Croce Death of Ideology

Benedetto Croce and the Death of Ideology Author(s): Walter L.
Adamson Reviewed work(s): Source: The Journal of Modern History, Vol. 55, No. 2 (Jun., 1983), pp. 208-236 Published by: The University of Chicago Press Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/1878395 . Accessed: 19/03/2013 09:29
Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at . http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp
.
JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.
The University of Chicago Press is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to The Journal of Modern History.
http://www.jstor.org
This content downloaded on Tue, 19 Mar 2013 09:29:31 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
Benedetto Croce and theDeath of Ideology

EmoryUniversity
WalterL. Adamson
Socialism? I believe it to be dead. And I believe we ought thosecharlatans to proclaim itsdeath,ifonlyto inhibit solemnly who pretend to believe thatit is stillalive and well. We would thedistressing situation also be freeing manygood people from either because they have become themselves, in whichthey find a faiththeyno longerfeel in simulating guiltyof hypocrisy, their hearts,or, iftheyhave notfallenpreyto such hypocrisy, because theyhave come to be accused of being unfaithful. changes; can socialism alone have Whythisfear?Everything theprivilege-or the disgrace-of notbeing able to die?
forLa Voce, thenItaly's So spoke Croce early in 1911 in an interview leading journal of culturalradicalism.' In lightof Croce's critiqueof in thelate 1890s, thesewordsmay not Marx and historicalmaterialism oftheearlier But to takethemas a simpleextension seemverysurprising. critiquewould be a serious mistake. Croce faultedMarxismabove all of theory and practice:against of therelationship forits misunderstanding any notionof a dialectical matingof the two, he had insistedon their strictseparation. Even if its historical and theoreticalanalyses were could notnecessarily he argued,Marxism expectto gainadherents correct, By thesame token,thedenial ofthoseanalyses forits socialistprogram.2 did notnecessarilyimplya rejectionof socialism, and Croce had in fact in Marxist, and thenfor nearlythe accepted socialist principles,first entiredecade priorto 1911, in Sorelian form.3Why then the sudden about-face?
I BenedettoCroce, "La mortedel socialismo," now in Cultura e vita morale citedas CVM. Editedby Giuseppe Prez(Bari: Laterza, 1955), p. 150, hereafter La Voce was zolini and Giovanni Papini (who would laterbecome a futurist), as suchitcould be quitehostile themostavant-garde voice ofthenewgeneration; theSocialist then entrenched within variety to socialism (especially thereformist Party)but was verymuch open to Sorelian syndicalismand otherradical leftwing currents of the day. 2 Croce, Materialismostorico ed economia marxistica (Bari: Laterza, 1961), pp. 100, 17. 3 as a perennial himself liberal,Croce conceded to portray Despite laterefforts his earlier socialism quite openly duringthe First WorldWar. See his Pagine cited as PSG. While also sulla guerra (Bari: Laterza, 1928), p. 22, hereafter [Journalof Modern History55 (June 1983): 208-236] C) 1983 by The Universityof Chicago. 0022-2801/83/5502/04$01.00 All rightsreserved.
BenedettoCroce
209
on the"masonic an earlierinterview The answerbeginsto emergefrom publishedin La Voce in November1910.4Broadlyidentifying mentality" withthe "encyclopedismand Jacobinism"of theFrench thismentality Croce decried its "spirit of abstractionand oversimEnlightenment, history which everything: simplifies "The masonicmentality plification." science which does not is complicated,philosophywhich is difficult, whichis richin contradictions lend itselfto sharpconclusions,morality in thename all thesethings, through and anxieties.It passes triumphantly are merely The latter toleration." fraternity, humanity, of reason,liberty, abstractgeometricideals, and were recognizedas such, Croce argued, like Vincenzo Cuoco, as by Italian criticsof the FrenchEnlightenment Socialism too of theRisorgimento. well as by thelaterpoliticaltradition had resistedsuch tendenciesand was quite opposed to themin origin, on historical reality, nourished been "bornofHegelianphilosophy, having violence, and a sarcasticsense whichmade it averse to sentimentalism and brotherhoods."Of late, however, socialism had fallen prey, had become "masonicized." had been an ideology Socialism, he suggestedin thesecond interview, fromthe of labor (very different of "class struggle,of an aristocracy transthe and ofbeggars),whichconquers bourgeoisie raggedproletariat blind forces of dominion over the nature formssociety, gains growing fortechnique."5In its passage underMarx "fromutopia and supremacy conand geometric to science," it had renouncedall merely"arithmetic ones. Foremost the "arithmetic" among cepts" in favorof "organic" conceptswas equality.Thus, egalitariansocialism could be said to have lay not in the died in the 1840s. The weakness of the Marxistsurvivor and his had been in their form. Marx generation of its but ideals spirit that of French Revolution theyhad struck the so by the greatspectacle would away just as pass convinced themselves that capitalism actually on its conthat would seize of a class means feudalismhad-by rising it. But and overthrow tradiction withtheprevailingmode of production
(1915) does autobiography conceding an early passion for socialism, his first ofMarxism." (See by myown criticism say thathis "faithhad been undermined cited as Croce, Etica e politica [Bari: Laterza, 1956], pp. 395-96; hereafter his EP). While it is truethathe neverjoined the Socialist Party,it is clear from was socialism whatwas "undermined" in the1902-10 periodthat politicalwritings in its Marxistand not in its Sorelian form. 4 Croce, "La 'mentalita' massonica," now in CVM, pp. 143-50. See also Croce's articles "Socialismo e massoneria" (October 1910), "Per un'inchiesta sulla massoneria" (August 1918), and "Mentalita massonica" (1915), all now cited in Pagine sparse, 3 vols. (Naples: Ricciardi, 1943), 1: 393-97, hereafter as PS. 5 CVM, p. 152.
210
Adamson
this was not science, it was sheer fantasy,"a fantasyof dreams and who was called uponto play theworld-historical poetry."The proletarian role was not the real workerof everydaylife but an "idealized" one "adorned with all the virtuesthatwere denied the bourgeoisie," like youth,purity,heroism, and creativemorality.No wonder,then, that in Germanywas triumph "the heroic workingclass, whose imminent predicted everytenyearsor even everyfiveyears . . . had becomecooled withinthe democraticorder,allied with off,domesticated,integrated or ratherwiththose of the ruling of the country, the general interests class. In Germany!In thehomelandof Marx and Engels!" cast of Marx's What had happened was thatthe admirablyscientific had been corrupted by his political vision, whichwas akin to a theory religiousfaith.The resultwas a radical division betweenthe ideal and the real proletariat which, once it became apparent,servednot only to dishearten thereal working class and thusto openthedivisionstillfurther, to corrupt all those socialist movements like Sorel's but, ultimately, soughtto revive the trueMarxistdreamby refursyndicalis-m-which fell preyin the end bishingits ethical dimension.All such movements to thespirit of abstract encyclopedism againstwhichMarx's appropriation of Hegelian organicismand his developmentof historicalmaterialism were supposed to have immunized them.Thus, Sorel, forexample, had abandonedsyndicalism whenhe had seen "reformism, democratism, and themselveseven there."6Ironically,however, demagogueryinfiltrate was partly to blame. His reforging of socialismas "myth" Sorel himself had failed in its missionof reinvigorating theproletariat because Sorel had dissipatedit by givingit himself,"in the act of creatingit [myth], a doctrinal explanation." Whataccountsfortheextraordinary powerof theEnlightcorrupting enment Croce had only demons?In the "death of socialism" interview, a verypartialanswer,the logic of which appears to be something like oftheory andpractice," to a "unity Marxist socialismaspires thefollowing. ofsocial transformation itspractical that program is, to a vitallinkbetween But whichclarifies its historical and scientific and thetheory possibility. not Marxismthis is a vain hope. No scientific theory-and certainly can hope to answerthesortsof questionswhichpracticedemands.Thus behindit. comes to have an aspect of faithstanding Marxisminevitably which,in straining This faith,however,is only a greatwish, a fantasy to clarify it, realitywhile actuallygrowingmoreand moreremotefrom like equality is forcedto defenditselfon thebasis of abstract principles suchprinciples between Soonerorlater theradicaldistance anddemocracy. becomesso evident andtheoriginally theory organic, historically grounded
