coming from the extreme interventionist sections, responded to the appeal. But the gravity of the moment and the danger of physical sacrifice to which they exposed themselves were not sufficient to lessen their ardour and determination for an immediate counter-offensive. This had its conclusive expression in the assault upon and the burning of the offices of the newspaper Avanti, which took place on a day of general strike, when two hundred thousand workmen marched defiantly through the streets of Milan.

First of all, a few words about the proceedings. Without too much formality or pedantry, I will read you three declarations which seem to me worthy of being discussed and voted upon. Then in the afternoon we will resume the discussion of the declaration of our programme. I tell you at once that we cannot go into detail. Wishing to act, we must take salient facts as they exist.

The first declaration is as follows:

The Meeting of the 23rd March first salutes with reverence and remembrance the sons of Italy who have fallen for the cause of the greatness of the country and the liberty of the world, the maimed and disabled, and all the fighters and ex-prisoners who fulfilled their duty, and declares itself ready to uphold strongly the vindication of rights, both material and moral, advocated by the “Association of Fighters.”

As we do not wish to form a Party of ex-soldiers, because something in that line has already been done in various cities in Italy, we cannot say exactly what this programme of vindications will be; those interested will do so. We declare simply that we will uphold them. We do not wish to classify the dead, to look into their pockets to find out to which party they belonged; we leave this sort of occupation to the Official Socialists. We include in one single loving thought all the fallen, from the general to the humblest soldier, from the most intelligent to the most ignorant and uncultured. But you must allow me to remember with special, if not exclusive, affection our dead, those who were with us in the glorious May: the Corridoni, Reguzzoni, Vidali, Deffenu, and our Serrani—all that marvellous youth which went to fight and remained to die. Certainly when one speaks of the greatness of the country and the liberty of the world, there may be someone who will sneer and smile ironically, because it is the fashion now to run down the war, but war must be either wholly accepted or wholly rejected. If this line is to be taken up, it will be for us to do so and not the others. Besides, wishing to examine the situation in the light of facts, we say that the active and passive sides of so immense an undertaking cannot be established with cut-and-dried figures. One cannot put on one side the “quantum” of that which has been accomplished and that which has not; the “qualifying” element must be taken into account.

From this point of view we can, with complete certainty, maintain that the country is greater to-day, not only because it extends as far as the Brenner—reached by Ergisto Bezzi, to whom my thoughts turn—(Applause.)—not only because it extends as far as Dalmatia; Italy is greater, even if small minds try their little experiments, because we feel ourselves greater inasmuch as we have the experience of the war, inasmuch as we willed it, it was not forced upon us and we could have avoided it. The choosing of this path was a sign that there are elements of greatness in our history and our blood, because if it were not so, we, to-day, should be the least important people in the world. The war has given us that for which we asked. It has yielded its negative and positive advantages: negative, in as far as it has prevented the Houses of Hapsburg and Hohenzollern from dominating the world—and this result, which all can see, is enough in itself to justify the war; and positive, because in no nation has reaction triumphed. Everything moves towards a stronger political and economic Democracy. In spite of certain details which may injure the more or less intelligent elements, the war has given all that we asked.

And why do we speak of ex-prisoners also? It is a burning question. Evidently there were those who surrendered themselves, but those are called deserters. The large majority of the mass which fell prisoner did so after having fought and done their duty. If this were not so, we could begin to brand Cesare Battisti and many brave and brilliant officers and men who had the misfortune to fall into the hands of the enemy.

The National Vindications. Second declaration:

The Meeting of the 23rd March declares that it will oppose Imperialism in other peoples which would be prejudicial to Italy, and any eventual Imperialism in Italy which would be prejudicial to other nations, and accepts the fundamental principle of the League of Nations, which presupposes the geographical integrity of every nation. This, as far as Italy is concerned, must be realised on the Alps and the Adriatic with the annexation of Fiume and Dalmatia.

We have forty million inhabitants and an area of 287,000 square kilometres, divided by the Apennines, which reduce still further the availability of the land capable of cultivation. In ten or twenty years’ time we shall be sixty millions, and we have a bare million and a half square kilometres of land in the way of colonies, which to a large extent is barren, and to which we certainly can never send the surplus of our people. But, if we look round, we see England, with forty-seven million inhabitants, and a colonial empire of fifty-five million square kilometres, and we see France, with a population of thirty-eight millions, and a colonial empire of fifteen million square kilometres. And I could prove to you with figures that all the nations of the world, not excluding Portugal, Holland and Belgium, have colonies which they cling to, and are not in the least disposed to relinquish for all the ideologies which come from the other side of the ocean. Imperialism is at the base of the life of every people which desires economic and spiritual expansion. That which distinguishes the different kinds of imperialism is the method adopted in its pursuit. Now the method which we choose, and shall choose, will never resemble the barbaric penetration of the Germans. And we say, either everybody idealist or nobody. One cannot understand how people who are well off can preach idealism to those who suffer, because that would be very easy. We want our place in the world because we have a right to it. I reaffirm the principle of the Society of Nations, but we must beware lest this principle mean only protection of the material interests of wealthy nations.

In View of the Elections. Third declaration:

The Meeting of the 23rd March pledges the Fascisti to prevent by every means in their power the candidature of neutralists of any party.

You see I pass from one subject to another, but there is logic in it, an underlying thread. I am not an enthusiast for ballot-paper battles, so much so that for some time I have abolished the chronicles of the Chamber, and nobody is sorry. My example, too, has caused other papers to do the same, within the limits of strict necessity. It is clear in any case that the elections will take place before the end of the year. The date and the system to be followed are not yet known, but this year these electoral campaigns and ballot-paper battles will take place.

Now, whether one likes it or not, the war having been of late the dominant event of our national life, it is clear that in these elections the subject of the war cannot be avoided. We shall accept the battle precisely on the topic war, because not only have we not repented of that which we have done, but we go further and say, with that courage which is the result of our individuality, that if the same condition of things which existed in 1915 were repeated in Italy, we should demand war again as in 1915.

