Italian Political Thought in Early 20th Century
(Part 2)
Philosophy and politics
by Riccardo Piroddi
Abstract: Nel primo Novecento, i principali teorici politici hanno interpretato il totalitarismo come il risultato del crollo del razionalismo e delle istituzioni civili nate da esso. La crisi della ragione sotto il peso dei regimi totalitari è diventata un tema centrale nella filosofia contemporanea. Il pensiero dialettico del secolo ha criticato le basi del liberalismo e il suo “ottimismo”, ritenuto incapace di affrontare la perdita dell’individuo di fronte al potere politico ed economico.
In Italia, l’idealismo ha contribuito a rinnovare il pensiero nazionale, con Croce e Gentile che hanno proposto due approcci distinti alla politica: Croce, difensore della libertà, ha sviluppato un liberalismo storico ed etico contro il fascismo; Gentile, al contrario, ha teorizzato uno Stato totalitario come piena espressione della libertà individuale, integrando individuo e collettivo nello Stato etico.
Antonio Gramsci ha reinterpretato il marxismo alla luce del pensiero italiano, soprattutto crociano. Ha sottolineato l’importanza della lotta culturale e dell’egemonia nella conquista del potere, sostenendo che nei Paesi occidentali il cambiamento rivoluzionario dovesse passare prima per una lunga battaglia nelle strutture culturali della società civile, guidata da intellettuali e dal Partito Comunista.
The main political theorists of the first half of the 20th century considered totalitarianism as the main consequence of the collapse of the concepts and categories of rationalism and of the political institutions that took shape from it in civil society.
The failure of reason under the pressure of totalitarianism became a central theme for contemporary philosophy.
The dialectical thought
The dialectical thought of the 20th century took a critical stance against the economic and philosophical foundations of liberalism, as well as its perceived outcomes. The “liberal optimism” of the era, according to dialectical critics, masked underlying contradictions, particularly the diminishing role of the individual in the face of the overwhelming power of politics and the economy, both of which were universalized within the structure of the state. The objective of dialectical thinking, therefore, was to uncover these contradictions and reclaim the rational and cognitive potential of the individual.
In Italy, the resurgence of idealism played a pivotal role in revitalizing the country’s intellectual landscape, freeing it from the constraints of positivism and the formulaic rigidity of socialism. This cultural renewal contributed to a broader de-provincialization of Italian thought, introducing more dynamic and nuanced perspectives.
From a political standpoint, two major conceptions emerged within this idealist revival:
- Benedetto Croce emphasized the historical nature of political issues, asserting that individuals must engage with political questions as their own, rooted in the particular history and identity of the community to which they belong.
- Giovanni Gentile, on the other hand, focused on the active role of the individual in the political sphere, highlighting the involvement of the subject in the dynamic and participatory space of political life.
Together, these perspectives underscored a more engaged and reflective approach to politics, one that sought to bridge the gap between individual agency and collective historical forces.
Benedetto Croce
Building on a renewed engagement with Hegel’s philosophy, Benedetto Croce (1866-1952), a staunch opponent of fascism, developed a dialectical conception of liberalism that placed both liberalism and idealism at the core of history and reality. For Croce, life and reality were synonymous with history—a central tenet of his absolute historicism. His intellectual evolution progressed through five key stages:
- Revision of Hegelian Dialectics: Croce modified Hegel’s dialectic by introducing the distinction between the dialectics of opposites and the dialectic of the distinct. While Hegel’s opposites condition each other through contradiction, Croce’s “distincts”—economy, art, ethics, and philosophy—are not in opposition but instead exist in a sequential relationship. They condition each other based on the order of their occurrence and engage in a harmonious “dialogue” without conflict. These distinct realms represent different facets of the human spirit
- Politics and Economics: Croce redefined politics through the lens of economics, suggesting that politics should be directed toward achieving concrete objectives. In his framework, the formation of the State falls under the category of the “useful,” which he understood as promoting “social well-being.” For Croce, politics was not merely an expression of a particular worldview; it was itself a worldview, one that naturally coincided with liberalism, which he saw as the best vehicle for pursuing the common good
- Judgment in History: Croce argued that history, unlike other disciplines, must always be judged in the context of the present. Historical interpretation, in this view, is inherently contemporary, as historians analyse past events through the lens of their own ideological and philosophical frameworks. History, therefore, is not a mere record of events but involves assigning meaning and moral judgments to the past, as shaped by the historian’s own cultural and intellectual background
- State and Freedom: for Croce, the state played a crucial role in fostering the moral progress of a nation and ensuring individual freedom, which he viewed as the driving force of history. His opposition to fascism stemmed from its suppression of individual liberties, which led to his marginalization by the regime. Croce maintained that the history of politics is fundamentally the history of freedom, intertwining the political, ethical, and cultural dimensions of human development. His focus was on keeping the concept of freedom alive and central, particularly in the face of rising totalitarianism
- Historical and Ethical Reason: in the final phase of his thought, after World War II, Croce shifted his emphasis from the principle of freedom to that of vitality—an unreasoning force that shapes the destinies of nations and individuals. This shift allowed him to distinguish between historical rationality and ethical rationality. He argued that while totalitarian regimes might be comprehensible from a historical perspective, they are indefensible from an ethical standpoint. Thus, history does not absolve immoral actions, even if they are seen as products of their time.