6 Ibid., p. 158.
BenedettoCroce
211
thatboth faithand theoryare destroyed.All thatis leftis the concrete takes on the qualityof a program which, in its isolation fromthought, meregame. of thought to regressfrom Fromthispointof view, then,thetendency of the mode appears to be a function to an enlightenment a historicist of integrating practiceand theory.But if this is inherent impossibility socialismbutall thenineteenth-century political so, thennotonlyMarxist seem to be dead. For howevermuchtheyvaried,these would ideologies in whichaspects ideologies all were or aspiredto be Weltanschauungen in a single vision of faith,theory,and practicewould cohere together suitableforexactingpolitical commitment. It was preciselythis consequence which served Croce as a point of and after theinterview in an articlewritten some nine months departure In sarcastic and "Fede e a disparaging programmi."7 highly aptlyentitled Italian political "protone, Croce charged that all the contemporary grams"-as much those of the rightas of the left-had become empty appeal. and lackingin genuineemotionaland spiritual of seriouscontent At one level this was due to a general penchantfor "mistakingand claimedCroce, "are neither withfaith.""Programs," confusing programs forit, because faithis something firm and faithnor can theysubstitute and . . ." are Faith while contingent changeable. programs absolute, notthereverse;to attempt to commustprecede and generate programs, pensate forthe lack of faithby erectingever more grandioseprograms crownsand decorations to reinforce a building is like "using architectural a foundation." Yetthefactthat all contemporary without political programs a deeperlevel ofcausation wereplaguedby thissame confusion suggested whichCroce located in thegeneral "economizationof theworld." Croce,wouldrecognize lookingattheItalianscenetoday,wrote Anyone that all thegreatwordswhichhad once expressed"social unity"-"King, Country, City,Nation,Church,Humanity"-have becomecold and rhecynicism. a periodofdecadence and widespread torical.We have entered We no longerhave any "social discipline." Individualsdo notfeelthemto a largerwhole, and "good individuality" which selves to be connected these connections has given way to a affirms itselfonly in and through "bad individuality"thatthinksitselfcapable of more energeticselfaffirmation by breakingthem. Thus, the Italian political process has degeneratedinto a kind of "lottery" in which each sector of society, materialself-interest, "agitates,threatens, seekingonly its own narrow and puts pressure" on deputiesand ministers who themselvesare only too eager to be boughtand sold. "Salvation is [now] soughtwhollyor
in theSeptember 7 Now in CVM, pp. 160-70. It appearedoriginally 20, 1911 issue of La Critica.
212
Adamson
in materialthings,in war or industry, in emigration or substantially colonization,in learningto read or in universalsuffrage." And so Croce raises thequestion,whichhe calls the "anguishedquestion . . . of Cernicewskiand Tolstoy": whatis to be done? Faithcannot of fashion.The materialization simplybe remadein some machine-like life, the reductionof everyaspect of social existenceto the economic logic of self-interest, can neverbe the basis of any genuinefaith,forit is nothingotherthan the finaloutcome of those rationalist,abstract, socialism and whichwill do thesame Jacobin whichcorrupted principles to any otherpolitical outlook. Whatmustbe done, accordingto Croce, is to identify the "destructivetendencies" and "combat them" with moraleducation. "We mustnottry,in short,to createa new world,but to continueto workwithin the old one, whichis always new. It is upon this logic thatCroce, in "Fede e programmi," begins to build the case for his own particularbrand of romanticnationalism, inspiredabove all by the poet Carducci, whichhe will defendformost of therestof thedecade. Discussion of thenatureof thispolitical faith, to see is Croce's however,mustbe postponed.Fornow whatis important implicitdistinction betweenwhatmightbe termed"strongfaiths" and "weak faiths." Weak faithsare themselvesof two generaltypes:those that are originally"abstract" and "rationalist" or "materialist" like Enlightenment encyclopedismor Jacobin democracy,and those that, while not originally of thisfirst yokedto thesame type,are nonetheless a fantasy, projectof makinga new world. This project,beinginherently inevitablygives rise to faithswhich will be openly at variance with to preservethemselvesby historicalanalysis. Such faithswill attempt takingon the trappingsof thatspiritof abstractrationalismto which theywere initiallyopposed. are those whichrejectthe spiritof abstract Strongfaiths,in contrast, of theworld,and whichseek onlyto rationalism and thematerialization continue "theold world."Examplesincludethepoliticaloutlooks creating of the traditional religions as well as secular formsof traditionalism, nationalism,and similaroutlooksinvolvingdeep emotional(as against ofspiritual ofthepriority andrecognition mere"intellectual")attachments as againstmaterialneeds. Ideologies whichare onlyweak faithswill be but the materialistic short-lived, leaving nothing politics of competing "programs." Yet to designatethe othertype "strong" faithsis not to On the contrary, given say thattheywill necessarilybe longer-lasting. to theprevailingethosof materialist theircontradiction (technical,conto foster and sustaindespite sumerist, mass) society,theywill be difficult thefactthattheyare less deficient internally. Conscious of this, and perhaps with the parallel between his own discoveryof the "death of ideology" and Nietzsche's "death of God"
BenedettoCroce
213
in mind,Croce anticipatesthe objectionthat"this dispositionof spirit, this moral faith,presupposes in turna religion; and since religion is dead, at least fortheeducatedclasses, and since it cannotbe artificially it would be quiteinnocent to ask mento acceptand cultivate reproduced, something whichtranscends the i-ndividual and his interests."8 In reply to thisobjection,whichforCroce is evidently quite serious,he attempts to distinguish betweenthetranscendental elementin traditional religion, whichhe concedesis dead, and the"religiousorphilosophical conception of things,or rather of thingsunderthe aspect of the eternal. . . which has variousmodesand . . . is continually discussed,corrected, modified." Faithswhichrelyonlyon thelatter, Croce contends,can continue to find adherentsand, what is more important, mustdo so if political life in materialist societyis to retainany dignity. If theiradherents be few, at least they "will recognize each other and will feel themselvesto be brothersin the same work, or, if one prefersless humble language, privilegedin the same aristocracy." Thus, forCroce, the deathof socialism was simultaneously thedeath of all the greatnineteenth-century ideologies. For none could resistthe politicaldynamic thenew materialistic underlying civilization, a dynamic whichundermined all vital, historically rootedworldviews, converting themintomereabstract and thus,in Croce's eyes, fating them principles to extinction. Thathe made thesediscoveriesnearly halfa century before theso-called end of ideologywriters wouldbe led to similarviews opens vista which,however,it would be premature up a fascinating to pursue here.9What I wish to suggestin this essay is how veryimportant this "death of ideology" themeis forunderstanding Croce's entirepolitical outlook as well as itsmany andturns. (ideological)twists Morespecifically, I will arguethatthepolitical dynamic underlying materialist civilization and the corresponding weakness of the ideologies: (1) was implicitly understoodin the way Croce formulated his own early socialism and, ofthat especially,in therelation socialismto his "philosophy ofpractice"; his move away fromSorelian socialism to (2) aids us in understanding romantic nationalism in the 1911-19 period,as well as his briefflirtation withfascismin 1922-24; and (3) is evidentin the way Croce theorized his laterliberalism,and thuspartof thereason whyhe neversucceeded in makinghis liberalismfullycoherent.
