Giovanni Gentile: Philosopher of Fascism

by A. James Gregor

The recent rise in Europe of extreme right-wing political parties along with outbreaks of violent nationalist fervor in the former communist bloc has occasioned much speculation on a possible resurgence of fascism. At the polemical level, fascism has become a generic term applied to virtually any form of real or potential violence, while among Marxist and left-wing scholars discredited interpretations of fascism as a "product of late capitalism" are revived. Empty of cognitive significance, these formulas disregard the historical and philosophical roots of fascism as it arose in Italy and spread throughout Europe. In Giovanni Philosopher of Fascism , A. James Gregor returns to those roots by examining the thought of Italian Fascism's major theorist. In Gregor's reading of Gentile, fascism was-and remains-an anti-democratic reaction to what were seen to be the domination by advanced industrial democracies of less-developed or status-deprived communities and nations languishing on the margins of the "Great Powers." Sketching in the political background of late nineteenth-century Italy, industrially backward and only recently unified, Gregor shows how Gentile supplied fascism its justificatory rationale as a developmental dictatorship. Gentile's Actualism (as his philosophy came to be identified) absorbed many intellectual currents of the early twentieth century including nationalism, syndicalism, and futurism and united them in a dynamic rebellion against new perceived hegemonic impostures of imperialism. The individual was called to an idealistic ethic of obedience, work, self-sacrifice, and national community. As Gregor demonstrates, it was a paradigm of what we can expect in the twenty-first century's response, on the part of marginal nations, to the globalization of the industrialized democracies. Gregor cites post-Maoist China, nationalist Russia, Africa, and the Balkans at the development stage from which fascism could grow. The first book-length analysis in English of Gentile's thought in over thirty years, this volume is valuable not only as a work of historical scholarship but as a timely warning. While Marxism-Leninism has passed into history, fascism may yet reemerge as an external threat to democratic nations.

Genres: Politics, Philosophy, History, Nonfiction, Italy

140 pages, Paperback

First published June 12, 2001

About the author

Anthony James Gregor (April 2, 1929 – August 30, 2019) was a Professor of Political Science Emeritus at the University of California, Berkeley, well known for his research on fascism, Marxism, and national security.

Reviews

[Dominic · Rating 5 out of 5]

This work is based on the research Gregor had done for his PhD dissertation at Columbia University, where he seeks to outline the metaphysical and political philosophy of Giovanni Gentile, its influence and impact on Fascism, and to clear up some misconceptions that many people still have. For whatever reason, an exuberant amount of Fascist material from key figures remains untranslated from Italian to this day, making this work as well as other writings from Gregor a great resource for those who wish to learn what Fascism really is, rather than what we are told it is by other “experts.”

Idealism and Materialism

Gentile’s philosophy is referred to as “Actual Idealism,” or “Actualism.” Actualism is the synthesis of Gentile’s views of Idealism combined with his political philosophy of the “Ethical State,” which could rightly be called a form of Totalitarian Democracy. Gentile saw the Marxist notion of Historical Materialism to be deeply flawed both in the metaphysical sense and in the political. In short, Marxism sees the world and its objects as a mind-independent reality, akin to that of Locke and the Positivists in Europe. The material world then shapes the lives of humans, bordering on the line of determinism. Actualism, like other forms of idealism (similar though not identical to Berkeley’s view), saw the world as completely mind-dependent. Without going into every argument and line of reasoning for the purpose of the review, the Actualists saw Marxism’s materialism as indefensible because it posits that the nature of the individual is determined by his material conditions, yet the proletariat must change the material conditions to liberate himself when these conditions are what makes him a proletariat in the first place. Further, the failure of his prophecy of the Communist revolution shows this to be incorrect.

