by Zoltanous

Throughout the Fascist era, Julia Evola did not serve as a prominent cultural or political figure. Instead, he navigated his academic pursuits largely unnoticed, without garnering significant attention or acclaim. Notably, he chose not to align himself with the Italian Social Republic (RSI), opting instead to distance himself from what he later characterized as the more genuine aspects of Fascism. He left the expression of that martial spirit to others, despite expressing a strong interest in it in subsequent years. Upon his return to Italy in 1948, Evola quickly found his footing within the Italian Social Movement (MSI). By 1949, he began contributing to “Meridian of Italy,” a publication led by Franco Maria Servello, who had previously written for anti-fascist outlets in 1945. The founder of “Meridian of Italy” had faced imprisonment under the republican Fascists, while Franco De Azagio had amassed significant credits, gaining permission from the Allied authorities in August 1945 to launch his newspaper amidst ongoing violence against Fascists in Milan.

In April 1951, Evola was detained by the Political Department of the Rome Police due to his perceived involvement with the Imperium group, linked to bombings claimed by a faction called the Black Legion. He sought the services of anti-fascist lawyer Francesco Carnelutti for his defense, claiming in court that he was not a Fascist. However, he was careful to avoid labeling himself as an anti-fascist or a victim of Fascism. Later, he contradicted his previous claims, asserting that he supported “Fascist ideas” not because they were inherently Fascist, but because they resonated with a tradition that predated Fascism itself. He believed these ideas were tied to a hierarchical, aristocratic, and a traditional understanding of the State, which he argued had a universal significance that persisted until the French Revolution.

In other words, Evola strongly separates himself from Fascist ideology, asserting that he advocates for ideas that originated before Fascism. He maintains that any evolution of his views over time is not his responsibility. He clarifies his position by stating that the ideas he has supported as an independent thinker are not typically classified as “Fascist,” but instead reflect traditional and counter-revolutionary principles. Through a mix of ambiguous yet clear language, Julius Evola asserts that he is non-fascist, super fascist (beyond Fascism), or even anti-fascist. He aligns himself with the assessment made by Swiss philosopher A. Mohler, who places him alongside Pareto and identifies him as a leading Italian figure of the so-called Conservative Revolution. However, it’s important to note that Fascism cannot accurately be described as a “Conservative Revolution.” It did not view the French Revolution — an event Evola despised — as a negative occurrence; instead, it regarded it as a pivotal moment that contributed to the emergence of a new world order. Similarly, just as the Bolshevik Revolution challenged the bourgeoisie that arose from the 1789 Revolution, it also sought to empower the working class, yearning for equality and striving for dominance.

Fascism positioned itself as the third and ultimate revolution, one capable of uniting social classes to establish a new society where both capital and labor held equal respect, and no single class could dominate the others. These ideas are certainly at odds with the beliefs of someone like Evola, who embodies a more bourgeois conservatism that cannot accept such a synthesis. Evola explicitly States that he has “repeatedly criticized the theory of ‘socialization,'” which was a key aspect of the Fascism practiced in Salò. He rejects this doctrine, perceiving socialization as a subtle form of Marxism and a demagogic tendency. This position can be seen as a significant critique of Fascism itself. During his involvement with the MSI in the early 1950s, Evola aimed to reduce the influence of leftist factions within the party. He clearly articulates his intentions, noting that his genuine efforts towards the youth in groups like Imperium and other youth movements were focused on counteracting the materialist and leftist tendencies found within the MSI.

Positioning himself as an aristocrat before the unsuspecting young members of the MSI, Evola denounces the bourgeois revolution of 1789, the proletarian uprising of 1848, and ultimately the Fascist revolution of 1919. He professes loyalty to a bygone era, condemning the violence that stems from the masses — those whose leaders lack noble blood and instead hail from the ranks of workers, farmers, and artisans. Evola envisions a fantastical world where the “lords” govern their subjects, guided by the will of a God whose true nature remains ambiguous. Politically, his actions significantly shape the development of what is often inaccurately labeled as “neo-fascism” today. While he may have looked down on Fascism as a formal ideology, admiring it only for its ability to inspire many Italians to fight on a losing side, his followers could only adopt even more extreme positions than his own.