8 Ibid., p. 167.
9 For a sensitivetreatment of the "end of ideology" themeby a writer who would latercriticizethe "orthodox" formulations of Daniel Bell as unhistorical and who makes some suggestivehistoricalconnectionsbetweenthe end of the nineteenth and themid-twentieth in thisregard,see H. Stuart centuries Hughes, "The End of Political Ideology," Measure 2, no. 2 (Spring 1951): 146-58.
214 I
Adamson
To approachCroce's politics, especially in the years priorto fascism, His studieswithAntonio is to be seized by a welterof contradictions.10 Labriola on Marx, his journalism,and his political involvements-he was, forexample, a Senatorfrom1910 onward-testifyto an abiding evidenceof an apolitical, in politics. Yet Croce also gives strong interest even antipolitical,animus. Prior to 1925 he never joined a political in discussingconcretepolitical party,he oftenshowed greathesitation 11 andhe evincedan unmistakable ofivory-tower element formalism. issues, Croce treatedpolitics withgreatcontempt, In his theoretical writings, of the regarding it as hopelesslylow-life,merepassion, and unworthy man of spirit,even if it must be accepted and endured. His book on Hegel (1906) contains not a word on politics and next to nothingon to Marx. Hegel's relationship thiscomplex love-haterelationship withpolitics, To begin to fathom as well as to grasp how thisrelationship bears on Croce's sense of the inherent weakness of all political ideology, we mustconsiderthemajor elementsof his political writings priorto 1910 and, above all, his conception of the relationof theoryand practice. It is in the essays on Historical Materialism and the Economics of Karl Marx, as we have between theoryand noted, that Croce first formulates his distinction implicitCroce's dispractice.Alreadyin the first essay (1896), we find tinction betweentheintellect and thepassions: notonlywill theintellect to it.12 irrelevant oftenfail to lead to practical action, it is ultimately Actionis motivated -among them ideals, faith, interests, by manythings or theory. The latter and "enthusiasms"-but notby intellect mayserve butone can neverinfer to clarify orhistorical situations, "pracproblems
of the a verysmall fraction Secondaryworkson Croce's politicsrepresent quitevast. Forsome number is nevertheless as a whole, buttheir Croce literature see RaffaeleColapietra,BenedettoCroce e la treatments, of themoreimportant politica italiana, 2 vols. (Bari: Edizioni del Centro Librario, 1969); Emilio Bobbio, (Turin:Einaudi, 1962); Norberto Agazzi, II giovaneCroce e il marxismo Politica e cultura(Turin:Einaudi, 1955), chaps. 7 and 8; and GiovanniSartori, Stato e politica nel pensiero di BenedettoCroce (Naples: Morana, 1966). " This is often See, forexample,his openingremarks in interviews. appparent on in "La 'mentalita' massonica," CVM, p. 144; and in two of his interviews he discusses now inPS, 2: 371-72 and 376-79. In his first autobiography, fascism, his politicsin the 1890s, butthen,as he moves beyond1900, he focusesentirely on philosophy,thus leaving the impressionthathe had consideredthe earlier as to be unavoidable. politicsonly because it was so centralto his development and ethics,history, up his earlyviews here,he considersaesthetics, In summing See EP, pp. 394-403, thetheory of knowledgebut leaves out politics entirely. 410. 12 Croce, Materialismostorico, p. 17.
10
BenedettoCroce
215
propositions,"and the latterin turncan tical programsfromscientific " 13 neverbe "proved." "The desirableis notsciencenoris thepracticable. rationale underlying the These assertionsbecome the fundamental designof Croce's "philosophyof spirit,"first highly compartmentalized his 1906 showdown in theAesthetic following (1902) and then, articulated with Hegel's dialectic, in the Philosophy of Practice (1908) and the articulated. of degreesof spirit"is fully Logic (1909), wherethe"theory a unity,it has two thoughmindis ultimately Accordingto thistheory, and and practice(or intellect and passion, thought distinct forms: theory may each be subdividedinto will, cognitionand volition). These forms or degrees:intuition and logic within theeconomic theory, two moments is higher and theethicalwithin practice.In each case thesecondmoment but as a than (i.e., more developed than and inclusive of) the first, or really first quartettheymove in a circle, withnone of the moments each moment definesthe terrain of a particular last. Most importantly, formof study-aesthetics, philosophy,economics, and ethics-which forexample,needs mutualautonomy. History, in their mustbe preserved separateaccountsof art,thought, to respectthese divisions by writing economic activity,and morallife. To say, however,thatthereare forms of knowledgecorresponding to the domainof practiceis notto say thatthisknowledgecan ever be put to use in actual practice. Such knowledgeis always historical,always of past practice,since practicalconcepts "do not precede but follow a volitionthathas takenplace." Thus while theremay be a "philosophy of thepractical," therecannotbe a "practical philosophy.""4 These divisions amongtheforms of spirit,while subjectto continual remain central to Croce's philosophical modification, tinkering and minor positionforthe restof his verylong life. And Croce so oftenreaffirms the underlying distinction of theory and practiZte,15 withits convenient implicationthatthe man of theorycan never, as a man of theory,say at all about proposed courses of practicalaction, thatwe are anything For apt to lose sightof its origin. Yet thatoriginis cruciallyimportant. is thedeficiency to theneedforthedistinction whatcalls Croce's attention
Ibid., p. 100. Croce, Filosofia della pratica (Bari: Laterza, 1957), pp. 31, 35. 15 See, forexample, his "Come nacque e come moriil marxismoteoricoin Italia (1895-1900)," in AntonioLabriola, La concezione materialisticadella on fascism, "Liberismo interview storia(Bari: Laterza,1947), pp. 290-91; hisfirst e fascismo" (October 27, 1923), now in PS, pp. 371-72, his 1924 Elementidi that"the mindclarifiesthe situpolitica (EP, p. 238); and his 1947 statement ation . . . butonlytheheartsuggestslines of action," in Filosofia e storiografia (Bari: Laterza, 1949), p. 289.
