What do you think?
Rate this book
Mussolini as Revealed in His Political Speeches: 11/14-8/23
Kessinger Publishing is the place to find hundreds of thousands of rare and hard-to-find books with something of interest for everyone
412 pages, Paperback
First published January 1, 1923
5 people are currently reading
74 people want to read
About the author
Benito Mussolini
286 books176 followersBenito Amilcare Andrea Mussolini was an Italian dictator who founded and led the National Fascist Party (PNF). He was Prime Minister of Italy from the March on Rome in 1922 until his deposition in 1943, as well as Duce of Italian fascism from the establishment of the Italian Fasces of Combat in 1919 until his summary execution in 1945 by Italian partisans. As dictator of Italy and principal founder of fascism, Mussolini inspired and supported the international spread of fascist movements during the inter-war period.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 4 of 4 reviews
August 29, 2025
I read this book initially just to get a better picture of Mussolini's actual views on things, and a sense of how he spoke and positioned himself and his conception of Fascism and political theory in general, which I thought would be of some relevance given increasing discourse on fascism in recent years surrounding the rise of Trump. Another aspect which I initially thought would be of particular interest was mussolini's relationship with socialism, and the question of how socialist influenced Fascism actually was, and what the actual intended economic model of fascism was. The reading did shed light on all of these things.
In the earlier passages, Mussolini is very clearly a socialist. He positions himself as the most ardent and loyal socialist there is. He gradually comes to a position where he sees fascism or proto fascism as a form of socialism, the true socialism, or compatible with socialism. Eventually he seems to reject socialism, but is emphatic that fascism is not at odds with the workers, but is rather their earnest defender and seeks to represent their interests within the corporate organic body of the Italian people. It is my understanding that later in life, towards the end of the war and mussolinis life, he returned more towards a left wing interpretation of fascism, but the book doesn't go that far in time unfortunately. This is the prime shortcoming of the book-- that it cuts off right before the Italian invasion of Greece, so we dont get to hear the mussolini of ww2.
Interestingly therefore, Mussolini's opinion of the Germans seems extremely low in the book. He criticizes them constantly and really seems like a germanaphobe, taking from the experience of world War 1. Similarly for the Austrians. After ww1 ends and italys position vis a vis Germany and Austria change, this stops being quite so virulent, with instead the soviet union taking on the role of primary enemy nation, but we never really get to see mussolini say anything positive about Germany or Austria.
At times the legitimacy or realityof the Socialist-Fascist connection is disputed or emphasized or de-emphasized by different historical camps. From the reading, my takeaway is that the initial connection and association is undeniable. Mussolini was indeed legitimately a socialist, and socialism played a significant role in his early conception of fascism. Even rather late, syndicalist economics and socialist policy objectives play vitally into his interpretation of fascism. However, from his speeches regarding the monarchy, liberalism, and other issues, it is equally evident that he was highly opportunistic, and before different audiences tried to present fascism as not all that different from, or perhaps even fundamentally aligned with whichever opposition he was confronting, taking their legitimate points into consideration. And it seems somewhat bad faith to assume that he isn't actually legitimately doing that to some extent, just as modern far rightists of various stripes actually do incorporate and validate elements of socialism and liberalism contextually. The ideology-less ideology, or anti-ideology character of Fascism is typically recognized in certain contexts, like in its violence, anti-rationality or incoherence, but it isn't often recognized as a means by which fascism can honestly appropriate various apparently incompatible strands from other competing ideologies.
Something else which struck me from the collection was how Mussolini consistently framed fascism as the state of tomorrow, aka a decisive, energetic alternative to both liberalism and socialism. Im here alluding to the presence of Futurist aesthetics and rhetoric, but with very specific real life policy applications. This rhetoric is a common theme in a lot of third positioning things, but this iteration is unique in how specific it can sometimes get. He repeatedly denounced the liberal parliamentary state as stagnant, indecisive, and self-destructive, and instead wants it to go fast, wants parliament to be improved to be more like a syndicate or a corporate board. He therefore insists that liberty cannot be universal and should be withheld from enemies of the nation so that the state can go fast and fly true. For Mussolini, liberalism’s greatest flaw was that it granted freedom even to those who would use it to destroy the State. Which is interesting insofar as he still attempts to appeal to legitimate liberal interests insofar as they do not cross this line, and is also interesting considering that he took advantage of exactly this weakness to seize power.