It should be noted that Gentile did not believe Marx himself was the mastermind behind the Marxist notion of Materialism, but rather it was Engels. In Marx’s early writings, his views were actually quite similar to Gentile’s. Marx’s concept of self-alienation requires a symbiotic relationship between the subject and the object, which is much more closely in line with Idealism’s theory of the mind being inextricably linked to the formation of the world. It is likely that Engels was insistent on Materialism due to the fact that this type of philosophy, as well as Positivism and Empiricism, were trending in Europe at the time and to not affirm them was to be heterodox in academic circles. Yet nowadays, we see Idealism making a comeback in many philosophical and scientific circles, as can be seen in the works of men such as Bernardo Kastrup and Michael Huemer. Perhaps after all these years, Gentile has become vindicated in this sense.

Tying Everything To Politics

One of Gentile’s primary concerns with Marxism’s materialism was that it contained no ethical imperative, and no reason for citizens to take action for their fellow people and the nation itself. One could argue that there could be ethical imperatives on a determinist view, however the Marxists themselves, most notably Lenin, conceded that it was infeasible in their worldview. For the Marxists, nature would have to take its course to liberate the proletariat, which is orthodox doctrine according to the economic evolution from feudalism, to capitalism, to socialism, to communism.
But this lack of moral imperative was exactly what was wrong with Marxism, according to Actualism. For Gentile, in the Idealist framework, humans shaped the world in which they lived in, literally and figuratively. It was their responsibility to liberate themselves and the nation, to seek greatness, and to bond in their quest for national identity. The Dictatorship of the Proletariat which Marxism sought to establish was to be replaced by a Totalitarian Democracy, which the Fascists sought. Totalitarian Democracy was not democratic in the sense of Parliamentary Democracy, which sought equal representation in voting and public matters. Both the Fascists and the Marxists were opposed to this. It was democratic in the sense that the elite rulers operated in such a way to promote the welfare of the state and its people. Any attempt at reform that was antithetical to nationalistic causes was dead on arrival. It was the state’s job to educate its people on what their duty was for their nation and its legacy. This was the “Ethical State.”

Race and Fascism

Until Fascist Italy’s alliance with National Socialist Germany, the official Fascist view on race was that there was no official Fascist view on race. Gentile spoke of ethnic loyalty, but the emphasis was always on nationalism rather than race. And even with Fascism’s ethnic loyalty, there were no signs of a belief in race realism, in contrast with National-Socialism which affirmed this in addition to biological determinism. When the Fascists allied with the National Socialists, however, this changed. Germany made it clear that if the two nations were going to work together, Italy needed to purge its ranks of Jews in order to be trusted. This put the Fascist state in a predicament because there was a notable Jewish population who identified as Fascist. Yet Mussolini eventually obliged and in the years 1938-39, made it illegal for Jews to work in education and in the military. While some still operated in politics, Mussolini did not allow them in contact with German representatives. Many Fascists began to adopt National Socialism’s view of race and wanted to make it an integral part of Fascist ideology. Others, including Gentile, did not.

Fascist In-Fighting

As is always the case with politics, there was a degree of in-fighting within Fascist ranks. The two primary causes of these disputes were those of philosophical beliefs and the other regarding race. Actualism’s views on Idealism was seen as off-putting to some Fascists, most notably Catholic Fascists. Many Catholic figures saw Actualism as some form of “heretical-pantheism.” They also saw the Ethical State in competition with the Church’s universal reign. However, it should be noted that these issues were peripheral to both Mussolini and the Vatican. After all, Pope Pius XI had a great relationship with Mussolini and claimed he was sent by providence. The two also hosted many events to synthesize Fascism with Catholicism. Mussolini saw this dispute over metaphysics to be a ridiculous point of contention, and the dispute between the Church and the State as overdramatized. Why, after all that has been accomplished, should there be in-fighting over these matters? If we look to modern times in Ukraine, for example, which seemingly has the highest population of neo-Fascists and neo-Nazis, the members appear to not care at all about this issue either, given that there is a mix of Catholics, Eastern Orthodox, and Slavic neo-Pagans. They seemed to agree with Mussolini that there are bigger issues at stake.

