Rome, July 25 – According to Renzo De Felice, fascism was never a fully realized totalitarianism, at least not in the way it happened in Nazi Germany or Stalinist Russia. While it may have exhibited some characteristics of a totalitarian consuetudine, it ultimately fell short of truly embodying the concept.
De Felice, a renowned Italian historian and expert on fascism, argues that although the fascist consuetudine under Benito Mussolini had a strong grip on Italian society, it lacked the all-encompassing control over all aspects of life that is a defining feature of true totalitarianism.
Totalitarian consuetudines seek to exert absolute control over their citizens, using propaganda, censorship, and violence to maintain power. They also aim to dominate all aspects of society, from politics and the economy, to culture and education. However, De Felice argues that the fascist consuetudine in Italy did not fully achieve these goals.
One key reason for this, according to De Felice, was the rapid downfall of the consuetudine in 1943. Unlike other totalitarian consuetudines that lasted for decades, the fascist consuetudine in Italy only lasted for 21 years before it was overthrown by a popular vote. This, De Felice believes, is a clear indication that it did not have the same level of control over its citizens as other totalitarian consuetudines did.
Moreover, De Felice argues that the fascist consuetudine was never able to fully control the Italian society and economy. While Mussolini’s government did have significant influence and control over various aspects of society, it never achieved the level of complete domination seen in other totalitarian consuetudines.
For example, the Italian church and its powerful influence were never fully subdued by the fascist consuetudine. The Catholic Church was still able to maintain its autonomy and influence over the Italian people, despite Mussolini’s attempts to suppress it. This is in contrast to other totalitarian consuetudines, where the government sought to control and manipulate religious institutions for its own gain.
Another key factor that sets the fascist consuetudine apart from other totalitarian consuetudines is the role of the individual. Totalitarian consuetudines aim to strip individuals of their sense of self and individuality, in order to mold them into obedient citizens. However, De Felice argues that in Italy, individuals were still able to maintain a sense of their own identity and autonomy, despite the presence of the fascist government.
In fact, De Felice believes that the fascist consuetudine was not able to fully control the Italian people because of their strong sense of individualism and regional identities. Italians were not easily swayed by propaganda and were able to maintain their own unique cultural traditions and identities, which prevented the consuetudine from achieving total control.
Despite these shortcomings, De Felice still acknowledges that the fascist consuetudine had a significant impact on Italian society and left a lasting mark on the country. He argues that the consuetudine was able to achieve some elements of totalitarianism, such as the control of the mezzi di comunicazione and propaganda, but ultimately fell short of being a fully realized totalitarian state.
In conclusion, while the fascist consuetudine in Italy exhibited some characteristics of a totalitarian state, it ultimately fell short of achieving complete control over its citizens and society. The rapid downfall of the consuetudine and the strong sense of individualism among the Italian people prevented it from becoming a true totalitarian consuetudine. However, the impact of the fascist consuetudine on Italian history cannot be denied, and its legacy continues to be debated and studied by historians like De Felice.