13 14
216
Adamson
of Marxism as an ideology, thatis, as an effort to claim thatsocialist practice is a necessary consequence of historicalmaterialism.'6 If he does not yet perceive its "death" as a resultof its attempted unityof and practice,he certainly theory tracesthedisparity betweenitspromises about future and its actual politicalpositionin Europeansociety history to thissource. By denying theunity oftheory andpractice,Croce extracts three major advantagesforhis politics. First,he believes himselfable to producea farmorerealisticaccount thanMarx does of the way men actuallyact in history, preciselybecause he recognizes the fargreater importance, as historical of ideals, fantasies,and myths motivators, as againstideas, philosophies,and theories.Here is one aspect of theintellectual kinship he will soon feel with Sorel. Second, he can develop a theoryof life whichis clearlynotan ideology,and even a philosophy ofpracticewhich has no political component or implication.Thus thetendency of earlier historicisms and counter-Enlightenment philosophiesto become rationalized through their contactwiththepoliticalarenacan be obviatedfrom the start.Finally, he can engage in practiceand even producepractical politicalwritings whicharticulate goals andprinciples, whilecontending thatsuch goals and principlesdo not issue fromany ideology or world view; thattheyare pure productsof will absolutelyunconnected with philosophy.In short,he can have the best of bothworlds. He can be a better historian and philosopher precisely because his thought is carefully preserved from ideological contamination, whilehe can also descend as he desires into the political and ideological controversies of the day, leaving his theoretical life safelybehind. Politics and antipoliticscan each have theirplace. Thus, if we turn to Croce in thefall of 1902, we finda repudiation of Italian politics in theprogrammatic contemporary statement of the first issue of La Critica, which appeared thatNovember.Here Croce refers to recentsocial and politicalthinking as so many"attempts to introduce impossibleand ridiculousinnovations, and to persuadeadultsto become childrenagain," a tendency whichhe "abhors" and pledges to keep out of La Critica's pages."7 This is clearly a pronouncement intendedto
16 It has been argued, I think rightly, by some (e.g., Agazzi, p. 481) that Croce's sharply compartmentalized also reflects his desireto combat philosophy positivist determinism by denying of analysisis appropriate thatanysingleform forall subject matter.Croce himselfseems to make thispointin polemic with Gentilein 1923; see CVM, p. 246. Yet thereis no doubtfrom theMaterialismo storico essays thatwhat drives Croce to a sharp theory/practice distinction is above all Marxismrather thanpositivism. 17 The program is reprinted in Conversazionecritiche,5 vols. (Bari: Laterza, 1950), 2: 353-57; see p. 355. For a laterreaffirmation thatLa Critica was a
BenedettoCroce
217
au dessus de la melee. Yet it is at place Croce and his new enterprise thatCroce himselfis makinghis first major politicaljust this moment ideological reassessment. fororthodox Marxistsocialism in the Croce's considerablesympathy 1898-1900 period is clear froma numberof indications,includinghis Even as late as 1902, financialsupportof the socialistjournalAvanti!18 in a review of Pareto's Les systemessocialistes, Croce had defended reader might Marxist socialism in general terms,thoughthe attentive two articles However,in 1903 he wrote distancing."9 have noticeda slight froma vantagepoint which were highlycriticalof socialist orthodoxy a long The first, quite close to thelater"death of socialism" interview.20 the followingsummary essay on the poet Gabriele D'Annunzio, offers in thenineteenth century: assessmentof European culturaldevelopment themselves as philosophy, disguising natural sciences, ofthought, the Inthe field hadpresented theworld which andidealistic philosophy religion havedestroyed weourselves which actout,andthey as "cosmos,"as something alive,a drama so deadand classificatory schemes, a seriesofdeadandheavy havesubstituted ofdeterminism. In thefield ofpractical onthesolemn appearance as totake heavy ofthe theperfect companionship bourgeoisie has destroyed life,theindustrial ingreed; for the competition substituting that with Godandwith Christ, populace it can has become awarethat andsocialism, having goneto schoolin politics, for a loanofitsmaterialistic philosophy than toaskthebourgeoisie do nobetter roles,it so wellthat now,changing anditsclass struggle, andit has succeeded it simply found ready-made andto whose of that which passesas theinventor itbowsdown. strength the blowingthrough Croce sees "a cold windof cynicismand brutality" and superstitions" world, a wind which inflatesthe "pseudonaturalist "neomysticalhypocrisy"of a D'Annunzio into expressionsof culture, thusmakingpossible the apparentsuccess of his brandof hedonistdilscene.21Yet it is not D'Annunzio who on the current ettantism literary
(November nota politicalreview,"see Croce's letter and philosophical, "literary 29, 1918) to FrancescoCoppola, now in his Epistolario,2 vols. (Naples: Instituto Italiano per gli studi storici, 1967), pp. 32-33. 18 See Agazzi, pp. 96-97. 19 The review is reprinted in Croce, Conversazionecritiche,1: 279-82. 20 In partialexplanation be notedthat1903 was theyear it might of thisshift, leader of the Italian Socialist Partyand in which Filippo Turati, the reformist a ministerial in yearspast,was offered approvingly aboutwhomCroce had written it down, it was obvious thathe enjoyed post by Giolitti. Though Turatiturned and was favorablydisposed to Giolittiandemocracy. the invitation della nuova Italia, 6 vols. in Croce, La letteratura 21 The essay is reprinted (Bari: Laterza, 1964), 4: 7-74; see pp. 12-13.
218
Adamson
is to blame. He simply exploits the situationalready created by the naturalsciences, thebourgeoisie,and the socialist party. in thispassingcondemnation The antimaterialist accentsalready evident ofsocialismrevealtheir to thesecondofthearticles: sourcewhenwe turn review of a highlyfavorable Sorel's Saggi di critica del marxismo.22 Here Croce, again stressing thedistinction betweentheoretical Marxism (which mustbe largely rejected) and Marxist practice (which may be largelyaccepted), linkshis approvalofthelatter directly to Sorel, whose a "fineschool forthepracticalman." Sorel is praised writings represent ofthename," above as "a trueMarxist,perhapstheonlyMarxistworthy he gives to workers'syndicates as means all because ofthe"greatweight to the creation of a new formof society" and thus, by implication, socialism whichis onlyanother because of his rejectionof theorthodox partyin theprevailinggame of bourgeoismaterialism. But by 1910 Soreliansocialismhad been rejected-by noneother than Sorel himself.He had accused itoftheverysinsto whichthebourgeoisie had long ago fallen prey and fromwhich socialist syndicalismwas to havesavedtheworking class. With thisshift comesCroce's pronouncement not only of the deathof socialism but, as we have seen, of the deathof all ideology. Wherethenwas Croce to turn? He could perhapsrenounceall politics and devote himselfentirely to a life of disinterested scholarship.But this was nevera serious option. Whateverhis philosophicalside might have said, Croce did have a genuinemoral commitment to post-RisorgimentoItaly which would neverhave permitted him such a course of action. He had to takeup some new politicalposition.But thiscould not be any of theprevailingideologies like anarchism or futurism whichhe or Catholicismwhichhe consideredculturally abhorred, superseded,or bourgeois liberalism which,in so faras it sought to be a visionof anything at all, was subjectto thesame disease whichhad killed socialism. Croce had to adoptsome "strong faith"whichhad notbeenculturally superseded and which, if currently could conceivablybe revived. What suffering, he chose was a simplepatriotism, a uniquelyromantic andnonimperialist versionof nationalism. (thoughotherwise forceful) II This departure was not quite so abruptas it may appear. Not only had Croce soughtin socialism manyof the same virtueshe now located in nationalism,he had always been a staunchpatriotand had long shown affinities forsomenationalist ideals and someforms ofnationalist thought.
