The murder of Unitary Socialist leader Giacomo Matteotti by fascists in June 1924 prompted Gaetano Salvemini to call for the resignation of Prime Minister Benito Mussolini and thrust the professor back into the midst of active politics as a leader of Florentine antifascism. 1 Arrested and then forced into exile, Salvemini became perhaps Mussoliniās most ardent adversary. But there was a period before his antifascism hardened when the historian concurred with the man who would become il Duce, most notably in their mutual, but divergent opposition to what they separately viewed as the malignant status of both the Italian Socialist Party (PSI) and the Liberal state. In the years before World War I, Salvemini urged fundamental changes in what he saw as a moribund political system and pushed for an alternative to its longtime leader, Giovanni Giolitti, whom he labeled āIl Ministro della Malavita.ā 2 And while Salvemini promoted his democratic agenda largely (and uncomfortably) within the reformist faction of the PSI, Mussolini held democracy in contempt, opposed reforms as a subversion of the socialist revolution, and began his move to take leadership of the party and to drive it toward a revolutionary agenda.
As radical critics of the status quo in the Giolittian era, Salvemini and Mussolini expressed a notable measure of reciprocal esteem and support, something that is easily documented, but has been given minimal consideration. In part, this lack of elucidation results from the expansive shadow of the fascist ventennio, which retroactively shrouded the prefascist era in an oversimplified, dualistic framework. Thus the relationship between the two has been interpreted primarily in the context of their later, well-known mutual enmity. The polarized historiographical culture of the Cold War era perpetuated this approach until the reevaluation of Mussoliniās career, initiated by Renzo De Felice in 1965, 3 enabled a more complete and nuanced interpretation of this relationship; for if Mussolini had been, as De Felice argued, a committed socialist, then how could his socialism be understood in context with that of this future impassioned adversary? And could such clarification illuminate the turbulent period immediately preceding the Great War? In fact, a closer look at this period reveals striking similarities in their criticisms of common adversaries and in their advocacy of radical change. These similarities are all the more remarkable in light of profound differences, especially in their fundamental political values and contrasting life experiences that made such agreement unlikely.
Furthermore, abruptly changing conditions forced the two to respond to ever more crucial issues: the war in Libya, la settimana rossa (āRed Week,ā June 1914), and the outbreak of World War I. Both agreements and differences were aired publicly at the PSI congress of 1910, authored by both in the pages of the Florentine journal La Voce, by Mussolini in four periodicals he edited (La Lotta di Classe, Avanti!, Utopia and Il Popolo dāItalia) and by Salvemini in his LāUnitĆ . As a result, there is a clear record of the views of these two men who converged emphatically in their opposition to Giolitti, endorsed each other, and found themselves on common ground for different reasons in their support of Italian intervention in the Great War. In fact, their convergence was not fueled by agreement in principle, but was contingent on their opposition to Giolittismo and to the reformist wing of the PSI.
Clearly, Salveminiās ideas were more coherent and stable, derived from Enlightenment philosophy, sharpened by the discipline of historical study and the empirical method, and tempered by modern social analysis. On occasion, like Mussolini, he took extreme positions, most obviously in the 1890s while fascinated with Marxism as a student in Florence and in response to the constitutional crisis of 1898. Primarily a scholar, Salveminiās journalism served as the means by which he could make his case for political change. He wrote fervently and at length about Italian politics, but neither he nor his contemporaries would have identified him first as a journalist.
In contrast, according to De Felice, Mussolini was āa major journalist, one of the most important of his timeā who had āa true and profound passion for journalism that formed a coherent whole with his passionānot less true and profoundāfor politics.ā 4 Some have found coherence in Mussoliniās ideas during this phase, particularly with respect to an ideology that featured elements of revolutionary and national syndicalism, but the argument for coherence is unconvincing. 5 At a minimum, his writing ā[reflected] the prevailing intellectual currentsā of the day. 6 Mussolini did hold steadily to a revolutionary militancy and dismissively scorned the very same Italian constitutional system that Salvemini hoped to reinvigorate. At the same time, Mussoliniās writings also reveal dramatic changes in view.
Consistent at least in their militancy, Mussoliniās ideas can best be evaluated in the context of adaptation to rapidly changing conditions. His viewsāfor example, about revolutionary syndicalism and a ānewā cultural form of nationalismāare derivative. Thus he may be understood in these years, not as an original thinker but as a politically driven opportunist who adopted and synthesized the ideas of othersāin his case, Friedrich Nietzsche, Vilfredo Pareto, Georges Sorel, Sergio Panunzio and Giuseppe Prezzolini among the more importantāand applied them to what he believed to be a novel set of political conditions that would accommodate his radical agenda and his own substantial ambition. In the most general sense, admitting significant disagreements among them, these intellectuals provided Mussolini with a critique of Liberal Italy that he incorporated in his journalism, in his speeches and in his political campaigns. 7
Although it can be argued that both Salvemini and Mussolini had established political values by their mid-20s, a series of events in the lives of both in the period preceding 1910 exercised significant influence, particularly in the personal and psychological realm. Both young men exhibited volatile personalities, although Salveminiās fervor was merely rhetorical; he showed no evidence of a predilection to violence, personal or political, in the sense that Mussolini did. Although vocal and decisive, Mussoliniās rapid political and rhetorical transformations make him an elusive subject in this period, one De Felice refers to as a man of ācomplex and contradictory character.ā 8
Salvemini was neither. Most found him exceptionally transparent and consistent, although his skilled and reasoned analysis was not infrequently accompanied by passionate rhetoric and a tone of righteous indignation. A non-conformist, he often personalized politics, holding his allies to such high standards that he repeatedly alienated them. 9 Twice he entered electoral politics, but found them corrupt and unappealing. āPolitics, my dear friend,ā he wrote to Giustino Fortunato, ādisgust me.ā 10 In contrast, Mussolini thrived in the public, power-driven, manipulative political arena.
Both men had been influenced by youthful poverty, but under markedly different familial and cultural influences that led each to become spokesman for the lower classes of their very dissimilar regions, Salvemini for the Mezzogiorno, Mussolini for the ...