Hegemony.final

8/8/2019 Hegemony.final

1/8

The Loss of Hegemony and the Necessity of Fascism

Fascism will always be a minority movement1

From Italys unification up through the end of World War I, the landed property class

maintained complete hegemony over their territories through a system of clientele politics and

restricted suffrage. The form of hegemony differed by region in accordance with the social

relations of production. In the South, the propertied class maintained law and order internally,

without state assistance. Agriculture here was based on semi-feudal relations, which pre-dated

unification. The situation differed in the North and northernmost-Center regions where the pre-

unification relations of production were replaced by modern capitalistic wage labor free from

such bonds. As such, the northernmost propertied class was vulnerable to outside agitation,

which made them, as opposed to their southern kin, dependent on state intervention. This paper

aims to demonstrate that the northern landlords collaboration with the Fascists stemmed from

their diminishing hegemony over the economic and political spheres of their territories, coupled

with their diminishing clout within the central government. Fascism was a strictly northern

phenomenon, a successful attempt by the propertied class to regain their former stature.

Prior to 1861, the Italian provinces formed a tenuous patchwork of unevenly developed

regions consisting of modest industrial production to the north and great landed estates to the

south (Jones 14). Antonio Gramsci once claimed that the unification of Italy in 1861, the

Risorgimento (Resurgence), was in fact, a move to shore up these structural weaknesses found

throughout the peninsula (Morton 69). The consolidation of power brought about through the

Risorgimento was paved by an uneasy alliance between the northern commercial interests of

Piedmont and the semi-feudal latifundists of the south (Elazar, Hegemony 236). To create and

maintain its hegemony in the central state, the Liberal Party absorbed and assimilated its

opposition through a centrist policy oftrasformismo (Morton 98), chronically shifting

coalitions designed to incorporate as many interests as possible into a broad central alliance(Elazar, Hegemony 237). Trasformismo marginalized dissent, but at the expense of

establishing a system of clientele politics whereby the central state was now dependent upon its

provincial elites to provide parliamentary deputies favorable to the reigning coalition (Elazar,

Class 306). Provincial elites were the backbone of this system, providing agreeable deputies in

1 Mussolini, following the Fascist Partys defeat in 1919 (Seton Watson 572).


2/8

exchange for Liberal concessions (Elazar, Hegemony 238). The specific nature and content of

these concessions however, varied provincially with the predominate form of production found

throughout each region.

Italys provinces can be delineated into three distinct geographic regions of agricultural

production: North, Center, and South2. The level of hegemony exerted locally by elites within

each region was also predicated on their social relations of production (Elazar, Hegemony

242). The most dominant form of provincial hegemony exerted over the peasantry was found in

the latifundistSouth; here, the peasantry experienced almost absolute economic and personal

subjugation (Elazar, Hegemony 243). Peasants were bound to the latifundia through semi-

feudal bonds (Elazar, Violence 468) and perpetual debt (Elazar, Hegemony 243). The

latifundia perpetuated their own rule by guaranteeing a Liberal majority in parliament, which

they accomplished through electoral manipulation. At its most extreme, anti-Liberal opponents

were threatened, bludgeoned, besieged in their homes, leaders of the opposition were thrown

into prison (Elazar, Hegemony 238). The corruption was so extensive that in Sicily, the price

of votes was quoted openly in the newspapers, and private armies were allowed to intimidate

voters by every means up to and including assassination (Elazar, Hegemony 239). In

exchange for their patronage, the latifundia of the South were given complete autonomy over

their provinces while their interests in parliament were secured through their clientele relations

(Elazar, Hegemony 244).

Compared to the peasantry of the South, the mezzadria (sharecroppers) of central Italy

fared much better. Social relations of hegemony still existed, albeit in a paternal matrix. Unlike

his latifundistcounterpart who was characterized as an absentee landlord (Elazar, Hegemony

243, Snowden 82), a landlord in central Italy lived on his property and took an active interest in

his peasants wellbeing, often providing for them in times of crisis (Snowden 15). On the other

hand, he also exercised the right to regulate the private life of his partner (Snowden 11). In

theory, the landlord and mezzadro were equals, partners in both the production and yield of the

harvest; the landlord provided the tools, seed, and the land while the mezzadro provided the labor

(Snowden 8). This was the official view, which veiled much of the mezzadrias true

domination (Elazar, Hegemony 245, Snowden 16). In reality, the landlord owned the entire

2The North consisted of thirty-two provinces within the primary regions of Piedmont, Lombardy, and Emilia. It alsocontained the prosperous Po Valley, home to Italys industrialized agriculture and manufacturing. Fourteen

provinces throughout Tuscany, Umbria, and Marches composed the Center, while the remaining twenty-five

provinces including the islands of Sardinia and Sicily were located in the South (Elazar, Violence 468).

