>but, just to satisfy yer request fer lucidity:
>fascism is  the reactionary form of populism;
>communism,  the progressive.
>together they constitute that unitary dialectic called the working class,
>and, of course, both stand at war with the bourgeoisie.
 
Well, I'm not sure binaries such as that are really helpful. As a young
man, Mussolini was a dedicated socialist (as his father had been), but it's
important to note that in the first decades of this century Marx's thought
was still relatively new. That's especially true in Italy, and as a result
some idiosyncratic perspectives arose. A number of historians emphasize the
Marxist and socialist underpinnings of fascism: A. James Gregor calls
Italian fascism a "Marxist heresy."
 
It's also important to note that many of the "nations" which we North
Americans like to think are ancient are fairly recent, at least as
political entities. If I'm remembering right (and Fabio can correct me if
I'm off) Italy isn't unified until 1861, and Rome isn't included in that
union until 1870. Nationalism thus becomes a new and powerful political
force, especially in WWII, when many Italians believe a victory will bring
them Trieste, Fiume and other territories. Fascism becomes a way to
"complete" the Risorgimento.
 
Speaking of Fiume, I'm amazed that North Americans pay so little attention
to Gabriele D'Annunzio's short-lived republic there. D'Annunzio seized
control of the city when it became apparent it would go not to Italy but to
the new nation of Yugoslavia (I think), and he quickly implemented what
amounted to a dry-run for fascism: he refined the balcony address, made one
of the first political radio speeches (with Marconi, no less), and patched
together a political platform that fused left and right. He planned to
establish an Anti-League of Nations that would include the Irish,
Palestinians, Montenegrins and others, guaranteed universal sufferage and
freedom of religion, etc. It's a fascinating episode.
 
Bill Freind