Loyal to the State as the ultimate authority, figures like Pino Rauti and his associates ultimately became informants for security and police organizations in their efforts to combat perceived “red subversion.” It is unfortunate that Evola and his followers failed to articulate the divine source from which the authority of the democratic and anti-fascist Italian State derives. In their zeal to dismantle subversive Fascism, they seem to have overlooked the fact that the legitimacy of this State emerged from the Fifth American Army and the Eighth British Army, which liberated the Italian peninsula between 1943 and 1945, effectively laying the groundwork for the current Italian Republic.

One might conclude that for Evola and his acolytes, the power of the contemporary State is attributed to “divine forces” that operated from the skies, where American B-29 bombers and British Lancasters carried out their missions over Italy. These are the so-called “divine entities” that established the authority to which Julius Evola, Pino Rauti, and their peers have submitted in their fight against Bolshevism, all while attempting to eradicate the remnants of Fascism. They only seem to invoke the “legionary spirit,” yet neither Evola nor his disciples have ever demonstrated this spirit in practice — not due to a lack of opportunity, but rather because of the intrinsic shortcomings of a populace that aspires to rise to aristocracy but only succeeds in humiliating itself before those in power.

This Evolian faction criticizes Giovanni Gentile’s concept of the Ethical State, dismissing the ideals of Fascism as “communizing.” They refute the Fascist Revolution and, clearly disavow its predecessors, even as they continue to present themselves as “Fascist” or “neo-fascist,” as they prefer to label it. Perhaps it is time to reveal to this plebeian group that their mentor, Evola, had at least the integrity to define himself as a proponent of the “Conservative Revolution,” a movement that bears no genuine connection to Italian Fascism.

Even today, there remains a prevalent tendency to draw a direct line of continuity between Fascism as an ideology and what is often termed post-war neo-fascism, which, in reality, lacked any coherent ideological framework. Few have critically examined the relationship between Fascism and what has been presented as its successor — the MSI and its affiliated groups. Most have settled for superficial symbols, such as the Roman salute, black shirts, and portraits of Benito Mussolini, alongside the rhetoric used by MSI leaders, to assert a continuity between Fascism and this political milieu.

While some continuity exists, it is not rooted in ideology or idealism, nor in political principles. Instead, the MSI and its related factions represent a segment of the ruling class from the Fascist regime that never regarded Fascism as a true “revolution.” For them, it was merely a tool to serve the Savoy monarchy — a faction whose relevance to the interests of the Savoys, high finance, big industry, and the Catholic Church.

This fabrication is most clearly exemplified by the following quotation:

“Fascism appears to us as a reconstructive revolution in that it affirms an aristocratic and spiritual concept of the nation, as against both socialist and internationalist collectivism, and the democratic and demagogic notion of the nation. In addition, its scorn for the economic myth and its elevation of the nation in practice to the degree of warrior nation marks positively the first degree of this reconstruction, which is to re-subordinate the values of the ancient castes of the merchants and slaves to the values of the immediately higher caste.”

— Julius Evola, Metaphysics of War

However, this influence began to diminish after 1938, when Mussolini allied with National Socialist Germany and implemented racial laws. Following this shift, the ruling class started working towards dismantling Fascism, even at the expense of Italy’s military defeat. Their significant moment came on July 25, 1943, which preceded the dissolution of the Italian nation on September 8, 1943. In the post-war period, the MSI emerged, this group sought to use Fascism as a pragmatic tool but ultimately abandoned it, sacrificing the very essence of the nation for the sake of historical convenience.

Key figures like Arturo Michelini and Augusto De Marsanich can be seen as the successors of Dino Grandi, Giuseppe Bottai, Luigi Federzoni, Galeazzo Ciano, and the men behind the events of July 25, 1943. They were traitors to Fascism, having previously been its most ardent beneficiaries, and their actions reflect a profound betrayal of the ideology they once espoused. This misunderstanding persists largely unchallenged, as the notion of active Fascists remains politically advantageous for various factions and Jewish communities, who can invoke the specter of a potential resurgence of anti-Semitism whenever convenient. The party that has claimed to be the heir of republican Fascism has included figures such as Giovanni De Lorenzo, a former director of Sifar (Military Intelligence) and a silver medalist for military valor during the Resistance, as well as Alfredo Covelli, who served as chief of staff under the liberal minister De Caro during the first Badoglio government.