22
The review is now in Conversazionecritiche,1: 282-85.
BenedettoCroce
219
As far back as 1903, in the essay on D'Annunzio, he had expressed have become old-fashioned regretthat "nation and humanity words," or that"the familyhas come to appear as a physiologicalrelationship an organismof capitalist economy."23In 1909, he published a major study of Giosue Carducci,whomhe praisedto theskies as Italy's greatest nationalpoet, the creatorof beautifuland inspiring cadences about Risorgimento Italyas thenew Rome, and Garibaldias its "new Romulus."24 Moreover,while nationalism mayhave been Croce's onlyreal option his as a new political faith,given analysis and critiqueof nineteenthhis of century ideology, perception the current political situationmade or hesitant choice. He did not endorsetheNathisfarfroma reluctant tionalistPartywhenit celebratedits first major congressin Florence in he had 1910. On the contrary, always rejected and would continueto all of terms the belligerentoverblownrhetoric reject in the strongest of in and violence which the imperialism,irrationalism, glorification liberal either. Nationalistsreveled. Yet he was not simplya nationalist The languageof his first openlynationalist article,"Fede e programmi," one stretches theconceptaway is anything butliberal,howevermightily and towardits fromits associations with democracyor egalitarianism to his polemicis an unqualified aristocratic condemnation origins.Central of the "spiritof individualism"with of "social atomism,"an alignment of "materialism," and a desperate to community. that pleadingfora return with theconviction lifeis disinterested Until oursoulsshine that that the work, is incontrol ofwhat hehadinherited from thepastandis abletohand individual itdown tothe men but andthat arenotabstract individuals reconciled future, fully andhumanity with oneanother; until their sincere family, country, regain meanings andwarm ourhearts as they was history; until thelast alwaysdidwhen history traces ofbourgeois andsocialist utilitarianism areeradicated, itis vaintohope orthat canimprove togreatness.25 that this contingency society andrestore Italy in hispoliticalarticles Croce's antiliberalism becomesstillmoreevident of 1912 and in his Pagine sulla guerra, a collection of his political from1914 to 1918.26 In 1912 he introduced his conceptof the writings it sharplywiththe Mazzinian nationin a negativeway, by contrasting nationalism as well as withthenationalist idea ofdemocratic imperialism
Croce, Letteraturadella nuova Italia, 4: 13. Croce, Giosue Carducci (Bari: Laterza, 1953), p. 102 and passim. 25 CVM, p. 166. Croce's aversion to "the atomic individualism fromwhich we all still suffer" is repeated in a second 1911 article, "L'aristocracia e i giovani," CVM, p. 177. 26 Fortheformer, e il materialismo politici" see especially"Control'astrattismo and "II partitocome guidizio e pregiudizio," CVM, pp. 182-90 and 191-98.
23 24
220
Adamson
of the dannunziani.These remainthe two extremesbetweenwhichhe continually ofbothtendencies ofproponents to steer, andcritiques attempts reappearin the Pagine sulla guerra. At the same time, in these latter of his ideal beginsto take on a moredefinite pages, thepositivecontent are its Carduccianorigins,severaltimesreiterated, shape. In particular, tied to several new concepts;amongthem"national-socialism"and naof the "state as force." tionalismas a representation Of "national socialism" Croce writes: socialist syndicalism andlater ofthe ofMarx, ofthe socialism I wasonceenamored ofpresent sociallife.Andboth a regeneration ineachcase for ofSorel;I hoped Butnowthe andjusticebroken up andscattered. idealofwork I saw that times resolutely placedwithin oftheproletariat, hopehascometo meofa movement that and I think of stateand nation, a socialism towards historical tradition, themodelandtheexample[in which provides . . .it maywell be Germany
thisrespect] to otherpeoples.
will anditsiron with theGerman state discipline, feela collective togetherness class.27 oftheir ofthefuture be thetrue promoters Beyond this he does not spell out the principleof national socialism, to read it in lightof the tragictones and it is perhapsless illuminating in thanin termsof the ironictwistit represents it takes on in hindsight, biography.Justfouryearsbefore,as Croce's own political-intellectual we have seen, he had rejected socialism because of its capitulationto in thehomelandof Marx bourgeoisdemocracy-above all " in Germany, socialismand toward he had turned away from and Engels!" In revulsion, potentialforthe moralnationalism,a faithin whichhe saw a stronger he and Sorel both so desperatelywanted. Now, spiritualregeneration withhis memoriesbeforehim and witha traceof nostalgia,he appears theold moral-spiritual to wantto completehis personalquest by uniting foremancipation historic struggle forcehe had locatedin theproletariat's withthenew one he had foundin thenation. Croce's nationalist underlying aresignsofan ethicalimpulse Yet,ifthere politics,thecentralideal to whichit is linkedin thePagine sulla guerra In his war is that of the "stato come potenza," the state as force.28 of Croce continually emphasized the idea of "the autonomy writings, from ethics. The following politics," thatis, its completeindependence passage is typical: from ourselves thishardwarby liberating abstractly from If we do notprofit ofthe doctrine thetrue familiar with andbecome humanitarian preconceptions
27 PSG, p. 22. For the further of Croce's "national socialism," development see his "Tre socialismi" (September1918), PSG, pp. 238-87. 28 Ibid., pp. 74-1 11 and passim.
. .
. I believe thatthose Germansocialists who
BenedettoCroce
221
politics, like state, when willwe becomewise?Thus,it seemsto me . . . that of morality; and that to be moral is economics, has its ownlaws independent incorporating notto rebelin vainagainst theselaws butrather to adoptthem, forone's them intoone's sense of ethicaldutyas, forexample,in fighting Thisbrings . . . a profound cororwrongly, is mycountry." country: "rightly ofthestate ofthestate, sinceitstillthought as rection to theHegelian doctrine conceives it as "inferior... 29 whilemytheory "superior" to morality, of the "true doctrineof the state" was not Hegel but MaThe founder chiavelli-with a strongsecond fromMarx.30Croce's goal was only to of his own conception of "practice."Practice in terms restate their insight -the economic (or utilitarian)and the ethical-and has two moments realmbutnotthelatter. Ethics politics,he now argues,lies in theformer in to but that bear a relation the separate continues to politicalworld, only and superiorfashion embodied in Jesus' conceptionof "render unto Caesar that which is Caesar's, and unto God thatwhich is God's."31 Insofaras we are political actors we inhabitCaesar's realm and must pursue its logic. Since we live in a nation,we mustcare above all for its strength and "potency" vis-'a-visothernations. to live up to theseprinciples Croce's own mostsignificant opportunity arrivedin June 1920 when he was asked by Giolitti,who once again became PrimeMinister,to serve as Ministerof Instruction. Deeply impressedby a personalsession withGiolitti,whomhe had notpreviously forthe post and met, Croce suppressedsome doubts about his fitness thisbit of personalsacrifice for accepted it.32 Ironically,it was through the nation that Croce began the last major turnof his own political fromnationalism towardliberalism. development: The turn,however,was by no means immediate,and it was farfrom In 1919, in the atmosphere of postwarcrisis and prostraightforward. and letarianrevolt,Croce wroteseveral articlesfortheultra-nationalist againstWilproto-fascist journalPolitica, and he was active in thefight sonian principlesof liberal internationalism.33 Never had Croce's nathe Mationalism been so forcefully through expressed, particularly
29 Ibid., p. 105. Croce puts thephrase "rightly is mycountry"in or wrongly, English. 3 Ibid., pp. 60, 83. For the link betweenMarx and the idea of the "state as
force," see Croce's 1917 introduction to Materialismo storico, pp. xii-xiii.
