The Resistible Rise of Benito Mussolini and fighting fascism in Britain today

The rise of fascism in Italy is a subject of interest to anarchists as Mussolini

's rise cannot be detached from the biennio rosso, the two red years of 1919 and
1920. Unfortunately, there are few decent books on this period in English.
This made Tom Behan's "The Resistible Rise of Benito Mussolini" potentially very
important. It claims to be the about the "Arditi del Popolo" (AdP), the world's
first anti-fascist movement . The actual accounts of the development of the AdP
and specific (successful) fights against the Black Shirts in Rome, Parma and Sa
rzana presents the English speaking world with much new material. However the bo
ok is riddled with inaccuracies and downright distortions which are easily ident
ified simply by reading the references Behan himself provide
The importance of checking references
The Resistible Rise of Benito Mussolini
Tom Behan
Bookmarks
2003
The rise of fascism in Italy is a subject of interest to anarchists as Mussolini
's rise cannot be detached from the biennio rosso, the two red years of 1919 and
1920. Italy was on the verge of social revolution, reaching a peak with the fac
tory occupations of 1920. Fascism was a response to this, a "preventative counte
r-revolution" (to use Luigi Fabbri's expression).
Unfortunately, there are few decent books on this period in English. This made T
om Behan's "The Resistible Rise of Benito Mussolini" potentially very important.
It claims to be the about the "Arditi del Popolo" (AdP), the world's first anti
-fascist movement (its name means the "people's shock troops"). While it managed
to stop Mussolini's Black Shirts on numerous occasions, it is rarely mentioned
in accounts of the rise of Fascism. However, being the SWP, the book is riddled
with inaccuracies and downright distortions. As is the case with SWP accounts, t
hese distortions are easily identified simply by reading the references Behan hi
mself provides.
Needless to say, Behan's distortions inflict most harm on the anarchists and ana
rcho- syndicalists, ironically the only groups who supported the AdP wholehearte
dly and, doubly ironically, the only people who publicly advocated the "united f
ront" tactic Behan champions. Not, of course, you would know that from Behan's b
ook. This is unsurprising, as an honest account would quickly come to one conclu
sion, namely that anarchist ideas were proven right.
This book itself is not all bad. The actual accounts of the development of the A
dP and specific (successful) fights against the Black Shirts in Rome, Parma and
Sarzana presents the English speaking world with much new material. This informa
tion is inspiring and worth reading. It is a shame you have to wade through so m
uch crap to get to it. He also correctly shows the role of fascism as a defence
of capitalism against a rebellious working class, the state protection of the Bl
ack Shirts, the links between the fascists and the police and the funding provid
ed by industrialists and landlords. And he is right in stressing that fascism co
uld have been stopped and in placing the AdP at the centre of any attempt to do
so. However, this should not detract from the major limitation in Behan's book,
namely that it is ideologically driven and utterly unreliable in regards to Ital
ian anarchism and, consequently, the dynamics of the period and the lessons to l
earn from it.
Factual errors abound. Behan states that state repression and propaganda in 1917
saw "the left flipping over and supporting the war." In fact, the anarchists ha
d been intransigently anti-war from the start and that did not change in 1917. D
iscussing the 1870s, he asserts that anarchism was "more attuned to the needs of
the peasants" and that it "was concentrated in the towns and countryside of the
South, and had relatively little following in the northern cities." While this
may reflect Marxist ideology on the social roots of anarchism, the facts are rad
ically different. Italian anarchism's real stronghold at this time was north-cen
tral Italy, with the majority of members being artisans and workers. The peasant
ry had the least representation. It goes without saying that all these assertion
s are contradicted by the books he used as references.