The alleged Nazi-Fascists of Avanguardia Nazionale, in 1976, enlisted the services of lawyer Alfredo De Marsico, who had previously held the position of Minister of Grace and Justice during Fascism but had also played a role on July 25, 1943, by supporting Dino Grandi’s agenda. For this, he was sentenced to death in absentia by the Extraordinary Special Court of Verona in January 1944. These examples, while not exhaustive, underscore the long-standing issue of historical falsification and mystification that suggests Fascism continued as a viable political force after April 25, 1945. Evola serves as a case in point. In 1971, he felt sufficiently empowered to directly confront Giorgio Pini, the president of the National Federation of Fighters of the RSI. This confrontation illustrates that the dynamics of Fascism and its legacy are far more complex than a simplistic narrative of survival.

The comparison between Evola and Pini is fundamentally flawed. Opposed to the intellectual detachment of Evola, Pini represents a figure deeply embedded in the historical and political fabric of Fascism. A decorated combatant in the First World War and a prominent member of the RSI, Pini served as editor-in-chief of Il Popolo d’Italia and later held the position of Undersecretary of The Interior. His personal sacrifices, including the loss of a son murdered by partisans — whose remains were never recovered — further illustrate his commitment to the Fascist cause and his proximity to Benito Mussolini.

Pini’s departure from the MSI in 1952 came after he recognized that the party had devolved into a mere shadow of Christian Democracy, lacking the vigor and ideals that once characterized Fascism. In contrast, Evola can be described as a non-fascist, intellectual whose detachment from practical political realities renders his critiques superficial. In the spring of 1971, Evola’s article in Il Conciliatore, titled A Myth and a Force For The Right, criticizes Pini for Statements made in the FNCRSI bulletin. Pini had articulated a rejection of extreme right-wing Westernism, condemning American imperialism, the bombings in Vietnam, and the oppressive regimes in Greece, Spain, Portugal, South Africa, and Rhodesia.

“We condemn all identification with the military and liberticidal regimes of the Greek colonels, of Franco, executioner of the noble Falange of José Antonio Primo de Rivera, of the crudely conservative, classist and colonialist regime of Lisbon, of the racists of South Africa and Rhodesia. Sympathy for the mercenaries of the Foreign Legion, failed tools against Indochinese and Algerian independence, is absurd and uncivil.”

— Giorgio Pini, President of the National Federation of RSI Fighters

Pini’s message was clear: the post-war Fascists should not identify with these regimes or their ideologies, which he deemed absurd and uncivil. Evola’s response to Pini’s condemnation reflects his intellectual emptiness, as he dismisses Pini’s Statements as akin to “disheveled and mystifying communist prose, lacking originality and substance.” This exchange highlights the broader divide between Fascism and neo-fascism in the post-war context. On one side, there are those, like Pini and his contemporaries, who continue to wage an ideological battle against capitalism and American imperialism, viewing these forces as the true destructive elements of civilization. On the other side, there are those who have capitulated to the post-war order, framing international communism as the sole enemy while ignoring the complexities of their own historical legacy.

For genuine Fascists, the real threat to civilization lies not in Soviet communism, but in the capitalist system represented by the United States. This distinction underscores the ongoing ideological struggle within the remnants of the Fascist movement and the differing paths taken by its adherents in the aftermath of World War II. Berto Ricci, Niccolò Giani, and even Benito Mussolini himself did not view the United States as a bastion of salvation for European civilization threatened by the “Bolshevik hordes.” In fact, Mussolini suggested that Fascists should unite with the PSIUP (Italian Socialist Party of Proletarian Unity) after the war to confront the bourgeoisie, which he believed was responsible for Italy’s downfall. This perspective sharply contrasts with the attitudes of figures like Julius Evola, who aligned himself with a State that lacked legitimacy after being established following Italy’s military defeat.