toPSG which,however,was written us of thisin his forward 31 Croce reminds camp. See PSG, p. 6. in 1927 afterhe had moved into the liberal, antifascist 32 For Croce' s accountof thisexperience,see hisNuovepagine sparse, 2 vols. (Bari: Laterza, 1966), 1: 63-79. 3 The Politica articles are not included in the PSG, pp. 218-26, 250-55, 263 -70, and 287-90, and in EP, pp. 165-73. For an instanceof theanti-Wilson polemic, see PSG, pp. 290-94.
222
Adamson
chiavellianthemeof the inherently nonmoral natureof all politics. Nor does thisrhetoric abate after1920. It is in full evidence in a number of of 1923-24.34Nonetheless,signs of a new liberal his political writings themedo begin to appear almostimmediately afterCroce's assumption of of his new political duties. Centralto it is the idea of theimportance "rivalryand competition"amongpartiesand ideologies within thestate as well as the positive value placed on social "variety"-principles which appear to rundirectly counterto the earlierones of "social discipline," "social unity," and the determining weightof the "general " interest. to explain thesenew views, whichare offered One is tempted only in occasional shortremarks and neverfullydeveloped, as tacticaldevices in Croce's effort to gain a working rapport withthe manyfactionswith whomhe had to deal in his new role. However, this would be both to underestimate and to overestimate theirsignificance. It would be to underestimate it because Croce does indeed seem to have been genuinely and deeplyinfluenced by Giolitti,whoseliberalism was moredemocratic thanCroce could ever defend,but who showed how masterful political of "rivalryand competition" leadershipand thepromotion werenotonly not contradictory but mutually supportive practices.36 Moreover,Croce seems to have believed thatthe politics of liberalismwere favoredby the spiritof the times and destinedto win out sooner or later. In 1919 he apparently toldGuido de Ruggierothatthemostnoteworthy outcome of the war had been the victoryof liberalismover moreorganizedand centralized societies. By 1923 he was openlycallinghimself a "liberal." And in manyof his pre-1925remarks on fascism,he made it plain that he was lendingthelatterhis support onlybecause theliberalpolitics of
di scienza 3 See, forexample, his 1923 reviewof Gaetano Mosca's Elementi politica, now in Nuove pagine sparse, 2: 220-27, in whichhe joins Mosca in an ethicallybased patriotism; or his review,also in 1923, of Vilfredo defending 4: 167Pareto's Trattato di sociologia generale, nowin Conversazionecritiche, 70, in which the only redeemingaspect of the book is located in its "antidemocratic polemic and exaltationof force" as the "creatorof politicaldeeds." See also his own Elementidi politica (1924) in EP, pp. 217-78, whichincludes a sharpcritiqueof the naturallaw tradition. to theNational Assemblyof July 7, 1920, and his interview 3 See his remarks for"Il Resto del Carlino" of August29, 1920, now in PS, 2: 263-71 and 27276. 36 Croce's high regardfor Giolittiin this period is above all evidentin the praise withwhichGiolittiis showeredin theHistoryofItaly, 1871-1915, trans. at odds C. M. Ady (Oxford:ClarendonPress, 1929), praise whichis certainly withCroce's view of Giolittiin theprewarera; see theHistory,pp. 183, 2151, 1923 18, 227, 230, 252, 256-58, 261, 263, and 274. See also his January letterto Giolittiin his Epistolario, 1: 97.
BenedettoCroce
223
1919-22 had so "degenerated" thata temporary suspensionof liberty was necessaryto preparethe way forthe "more severe and sagacious liberal regime" whose return was "ineluctable."37 Yet to see Croce's pre-1925liberalismas tacticalwould also in a sense be to overestimate it. It is clear thathe did notregardtheapparently new value he placed on "rivalryand competition"as anything morethanan elaborationof his beliefin "social unity"and in no way at odds withit. Liberalism,he declared, supportsa state "healthyenoughto be able to aggregateantithetical tendenciesand permitthemto develop, all the while maintaining equilibriumamong themand establishinga unified structure of generaland nationalinterests."38 Liberalism,then,is simply the nationalist objective of social unity. In any case, it is fromthe vantage point of Croce's long-standing nationalist and thenew liberaltwisthe gave it thatwe must commitment approachthedelicate questionof his pre-1925attitudes towardfascism. Among the centraldocumentsforgraspingthese attitudes are threeinterviewshe gave in October 1923 and February and July1924.39 Essentially, what emerges fromthem are a series of rationalizations for a policy of benign neglect: fascismis judged to be a transitional regime whichwill strengthen the Italian stateand thusserve liberalends in the long run. Croce stressesthehistorical context.The level of "bestiality" by the left in the immediatepostwaryears, which culminatedin the "parliamentary paralysis" of 1922, destroyed the Italian stateand will be "difficult to exceed." Thus, thepresent "is nota questionof liberalism or fascism,but only a questionof political strength." Given thelack of any alternative, fascism, which is not contradictory to liberalismand clearly preferable to socialism, mustbe activelysupported.Indeed, it oughtto be granted a parliamentary majority. Croce went farthest in the directionof a positive portrait of fascist politics in his second interview, whichcame in the midstof theparliamentary fascismis campaigns of 1924. In its "heart," he maintained, "love fortheItalian nation." It is based on "the correct conviction that
3' The remark to De Ruggiero,made in privateconversation, was reported by thelatterin theJanuary 28, 1919 editionof II Tempo and has been reprinted in his Scrittipolitici, ed. R. De Felice (Bologna: Cappelli, 1963), p. 196. For Croce's 1923 profession of liberalism,see PS, 2: 373, and CVM, p. 245. For its "degeneration,"see his letterto Sebastiano Timpanaro(June5, 1923), now in Epistolario, 1: 100-101. The characterization of liberalism's return as "ineluctable" may be foundat PS, 2: 379.
38
The threeinterviews -the first and third fortheGiornale d'Italia (October 27, 1923 and July 1924), the second for the Corriere italiano (February1, 1924)-are now in PS, 2: 371-73, 374-76, and 376-79.
3
PS,
2: 375-76.