Now it is very sad to think that there are those who formerly were in favour of intervention and who now have changed. Only a few have done so, and it has not always been for political reasons. Some have changed for those reasons, and this I do not wish to discuss, but there has also been defection due to physical fear. “In order to pacify these people let us cede Dalmatia, let us renounce something!” But their calculations have piteously failed. We shall not only refuse to take up this political line, but we shall not give way to that physical fear which is simply absurd. One life is of the same value as another, and one barricade is as good as another. If there is to be a fight, we shall engage also in that of the elections.

There have been neutralists also among the official Socialists and the Republicans. We shall go and examine the passports of all these people, both the ultra-neutralists and those who accepted the war as a painful burden; we shall go to their meetings, we shall present candidates and find every possible means of routing them. (Prolonged applause.)

The evening before the general international strike of the 20th and 21st of July 1919, called by the federal organisations as a reaction to the rash movement, the National Socialists, the Republicans, the Democrats and the Fascisti met in order to share the responsibilities for possible complications and to demonstrate the inconsistency of so-called revolutionary attitudes.

This manifestation, according to the intention of its organisers, had also the object of marking the beginning of a political concentration of the Left, composed of ex-interventionists. But the attempt afterwards failed, chiefly on account of want of understanding on the part of the Republican Party, and because of the development of the spiritual crisis within the mass of Italian Fascismo.

I think that it will depend upon the sincerity and loyalty with which we join in this meeting whether it will become an historical event, or a little fact of everyday life destined to pass without leaving any trace.

This being the case, it will not surprise you if I speak with a frankness almost brutal. I add at once that the friendly confusion of this moment of reunion after schisms and separations will not eliminate the necessity of settling certain personal and political questions, otherwise this union, which we wish to be eminently fruitful, cannot be other than painfully sterile.

What are we looking for, we who are members of U.S.M., the Fascio of Fighters, the Association of Fighters, the Association of Arditi, the Union of Demobilised, the Association of Volunteers, the Association of Garibaldians, the Republican Party, the Italian Socialist Union, the Corridoni Club, etc.—we who are together represented in the Committee of Intesa e Azione^[5] which was formed at the time of the movement against the high cost of living? We are looking for the least common denominator for this understanding and action. Shall we find it? Yes! We come from different schools; we have different temperaments, and temperaments divide men more widely than ideas; we belong to an individualist people; but all this does not prevent something else bringing us together and binding us both in these present contingencies and in that which has to do with the action of to-morrow.

The Basis of Unity. There can be a thousand shades of ideas among us, but upon one important point we are all agreed, and that is in regarding the Socialist manifestation as a bluff, a comedy, a speculation and blackmail. Also we are all agreed in making a differentiation between the Socialist Party and the mass of the workmen. The Socialist Party has usurped up to yesterday the name of being a pure revolutionary organisation, of being the protector and the exclusive, genuine representative of the working masses. This is all nonsense and must be cleared up. Referring to statistics, we find that out of forty-two millions of Italians, hardly sixty thousand were enrolled in the Socialist Party in the August of 1919, and the dominating element is a group composed of lower-middle-class people in the most philistine sense of the word.

In the unlikely and absurd event of a triumph on the part of the Leninist revolutionaries, ten of these idiots would be, to-morrow, the ten Ministers of the Italian nation. The Socialist Party is one thing, and the organised mass of working men another, and the disorganised mass yet another and seven times larger than the rest put together.

We must not allow ourselves to approach the working classes in the sometimes unctuous, sometimes theatrical, manner of the demagogues. The masses must be educated and for this reason must have the straight truth. Many of the crowds which the Socialists sway are not worthy of blandishments, because they consist of masses of brutes infected and barbarised by the “Red” gospel. Our working-class colleagues know all about it, because they have had to leave certain factories. We must not present ourselves to the masses as charlatans, promising Paradise within a short time, but as educators who do not seek either success, popularity, salaries or votes.

Produce! Produce! Produce! The Admonition of Merrheim. The way in which the working masses should and must be spoken to has been shown us by Merrheim, one of the thinking heads of French Syndicalism. Last January he made a very important speech, and it would be a good thing to run over those parts of it which are now of most importance, especially those touching upon the relations between economics and politics and the necessity of production.

“The militant Socialists must tell the truth, and all the truth, to the masses, even if the truth brings hatred and slander. Now the truth is for all those who reflect, that the bad conditions of life, which are the trouble of the masses, are not going to be remedied by a solution based on an increase of wages which is not only inoperative, but entirely in opposition to economic laws. The masses must be told that the régime of production and distribution of commodities must undergo a transformation, if efficacious and lasting remedies are to be found for existing bad conditions, and that this can be arrived at by means of the force of organisation.”

“... It is pleasant to provoke loud applause by telling the audience at meetings that we are overstocked with commodities, and that they can consume without limit and enjoy comfort by imposing wages proportionate to their desires without increasing production.”

“Courage lies in repeating to the masses that each man is at the same time a producer and consumer, and that the continued increase of production is necessary and indispensable.”

“Courage lies in saying that it is not only impossible to satisfy those normal needs, natural to everyone, without normal production, but that it is absolutely impossible to obtain general comfort for everyone if at the same time individual production in the general interest is not increased.”

“Courage lies in proclaiming that the purely political revolution, which inflames the people’s minds, would not solve the social problem, the solution of which has been precipitated and rendered essential by the war.”

“Courage lies in repeating untiringly to the masses that the revolution which must be brought about must be economic, and that it is not to be brought about in the streets by a delirious crowd destroying for the sake of destruction.”

“Courage lies in saying that an economic revolution draws its substance from labour, and that it is strengthened, advanced, and carried out by the intensification of production whether in the fields or in the factories, and by a further utilisation of scientific processes and methods of production.”