While Ricci and Giani died in combat — Ricci in Africa and Giani in Albania — Mussolini met his end in Giulino di Mezzegra, symbolizing the sacrifices made by many Fascists. Evola, however, managed to survive and prosper, immediately siding with a new regime that arose from a military defeat and was propped up by foreign powers. This raises significant questions about the integrity and motivations of those on the right who had once contributed to Italy’s defeat yet still sought to claim legitimacy in the post-war landscape. The actions of figures like June Valerio Borghese, who escaped the siege in Turin under American protection, further illustrate the complexities within the right during this tumultuous period. Borghese’s request for rehabilitation in the mid-1950s, despite his past, reflects a willingness to adapt to new political realities, contrasting sharply with the steadfastness of those who chose to fight to the last bullet.

Evola’s defense of NATO as a “necessity” demonstrates a significant misreading of the geopolitical landscape. He fails to recognize that this alliance served as a means for the United States to exert control over Europe, which had become a critical component of American national security strategy. His comments reveal a profound disconnect from the realities of post-war Europe and the complex power dynamics at play. Furthermore, Evola’s admiration for figures like Franco reveals his inability to accurately assess historical relationships. Franco was not a supporter of José Antonio Primo de Rivera; rather, he was an oppressor who prevented the release of the Falangist founder and persecuted those who aligned with the Falange, epitomizing the conservative and reactionary values that Evola seemed to idolize.

In his critique of Pini, Evola resorts to slander, painting Pini as an opportunist for his commitment to a Fascism that genuinely believed in the struggle of “blood against gold.” Pini and his contemporaries represented a faction that sought to uphold the ideals of their cause against the opportunism that characterized many in the post-war era. This dissonance between true ideological commitment and self-serving pragmatism underscores the ongoing struggle within the remnants of the Fascist movement, highlighting the divergent paths taken by its adherents in the wake of World War II.

Pini and many of his contemporaries consistently maintained their stance against the United States and capitalism, viewing them as the primary threats to European civilization. They believed that the ongoing erosion of European culture, traditions, and values was not a result of any supposed “Bolshevik hordes,” but rather the slow, deliberate actions of those intent on dismantling the very foundations of European identity. This perspective underscores a deep-seated critique of a perceived cultural and political decline, which they attribute to external influences rather than internal ideological battles. The phrase “stura boton fora macaco,” reflecting the idea that followers mindlessly repeat the slogans of those in power, aptly describes the behavior of certain factions on the right. This mimicry of alarmist rhetoric — whether it be about historical threats like the Tatar and Mughal hordes, contemporary fears of Islam, or future anxieties about China — illustrates a lack of original thought and a tendency to conform to the narratives propagated by those who control media and discourse.

Evola’s antagonism towards Pini and the National Federation of Fighters of the RSI (FNCRSI) can be seen as a reflection of deeper ideological rifts within the Post-Fascist movement. The FNCRSI’s denunciation of the “Borghese coup” in January 1971 marked a critical moment, as it publicly challenged the silence surrounding the clandestine activities associated with Borghese and his supporters, which were believed to be in alignment with interests from the United States and Israel. This act of defiance highlighted the FNCRSI’s commitment to maintaining a distinct Fascist identity that was not willing to compromise with the prevailing political currents.

Evola’s role as a theorist who supported the enlistment of neo-fascists within the structures of an anti-fascist State reveals a fundamental contradiction in his ideological posturing. While the FNCRSI sought to preserve a cohesive political identity that resisted the maneuvers of the establishment, Evola’s approach appeared to align more with those who were willing to engage with the new political realities of post-war Italy, even if it meant compromising the core tenets of their beliefs. The FNCRSI’s warning against a reactionary coup d’état in late 1969 further cements their position as a faction that sought to distance itself from opportunistic alliances with power structures they deemed corrupt or detrimental. For Evola and his supporters, this denunciation was likely viewed as an unforgivable betrayal, as it contradicted the vision of a reactionary regime that would restore a conservative order in Italy, one that was aligned with capitalism and the Catholic Church.