2


3/8

means of production the land, the peasant cottage, the seed, the fodder, the tools and

machinery of cultivation, and the work animals (Snowden 9). The mezzadria was required to

purchase these in addition to his contribution of labor (Elazar, Hegemony 245), often at

inflated prices (Snowden 10). Additionally, the debt accumulated over a peasants life was

passed from one generation to another, thus creating an enduring system of debt peonage

(Elazar, Hegemony 245). The mezzadria however, were deeply bonded to theirland, which

theysucceededto their heirs (Snowden 15, emphasis mine). A peasants entire life was lived and

worked on thepodere, a small family farm partitioned from the lords larger estate, thus the

ultimate subjugation of the mezzadria resided in the lords right of eviction (Snowden 9).

Unlike the traditional latifundia and mezzadria landlords, the northern agrari

(commercial landlords) were a new breed of proprietor (Elazar, Hegemony 247).3 By

applying modern, progressive, industrial techniques like mechanized farm equipment and

chemical fertilizers (Snowden 23) to traditional agricultural production, the agrari forged a new

commercial agriculture based on highly profitable industrial crops like sugar beets and hemp

(Elazar, Hegemony 246).4 This commercialization of agriculture had also produced a new

breed of peasant. Coming from industry and speaking the modern language of capitalism, the

agrari owned sprawling estates that operated on the basis of profit maximization. As such, they

employed mainly wage labour, mostly migrant day labourers, braccianti, who were usually

employed on a seasonal basis (Elazar, Hegemony 246). In point of fact, the farther north

one traveled throughout the Italian peninsula, the more elastic were the bonds between lord and

peasant. The rationalization behind this relationship was that the former personal bond between

owner and (worker) had frequently become a mere cash nexus (Snowden 23), susceptible to

outside agitation from Socialist and Syndicalist trade unions (Elazar, Class 306), which had

been organizing workers against their employers among the northern provinces since the late

nineteenth century (Elazar, Hegemony 246).

By the turn of the century, the North had become a battlefield of class struggle pitting

Socialist and Syndicalist trade unions against the agraris own trade federations. In 1907 the

agrari established the first Inter-provincial Landlords Federation which soon became the

most potent class organization in the Po valley (Elazar, Hegemony 248). Notwithstanding

3The agrari of the North were predominately commercial and industrial magnets who turned their business acumenand profit into land reclamation projects sponsored and subsidized by the government (Elazar, Hegemony 247).4While the Po Valley, Italys most profitable agricultural region, accounted for only 13% of its total arable land, ityielded one-third of its total agricultural output in 1910 (Elazar, Violence 468).

3


4/8

these militant anti-Socialist associations, the agrari of the North were still vulnerable to Socialist

agitation and more importantly, still very much dependent on the central state for intervention.

Unlike the latifundia who exerted their hegemony in the absence of state intervention, it was

precisely from intervention that the agrari of the North derived their authority and maintained

their dominance. In exchange for their support in parliament, the Liberal Party rewarded the

agrari through the prefecture. Prefects were the central states eyes and ears in the provinces;

they also enjoyed state-sanctioned authority over locally elected provincial administrations

(Elazar, Class 306). In 1898, the agrari of Bologna demanded and received state

intervention in putting down workers agitations; in response to their demands, the prefect of

Bologna dispatched troops against the workers, closed their labour organization and arrested the

strikers (Elazar, Class 306).

The agrari maintained their hegemony over the workers throughout the early part of the

twentieth century; however, by 1914 their dominance started to wane. World War I brought a

temporary reprieve while the agrari re-grouped under the restrictive policies of the IM

(Industrial Mobilization). Designed to ensure workplace discipline during the war (Tomassini

and Frost 63), the IM severely limited worker agency in their negotiations with management

(Tomassini and Frost 83). Policies implemented under the IM were extended to Italys

agricultural production and by extension, into the contractual relations between the braccianti

and the agrari. It was the situation following the war, when the artificial bonds of the IM were

removed, that severely challenged the agraris dominance.

Life did not return to the pre-war normalcy anticipated by the masses. In fact, the living

conditions following the war were even more abysmal than they had been throughout it. Between

1913 and 1919, the cost of living increased four-fold, then doubled again from 1919 to 1920.

Unemployment reached a high of 512,260 in 1921, up from 102,156 just the year before (Lewin

and Elazar 603). And for those employed, wages failed to keep up with the cost of living. Had

life returned to its pre-war condition, the agraris hegemony would have remained relatively

intact, but widespread riots and civil unrest following the war carried over into worker agitation.