The Italian Situation. We agree upon a third point, in connection with existing circumstances, that is in maintaining that our national situation is critical, though far from being desperate. Briefly, it is this. From the 1st July we have been defaulting debtors of England. Since the 31st July other financial agreements with the United States must be faced. To save the situation a loan of one milliard dollars (seven to eight milliard lire) must be arranged. The railways have a coal supply for only fifteen more days. There are enough provisions for another twenty days, that is to say until the end of the month. Two million tons of food must be imported to save us from immediate hunger. But these financial and economic agreements depend upon the political ones at Paris.

The possibility, almost a certainty, has presented itself to us of obtaining large concessions in Asia Minor, with the coal mines of Heraclea. Clémenceau has made difficulties about it, but Lansing told him that he could not see any obstacle, given that Italy approved of the exploitation of the Saar mines on the part of France. We may also obtain oil wells in Armenia.

But these acquisitions in the East are in their turn subordinate to the Adriatic agreements. The solution of the problem of Fiume is already compromised by the work of the preceding Delegation, which had already accepted the principle of a Free State. But the project of Tardieu presented future dangers as far as the safeguarding of the Italian character of Fiume is concerned, because the Italian majority in the city would be overwhelmed by the mass of Slavs in the country. It is a question, then, of reducing these dangers to the smallest possible limits by the introduction of another plan which would substitute for the idea of a Free State that of a Free City with limited boundaries.

In Dalmatia it is only possible for us to save the centres which have an Italian majority, with guarantees for the safeguarding of those Italian minorities scattered in the other centres. The eventual loss of Sebenico, which had strategic and not national value, would be compensated for by some other strategic point to be given to Italy. Lansing said that this would be eventually sought for in the Mediterranean.

Given this situation, it is no exaggeration to say that the general Socialist strike is a real attempted crime against the nation. And note: I could understand a strike which had as its object the setting up of the Soviet in Italy, but I do not understand or admit this one, which is without aim, object or justification. It must and will fail, because the leaders themselves are in the cul de sac of this dilemma: either tragedy, because the State at this moment has its repressive machinery in full working order; or comedy, in the event of a revolt on the part of the workmen already outlined, and due to their being tired of serving a Socialist Party mostly composed of middle-class elements.

Perhaps it is worth while in passing to confute the objection in the Stampa of Portogruaro, which would like to deny our right of rising up against the strike on the ground that we were in favour of war. “What,” it says, “is the damage done in two days of strike compared with that done in four years of war?” We crush these gentlemen with the reply that four years of neutrality would have damaged us more, besides having been to our lasting and ineffaceable moral shame.

Reactionaries and vice versâ. For me revolution is not an attack of St. Vitus’ dance or an unexpected fit of epilepsy. It must have force, aims, and above all, method. In 1913, when the Socialist Party was already rotten, it was I who put into circulation the words which made the pulses of the big men of Italian Socialism beat: “This proletariat is in need of a bath of blood,” I said. It has had it, and it lasted for three years. “This proletariat is in need of a day of history.” And it has had a thousand.

It was necessary then to shake up the masses, because they had fallen into a state of weakness and insensibility. To-day this situation exists no longer. To-day the only way not to live in fear of a revolution is to think that we are now in the full swing of one, that it began in the August of 1914 and that it is still going on. It is not a question, as some think, of entering into a revolution as one passes from a state of tranquillity to a state of action. The task of really free spirits is different. If this great and immense process of changing the world stagnates or becomes confused, we can hasten it on; but if it is already progressing at a frantic rate, then our task is to apply the brakes and slow it down, in order to avoid disintegration and ruin. To be revolutionaries, in certain circumstances, time and place, can be the pride of a lifetime, but when those who speak of revolution are a lot of parasites, then one must not be afraid, in opposing them, to pass as a reactionary. One is always a reactionary and revolutionary for somebody. Fritz Adler, revolutionary in the time of Sturck, is a reactionary to-day compared with the Communists. I am not afraid of the word. I am a revolutionary and a reactionary. Really, life is always like this. I am afraid of the revolution which destroys and does not create. I fear going to extremes, the policy of madness, at the bottom of which may lie the destruction of this our fragile mechanical civilisation, robbed of its solid moral basis, and the coming of a terrible race of dominators who would reintroduce discipline into the world and re-establish the necessary hierarchies with the cracking of whips and machine-guns.

The Compass. At the same time, as regards reaction and revolution, I have a compass in my pocket which guides me. All that which tends towards making the Italian people great finds me favourable, and—vice versâ—all that which tends towards lowering, brutalising and impoverishing them finds me opposed.

Now Socialism comes into the second category. I find it odd that my friend Carli, the founder of the National Association of Fighters and a valiant soldier, puts the Socialists among the advanced parties, storming them with a succession of “whys,” as he did in the last number of the Roma Futurista.

I deny the title of vanguard to Socialism. I deny the use and timeliness of any co-operation with this party. I maintain that a reactionary party in 1914, ’15, ’16, ’17, and ’18 cannot become revolutionary in ’19. I maintain that this serenading of the Socialists is useless, and this making of advances not clean. One day, in the culminating moment of the history of humanity, they embraced the cause of reaction represented by the Germany of the Hohenzollerns and Sudekum. Besides, it is idiotic and dangerous to lavish blandishments upon the official Socialists; we cannot reconcile ourselves with these people. There have been those who have attached themselves to the movement of to-day, but the Socialists have disdained that help, because they are megalomaniacs and nourish, among other things, the fatuous vanity of splendid isolation.

The Revision of the Treaty of Versailles. The Peace of Versailles is not a sufficient motive for the courted collaboration. Things must be made clear. The Socialists talk of annulling the peace; we wish simply to revise it. We do not condemn wholesale a peace which a German, and not one of the most insignificant, Edward Bernstein, has called nine parts just. The revision of the peace must not mean condemnation of the war. The Florentine Republican Union has published a manifesto which defines the limits of protest against the Treaty of Versailles.