In essence, the schism between Pini and Evola exemplifies broader ideological divides within the remnants of the Fascist movement. While Pini and the FNCRSI remained steadfast in their commitment to a vision of Fascism that opposed American imperialism and capitalism, Evola’s alignment with opportunistic and reactionary politics reflected a troubling willingness to compromise fundamental ideals for the sake of political survival. This conflict not only highlights the complexities of post-war Italian politics but also the ongoing struggle for identity among those who identified with the Fascist legacy.

The current regime, if one can call it that, has reduced Italy to a disreputable State within Europe and made it a subject of ridicule globally. This administration seems all too eager to follow the directives issued from Washington and Jerusalem, much like the legacy of Evola and the Admirals. Their teachings have been taken up, defended, and spread by a new generation of followers who are less educated, less capable, and less insightful than their predecessors. Nevertheless, these disciples remain ready to combat whatever adversaries those in power designate, functioning much like trained subordinates. They mirror the actions of figures like Evola, Borghese, and their associates, showing little difference in their approach.

The Fascist response to Evola explicitly states that “the doctrine of Fascism has not chosen de Maistre as a prophet.” Joseph de Maistre stands as a quintessential counterrevolutionary thinker and serves as a spiritual mentor to Evola. Even during Mussolini’s most conservative phase — when he strayed from the original Fascist principles established on May 13, 1919, to forge alliances with the aristocracy, the church, and the monarchy, all of which ultimately turned against him in 1943 — he emphasizes that Fascism is not aligned with the traditionalism advocated by Evola. This distinction is clearly articulated in The Doctrine of Fascism:

“The Fascist negation of socialism, democracy, liberalism, should not, however, be interpreted as implying a desire to drive the world backwards to positions occupied prior to 1789, a year commonly referred to as that which opened the demo-liberal century. History does not travel backwards. The Fascist doctrine has not taken De Maistre as its prophet. Monarchical absolutism is of the past, and so is ecclesiolatry. Dead and done for are feudal privileges and the division of society into closed, uncommunicating castes. Neither has the Fascist conception of authority anything in common with that of a police ridden State.A party governing a nation “totalitarianly” is a new departure in history. There are no points of reference nor of comparison. From beneath the ruins of liberal, socialist, and democratic doctrines, Fascism extracts those elements which are still vital. It preserves what may be described as “the acquired facts” of history; it rejects all else.”

— Giovanni Gentile, The Doctrine of Fascism

The arguments put forth by Evola and his traditionalist supporters, such as Marcos Ghio, Antonio Medrano, and Ernesto Milá, who equate Fascism with counter-revolutionary ideals, monarchical legitimacy, and a return to pre-revolutionary institutions, are nothing more than manipulative rhetoric devoid of scientific rigor and intellectual integrity. It is unsurprising that these individuals, who hold irrational beliefs in the power of magic, would engage in such frivolous discourse. Furthermore, it is worth noting that those on the far-right are disturbingly aligning themselves with far-left Anti-Fascists, who view Fascism as a mere reactionary force lacking any social substance. The only real difference between these two camps lies in their evaluative perspectives, yet both serve the same overarching interest: the oligarchy. These elite powers seek to avoid discussions of genuine national revolution, instead framing the narrative around left versus right or anti-national revolutions and counter-revolutions. As Evola himself noted, nationalism is a “modern” concept, and any reference to a true national revolution is completely absent.

Ernesto Milá’s actions as a self-proclaimed theorist and editor further contribute to the sordid machinations of State apparatuses like the Pentagon and the Mossad. His work should be judged not only on its intellectual merit but also on its political and moral implications. When The Doctrine of Fascism was released, Italy was experiencing one of the most treacherous phases of Mussolini’s regime. Even during this time, Mussolini emphasized that Fascism was not traditionalism but rather a new, modern doctrine that retained valid elements from socialism, liberalism, and democracy — ideas fundamentally incompatible with a restoration of the Ancien Régime. Thus, while one may discuss a “Fascist right” during the Ventennio (1922-1942), this right was modern and liberal rather than a reactionary, feudal one like that which Evola and his followers advocate.