Croce’s work thus sought to reconcile the dynamic forces of history with the ethical imperative of preserving freedom, while remaining critical of totalitarianism’s moral and philosophical shortcomings.
Giovanni Gentile
Giovanni Gentile (1875-1944), regarded as the principal philosopher of fascism, built his political theory on a radical reform of Hegelian dialectics, focusing on the concept of the act as the cornerstone of his philosophy. Gentile reinterpreted Hegel by emphasizing the act as the dynamic and logical principle that drives the dialectic. Rather than being a moment within the dialectic, the act is the a priori unity of subject and object. This unity signifies the individual’s capacity for infinite action, motivated by a specific will. The act itself is in a perpetual state of evolution, constantly assimilating and transcending every new reality.
These theoretical premises form the basis of Gentile’s political philosophy, where the state occupies a central role. For Gentile, the state is the highest expression of the subjective act, embodying the totality and infinity of human potential. In this view, other social institutions, such as the family and civil society, fade in importance before the supremacy of the state. The state becomes the ultimate and concrete manifestation of both the particular and the universal, integrating individual freedom within a larger collective purpose.
Gentile’s political philosophy thus seeks to resolve what he saw as the inherent contradictions of liberalism, specifically the liberal presupposition that the individual exists prior to the state. For Gentile, true freedom is realized not in opposition to the state but within it. Politics should, therefore, strive to create an ethical state, which represents the perfect expression of individual freedom. In Gentile’s framework, the greatest degree of freedom is achieved in the highest form of the state, which he identifies as the totalitarian state. This totalitarian state is, in his view, the full realization of ethical and individual freedom, where personal interests are harmonized with the collective will.
The state, according to Gentile, also carries a profound cultural and moral mission. Its purpose is to cultivate and elevate the character of its citizens, particularly within the context of the Italian nation, whose development the state is tasked with shaping. This alignment of Gentile’s thought with fascist ideology underscores his support for fascism’s aims.
Finally, Gentile conceives of the state as a pedagogical state, with a monopolistic educational role. It is through this didactic function that the state ensures both collective and individual well-being, guiding the moral and intellectual growth of its citizens to align with its broader ethical and political goals.
Antonio Gramsci
The resurgence of dialectical thought in Italy profoundly influenced the development of Marxism, particularly in the work of its leading exponent, Antonio Gramsci (1891-1937). Gramsci sought to revise Marxist theory by aligning it with Italian intellectual traditions, drawing heavily from the philosophy of Benedetto Croce. He offered a radical critique of both the liberal alignment between politics and economics and the deterministic, mechanistic approaches that had dominated Marxist interpretations. For Gramsci, human history cannot be confined within rigid philosophical or scientific frameworks; rather, it must be understood through the dialectical method, which allows for a deeper comprehension of reality’s complexity.
Gramsci argued that Marxism, with its dialectical tools, provides the means to forge a new social order. This order is rooted in humanity’s capacity to actively reshape power relations between classes—relations that have historically entrenched inequality, discrimination, and impoverishment among the economically disadvantaged. He viewed the Soviet revolution as a critical moment in human history, demonstrating the proletariat’s potential to take control of the means of production and liberate it from capitalist exploitation.
In Western Europe, however, Gramsci observed that the strong integration of civil society with liberal political institutions made a direct path to communism more difficult. Unlike Russia, where a relatively weaker civil society allowed for a direct revolutionary takeover, Western societies required a more nuanced strategy. Gramsci proposed the concept of mobile warfare, wherein communism could only triumph by overthrowing not just the state but also the “superstructures” of capitalism, such as its cultural and ideological institutions. Yet, this mobile warfare could succeed only after a prolonged period of positional warfare—a steady, pedagogical effort aimed at instilling revolutionary consciousness within the proletariat. This would lead to the proletariat’s cultural and civil ascendancy, which Gramsci saw as a necessary precursor to political domination.
Crucial to this process was the concept of hegemony, which Gramsci understood as the domination of one class not merely through force but through cultural and intellectual leadership. He believed that achieving cultural hegemony within civil society (through institutions like trade unions, parties, schools, the family, and the press) was essential before any political hegemony could be realized. The Communist Party, for Gramsci, was to act as the modern “Prince” in a Machiavellian sense, leading this transformation. Intellectuals within the party would play a pivotal role in educating and mobilizing the masses, working persistently to spread socialist ideas and ideals.
Gramsci’s view of history was more than a simple confrontation between labour and capital; it was also a battle between different cultural models and competing hegemonies. Through this synthesis of oppositional forces, history progresses. Thus, for Gramsci, the path to communism in capitalist societies involved a dual strategy: first, the conquest of civil society through cultural and ideological leadership, and then the eventual takeover of political institutions, all driven by the persistent effort of intellectuals and the proletariat working in tandem.