“We do not wish to conceal,” say the Florentine Republicans, “that, although requiring radical amendments, the Treaty is, after all, the consecration of the fall of four Imperial autocracies, the fall of numerous dynasties, the creation of as many republics, the re-establishment of Poland, the reconquest of Alsace and Lorraine, and of Trento and Trieste by Italy, and of Jerusalem by civilised Europe. All this would suffice, as long as emendations were made, to bear witness to the supreme sanctity of the Italian intervention in the atrocious war let loose by the brutal German Hohenzollerns and Hapsburgs.”

“We do not approve, however, of the proposed general strike as a form of protest, because—and we say so with the traditional sincerity of our party—the country is thirsty for fruitful work, and this deluge of strikes certainly does not help in that.”

“The Peace of Versailles must be corrected and brought into keeping with the progress of humanity.”

This is also our idea. Rather than seek or beg for useless co-operation, let us outline a programme of our own of understanding and action. I refuse, after having got rid of the old, to accept the new dogmas. I think that it is possible to create a strong economic organisation in Italy based upon these principles:—

1. Absolute independence from all parties, groups and sets.

2. Federation and autonomy.

3. Abolition, as far as possible, of all paid officials.

4. No steps to be taken without having consulted regularly, by means of a referendum, the masses interested.

The means of obtaining this end may be altered according to time and place. The organisation will promote at times co-operation, and at times war between the classes and the expropriation of class. It will not always be for co-operation, but neither will it always be in favour of class preservation; and when it expropriates, it will not be to make all poor, but to make all rich. In the conquest of a colonial market and in certain questions connected with the customs, the middle classes and the proletariat can work together. When there is division of booty, then class war; but class war in times of under-production is destructive nonsense.

In the Political Field. The Electoral Reform will pass. The scrutiny of lists and proportional representation will pass. That will determine, for obvious reasons, the great coalitions—the Socialist-Leninist, the Clerical-Popular, and, lastly, ours, which might be called the “Alliance for the Constituent,” the Republican Alliance or the group of the “interveners” of the Left.

Our programme is to present candidates who pledge themselves to place the problem of constitutional revision before the new Chamber in the first session.

This is the Constituent as I understand it. This is the lowest denominator to which all of us can pledge ourselves and around which we can all form a union. The moment is particularly propitious for such an organisation. I think that all we who are represented in this Milanese Committee of Intesa e Azione can follow this path.

It is a case of “nationalising” this attempt, of making it general all over Italy. We could, if we wished, number not thousands, but millions of followers. I myself refuse, in the actual delicate economic situation in Italy, to adhere to any movement which makes the path clear for Bolshevism and ruin. The victory cannot and must not be destroyed. I understand a certain impatience, but I beg you to reflect that if the lives of individuals are counted in years, the lives of nations are counted in centuries, and we must not refer egoistically to ourselves that which is of a general nature. Good strategy is calculation and audacity. We do not wish to govern by recourse to the bayonet alone, because that would be dictatorship, which we condemn. We wish first to sound the masses by the coming elections. Once having had our principles accepted, we will spring to action.

The revolution which we desired and obtained in 1915 will be ours again by the victorious peace in its conclusive phase, and it will be called “Well-being,” “Liberty” and, above all, “Italy.” (Loud applause.)

At Florence was held the first Congress of the “Fasci Italiani di Combattimento,” which was the name originally given to the Fascista movement. This Congress succeeded the improvised, unorganised meeting of 19th March at Milan, and was held in an atmosphere of isolation and hostility, amid continuous tumult and interruption; so much so, that the members of the Congress were repeatedly obliged to suspend their proceedings and go out into the streets to defend themselves against hostile demonstrations.

At that time Florence, the cradle of art, and famed for courtesy and hospitality, had been temporarily submerged under waves of Bolshevism; Serrati and Lenin, referring to the Italian situation, could point to the capital of Tuscany as “the most fertile soil for the imminent revolutionary harvest.”

But even on that occasion Italian Fascismo was able to hold the centre successfully, in spite of the numbers of the adversary.

Fascisti comrades! I do not know if I shall succeed in giving you a very connected speech, as I have not had the opportunity of preparing it, as is my habit. I had intended to make a Fascista speech to-morrow morning for a personal reason which might also interest you, and which gave me the right to ask some hours of rest.

The other day I left Novi Ligure in a “S.V.A.” with a magnificent pilot, and, having crossed the Adriatic, came down at Fiume, where D’Annunzio gave us a great welcome. Returning yesterday, we were caught in a storm on the Istrian tablelands, and were obliged to go out of our course and to come down at Aiello.

At Fiume I lived in what D’Annunzio justly calls “an atmosphere of miracles and prodigies.” In the meantime, I bring you his message; he was thinking of writing one especially for our meeting. (Applause.) My arrival at Fiume coincided with the capture of the ship Persia, about which Captain Giulietti of the “Federation of the Sea” was so agitated.

The situation at Fiume is splendid from every point of view. There are supplies for three months. The Yugoslavs have no intention of moving. Not only that; the Croats, to a certain extent, are supplying the town, which shows how inappropriate and insidious the movement was which tried to stir up the people and make them believe that we were on the verge of a war against the Yugoslavs. Nothing of this exists. D’Annunzio has not, so far, fired a single shot against those who are on the other side of the line of the armistice; on the contrary, he has issued a proclamation to the Croats, which is a magnificent document both from the political and the human point of view. It ends with these words: “Long live the Italian-Croat brotherhood! Long live the brotherhood on the sea!”

Now, as regards international relations, the position of Fiume is perfectly clear. D’Annunzio will not move, because everything is in his favour. What can the plutocratic powers of Western capitalism do against him? Nothing! Absolutely nothing, because to strive against a fait accompli would be to let loose a still greater calamity which nobody thinks of either in France or England. In France—and we can say so with tranquillity—there is a sacred horror of further bloodshed; and as for the English, they have made war very well and brilliantly, but now all their ideas are contrary to any warlike undertakings and any adventures of even a slightly complicated nature. To-morrow Fiume would be a fait accompli for everybody, because nobody would have the strength to modify it. If the Government had been less cowardly, the problem of Fiume would be settled by now, and the Allies would have had to accept it.