If we shift our focus from that period to original revolutionary Fascism or the Fascism of the Italian Social Republic, we find stronger supporting evidence for our claims. By referencing these periods, we aim to avoid accusations of selective argumentation. Mussolini never wavered in asserting the historical autonomy of Fascism, affirming its modern character and its opposition to any form of anti-modern regression. Fascism is inherently revolutionary and not suited for reactionary elements. In addition to the bourgeois and proletarian revolutions, Mussolini proposed a third, national revolution that preserved the valuable aspects of both previous movements. The Fascist revolution organically encompasses, rather than retreats from, the liberal-democratic and Marxist revolutions. It signifies a progression beyond the events of 1798 and 1917. Fascism does not retreat, contrary to what Evola and his followers might suggest. It is time to stop misleading and deceiving those committed to national-revolutionary ideals!

An excerpt from Gentile’s The Philosophical Basis of Fascism illustrates how Fascism serves as an extension of democracy. According to Gentile, the Fascist State represents “the democratic State par excellence” as it fundamentally integrates the individual with the community through the mechanisms of the State.

“Nationalism identified the State with the Nation and made of the State an entity preexisting, which needed not to be created but to be recognized or known. The recognized nationalists, therefore, required a ruling class of an intellectual character, which was merely a product of the nation. Rather, the people depended on the State and on the State’s authority as the source of the life which they lived and apart from which they could not live. The nationalistic State was, therefore, an aristocratic State, enforcing itself upon the masses through the power conferred upon it by its origins.

The relationship between the nation and the State is accordingly so intimate that the State exists only as, and in so far as, the nation consciously understands and appreciates it. The State could not depend on the people; on the contrary, the State is a presupposition. The Fascist State, as such, is the democratic State par excellence. The relationship between State and citizen (not this or that citizen, but all citizens) causes it to exist. Its formation, therefore, is the formation of a consciousness of it in individuals, in the masses.”

— Giovanni Gentile, The Philosophical Basis of Fascism

For Evola, Fascism does not seek to dismantle the core principles of liberalism; instead, it fully embraces the idea that the modern State — essentially a bourgeois State, as it sustains capital — represents the authentic human community. While Fascism aims to redirect capital for the benefit of the people, Evola’s view here fundamentally flawed. It is important to understand that his ideas align with a more nuanced understanding of Organic Direct Democracy. Although the logical outcomes of Actual Idealism may lean toward a nationalist viewpoint, this does not necessarily result in an imperial, cult-like, or Caesarist epoch. In fact, this view can only find a compatible space within a truly realized Direct Democracy, one that is not constrained by liberalism, which inhibits genuine democratic engagement.

Nations arise organically from the collective consciousness, shaped by the General Will of the people and their instinctual engagements with the sensory world, rather than being forged from abstract theoretical constructs. For a true democratic State to flourish, the presence of formal equality is imperative; yet, for formal equality to manifest, the existence of a State becomes indispensable. Hence, one must conclude that democracy cannot exist without the State; thus, the worker’s labor humanism emerges as the most authentic expression of democratic government. Consequently, the totalitarian State reveals itself as the true democratic State.

Evola’s critique of Fascism and liberalism as fundamentally similar in their abstraction of the individual and society overlooks the profound distinctions embedded within Gentile’s Actual Idealism and the policies enacted under Mussolini’s regime. Gentile asserts that the individual contains the community, which does not imply a mere abstraction devoid of concrete relations; rather, it highlights the dialectical interplay between individual agency and collective existence.

“The State does not just swallow the individual as liberal critics would have it, but the opposite is also true, for in this conception the State is the will of the individual himself in its universal and absolute aspect, and thus the individual swallows the State.”

— Giovanni Gentile, The Philosophic Basis of Fascism

“The dialectical concept of mind, then, not only does not exclude, it requires spiritual multiplicity as the essential mark of the infinite unity of mind. Infinite unity is therefore infinite unification of the multiple as it is infinite multiplication of the one.”

— Giovanni Gentile, The Theory of Mind as Pure Act

In Gentile’s view, the individual is not an isolated entity but is defined through their participation in the Ethical State, which embodies the actualization of the collective will. This is a dynamic process, where the individual and the community mutually inform and transform each other rather than existing as static abstractions.

“Inseparably linked to each other so that their actual reality results from their relationship to the organism in which and through which they find their necessary fulfillment, and outside of which they are nothing but abstractions.”