224
Adamson
is not a state." It is "the sentiment of the the state withoutauthority nation's salvation, of the salvation of the state." It is not so far from liberalismwhich, since it is not democratic,also supportsa "healthy state." It is capable of "giving tone and vigorto Italian political life." Yet itis notreallya new and fully developedideologyorpoliticaldesign. Thus, it cannotbe expectedto shape a new stateand will markonly "a of a moresevere liberalregime." transition towardtherestoration offascism as ideologyoffers perhaps Croce's claimabouttheinadequacy in 1922-24 and thebest clue to thedeeperlevels of his politicalthinking forexplaininghow he came to a thusan appropriate pointof departure set of views he would himselfwhollyreject in a few months.Again in recalls the his second interview, Croce makes an aside whichstrikingly "death of ideology" thesisof 1911: "From ideologycomes theutopian in the partof everypolitical movement, thatwhichbecomes eliminated century, there wereoften movement itself.In thecourseofthenineteenth traceableto longingglances back at thepast, fonddreamsof restoration dangerspriorto liberalism:theocracy,medieval kingdoms,communal laws, renovatedfeudal aristocracies,absolute monarchieslike thatof Louis XIV, and the like. What hasn't been lamentedand ideologized? thisremark clearly indicates Well,noneofitwas everrealized." In context, Croce's sense both of the dangerof would-beideologies -Marxist socialism especially-and thefutility of all attempted politicalresolutions based on ideological designs. Fascism is only nationalismand power will be thesame thing politicsin somewhat disagreeablegarb;liberalism in moremoderateguise. Thus Croce's perceptionof the death of ideology makes it easier for him to accept a fascistgamble. And he is further encouragedin thisby his theoretical view of politics as the "economic moment"of practice, and of the "state as force." If all politicsis onlyutility and notmorality, then itbecomesrelatively fascism'smoredisagreeable features easytotreat as necessaryaspects of politics per se. And its one agreeable feature an aid in thatit is really only a version of nationalismand therefore a "strongfaith" can be accepted without takingits specific restoring ideological pronouncements veryseriously. Moreover,Croce was clearlyencouragedin his gamble by the many liberals he saw taking the same road. Prior to the Matteottimurder, liberals only Piero Gobetti,who had associated with amongprominent Gramsciand was as muchsocial reformer as liberal,was unequivocably view on bothsides ofthebarricades opposedto fascism.Andthedominant was thatItaly had become politicallypolarized betweenparliamentary liberalismand nonparliamentary socialism; fascismwas notto be taken withequal seriousness.Thus theCommunist Amadeo Bordiga regarded liberalismand notfascismas thereal danger,while liberalslike Giolitti
BenedettoCroce
225
thanfascism.Indeed, since tookit to be socialism or communism rather the Aventine Croce might Giolittialso did not support have parliament, appeared to have been simplyfollowingGiolitti's lead.40 Recent scholarshiphas dealt withseveral intellectuals in theinterwar periodwho gambledon fascismbecause, though came from they nonparty backgrounds, theywantedto be engage',yetdetestedsocialismand comforwhatthey shallowmaterialism munism perceived as their andsimplistic mass appeal.4"Croce made the same gamble, and formanyof the same to fascismnor reasons, yethe was neverfora moment fullycommitted did he have any desire to be engage'. Later he would suggestthathis mistakehad resultedfroma "facile optimismand insufficient political Yet if his belief thatfascismwould remainmoderateand foresight."42 of a revivified conducive to the return liberalismwas overly ultimately it is also truethathis supportfor optimisticand lacking in foresight, fascismemanatedfrom a deep politicalpessimism,one whichperceived a loss of directionin a world wherenineteenth-century ideologies had that is moresignificant. ceased to makeanysense. And itis thepessimism his efforts For Croce's pessimismwill continueto undermine at a new his "facile optimism"had been recognizedand politicalfaithlong after corrected. III of dictatorial Earlyin 1925, after Mussolini's assumption powers,Croce on a directed attack fascism, penned blistering specifically againstthose intellectuals like Gentilewho continued to workand write on itsbehalf.43 intotheopposition Withthisattack, Croce moveddecisively camp,though he continuedto entertain the illusion well into 1926 thatfascismmight yetserveliberalpurposes. Therehave always been some, however,who have questionedthe depthof his antifascist commitment. As Salvemini it: 'no' remained it "Croce's a never became put always quietistic'no'; an activist'no' which risksbread, liberty,and even life." Yet Croce's
40 For Bordiga, see his Scrittiscelti, ed. F. Livorsi (Milan: Feltrinelli, 1975), pp. 163-71; and FrancoLivorsi,AmadeoBordiga: Il pensieroe l'azione politica, 1912-1970 (Rome: Riuniti, 1977), pp. 198-224. For Giolitti,see Giolittie il fascismo, ed. G. de Rosa (Rome: Edizioni di storiaa letteratura, 1957). 41 Robert Soucy, Fascist Intellectual:Drieu La Rochelle (Berkeley:University of California Press, 1979); David L. Schalk,TheSpectrum ofPoliticalEngagement N.J.: Princeton Bras(Princeton, University Press, 1979), whodeals withRobert illach; and FrankField, ThreeFrench Writers and theGreat War (Cambridge: CambridgeUniversity Press, 1975), who deals bothwithDrieu La Rochelle and Georges Bernanos.
42 43
of April 21; see PS, 2: 380-83.
Croce repliedon May 1, 1925 to the"ManifestooftheFascistIntellectuals"
PS, 2: 371, n. 1.
226
Adamson
ofItalianyouth exampledid influence a wholegeneration in thedirection of the antifascist resistenza.44 in my judgment,than the question of how deep More interesting, liberalismwent, is how difficult it was for him to Croce's antifascist liberalismwiththe previousevolutionof his square his new antifascist philosophyaboutpolitics. Croce, as we have seen, began as a socialist. By 1911 he had rejectedit in a generaldisillusionment withall political ideologies or "faiths" whichhad their sourcesin therationalist-jacobindemocratic tradition toward nationalism broadlyconceived. So he turned underGiolitti'sinfluence, to a nationalism and, finally, tempered by the conservativeliberalismwhich he believed had been vindicatedby the war. Once fascismhad shownnot onlythatit was no longerin any way consistent withliberalism,butalso thatitrepresented a farmorevirulent nationalism thanCroce had everdefended,he had thrown thatover,too. Yet now thatfascismhad appropriated thenationalist "strongfaith"for its camp, Croce was reducedto a defenseof liberalism. A strangeitinerary. When Croce's liberalismbegan in full forcehe was nearlysixty. He had never had a mentoror intellectualinfluence fromthe liberal camp and had firmly rejected the doctrinesthat had previouslybeen used as liberalism's philosophical underpinnings: the theoriesof naturallaw and utilitarianism. Both were too deeply rooted in theeighteenth-century rationalist and materialist traditions thatCroce had always rejected.45 About the only liberal principleto whichhe had forhis entirelife was the one whichgrounded been committed his own as an intellectual: theindependence ofculture from activity manipulation of "men of culture"to act bypoliticsand theconcomitant responsibility as thenation's moralconscience, particularly in timesof crisis.46 Not surprisingly, there serious between thepurposes were tensions then, of his Croce wanted his antifascist liberalismto serve and the thrust and practice.To carry previously developedideas aboutpolitics,theory, not only felthis liberalismneeded an anchoring weight,he apparently in his philosophy ofpracticebutin theory; his had none. To be consistent withhis deathof ideologythesis,he had to show notonlythatliberalism tradition he opposed, but also thatit clearlyfell outside the rationalist
Bracco to Roberto, 4 For the persistenceof Croce's illusions, see his letter (August 16, 1926), now in Epistolario, 1: 131-32; forSalvemini's statement, see his "La politica di BenedettoCroce," Il Ponte 10 (November1954): 1741see Piero Calamandrei,"Beninfluence, 42; forevidence of Croce's antifascist edettoCroce," in Uominie cittddella resistenza(Bari: Laterza, 1955), p. 121. the war. Calamandrei,a liberal, was editorof II Ponte after 45 For early critiques,see theFilosofia della pratica, pp. 336-40, 383. 46 See NorbertoBobbio, "Croce e la politica della cultura," in Politica e cultura,pp. 100-120.