The Forces of the Socialist Party. And now we come to our affairs. We must keep the Socialist Party within sight. Let us look a little closer at their forces. They have had lately to number their forces, and 14,000 of its 80,000 members have disappeared. They are the disbanded. As many as 500 sections were not represented in what they call the Assizes of the Italian Proletariat. Nothing of very great importance was said or done during the congress. Bordiga is not a great general. He is only a little above mediocrity. What he said to the tribune was what I told the crowd in 1913. Only Turati’s speech was of any real significance. All the other unlimited speeches did not, in the end, give practical indications of that which the Socialists wish or ought to do.

Our statements are much more definite than theirs, and we tell you at once that we must present an ultimatum to the Government, saying that, if the censor is not abolished, we Fascisti will not take part in the elections. It is necessary to protest against an enforced censorship during the period of the elections, otherwise we shall seem to show that we are ready to accept an arbitrary act. To this we can add another positive and effective protest. As for the Socialists, the larger part of them are distinguished by physical cowardice. They do not like fighting, they do not wish to fight; fire and steel frighten them.

On the other hand, and I want to draw your attention to this, we must not confuse this creation, which is for the most part artificial, with a party of which the proletariat is a lowest minority, while those members abound who want a seat in Parliament, or in the communal councils and in the organisations. It is really a political clique which wishes to substitute itself for the ruling clique. We must not confuse this group of mediocre politicians with the immense movement of the proletariat which has a reason for its existence, development and brotherhood.

Against every Idol. I repeat here what I said before. No demagogism. Work-worn hands are not yet enough to show that a man is capable of upholding a State or a family. We must react against these “cajolers” and these new semi-idols, in order to uplift these people from the moral and mental slavery into which they have fallen. We must not approach them in the attitude of partisans. We are syndicalists, because we think that by means of the mass it may be possible to determine an economic readjustment, but this readjustment involves long and complicated consideration. A political revolution is accomplished in twenty-four hours, but the economic constitution of a nation, which forms part of the world system, is not overturned in twenty-four hours.

But we do not, by this, mean to be considered as a kind of “bodyguard” of the bourgeoisie, which, especially where it is composed of the new rich, is simply unworthy and cowardly. If these people do not know how to defend themselves, they must not hope for protection from us. We defend the nation and the people as a whole. We desire the moral and material welfare of the people.

I think that, with this as our attitude, it will be possible to approach the masses. In the meantime, the Federation of Seamen has separated itself from the General Federation of Labour; the railwaymen have proved in the big strike that they are Italian and wish to be Italian; and while the upper bureaucracy of the public administration is, on the whole, in favour of Nitti and Giolitti, the proletariat of the same administration tends to sympathise with us. For fifty years generals, diplomats, and bureaucrats have been taken from the upper classes and from a certain limited number of persons of rank and position. It is time to put an end to all this, if we want to infuse new energy and new blood into the body of the nation.

For the Elections. And now we come to the elections. We must deal with them, because whatever happens it is always a good thing to keep together and not to burn one’s boats. It may happen that in this month of October events may be hurried on at such a rate that the elections may be side-tracked. It may be, on the other hand, that they will take place. We must be ready also for the second contingency. And then we Fascisti must do our utmost by ourselves, we must come out clearly marked and numbered, and if we are few, we must remember that we have only been in the world six months. Where there is no probability of isolated success, a union with the “interveners” of the Left might possibly be formed, which must vindicate, on the one hand, the utility of the Italian intervention in the name of humanity and the nation against all those who opposed it, whether followers of Giolitti, Socialists or Clericals. On the other hand, this programme cannot exhaust our action; and we shall then have to present to the masses the fundamental principles upon which we wish to build up a new Italy. Where the situation may prove more complicated we might also be able to identify ourselves with a group of “interveners” in a wider and fuller sense of the word.

After Vittorio Veneto. But we wish, above all, to reaffirm solemnly at this meeting of ours the great Italian victory, vindicating it before all those who wish to deny and forget it.

We have subdued an Empire which was our enemy, which had advanced to the Piave, and whose leaders had endeavoured to overthrow Italy. We now possess the Brenner, the Julian Alps and Fiume, and all the Italians of Dalmatia. We can say that between the Piave and the Isonzo we have destroyed that Empire and determined the fall of four autocracies. (Enthusiastic applause.)

The following speech may be considered as the first of the series of those which belong to the period of elaboration of the Fascista programme. The moment chosen was not the most favourable, because it coincided with two manifestations equally critical both with regard to internal and to foreign policy. We refer to the occupation of the factories, then at an acute and threatening stage, and to the Legionary occupation of Fiume, the first anniversary of which was celebrated at this time.

Benito Mussolini, although taking into due account these two important events, destined not to be ignored by history, could and did rise above the circumstances of the moment. As a far-seeing statesman looking forward to resistance and final victory, he drew the attention of his hearers to a sane conception of the problems of foreign policy, not included in the enterprise of Ronchi, and, at the same time, heartening all Italians who were panic-stricken under the arrogant tyranny of Social-Bolshevism.

I do not consider you, men of Trieste, as Italians to whom the whole truth cannot yet be spoken, because I think of you as among the best in the country, and your enthusiasm to-day has confirmed me in my opinion. The event, which had its counterpart in Rome on the 20th September 1870, was a magnificent picture in a poor frame, but upon this I am not going to dwell.