Back onto the socialist point for a sec, he rejected core socialist tenets like class struggle, economic determinism, and internationalism. He rather emphasized the multiplicity of classes and the need for coordination or harmonization of class interests, the primacy of national unity, and the irreducibility of history to economics, instead positing spiritual or moral aspect. And yet, he did not cast fascism as anti-worker. To the contrary he insisted on supporting measures like the eight hour day vehemently and repeatedly, and frames this as an olive branch to the socialists, and framed fascism as the true defender of workers, but not through Marxist revolution, and instead through their integration into a corporatist, organic national body, exhorting them to not overstep their role or significance beyond that of other classes comprising the nation. This comes up a lot in later writings directed at workers.
I realize this is all over the place, but back onto the obsession with speed, vitality, and decisiveness, clearly derivative of futurism, he glorifies what he literally calls the “Government of speed,” contrasting it with the paralyzed bureaucracy of liberal Italy. He is in this sense ezra klein abundancepilled. Fascism, in his telling, was modern, industrial, and dynamic, a politics of action rather than hesitation. Just build things!
His foreign policy worldview is bluntly described as a world of “unbounded egoism,” dismissing lofty ideals and insisting that nations survive through self assertion, discipline, and strength. The victory of the Piave in World War I is held up as the crucible of Italian unity, and Fascism as the heir to that sacrifice. The significance of ww1 is maintained throughout, almost to an absurd degree. Campaigns and battles on the Italian front of little significance to the war are seen as emblematic of the Italian spirit and necesarily representative of the highest ideals of the Italian nation and civilizational ethos. Given how many people died in these battles, and the general irrelevence of them in the greater scheme of the war, the role they obviously play for Mussolini and for the Fascist symbology almost makes the whole situation seem somewhat pathetic. For most of the text mussolini seems locked into viewing nations from the ww1 pov, with Germany and Austria being the bad guys, and the allies being the good guys, but as the book goes on you can see this slowly shift or become denuded.
Toward the United States, Mussolini appeals to shared values of discipline, industry, and self-reliance, portraying fascism as compatible with American pragmatism and toughness. It's interesting that mussolini seemed to strongly value the relationship with the united states, despite the obvious underlying fundamental differences in the ideologies of the two countries. And its interesting how both he and the American ambassador to Italy tried to frame their similarities in light of this. It was also interesting that despite positioning italy as a major power and as a strong nation and himself as a proud Italian and making the Italian race strong and proud, he also wanted Italians to be free to migrate to other countries, particularly America, and rather openly viewed their presence in the United States as a factor which could sway the United states in italy's favor, almost openly stating the "divided loyalties" point which many anti-immigrant advocates use.
On the issue of Israel and Palestine the book reveals Mussolini’s early skepticism toward Zionism in Palestine. While he acknowledged the sacrifices of Italian Jews in World War I, he portrayed Jewish immigration as destabilizing, tied to radical politics, and disruptive of Arab and Christian stability.
His rhetoric on electoral reform shows how he masked authoritarian ambitions under the language of modernization. He insisted that fascism did not want to abolish parliament, only to make it more efficient and “serious” through corporatist representation. In practice, this prepared the ground for the Acerbo Law, which did indeed allow for parliament to be more "active" and less stagnant, under fascist domination.
Taken together, these speeches reveal Mussolini as more than just a political opportunist (though he certainly was that). They show a coherent rhetorical style entailing a reification of decisiveness, framing fascism as both modern and rooted in sacrifice, rejection of both liberal universalism and socialist internationalism, and an unrelenting emphasis on the nation as a spiritual and organic unity.
Reading Mussolini in his own words is unsettling and entertaining because the themes are not alien to us. His opportunistic, and authentic blending of left and right wing elements, his contempt for compromise, his exaltation of vitality and willpower over procedure, his insistence on dividing the world into loyal insiders and dangerous outsiders are all common well outside of fascism, though in perhaps denuded form. Like modern right wing populist, he is bombastic, aggressive and even funny. But unlike them, he has an evident understanding of history, political theory, and philosophy.