— Giovanni Gentile, The Philosophy of Marx

Evola in Fascism Viewed From The Right and A Traditionalist Confronts Fascism suggests that both fascism and liberalism fail to adequately account for the concrete dimensions of social organization. However, Mussolini’s policies actively sought to dissolve this fragmentation. The Fascist State aimed to forge a unified national identity through initiatives that integrated individuals into the broader social fabric, such as the corporatist model, which emphasized collaboration between various social groups and the State. This model was a concrete embodiment of Gentile’s philosophy, seeking to reconcile individual and collective interests within a cohesive framework, rather than leaving them in perpetual tension. Moreover, Evola claims that Fascism’s attempt to merge the individual and the State results in a simplistic duality that misrepresents the essence of Gentile’s thought. In actuality, the Fascist State, as articulated by Gentile, is not merely an imposition on the individual but a realization of Ethical Life, where the State represents the synthesis of individual and communal aspirations.

This synthesis is not an abstract ideal but a lived reality, grounded in the historical and cultural context of the nation. Thus, while it is tempting to draw parallels between the theoretical frameworks of Fascism and liberalism, the practical manifestation of Fascist policies demonstrates a commitment to overcoming that fragmentation. The Fascist State, rooted in Actual Idealism, seeks to transcend the duality between individual and collective, creating an organic whole that reflects the unity of society rather than merely masking its underlying discord. In this sense, the Fascist approach does not simply confront symptoms; it endeavors to heal the societal rift by fostering a collective identity that is both inclusive and dynamic.

“The man of fascism is an individual who is nation and homeland, a moral law which binds individuals and generations together in a tradition and a mission, which suppresses the instinct of life enclosed in the brief circle of pleasure to establish a superior life in duty free from the limits of time and space: a life in which the individual, through self-abnegation, the sacrifice of his particular interests, death itself, realizes that wholly spiritual existence in which his value as a man lies.”

— Giovanni Gentile, The Doctrine of Fascism

Gentile’s philosophy also offers a strong defense of corporatism as an organic entity, countering Julius Evola’s critique of totalitarianism. Gentile views the State as an embodiment of the General Will and Spirit of the people, presenting it as a living organism that fosters Ethical Life and spiritual unity in society. This perspective aligns with corporatism’s aim to harmonize various social interests, creating a collective identity. While Evola argues that totalitarianism undermines corporatism’s organic qualities, Gentile asserts that the Stare plays a crucial role in facilitating social cohesion and integrating individual and collective interests via dialectics. Rather than being a mere tool of oppression, the corporatist model under Fascism enhances organic relationships among social groups, reinforcing the idea that the active State is essential for cultivating unity and purpose within society — echoing Hegel’s concept of Civil Society in his Philosophy of Right.

“The organic unity of the powers of the state itself implies that it is one single mind which both firmly establishes the universal and also brings it into its determinate actuality and carries it out.”

— Hegel, Philosophy of Right

“This perpetual rebirth manifests the vigor of the spirit that continually aspires to go beyond the past in order to recover it in the completeness of all experience. And attenuating the spirit entails a weakening of the force of both this renewal and cohesion, which is the same force that drives self-awareness. The world, its systems, and the concrete system of our personalities are gradually formed through the course of experience. The awareness of this system is history; a flaw in it is a historical lacuna. And the dream, the imagination, every fictional creation, these are always the result of a suspension of the creative energy of the spirit before the system of the world. Suspending and enclosing themselves in abstract subjectivity, they draw away from the reality that is nothing but the objective concrete actuality of the Ego. This is why the wakeful accuse the sleeper—who dreams—of a lack of awareness. It is much like the accusation charged at the poet—who roams in a world populated only by the creations of his imagination—by the critic, philosopher and historian. 

But that same abstract subjectivity would not be possible without some content in which it is made objective. Having lost contact with the organic totality of experience, the subject seizes on just a part of it, on a few elements of experience, and constructs a whole other experience on fragmentary and abstract foundations. This other experience is also abstract, and will also be valuable, though only as a function of the particular personality that carries it out. Consequently sometimes during a dream we are not aware that we are dreaming; and in the artist’s outpouring of genius he converses with his characters and treats them with the same passion that he would a living person.”