A Comforting Balance. After a lapse of fifty years since the breach of Porta Pia, we must undertake the examination of our consciences. A nation like ours, which had issued from many centuries of disunion, which had barely achieved unity, had not then muscles strong enough to bear the weight of a world policy. A great Italian thinker^[6] broke this tradition. In fifty years Italy has made marvellous progress. In the first place she has a sure foundation, and that is the vitality of our race. There are nations which every year scan the birth-rates with a certain preoccupation, because, gentlemen, it is just the want of balance in this sphere which produces the great crises—you know to what I allude. But Italy is not thus preoccupied. Italy had twenty-seven million inhabitants in 1870, she has now fifty million; forty million of whom live in the Peninsula, and represent the most homogeneous block in Europe, because, compared with Bohemia, for instance, where five millions of the Czecho race govern seven millions of other races, Italy has only 180,000 German subjects on the Upper Adige and 360,000 Slavs, all the rest forming one compact whole. And besides these forty millions, there are ten millions who have emigrated to all the continents and beyond all the oceans; there are 700,000 Italians in New York alone, another 400,000 in the state of San Paulo, 900,000 in the Argentine and 120,000 in Tunis.

National Discipline. It is a pity that foreigners know us so little, but it is still more serious that Italians know Italy so little. If they knew her a little better, they would realise that there are peoples beyond her boundaries who are more retrograde than she is; they would learn, for instance, that Italy possesses the most powerful hydro-electric plant in the world.

Do not speak to me of reactionary forces in Italy. Those who talk to me of a reactionary Government make me laugh, especially if they are immigrants or renegades from Trieste. Because if there is a country in the world where liberty is in danger of degenerating into licence, and where it is the inviolable patrimony of every citizen, it is Italy. There has not yet been seen in our country that which has been seen in France, where, as the result of a political strike, the Republic dissolved the General Confederation of Labour, locked up the leaders and keeps them still in prison. Nor have we seen that which has been witnessed in England, where so-called undesirable elements are sent over to the other side of the Channel; or in the ultra-democratic republic of the United States, where, in one single night, five hundred rebels were seized and sent over the Atlantic. If there is something to say, it is this: it is time to impose an iron discipline upon the individual and upon the masses, because social renovation is one thing—and this we are not against—but the destruction of the country quite another. As long as transformation is spoken of we are all agreed, but when instead it is a question of a leap in the dark, then we put our veto upon it. You will pass, we say, but it will be over our bodies; you will have to overcome our resistance first.

The Greatness of Victory. Now, after this half-century of the life of Italy which I have thus roughly sketched, Trieste is Italian and the tricolour waves over the Brenner. If it were possible to pause one moment to measure the greatness of the event, you would find that the fact of the tricolour on the Brenner is of capital importance, in the history not only of Italy, but also of Europe. The tricolour on the Brenner means that the Germans will no longer descend with impunity upon our lands. Glaciers have now been placed between us and them, and on these glaciers are the magnificent Alpine soldiers who went to the assault of Monte Nero, who were sacrificed at Ortigara, and who have on their flag the motto “No passage this way.” (Loud applause.)

Now it is a most important fact that Trieste has come to Italy after a great victory. If we were not so occupied with the daily material necessities of life and the solution of commonplace and banal problems, we should know how to appreciate all that which took place on the banks of the Piave and at Vittorio Veneto. An Empire was destroyed in an hour, an Empire which had outlasted a century, an Empire in which necessity had developed a superfine art of government which consisted in the eternal “Divide et impera,” according to the wisdom of Budapest and Vienna. This Empire had an army, a traditional policy, a bureaucracy, and had bound all its citizens together in a universal suffrage. This Empire, which seemed so powerful and invincible, fell before the bayonets of the Italian people.

The Italian Risorgimento is only a struggle between a people and a State, between the Italian people on one side and the Hapsburg State on the other, between the live forces of the future and the dead past. It was inevitable that, having passed the Mincio in 1859, and the Upper Adige in 1866, we had, in 1915, to pass the Isonzo and get beyond; it was so far inevitable that the neutralists themselves have had to acknowledge that Italy could not, under pain of death, and what is worse, dishonour, have remained neutral.

This vindication of our intervention is the fact which gives us the greatest satisfaction. And what does it matter if I read in a gloomy and pessimistic book that the acquisition of Trento, Trieste and Fiume still represents a deficit in the balance of the war? This way of arguing is ridiculous. In the first place, historical events cannot be regulated like a page of book-keeping with receipts and payments, debit and credit. It is impossible to make out an estimate of historical facts and expect it to agree with the final balance.

All this is the result of a melancholy philosophy which was widespread over Italy after the war. But let us hope it will soon pass to leave room for a little optimism and pride. This after-war period is certainly critical; I fully recognise the fact. But who can expect that a gigantic crisis like that of five years of a world-war will be settled at once, that the world will return to its previous tranquil state in less than two years? The crisis is not limited to Trieste, Milan or Italy, it is world-wide and is not yet over.

The Necessity of Struggle. Struggle is at the bottom of everything, because life is full of contrasts. There is love and hate, black and white, night and day, good and evil, and until these contrasts are balanced, struggle will always be at the root of human nature, as the supreme fatality. And it is a good thing that it is so. To-day there may be war, economic rivalry and conflicting ideas, but the day in which all struggle will cease will be a day of melancholy, will mean the end of all things, will mean ruin. Now this day will not come, because history presents itself as a changing panorama. An attempt to return to peace and tranquillity would mean fighting against the existing dynamic period. It is necessary to prepare ourselves for other surprises and struggles. “There will not be a period of peace,” they say, “unless the nations indulge in a dream of universal brotherhood and stretch out their hands beyond the mountains and the oceans.” I, for my part, do not put too much faith in these ideals, but I do not exclude them, because I never exclude anything; everything is possible, even the impossible and absurd. But to-day, being to-day, it would be fallacious, criminal and dangerous to build our houses on the quicksands of international Christian-Socialist-Communism. These ideas are very respectable, but a long way from the truth. (Applause.)

The Patriotism of Fascismo. What is the position of Fascismo in this difficult post-war period? The foundation-stone of Fascismo is patriotism; that is to say, we are proud of being Italian. Now it is just this which separates us from a great many other people, who are so ridiculous and small and hide their patriotism, because eighty per cent. of the Italian population was once illiterate. This does not mean anything, for narrow, poor, elementary education may be worse than pure and simple illiteracy. It is an outworn idea that one who knows how to write must needs be more intelligent than one who does not know how to.