Also worth noting is that not every Fascist agreed with the metaphysics of Actualism. For example, Gentile accused Enrico Corridoni and Alfredo Rocco as being quasi-materialists, perhaps more akin to National-Socialism than Fascism in this sense. This fact, given that these two men arguably played a greater role in Fascism than Gentile, also helped mend the relationship between Catholicism and Fascism. Speaking of which, after the merger of National-Socialism with Fascism, many Fascists began to adopt the former’s view on race and Jewry. Young Italians in particular were seemingly Fascist in terms of cultural identity, yet National Socialist in terms of political ideology. Hitler, like Mussolini, became an icon for Italian youth. The Jewish Question then began to appear more frequently. Giuseppe Prezioso, who led a Fascist sub-group that seemingly accepted all the tenants of National-Socialism, sought to persecute those who he deemed traitors of Fascism, which included Gentile. He disliked Gentile because he employed Jews in his own research and academic studies, and accused him of “creating a house of Hebrews.” Mussolini would not revoke Gentile’s position due to their relationship and the contributions that Gentile had given to the rise of Fascism, yet he was also aware of the rising population that shared Prezioso’s sentiments. He was also well-aware of the fact that Prezioso had strong ties to high ranking German individuals, not the least of which included Hitler himself as well as Goebbels. Mussolini tried to play the peacemaker in these disputes.

Conclusion

This is now the fourth book I’ve read by Gregor, and another masterpiece. Gregor’s impact on Fascist studies in the English-speaking world cannot be overstated. He draws upon primary source material that most are unaware exists to help do away with misconceptions and misinformation to illuminate the intellectual origins of Fascism and its impact in political science. This book pairs very well with Mussolini's Intellectuals: Fascist Social and Political Thought, which is quite possibly the greatest treatise on Fascism along with Mussolini: A New Life. Understanding the philosophical origins of Fascism helps lay the groundwork for understanding the rest of its inherent qualities. While it is of dispute whether or not Gentile’s Actualism is an intrinsic doctrine of Fascism, it is nevertheless important to investigate for those who wish to undertake Fascist studies in depth.

[AC · Rating 5 out of 5]

The fundamental study of one of the most important and original philosophers of fascism -- this book is short, and also contains an important study of the metaphysical foundations of Marxism which is, in my opinion, correct in all but one of its particulars.

[… · Rating 4 out of 5]

Humane

[AC · Rating 5 out of 5]

This short little book on the primary Fascist theorist and ideologue, Giovanni Gentile ( -- who comes, like Croce and Stefanini, out of the Subjectivist school of Italian idealism), is a tour du force, and I recommend it highly to anyone interested in the subject of Fascist thought.

This book contains a fascinating (and largely correct) analysis of the metaphysical foundations of Marxism -- especially of Marx -- which Gregor rightly understood to be connected not with the mechanistic traditions of the British materialists, to whom Marx (as early as the Notebooks) explicitly opposed; and which was, indeed, the materialism of Engels, and then of Lenin), but rather to the pragmatist/vitalist traditions associated with Priestly's notion of 'living matter' -- which Marx thought was derived from the materialism of Epicurus (a topic to which Marx devoted his dissertation). This is the metaphysical underpinning, by the way, that justifies the 'humanist' interpretation of Marxism, from Mondolfo onwards.

It's a fabulous book -- and though Gregor himself is a fascist (he was strongly influenced by Julius Evola), and sometimes maintains slightly eccentric positions - he is still the most perspicacious student of the topic writing in any language, in my opinion.

[Sebastian Oprea · Rating 5 out of 5]

"Life was austere, and human beings were understood to be moral entities whose lives transcended the brief compass of material existence to find in a higher spiritual community, not circumscribed in time or space, a life of superior liberty and fulfillment."