At the wars conclusion there had been a total of 313 strikes involving 158,711 strikers. In 1919

however, that total increased 850% to 1,864 strikes encompassing an impressive 1,498,686

workers. And while the pace of strikes actually slowed between 1919 and 1920, the absolute

number of strikes and participants rose to 2,054 and 1,903,865 respectively; the bulk of which,

resulted in complete or substantial concessions to worker demands (Lewin and Elazar 603).

4


5/8

The formerly impenetrable veil ofagrari dominance had been pierced and the Socialist

trade unions were quick to capitalize on the agraris post-war weaknesses. By monopolizing the

labor market through union membership, the Socialist trade unions made a number of inroads

into the agraris former domain. Two of the most important concessions made to the unions

governed the number of workers required per acre of farmland, (the imponibile di mano

dopera), as well as a system of assignments that guaranteed an equal distribution of work (the

collocamento di classe) (Snowden 49). The rights of capital had been supplanted. Management

was on the defense.

Building upon their earlier successes in 1919, the unions pushed for even more

concessions the following year. The most impressive, effective, and damaging of these strikes

were the Great Agricultural Strike and the Occupation of the Factories. The Great Agricultural

Strike began in February 1920 as sharecroppers and agricultural workers went on strike

demanding a more favorable renegotiation of their existing contracts and the right to impose

their conditions of work on the employers (Lewin and Elazar 606). The strike, which lasted

more than six months left in its wake human victims, ruined crops, and deep rancor (Lewin

and Elazar 606), and cost the landowners over 120 million lira (Squeri 330). The strike was a

huge success; however, under their new contracts, sharecroppers received 60% of the harvest,

recognition of Socialist-controlled trade unions, and most importantly, the right to control their

own labor (Lewin and Elazar 606). The Occupation of the Factories began later that year, in

September, just two months prior to the local elections and at the height of the industrial strikes.

(I)n terms of duration, number of workers involved, and consequent damages, the Occupation

was unprecedented (involving) more than half a million workers in the metal, chemical,

rubber and ship-building industries (Lewin and Elazar 605).

Both strikes dealt a serious deathblow to management and to the hegemony of the agrari

of the North and North-Central provinces. Once, they had exerted complete control over the local

economy as well as the local political machinery, but after the Occupation, the stranglehold of

the old oligarchy seemed irreparably damaged. Traditionally, the agrari could rely on

intervention from the central state to suppress worker agitation; however, the Liberal Party was

still reeling in the aftermath of World War I and showed little interest in propping up the old

guard. At one point during the Occupation a representative of industry requesting state

intervention even demanded that the Premier, bombard the workers in the factories which they

had occupied; to which (the Premier) said, with his courteously ironic smile, Would you be

5


6/8

willing for me to begin the bombardment with your own factory? (Sforza 359). The old

oligarchy of the North was demoralized.

Organized strikes were a northern phenomena as workers agitations were virtually

unheard of in the South. Peasants in the latifundistSouth had no collective organization

(Elazar, Hegemony 244), and as such, their uprisings were sporadic and unorganized, and

easily put down. Furthermore, the neglect of the South appeared to be conscious decision on the

part of the Socialist Party as they believed the rural peasantry did not constitute a real

proletariat (Lewin and Elazar 610). Unlike the agrari of the North, the latifundia of the South

did not rely on state intervention to maintain their hegemony as neither the Socialist Party nor the

Socialist trade unions made inroads into either their economic or political domains (Elazar,

Hegemony 244). This discrepancy in the level of hegemony exerted locally between the

northern agrari and southern latifundia becomes readily apparent in the electoral politics just

prior to and after the war.

Historically,the old elites political hegemony was solidified through severe

restriction(s) on suffrage, based upon extensive literacy and property qualifications (Elazar,

Hegemony 236). These restrictions excluded the masses from participation in the political

arena while guaranteeing men of property an exclusive voice in parliament. Suffrage was

extended in 1913, and under this relaxed suffrage the Socialist party won 17% of the vote and 74

seats in parliament (Davis 196). The real strength of the Party, though, was demonstrated by their

showing in the local elections of 1914. Here, the Socialists made substantial inroads into the old

oligarchys political terrain by winning an unprecedented 400 communes and more importantly,

by electing Milans first Socialist administration and mayor (Levy 175). Once again, the war

would bring a temporary reprieve for the old landed elites; however, the stage had been set for an

inevitable showdown between the Socialists and the old oligarchy at the wars conclusion.