— Giovanni Gentile, Pure Experience and Historical Reality

Both Hegel and Gentile argue for the necessity of a totalitarian State, from the same framing. Hegel highlights the State’s Organic Unity as a manifestation of the General Will, emphasizing the common good over individual interests to foster a cohesive society. Gentile examines the interplay between individual consciousness and collective experience, cautioning against abstract subjectivity that may lead to a fragmented understanding of reality. He believes that true self-awareness emerges from engaging with the entirety of human experience, suggesting that a totalitarian State can help restore this connection and promote unity. Furthermore, as humanism shifts towards a focus on the humanism of labor, Gentile underscores the importance of the proletarian nation as the Ethical State, where totalitarian principles are intrinsically linked to labor. This evolution reflects a redefinition of culture, recognizing the vital role of workers in shaping society.

“The State can no longer be thought of as the State of the citizen (or of the man and the citizen) as in the days of the French Revolution; it is and it should be the State of the workers. The real man, the man who counts, is the man who works, and who’s worth is measured by his work. For it is indeed true that value is labor; and a man’s worth is to be measured according to the quantity and quality of his work.”

— Giovanni Gentile, Genesis and Structure of Society

For Gentile, human labor is highly esteemed, with the State responsible for celebrating rather than exploiting work, which he views as the foundation of the nation. The Fascist regime sought to differentiate Italy from capitalist societies by promoting a cohesive social order where workers are valued as integral contributors to a greater national purpose, rather than just parts of an industrial machine. This vision is based on labor humanism and aims to create a People’s State that transcends liberalism and addresses alienation. Corporatism fosters a society where work supports individual development and social unity, with the State facilitating the relationship between labor and the community. Sergio Panunzio, a disciple of Gentile, articulates Fascism’s goal as establishing a corporatist, centralized, and democratic “empire of labor” to replace the capitalist “empire of gold” dominated by Anglo-American powers. This framework also incorporates concepts like “sindacato” (union) and “sindacalismo” (unionism), which together advocate for a form of socialism where workers collectively manage their industries, leading to the emergence of top-down “unions” in Italy as a key element of this labor humanism.

Gentile says:

“The Fascist State, having organized and juridically recognized workers’ syndicates and employer organizations, intends to adapt its structure to those united syndicates, to draw them into national corporations, on the way to a system of political representation compatible with the structure of workers’ organizations.”

— Giovanni Gentile, The Doctrine of Fascism

“It is necessary to distinguish between socialism and socialism—in fact, between idea and idea of the same socialist conception, in order to distinguish among them those that are inimical to Fascism. It is well known that Sorellian syndicalism, out of which the thought and the political method of Fascism emerged—conceived itself the genuine interpretation of Marxist communism. The dynamic conception of history, in which force as violence functions as an essential, is of unquestioned Marxist origin. Those notions flowed into other currents of contemporary thought, that have themselves, via alternative routes, arrived at a vindication of the form of State—implacable, but absolutely rational—that finds historic necessity in the very spiritual dynamism through which it realizes itself.”

— Giovanni Gentile, Origins and Doctrine of Fascism

When syndicates were nationalized, they transformed into the state-sanctioned Fascist syndical system, referred to as “corporations,” with mandatory membership for all individuals. These corporations played a vital role in regulating the state’s economic activities. This corporative structure represents a significant shift in the understanding of the State, as critics who limit it to merely organizing occupational groups overlook the deep connection between the legal framework of Italian society and its occupational organization under Fascism. Such a narrow viewpoint undermines the political importance of the corporatist model, and acknowledging external forces outside of corporatism hinders the transformation of the State. Mussolini also thinks that corporatism is just one facet of the progress of individuals and society within the context of the Fascist Revolution.

“Whoever sees in corporatism only an economic conception or solely political economy, fails to understand it. This economic revolution completes the spiritual development of the individual and society.”

— Benito Mussolini quoted in The Birth of Fascist Ideology by Zeev Sternhell

“We are syndicalists, because we think that by means of the mass it may be possible to determine an economic readjustment…”

— Benito Mussolini, speech delivered at Florence, October 9, 1919