Now we vindicate the honour of being Italian, because in our wonderful Peninsula—wonderful, although there are inhabitants who are not always wonderful—there has been enacted the most marvellous story of humanity. Do you think that a man who lives in far Japan or in America or in any other far-off spot can be counted educated if he does not know the history of Rome? It is not possible.

Rome. Rome is the name which filled history for twenty centuries. Rome gave the lead to universal civilisation, traced the roads and assigned the boundaries; Rome gave the world the laws of its immutable rights. But if this was the universal task of Rome in ancient times, we have now another universal task. Our destiny cannot become universal unless it is transplanted to the pagan ground of Rome. By means of Paganism Rome found her form and found the means of upholding herself in the world.

Note that the task of Rome is not yet completed. No! Because the story of Italy of the Middle Ages—the most brilliant story of Venice, which lasted for ten centuries, with her ships in all seas and her ambassadors and her government, the like of which is no longer to be found to-day—is not closed. The story of the Italian communes is full of wonders, grandeur and nobility. Go to Venice, Pisa, Amalfi, Genoa and Florence, and you will find in the palaces and in the streets the signs and vestiges of this marvellous and not yet decayed civilisation.

Now, my friends, after this period, in the beginning of 1800, when Italy was divided into seven little States, there arose a generation of poets. Poetry also has its task to perform in history, in arousing enthusiasm and in kindling faith, and not for nothing the greatest modern Italian poet—whether second-rate writers, who do not know how to express the smallest idea, recognise it or not—Gabriele d’Annunzio, represents in a magnificent union of thought and sentiment, the power of action which is characteristic of the Italian people.

The Dolomites of Italian Thought. We are proud of being Italians, and not only for reasons of exclusivism. The modern spirit reaches out towards beauty and truth. One cannot think of a modern man who has not read Cervantes, Shakespeare, Goethe and Tolstoy. But all this must not make us forget that we were great when the others were not yet born, that while German Klopstock was writing his verbose Messiade, Dante Alighieri had been a giant for centuries. And we have also the sculpture of Michelangelo, the painting of Raffaello, the astronomy of Galileo, and the medicine of Morgagni, and with these the mysterious Leonardo da Vinci who excelled in all fields. And then, if you want to pass to politics and war, there is Napoleon and, above all, Garibaldi, most Italian of all.

These are the Dolomites of Italian thought and spirit; but beside these almost inaccessible peaks are lower summits in great numbers, which show that it is quite impossible to think of human civilisation without the gigantic contribution made by Italian thought. And this must be repeated at our boundaries, where there are tribes chattering incomprehensible languages who would pretend, simply on account of their numbers, to supplant our marvellous civilisation which has endured two millenniums and is ready for a third.

The Sincerity of Fascismo. The second foundation-stone of Fascismo is represented by anti-demagogism and pragmatism. We have no preconceived notions, no fixed ideas and, above all, no stupid pride. Those who say, “You are unhappy, here is the receipt for happiness,” make me think of the advertisement “Do you want health?” We do not promise men happiness either here or in the next world; differing thus from the Socialists, who pretend that they can set the Russian mask on the face of the Mediterranean.

Once there were courtiers who burned incense before the king and the popes; now there is a new breed, which burns incense, without sincerity, before the proletariat. Only those who hold Italy in their hands have the right to govern her, they say, while these do not know even how to control their own families. We are different. We use another language, more serious, unprejudiced and worthy of free men. We do not exclude the possibility that the proletariat may be capable of using its present forces to other ends, but we say that before it tries to govern the nation it must learn to govern itself, must make itself worthy, technically and, still more, morally, because government is a tremendously difficult and complicated task. The nation is composed of millions and millions of individuals whose interests clash, and there are no superior beings who can reconcile all these differences and make a union of life and progress.

Fascismo is not Conservative. But we are not, on the other hand, traditionalists, bound hand and foot to the stones and débris. Everything must be changed in the modern city. The ancient streets will no longer stand the wear and tear of the trams and motor traffic, because through them passes the whole of civilisation. It is possible to destroy in order to create anew in a form more beautiful and great, for destruction must never be carried out in the method of a savage, who breaks open a machine in order to see what is inside. We do not refuse to make changes in our spiritual life just because the spirit is a delicate matter. No social transformation which is necessary, is repugnant to me. In this way I accept the famous control of the factories and also their co-operative management by companies; I only ask that there shall be a clear conscience and technical capacity, and that there shall be increased production. If this is guaranteed by the workmen’s unions, instead of by the employers, I have no hesitation in saying that the former have the right to substitute the latter.

The Bolshevist Mask. That which we Fascisti are opposing is the Bolshevist element in Italian Socialism. It is strange that a race which has produced Pisacane and Mazzini should go in search of gospels first to Germany and then to Russia. Pisacane and Mazzini ought to be studied, and then it would be seen that some of the truths which it is pretended have been revealed in Russia, are only truths already consecrated in the books of our great Italian thinkers.

How can Communism be thought possible in the most individualistic country in the world? It is only possible where every man is a number, not in Italy where every man is an individual, and more, has individuality. But after all, my dear friends, does Bolshevism exist in Russia? It does not any longer. There are no longer councils of the factories, but dictators of the factories; no longer eight hours of work, but twelve; no longer equal salaries, but thirty-five different categories, not according to need, but according to merit. There is not in Russia even that liberty which there is in Italy. Is there a dictatorship of the proletariat? No! Is there a dictatorship of the Socialists? No! There is a dictatorship of a few intelligent men, not workmen, who belong to a section of the Socialist Party, and their dictatorship is opposed by all the other sections.