Then there are the omissions. He makes no mention of the Italian Anarchist Union
(UAI), the twenty thousand strong anarchist federation with a daily newspaper w
hich played a key role in the biennio rosso. Anarchists only appear as "individu
als" and never as part of an organisation. He also forgets to mention the Marxis
t roots of the "surprisingly large number of revolutionary syndicalists" whom Mu
ssolini "found common ground with" after the war. He fails to inform his readers
that David Roberts (one of his references) points out that these people "explic
itly denounced anarchism" and "insisted on a variety of Marxist orthodoxy." He a
lso tries to downplay the fact that Mussolini had been a leading left-wing Marxi
st before the war, dismissing him as little more than a "demagogue" with "superf
icial radicalism." How such a person managed to rise so far in the Socialist Par
ty to begin with is left unasked.
His most outrageous claim, however, is that "semi-anarchist, semi-revolutionary
syndicalist USI federation . . . with its main stronghold in the rural areas of
the Po valley . . . therefore played a relatively minor role in the big industri
al disputes" of the biennio rosso. He does provide a reference for, a 1963 book
by D Horowitz called "The Italian Labor Movement." Sadly, Behan fails to explain
why he should prefer this source than the subsequent work by Gwyn Williams, Car
l Levy and Martin Clark (all of which he uses as references) which focus directl
y on the factory occupations. Perhaps an answer can be gleaned from looking at t
hese books? If you do, you will be struck by the significant role played by the
USI during these "big industrial disputes." It was the anarchists who first rais
ed the idea of factory occupations and practised it in 1920. Even in Turin, the
syndicalists were at the head of the movement. The Marxists around Ordine Nuovo
played no part in the events leading up to the factory occupations there (and ev
en opposed to factory seizure as a method of class struggle). Outside of Turin,
the council movement was essentially libertarian.
All of which is quite impressive for a movement which had "played a relatively m
inor role" in these struggles! Given the crucial role libertarians played in the
se events, it is unsurprising that Behan prefers to reference an academic study
of Italian trade unionism rather than those later studies that specifically conc
entrate on the dynamics of the class struggle during the near-revolutionary peri
od in question?
It is understandable why Behan should rewrite history so. His book shows the abs
olute failure of Marxism (in all its guises). Looking at the Italian Socialist P
arty, it proved Bakunin right, not Marx and Engels, by becoming as bureaucratic
and reformist as he had predicted. As Behan notes, this had "happened to similar
parties, such as the Social Democrats in Germany" but fails to discuss whether
Marx's tactics contributed to this. The Socialist bankruptcy reached its height
with its betrayal of the anti-fascist struggle. After the total and bloody defea
t of the fascists in Sarzana by the local AdP in July 1921, Mussolini purposed a
"peace" pact with the Socialists who signed up to the pact, denouncing the AdP
and declaring itself "unconnected" to it.
Behan fails to discuss the negative effects of the hierarchical structures favou
red by Marxists. He denounces the "Socialists' inability to provide strong leade
rship," yet he fails, unlike anarchists at the time, to link this to the hierarc
hical leadership so beloved by Marxists. Rather than ponder whether hierarchy wo
rks, he simply calls for "strong" leadership. The irony of so doing in a book ab
out resisting fascism seems lost on him!
This blindness is repeated in his discussion of the Italian Communist Party (PCI
). He deplores its actions and its leadership, yet never asks basic questions ab
out what it says about Leninism. He states that "many PCI members used their com
mon sense and joined the AdP" against their party's wishes and the despite "feed
back from below" the "PCI Executive Committee dug its heels in." Why, if the Len
inist party is most democratic ever, did the PCI pursue its policy against the w
ishes of its members as Behan implies? And if Bordiga was so at odds with the me
mbership then why were his theses supported by an overwhelming majority in 1922?
Behan does not explain why the people he considers as "often the most political
ly sophisticated activists" should have elected (and re-elected, until 1926 when
they were replaced by the Comintern) such incompetent leaders.
Yet even here, on Bordiga, he misses the context. For example, Behan attacks him
for being "wrong on the issue of democracy" yet fails to place this position wi
thin the context of the Russian revolution and the actions and ideology of the B
olsheviks. Given that the leadership of the PCI considered itself as following i
n their footsteps, it is easy to see why they advocated the ideas they did. But
then Behan fails to explain why Borghia and the bulk of the PCI held the positio
ns they did. Even if flawed, it is as unconvincing to simply dismiss them withou
t real discussion as it is to ignore the impact of the Bolshevik's policies.
