The Significance of Fascist Syndicalism by Edmondo Rossoni (1925)

* Source: Part of Zoltanouns’ essay on corporatism which can be found here.

* Note: These are excerpts, not the full work.

Labour unions cannot be expected to give up their class position or the weapon of the strike, un- less employers change their traditional attitude of shear resistance to labour Captains of industry must undergo a change of heart and even relinquish some of their despotic power, which is incom- patible with modern ideas and with the dignity of labour. Whether one likes it or not, the birth of Syndicalism in the world results from the improvement in the conditions of the salaried and wage-earning classes; a new will, strictly controlled and disciplined, is intervening in regulating production and in determining the relations between classes.

 The aim of fascist syndicalism is unity and collaboration: it does not oppose, but conforms to the needs of production; it does not deny the conscious aims of labour, but harmonises them with the aims and with the industrial experience of the managers. This is the true and fundamental difference between fascism Syndi- calism and Trade-Unionism, based as the latter is on class warfare. If this is understood by the capitalist class, the whole position changes, and collaboration finds a fertile soil for development. But, if this is not understood, it becomes futile to cry out for a collaboration which is doomed to die before birth, like seed cast upon stones. There are clear and definite principles in the syndicalist doctrine of Fascism; and, without a knowledge of these principles, it is impossible to arrive at a clear idea of the social problem which is, after all, the greatest problem of modern life. The different exponents of Socialism strenuously challenge the herd logic of Capitalism, and are mobilizing the masses against the capitalist system. 

The effects of this socialist movement and the great harm resulting to the workers are known, so that every reaction against Socialism becomes confused with a defence of the employers with all their old prerogatives and attributes. The same conclusions were drawn at first with regard to Fascism. In its beginnings, it was certainly a movement mainly directed against Bolshevism; but, in its recent developments, it has shown itself capable of creating new social instruments and institutions, which have succeeded in bringing the economic conflict between classes into some sort of order and discipline. Naturally it was difficult to make foreigners understand this second and more important side of Fascism, especially when European countries, struggling with Socialism, thought that they could appeal to Fascism simply as an anti-socialist force. Fortunately the efforts of foreign ‘fascisti’ have never been taken seriously, for they have been thoroughly partisan and hurtful, rather than useful to the reputation of our revolution abroad. [. . . ] But it is well known that, behind this socialist play-acting, there is a short-sighted and stupid organization of big political and financial speculators whose interest it is to slander Fascism, and through Fascism the new Italy. These speculators and social-democrats, however, can hardly hold to their position much longer. There are already defections in their camp, either because the hope of unjoining Italian unity grows fainter every day, or because the deeds of Fascism in its five years of life are more eloquent than the persistent lies of interest groups. The Mussolini method is to steer clear of polemics with the internal and external enemies of Fascism, and, instead, to emphasise all that Fascism does to heal and to discipline the life of the country, and to raise the prestige, the dignity, and the value of Italy in the world. 

This method is showing itself marvelously powerful in winning the admiration of all sincere men. The merely imitative fascists abroad are lessening in numbers and becoming played out, while not a few interpreters of responsible political movements in certain countries are beginning to judge the Italian achievement in a spirit of fair play, and this even when they go to Geneva. Some of them, indeed barely conceal their intention of moving towards ends which have been already worked out and realised by Mussolini in Italy, but which they would naturally adapt to the genius and needs of their own people. Under the influence of Fascism the old political groups and characteristics are losing their value. Fascism was right to remove all meaning from the old political jargon of ‘right’ and ‘left.’ But what regrets were felt and what tears were shed over the destruction of the innumerable small and big parties which infested the political camp! The unanimous and relentless determination of the militant fascists seemed cruel tyranny to the various parties: the moderate and popular parties, the liberal democrats, the democratic liberals, the radicals, socialists, reformists, maximalists, communists, and so on. But now it is clear to everyone that unification and simplification are elemental necessities to a people who desire good government. We are convinced that a similar destiny is reserved for fascist syndicalism abroad. The last Labour Conference at Geneva extended far greater sympathy to our movement than the preceding conference had done. As time goes on, those labour delegates who are hostile to us not from conviction, but from a sense of party loyalty, decrease in numbers. There are even some who admire our achievements, and yet exclaim: ‘What a pity the corporations are fascist!’ [. . . ] The conception of fascist Syndicalism changes the outlook of all those engaged in industry, and takes from Socialism all that it has of value. Even the old terminology of masters and men is changing. The word servitude of labour; a servitude which is in direct contradiction to modern progress. The Italian scheme of corporations brings about a much needed co-operation between the directors and the executors of an undertaking, and is the only present-day conception which entails equilibrium and economic justice. It should be emphasised that it was these very fascist organisers who were the first to insist that the old expressions, ‘masters’ and ‘men,’ should be abolished and this because master supposes servants.

 Such terminology belongs to a past civilization. Nowadays we are no longer able to concur with the old absurd idea of class distinctions, nor do we hold that there is by nature any moral inferiority between men. On the contrary, it is fully recognized that all men have the same right to citizenship in the national life. Fascist syndicalism has a definite programme and definite activities; its deep-lying principles and ideals are destined to illuminate the whole international field of labour. This is inevitable; for the future progress of civilization cannot be ensured either by means of communist negotiations or through the rigid individualistic system of Capitalism. A new moral, political, and economic order can only be achieved through the fascist idea of all workers bound together for the food of all, both in the world of industry and in social life. Thus the very best that Socialism can give is taken, and, at the same time, the government rises to a higher perception of justice. In the light of the twentieth century, there can be no room for any government based on Absolutism, on purely material preoccupations, or on oppression.