This dictatorship of a few men is what is called Bolshevism. Now we do not want this in Italy. The Socialists themselves, realising what they have seen in Russia, recognise, when you question them, that that which has gone badly in Russia cannot be transplanted into Italy. Only they are wrong in not saying so openly; they are wrong in playing with equivocations and deceiving the masses. We repeat, we are not against the working classes, because they are necessary to the nation, sacredly necessary. The twenty million Italians who work with their hands have the right to defend their interests. What we oppose is the deceitful action of politicians to the detriment of the working classes; we fight these new priests who promise, in bad faith, a paradise they do not believe in themselves. Those who are the most ardent advocates of Bolshevism here in Trieste take up this attitude in order to make themselves popular with the Slav masses who live near. And if I have a profound lack of esteem for the Bolshevist leaders in Italy, and despise many of them, it is because I know them all well and have been in contact with them. I know perfectly well that when they play the lion they are rabbits, and that they are like certain monks in Heinrich Heine who openly preach the drinking of water and drink wine themselves in secret. We wish to see this shameful speculation finish, because it is against the interests of the nation.

Always against Italy. Can you tell me by what curious chance the Socialists are always against Italy in all questions? Can you tell me why they always side with those who are against Italy? With the Albanians, the Croats, the Germans and others? Can you tell me why they shout “Long live Albania!” who is fighting for Valona, which is Albanian, and do not shout “Long live Italy!” who is fighting for Trento and Trieste, which are Italian? By what criterion are they always against Italy, shouting, “Down, down!” Four Arabs revolt in Libya and they shout, “Down with Libya!” Six thousand Albanians attack Valona and it is, “Down with Valona!” And if to-morrow the Croats of Dalmatia attack us it will be, “Down with Dalmatia!” And if, upon the burning mountain of the Carso, an insurrectional movement develops against Trieste, I am afraid the Italian Socialists would cry, “Down with Trieste!” But there are Italians here and elsewhere who would strangle the fratricidal cry in their throats.

It was the same with their opposition to the war. War is a horrible thing in itself. Those who have been through it know. But it is necessary to explain. If they say, “War in itself and for itself, for whatever reason, in whatever latitude, under whatsoever pretext, must not be made,” then I respect these humanitarians and Tolstoyans. If they say, “I abhor that blood shall be spilled under any pretext,” then I respect them and admire them, although I find this impracticable. But when they cry, “Down with the war!” when Italy makes it, and “Long live the war!” when Russia makes it, it is a different matter. They had a paper which was very happy when the so-called Bolshevists were marching towards Warsaw, and employed the military style: “While we are writing the cannons....” etc.; we know it all by heart. Is not this war then the same thing? Does not the Russian war make widows and orphans? Is it not made with guns, aeroplanes and all the innumerable instruments which tear and kill human bodies? Either they must be contrary to all wars, in which case we can discuss together, or if they make distinctions between war and war, between the war which can be made and the war which cannot—well, we can tell them that their humanitarianism is simply horrible. And if they have reason to make war, we had reason to make it for the destinies of the country in 1915. (Applause.)

The Epic of D’Annunzio. What, then, is to be the task of Fascismo? It is this: to bridle Demagogism with courage, energy and impetuosity. Fascismo is called the Fascio of Fighters, and the word “fighters” does not leave any doubts about its aims, which are, to fight with peaceful arms, but also with the arms of warriors. And this is normal in Italy, because all the world is arming itself, and so it is absolutely necessary that we Italians arm ourselves in our turn.

But the task of Fascismo here is more delicate, more difficult, and more necessary. Fascismo here has a reason for existence, and finds a natural field for development. I have unlimited faith in the future of the Italian nation. Crises will succeed crises, there will be pauses and parentheses, but we shall arrive at a settlement, and the history of to-morrow cannot be thought of without the participation of Italy.

There have been many orders of the day, many articles in the papers, much more or less senseless talk, but the only man who has achieved a real revolutionary stroke, the only man who for twelve or thirteen months has held in check all the forces ranged against him is Gabriele d’Annunzio with his legionaries. Against this man, of pure Italian blood, are leagued all the cowards, and it is for this reason that we are proud to be with him, even if all this tribe turn against us too. This man also represents the possibility of victory and resurrection. And this possibility exists because we have made war and won. It is ridiculous that those who most profited by it in wages, votes and honours are those who, to-day, turn round and revile it. In any case I think, as indeed this meeting of yours bears witness, that the hour of the vindication of our national efficiency has struck. While on the one hand there is a vast world of wretched, poor creatures, there is also a world which does not forget and does not ignore our victory. (Applause.)

The Re-birth of Ideals. Just as I was leaving Milan, I received from the mayor of Cupra Marittima, a little town of Central Italy, an invitation to be present at their commemoration of the fallen. I did not accept, because I do not like making speeches. But this episode, like the pilgrimage of the Ortigara, the pilgrimage to the Grappa, the pilgrimage of the 24th October to the rocky Carso, tells you that all ideals are not lost, but are, on the contrary, being re-born. We wish to assist this spiritual re-birth in every way possible.

Yesterday, I experienced a moment of great emotion when passing over the Isonzo. Every time that I have passed that river with my pack on my back, I have stooped to drink of its crystal waters. If we had not reached the other side of that river, the tricolour would not to-day be flying from San Giusto.

This is the real and true meaning of the war. If the tricolour flies from San Giusto, it is because twenty years ago a man of Trieste was the forerunner; it is there because in 1915 Italian soldiers threw themselves upon the Austrian defences, and all Italy took part in that act, from the Alpine detachments of the mountains of Piedmont, Lombardy and Friuli to the magnificent infantry of the Abruzzi, Puglie and Sicily and the soldiers of the generous island of Sardinia, too much neglected by the Government! And these generous sons have not yet risen up to take reprisals against the demagogues of Italy, because they are always ready to fulfil their duty.

Men of Trieste! The tricolour of San Giusto is sacred, the tricolour on the Nevoso is sacred, and still more so is that on the Dinaric Alps. The tricolour will be protected by our dead heroes, but let us swear together that it will be defended also by the living. (Prolonged applause.)