Giovanni Gentile Quotes

[...] intellectualism (as understood by Fascists) divocers thought from action, science from life, the brain from the heart, and theory from practice. It is the posture of the talker and the skeptic, of the person who entrenches himself behind the maxim that it is one thing to say something and another thing to do it; it is the utopian who is the fabricator of systems that will never face concrete reality; it is the talk of the poet, the scientist, the philosopher, who confine themselves to fantasy and to speculation and are ill-disposed to look around themselves and see the earth on which they tread and on which are to be found those fundamental human interests that feed their very fantasy and intelligence.

La verità è che la grande massa del popolo italiano lo sente e ne dà prova con la tranquilla indifferenza con cui assiste alle calorose proteste e querimonie delle opposizioni, che chi lavora oggi in Italia, per la libertà della Nazione nel mondo, non è l’antifascismo, ma il Fascismo,

Oggi in Italia gli animi sono schierati in due opposti campi; da una parte i fascisti, dall’altra i loro avversari, democratici di tutte le tinte e tendenze, due mondi che si escludono reciprocamente. Ma la grandissima maggioranza degli italiani rimane estranea e sente che la materia del contrasto, scelto dalle opposizioni, non ha una consistenza politica apprezzabile ed atta ad interessare l’anima popolare.

The fascist leaders were outsiders of a new type. New people had forced their way into national leadership before. There had long been hard-bitten soldiers who fought better than aristocratic officers and became indispensable to kings. A later form of political recruitment came from young men of modest background who made good when electoral politics broadened in the late nineteenth century. One thinks of the aforementioned French politician Léon Gambetta, the grocer’s son, or the beer wholesaler’s son Gustav Stresemann, who became the preeminent statesman of Weimar Germany. A third kind of successful outsider in modern times has been clever mechanics in new industries (consider those entrepreneurial bicycle makers Henry Ford, William Morris, and the Wrights). But many of the fascist leaders were marginal in a new way. They did not resemble the interlopers of earlier eras: the soldiers of fortune, the first upwardly mobile parliamentary politicians, or the clever mechanics. Some were bohemians, lumpen-intellectuals, dilettantes, experts in nothing except the manipulation of crowds and the fanning of resentments: Hitler, the failed art student; Mussolini, a schoolteacher by trade but mostly a restless revolutionary, expelled for subversion from Switzerland and the Trentino; Joseph Goebbels, the jobless college graduate with literary ambitions; Hermann Goering, the drifting World War I fighter ace; Heinrich Himmler, the agronomy student who failed at selling fertilizer and raising chickens. Yet the early fascist cadres were far too diverse in social origins and education to fit the common label of marginal outsiders. Alongside street-brawlers with criminal records like Amerigo Dumini or Martin Bormann one could find a professor of philosophy like Giovanni Gentile or even, briefly, a musician like Arturo Toscanini. What united them was, after all, values rather than a social profile: scorn for tired bourgeois politics, opposition to the Left, fervent nationalism, a tolerance for violence when needed.