This is the key flaw. While Behan claims that the AdP "forms the central part" o
f the book, the real focus is on the Communist Party. He discusses the ins and o
uts of its internal politics and its relations with Moscow far more than giving
a serious account of the problems facing the AdP, how it organised, how confront
ed both fascism and its relations with other anti-fascist forces. Perhaps this c
an be explained by the fact that the AdP's first manifesto states that it was "A
n anarchic formation par excellence"? In a country with a strong anarchist movem
ent and tradition, such a comment cannot be considered accidental.
The AdP takes back stage to the PCI and its leadership. Behan continually points
us in the direction of flawed leaders, not in the dynamics of the class struggl
e. Thus he states that it is "hard to be sufficiently critical of Amedeo Bordiga
in this period" with the obvious conclusion being that if the PCI had a better
leader then fascism would have been defeated! History is reduced to the actions
of a few great men, with the masses simply followers and unable to achieve liber
ation by their own efforts. In this he repeats one of the most repulsive aspects
of Leninism and, like Lenin, is proved wrong by the class struggle. Like the Ru
ssian workers in 1905, 1917 and 1921 with regards to Bolshevism, the AdP were mo
re advanced than the PCI.
Unsurprisingly, when Behan does discuss the politics of the AdP, he rarely does
it justice. He states, for example, that "they were still influenced by the idea
s of D'Annunzio and therefore nationalism" before quoting their first manifesto
which clearly stated that "We reject the manipulations and greed of patriotism,
which takes pride only in its race. We avoid all nationalist scheming." If Behan
gets such basic points wrong, it is fair to say that his attention is less than
focused on the AdP!
Pondering the actions of the PCI leadership he tries to explain this by the part
y being a young (infantile, perhaps?) as well as being "much smaller" than the S
ocialist Party. He then adds that "it also had to contend with a very large anar
chist movement." This "context" allows some of its "suspicion and sectarianism"
to be "understood." Why this should be the case, Behan does not explain. Is he r
eally suggesting that it was anarchist sectarianism that caused the PCI leadersh
ip to reciprocate? But such a conclusion could not be drawn in light of over two
years of anarchist arguments for a united front, initially raised by libertaria
ns in January 1919 when Armando Borghi, anarchist secretary of the USI, proposed
a "united revolutionary front" formed by the PSI, the CGL, USI, UAI and the rai
lway union. The Socialist trade union, the CGL, was totally opposed. In mid-Sept
ember 1920 the USI sponsored an "inter-proletariat" convention in which the PSI
refused to participate. All of which Behan is silent on.
Behan does quote Malatesta's appeal for unity against fascism made in May 1922,
while remaining quiet on previous libertarian calls (and Marxist responses to th
em). Given that he argues that the tragedy was that the "Communist and Socialist
left never came together around an enlarged AdP to form a united front against
fascist attacks," this silence is deafening. Particularly as the anarchist polic
y would have worked. The successful resistance to fascism in Parma and elsewhere
was due to the application of libertarian ideas of a revolutionary united front
. Indeed, the strongest working-class resistance to Fascism was in towns or citi
es with a strong anarchist tradition.
This fact is something Behan ignores. In spite of lack of evidence and official
hostility, Behan tries his best to paint the PCI as the mainspring of the AdP. W
hile acknowledging that "its membership came from many different political tradi
tions" he asserts not only that the "majority were probably Communists" but also
"if they continued to engage in politics they generally became Communists"! Wha
t is it? And how could the PCI have "entered the AdP en masse" if they were "pro
bably" the majority? And if the majority of the AdP were communists, why did the
PCI leadership oppose it? He even selectively quotes Gramsci, conveniently forg
etting that he considered the party leadership's attitude correct as it "corresp
onded to a need to prevent the party members from being controlled by a leadersh
ip that was not the party's leadership." Behan's contradictions can only be expl
ained by the simple fact that the "majority" in the AdP were not "probably" comm
unists at all.