Anyways it's a good book to get in the guys head a bit. But it sucks that it cuts off before we get to the really good stuff.
In the earlier passages, Mussolini is very clearly a socialist. He positions himself as the most ardent and loyal socialist there is. He gradually comes to a position where he sees fascism or proto fascism as a form of socialism, the true socialism, or compatible with socialism. Eventually he seems to reject socialism, but is emphatic that fascism is not at odds with the workers, but is rather their earnest defender and seeks to represent their interests within the corporate organic body of the Italian people. It is my understanding that later in life, towards the end of the war and mussolinis life, he returned more towards a left wing interpretation of fascism, but the book doesn't go that far in time unfortunately. This is the prime shortcoming of the book-- that it cuts off right before the Italian invasion of Greece, so we dont get to hear the mussolini of ww2.
Interestingly therefore, Mussolini's opinion of the Germans seems extremely low in the book. He criticizes them constantly and really seems like a germanaphobe, taking from the experience of world War 1. Similarly for the Austrians. After ww1 ends and italys position vis a vis Germany and Austria change, this stops being quite so virulent, with instead the soviet union taking on the role of primary enemy nation, but we never really get to see mussolini say anything positive about Germany or Austria.
At times the legitimacy or realityof the Socialist-Fascist connection is disputed or emphasized or de-emphasized by different historical camps. From the reading, my takeaway is that the initial connection and association is undeniable. Mussolini was indeed legitimately a socialist, and socialism played a significant role in his early conception of fascism. Even rather late, syndicalist economics and socialist policy objectives play vitally into his interpretation of fascism. However, from his speeches regarding the monarchy, liberalism, and other issues, it is equally evident that he was highly opportunistic, and before different audiences tried to present fascism as not all that different from, or perhaps even fundamentally aligned with whichever opposition he was confronting, taking their legitimate points into consideration. And it seems somewhat bad faith to assume that he isn't actually legitimately doing that to some extent, just as modern far rightists of various stripes actually do incorporate and validate elements of socialism and liberalism contextually. The ideology-less ideology, or anti-ideology character of Fascism is typically recognized in certain contexts, like in its violence, anti-rationality or incoherence, but it isn't often recognized as a means by which fascism can honestly appropriate various apparently incompatible strands from other competing ideologies.
Something else which struck me from the collection was how Mussolini consistently framed fascism as the state of tomorrow, aka a decisive, energetic alternative to both liberalism and socialism. Im here alluding to the presence of Futurist aesthetics and rhetoric, but with very specific real life policy applications. This rhetoric is a common theme in a lot of third positioning things, but this iteration is unique in how specific it can sometimes get. He repeatedly denounced the liberal parliamentary state as stagnant, indecisive, and self-destructive, and instead wants it to go fast, wants parliament to be improved to be more like a syndicate or a corporate board. He therefore insists that liberty cannot be universal and should be withheld from enemies of the nation so that the state can go fast and fly true. For Mussolini, liberalism’s greatest flaw was that it granted freedom even to those who would use it to destroy the State. Which is interesting insofar as he still attempts to appeal to legitimate liberal interests insofar as they do not cross this line, and is also interesting considering that he took advantage of exactly this weakness to seize power.
Back onto the socialist point for a sec, he rejected core socialist tenets like class struggle, economic determinism, and internationalism. He rather emphasized the multiplicity of classes and the need for coordination or harmonization of class interests, the primacy of national unity, and the irreducibility of history to economics, instead positing spiritual or moral aspect. And yet, he did not cast fascism as anti-worker. To the contrary he insisted on supporting measures like the eight hour day vehemently and repeatedly, and frames this as an olive branch to the socialists, and framed fascism as the true defender of workers, but not through Marxist revolution, and instead through their integration into a corporatist, organic national body, exhorting them to not overstep their role or significance beyond that of other classes comprising the nation. This comes up a lot in later writings directed at workers.