To alleviate some of the social unrest following World War I, Italy instituted universal

male suffrage and proportional representation marking the entrance of the masses to the

historical stage (Lewin and Elazar 602). The Socialist Party was well adept at converting

workers economic struggles into political gain. In the 1919 national elections, Italys first freely

held election under universal male suffrage, the Socialist Party received a third of the vote and

156 seats in parliament (Lewin and Elazar 608), while the Occupations of the following year,

provided a major impetus for the Socialist victory in the Administrative elections of 1920

(Elazar, Violence 474). Here, the Socialists won 25 or Italys 69 provincial councils and 2162

6


7/8

of its 8059 communal governments. Their greatest support, however, came from the former

agrari strongholds in the North and northern-Central regions (Squeri 328).

With the introduction of universal male suffrage, the northern agrari lost a great deal of

their ability to bring in the vote for the Liberal Party, and as a consequence, lost a great deal of

its clout in the central government. Once again, this loss of hegemony was only experienced by

the northern landlords as opposed to the southern latifundia, which maintained its hegemony in

the absence of Socialist encroachment. In the latifundia South, Liberals received the majority of

votes in 21 of its 22 provinces. In only one southern province, Caltanisetta, Sicily, did the

reigning Liberal Party receive fewer votes than Socialists (Elazar, Class 307). This situation

was reversed in the North and Center regions where the Socialists took 80% of the vote in

Emilia, 50% in Tuscany, 32% of Lombardys, and 30% of Umbrias. In some of the reddest

provinces, the red baronies, the Socialist Party nearly won complete control, including all of

Ferraras and Rovigos communes and 54 of Bolognas 61 communes (Squeri 328).

The Liberal government had a new constituency to cater to. This also cut into the

formers hegemony. In the aftermath of universal male suffrage and the growing popularity of

the Socialist Party, the government took extensive measures against the propertied class,

including, an increased taxation of wealth; compulsory accident insurance, employers

participation in old age and disability insurance; capital levy, increase of death duties, higher

taxation of high incomes and special measures to reduce tax evasion (Elazar, Violence

475). The old oligarchy found itself alone against a growing Socialist menace underscored by

what it regarded as the patent failure of the government to defend the rights of property

(Snowden 53). In the absence of state intervention, the agrari of the North and Center provinces

turned to thefasci (fascists) to regain control of their interests, both economically and politically.

The latifundia, secure in their position of dominance, had no such need, and no such motivation.

Following their defeat at the polls in 1920, the agrari, set up an internal system of

taxation among its members on behalf of the (fasci) the famous resistance fund and

liberally supplied it with funds (Snowden 56). With these funds the most powerful agrari

founded localfasci branches within their provincial capitals.5 Within weeks of the agraris

defeat, a wave of fascist murder, assault, and intimidation was unleashed to destroy every

vestige of Socialist influence (Snowden 56). The agraris plan was a traditional two-pronged

carrot and stick approach. Those who joined the Fascist syndicates were guaranteed employment,

5For an extensive list of the aristocracy that formed, led, or joined the fasci unions see Snowden 57-58.

7


8/8

better pay, and offered articles of first necessity at prices below the market level (Snowden

65). Additionally, there was a realchance of improving ones life under the Fascist syndicates.

Land to those who work it! became the Fascist call (Snowden 82, emphasis mine). This call

was backed by the agrari who ensured the Fascist Syndicates had enough land to give away.

In March of 1921, thefasci made two distributions of 4,000 and 3,000 hectares apiece, instantly

(transforming) disgruntled wage labourers into lessees and tiny proprietors (Snowden 82). Not

everyone joined voluntarily, though. Those who did not were forced to join the syndicates at the

point of a gun (Elazar, Class 309). Whole Socialist leagues passed en mass into Fascist

syndicate(s) (Elazar, Class 309). After securing the labor market the Fascists turned their

attention to the local Socialist administrations, overthrowing the 25 provincial governments won

by the Socialists the year before. Fascist violence and takeovers were distinctly a northern

phenomena and virtually non-existent in the South, where the latifundia and Liberal Party

maintained their strength (Elazar, Class 311).

At the end of the day, the combination of Fascists violence and benevolence halted the

Socialist Party and trade unions intrusion into agraris economic and political domains, thus

bringing both labor and local power back under theircontrol. The agraris collaboration with the

Fascists was a calculated move to restore the hegemony they had been hemorrhaging since the

expansion of suffrage before World War I. The post-war economy exasperated the situation as

widespread riots were focused by Socialist trade unions into target-specific strikes. The

introduction of universal male suffrage gave the Socialists another weapon in their struggle

against the agrari as they were able to translate these strikes into political gain. Traditionally, the

agrari would have confronted such challenges head-on with the aid of the central state; however,

with the introduction of universal male suffrage, the state had another constituency to cater to.

This breach of faith by the central state led the agrari to seek an alliance with the Fascists and

underwrite their movement.

8

Documents

Hegemony.final