Perhaps the problems with the historical accuracy of Behan's account could be fo
rgiven if he managed to draw correct conclusions from this period Italy but he d
oes not. He states that the anti-capitalist demonstrations "have brought people
together, and taught them the importance of having hundreds of thousands of peop
le on the streets -- of safety in numbers." Yet his example, Genoa, does not pro
ve this as large numbers did not stop the police attack! And if the rise of Muss
olini can be said to show anything it is that "safety in numbers" is not enough.
Incredibly he asserts that the Anti-Nazi League (ANL) has "some similarities" to
the AdP. What an insult to the AdP! The AdP was rooted in working class life an
d t is precisely such links that anti-fascists need to rebuilt. Yet Behan seems
to reject this, arguing that the class based politics of the 1920s were a mistak
e as the "sterile verbal extremism" of the PSI resulted in "a practical refusal
to make common cause with any 'progressive bourgeois' elements." By 1921, he arg
ues, the working class "was now on the defensive and needed allies. This meant c
reating alliances on the ground, even outside the working class." The "fascists
managed to win over the urban middle classes," caused in part by the left being
"obsessed with attacking the middle classes as a whole rather than wining large
sections of them to an anti-fascist position."
Yet fascism needs to be fought using revolutionary socialist ideas, not the ANL'
s "two simple strands", namely "the exposure of people pretending to be democrat
s as Nazi Hitler-lovers" and "militant campaigning to ensure that the Nazis neve
r gain a stable foothold in society." This does not present an alternative to fa
scism and, moreover, can boil down to supporting New Labour (or even the Tories)
as a preferable "alternative" to fascism. Given that these parties are responsi
ble for maintaining the social problems that fascists try to use to scapegoat mi
norities, the message is that "anti-fascism" means supporting the status quo and
the shit conditions we face.
Behan does, of course, pay lip service to the need for anti-fascism to be releva
nt to working class people, yet this is not seen as being at the core of anti-fa
scism as it not one of the "two simple strands" the ANL is based on. He patronis
ing states that "a revolutionary party is needed to educate and organise togethe
r with workers." Thus the working class (like the AdP) is considered the steam w
hich the engineers of revolution use to implement their ideologically correct pr
inciples. Rather than a socialism rooted in, and growing out of, working class l
ife and struggles, we have a "socialism" which the working class must be "educat
ed" into following.
Little wonder that armed with such an elitist and patronising attitude the SWP a
nd its fronts have been so ineffectual against the BNP. Rather than present a wo
rking class socialism, the SWP is pursuing an essentially conservative agenda. I
ts "anti-fascism" amounts to supporting the status quo and fails to explain the
class argument against fascism. It is ironic, therefore, that Behan attacks the
"popular front," saying that it "involved Communist parties entering into broad
national agreements with the leaderships of major bourgeois organisations and po
litical parties." The "united front" is "unity in action from below aimed at a s
pecific goal," by working class organisations. Yet his own arguments show that t
he ANL has more in common with the former than the later. Rather it is a mish-ma
sh of various individuals and tendencies, united by the lowest common denominato
r of being "outraged and disgusted" by fascism. How can it pursue a strong class
policy against fascism if, by so doing, it will alienate the "middle class" ele
ments the SWP wants to attract?
Little wonder, then, that its interventions in such places as the North of Engla
nd have meet with so little success -- in spite of leafleting against the BNP, p
eople still voted for them. Clearly labelled them "Nazi Hitler-lovers" simply do
es not work. Fascism will only be defeated when a viable working class socialism
exists -- one based on self-management, direct action and solidarity (i.e. anar
chism). As the resistible rise of Italian Fascism shows.
(for more details see my "The irresistible correctness of anarchism" available a
t: http://anarchism.ws/writers/anarcho.html)
Written for Anarkismo.net