I realize this is all over the place, but back onto the obsession with speed, vitality, and decisiveness, clearly derivative of futurism, he glorifies what he literally calls the “Government of speed,” contrasting it with the paralyzed bureaucracy of liberal Italy. He is in this sense ezra klein abundancepilled. Fascism, in his telling, was modern, industrial, and dynamic, a politics of action rather than hesitation. Just build things!
His foreign policy worldview is bluntly described as a world of “unbounded egoism,” dismissing lofty ideals and insisting that nations survive through self assertion, discipline, and strength. The victory of the Piave in World War I is held up as the crucible of Italian unity, and Fascism as the heir to that sacrifice. The significance of ww1 is maintained throughout, almost to an absurd degree. Campaigns and battles on the Italian front of little significance to the war are seen as emblematic of the Italian spirit and necesarily representative of the highest ideals of the Italian nation and civilizational ethos. Given how many people died in these battles, and the general irrelevence of them in the greater scheme of the war, the role they obviously play for Mussolini and for the Fascist symbology almost makes the whole situation seem somewhat pathetic. For most of the text mussolini seems locked into viewing nations from the ww1 pov, with Germany and Austria being the bad guys, and the allies being the good guys, but as the book goes on you can see this slowly shift or become denuded.
Toward the United States, Mussolini appeals to shared values of discipline, industry, and self-reliance, portraying fascism as compatible with American pragmatism and toughness. It's interesting that mussolini seemed to strongly value the relationship with the united states, despite the obvious underlying fundamental differences in the ideologies of the two countries. And its interesting how both he and the American ambassador to Italy tried to frame their similarities in light of this. It was also interesting that despite positioning italy as a major power and as a strong nation and himself as a proud Italian and making the Italian race strong and proud, he also wanted Italians to be free to migrate to other countries, particularly America, and rather openly viewed their presence in the United States as a factor which could sway the United states in italy's favor, almost openly stating the "divided loyalties" point which many anti-immigrant advocates use.
On the issue of Israel and Palestine the book reveals Mussolini’s early skepticism toward Zionism in Palestine. While he acknowledged the sacrifices of Italian Jews in World War I, he portrayed Jewish immigration as destabilizing, tied to radical politics, and disruptive of Arab and Christian stability.
His rhetoric on electoral reform shows how he masked authoritarian ambitions under the language of modernization. He insisted that fascism did not want to abolish parliament, only to make it more efficient and “serious” through corporatist representation. In practice, this prepared the ground for the Acerbo Law, which did indeed allow for parliament to be more "active" and less stagnant, under fascist domination.
Taken together, these speeches reveal Mussolini as more than just a political opportunist (though he certainly was that). They show a coherent rhetorical style entailing a reification of decisiveness, framing fascism as both modern and rooted in sacrifice, rejection of both liberal universalism and socialist internationalism, and an unrelenting emphasis on the nation as a spiritual and organic unity.
Reading Mussolini in his own words is unsettling and entertaining because the themes are not alien to us. His opportunistic, and authentic blending of left and right wing elements, his contempt for compromise, his exaltation of vitality and willpower over procedure, his insistence on dividing the world into loyal insiders and dangerous outsiders are all common well outside of fascism, though in perhaps denuded form. Like modern right wing populist, he is bombastic, aggressive and even funny. But unlike them, he has an evident understanding of history, political theory, and philosophy.
Anyways it's a good book to get in the guys head a bit. But it sucks that it cuts off before we get to the really good stuff.
February 21, 2022
Ok, so I was into this a lot. Now I know why there were so many people following him. We don't really have politicians like that anymore. Thank God. I loved the part where he was talking about the insecure Baltic states with Russia beside. And how European union will never work. It did work eventually, so he was wrong here. And how fasicm could only strive in Italy, because of their mentality and very deep history. That is something I would call a nationalism as a collective narcissism. Modern day nationalists are often in need for the external recognition. But I don't think that what's Mussolini was going for. I believe that he rather strived for the support of his national populist party within the country. And to fight for it in the war beyond question.
January 16, 2026
Very insightful book. Great for understanding Mussolini as well as the politics of his fascist movement, from a perspective you would not find anywhere else. Mussolini was an important man of history, and his speeches are very powerful and effective.
September 8, 2022
Reminds me of a certain someone 😳
Displaying 1 - 4 of 4 reviews