Fascism rested not upon the truth of its doctrine but upon the leader’s mystical union with the historic destiny of his people, a notion related to romanticist ideas of national historic flowering and of individual artistic or spiritual genius, though fascism otherwise denied romanticism’s exaltation of unfettered personal creativity. The fascist leader wanted to bring his people into a higher realm of politics that they would experience sensually: the warmth of belonging to a race now fully aware of its identity, historic destiny, and power; the excitement of participating in a vast collective enterprise; the gratification of submerging oneself in a wave of shared feelings, and of sacrificing one’s petty concerns for the group’s good; and the thrill of domination. Fascism’s deliberate replacement of reasoned debate with immediate sensual experience transformed politics, as the exiled German cultural critic Walter Benjamin was the first to point out, into aesthetics. And the ultimate fascist aesthetic experience, Benjamin warned in 1936, was war. Fascist leaders made no secret of having no program. Mussolini exulted in that absence. “The Fasci di Combattimento,” Mussolini wrote in the “Postulates of the Fascist Program” of May 1920, “. . . do not feel tied to any particular doctrinal form.” A few months before he became prime minister of Italy, he replied truculently to a critic who demanded to know what his program was: “The democrats of Il Mondo want to know our program? It is to break the bones of the democrats of Il Mondo. And the sooner the better.” “The fist,” asserted a Fascist militant in 1920, “is the synthesis of our theory.” Mussolini liked to declare that he himself was the definition of Fascism. The will and leadership of a Duce was what a modern people needed, not a doctrine. Only in 1932, after he had been in power for ten years, and when he wanted to “normalize” his regime, did Mussolini expound Fascist doctrine, in an article (partly ghostwritten by the philosopher Giovanni Gentile) for the new Enciclopedia italiana. Power came first, then doctrine. Hannah Arendt observed that Mussolini “was probably the first party leader who consciously rejected a formal program and replaced it with inspired leadership and action alone.” Hitler did present a program (the 25 Points of February 1920), but he pronounced it immutable while ignoring many of its provisions. Though its anniversaries were celebrated, it was less a guide to action than a signal that debate had ceased within the party. In his first public address as chancellor, Hitler ridiculed those who say “show us the details of your program. I have refused ever to step before this Volk and make cheap promises.” Several consequences flowed from fascism’s special relationship to doctrine. It was the unquestioning zeal of the faithful that counted, more than his or her reasoned assent. Programs were casually fluid. The relationship between intellectuals and a movement that despised thought was even more awkward than the notoriously prickly relationship of intellectual fellow travelers with communism. Many intellectuals associated with fascism’s early days dropped away or even went into opposition as successful fascist movements made the compromises necessary to gain allies and power, or, alternatively, revealed its brutal anti-intellectualism. We will meet some of these intellectual dropouts as we go along. Fascism’s radical instrumentalization of truth explains why fascists never bothered to write any casuistical literature when they changed their program, as they did often and without compunction. Stalin was forever writing to prove that his policies accorded somehow with the principles of Marx and Lenin; Hitler and Mussolini never bothered with any such theoretical justification. Das Blut or la razza would determine who was right.

Giovanni Gentile, filósofo neo—hegeliano, fue el autor intelectual de la “doctrina del fascismo”, la cual escribió en conjunto con Benito Mussolini; las fuentes de inspiración de Gentile fueron pensadores como Hegel, Nietzsche, y también Karl Marx. Gentile llegó a declarar: “El fascismo es una forma de socialismo, de hecho, es su forma más viable”. Una de las reflexiones más comunes al respecto es que el fascismo es en sí, un socialismo basado en la identidad nacional.

In secondo luogo questa piccola opposizione al Fascismo, formata dai detriti del vecchio politicantismo italiano (democratico, reazionalistico, radicale, massonico) è irriducibile e dovrà finire a grado a grado per interno logorio e inazione, restando sempre al margine delle forze politiche effettivamente operanti nella nuova Italia. E ciò perché essa non ha propriamente un principio opposto ma soltanto inferiore al principio del Fascismo, ed è legge storica che non ammette eccezioni che di due principi opposti nessuno vinca, ma trionfi un più alto principio, che sia la sintesi di due diversi elementi vitali a cui l’uno e l’altro separatamente si ispirano; ma di due principi uno inferiore e l’altro superiore, uno parziale e l’altro totale, il primo deve necessariamente soccombere perché esso è contenuto nel secondo, e il motivo della sua opposizione è semplicemente negativo, campato nel vuoto. Questo sentono i fascisti di fronte ai loro avversari e perciò hanno una fede inconcussa nel trionfo della loro parte e non transigono; e possono ormai con pazienza longanime attendere che le opposizioni, come hanno abbandonato il terreno legale della lotta in Parlamento, finiscano col persuadersi della necessità ineluttabile di abbandonare anche quello illegale, per riconoscere che il residuo di vita e di verità dei loro programmi è compreso nel programma fascista, ma in una forma balda, più complessa, più rispondente alla realtà storica e ai bisogni dello spirito umano.

Giovanni Gentile