BenedettoCroce
227
and spiritual commitments. faith"entailing deep emotional was a ''strong Andto wage a critiqueoffascistpoliticson thebasis ofliberalprinciples, ofpoliticsand ethics,whichhis theory he had to showwhytheseparation of the degrees of spirithad led him to posit forthe world of practice, did notalso implythatthefascistsas political actorswerefreeof ethical responsibility. Priorto 1912 Croce had fullyseparatedtheoryand practice,as well as thephilosophyof practicefrom practiceitself.The latterwas in turn concerned withsocialism into"faith" and "program";though subdivided it as In his he not attention to as faith, did program. give any significant made some this largely true, though then he nationalist period remained his of faith and philosophy practice. connections betweenhis nationalist The centralone was his idea of the "state as force," whichwas bothan aspect of his nationalismand connectedto his philosophyof practice of politics.Withthisnew liberalism, theconceptof theautonomy through not betweenfaithand philosophyof a link only however,Croce forged faith but between and theory. practice also One can only speculate about his reasons forthisdeparture. Clearly, faithas nationalism, however,liberalismwas not so obviouslya strong and he very likely realized thatit needed more externalsupportsthan nationalismhad. From his 1911 pointof view, of course, to connecta it wouldbecomeinfected withtheory did involvetheriskthat liberalfaith by rationalism just as socialism had. That Croce was preparedto take thisriskmayreflect his recognition thathe had no otherchoice: as long as he was stuckwithliberalism,he mightas well give it the strongest possible basis. But he appears to have had some confidencethathis theory,which was afterall nothingotherthan "real" history-rather rathanthe "philosophyof history"of theMarxistsor thenatural-law tionalismor utilitarianism of earlierliberals-would be adequatelyininfection. oculated againstmaterialist articles We see thisconfidence alreadyin 1923, in one of Croce's first thatreflected positivelyabout liberalism: is liberal, ofreality andhistory, becauseit is dialectical, Theidealistic theory ofstruggle, thelegitimacy andthe andrecognizes, thenecessity necessity given as theory, diverse andmen.Thistheory the of all themany excludes, parties for theCatholic oneandthedemocratic, various other example, opposed theories, orcommunist on a history, which is both base themselves socialist, one,which itselfbut a transcendental not history ideal, a paradisein heavenor on
it combatsthe of history, earth. . . . But thedialectical or liberaltheory though diverseand opposed theories. . . as theories,does notcombatthemas parties, or rather as political facts,butrather in thisregardembracesthem. . . . It even embraces . . . the so-called liberal party,as a partyamongparties. . . .
4
CVM, p. 245.
228
Adamson
In additionto its connection betweenliberalismand a theory of history, thisstatement indicatesanother element thatCroce will use in fashioning his liberalism. To separate liberalismfromideology, he will make it clear thatliberalismbears no connectionwithsocialism or democracy their will be separated from butis rather antithesis. Moreover,liberalism to do withpartiesor programs ideologybecause it had nothing including "the so-called liberal" ones; it is what Croce will later terma "metapolitical" doctrine,"a religionof liberty,"in otherwords, a purported "strongfaith," a spiritualideal exactingemotionalcommitment. What is onlysome attempt to deal withtheproblem is missingin thisstatement of the relationof politics and ethics, but this is not yet a problemfor Croce since his liberalismis not yetan antifascism. To see how Croce soughtto use historyas a theoretical groundfor liberalism,we may begin with his 1925 critiqueof the "Manifesto of theFascist Intellectuals."Here theconnection, barelyrevealedin 1923, betweenthehighvalues liberalismplaces on "rivalryand competition," diversity and struggle, and itsfundamentally historical character, emerges openly. The fascist intellectualsare accused "of doctrinalconfusions and unclearreasoning:as whentheyequate the atomismof certainconstructions of eighteenth-century political science withthe liberalismof thenineteenth whichis to say, anti-historical and abstract-mathcentury, ematicaldemocratic withtheextremely historical thought conceptionof liberalcompetition ofpartiesin power,where,thanks and thealternation to opposition,progressgraduallyoccurs....948 The innovationwhich this connectionrepresents for Croce is clear whenwe glance back at the Teoria e storia della storiografia. There he had not been concernedwithestablishing any relationbetweenhistory and politics. His focus had been on establishingthe epistemological of historyand philosophy.Philosophyis only history, he had identity realm nor a fixed contended,since thereexists neithera transcendent order of natureupon which a perennis philosophia or closed system be based. And history is onlytherecordof concrete humanaction. might As such it represents a gradualmovement toward"truth"(even if "defactis productive inite"or "finaltruth" neverarrives) sinceevery historical in its own way and amountsto an immanently of derivedmanifestation "progress." Yet the progressiverevelationof "truth"is not "liberty." On the contrary, if anything, Croce's conceptionimplied a confidence in rulingclasses and thusa quiescent acceptance of the statusquo.49It
48 49
Croce, Teoria e storia della storiografia (Bari: Laterza, 1963), pp. 52-54, 68, 77-80. "History never metes out justice but always justifies." See also Filosofia della pratica, pp. 65-66.
PS, 2: 381.
BenedettoCroce
229
is a measure of the change in his politics that, in 1925, we see the connection drawn,notbetween history andtheemergence ofphilosophical "truth," butbetween history andtheemergence of "liberty," the"negative liberty"of the nineteenth-century liberals. of thisnew conceptionof "historyas the story The fulleststatement ofliberty" titlein itsEnglishtranslation, is, ofcourse,thebook,giventhat whichappearedin 1938 as La storia comepensiero e come azione. Here between"historiography," which"liberatesus from Croce distinguishes lived life," and "lived history"or "new history"in whichwe have the "potentiality foraction." This potentiality, he says, is "animatedby the he means "activityor spirituality"-the principleof liberty."By liberty "A forced a mechanical creation basis ofreal creativity. creation, creation, on command,or in chains, has neverbeen triednorcan it be imagined." Thus all history is action, real creation,and in thatsense "progress." Even if we can and do speak of "decadence" in a culturalsense, strictly speakingit does not exist. It is possible, he says, that"progress" may only be "an ever higherand more complex formof humansuffering," but it is nonethelessreal since, so long as "new history"continues, towardgreater Libtherewill be a development and variety. complexity of this eralism is simplythe political outlook based on the recognition fact. Libertyis the "moral ideal of humanity," and liberalismcarriesit forward.50 Except forits connectionto liberalismat the end, thisconceptionof is likelyto remindus of nothing so muchas a Hegelian cunning history of reason. Yet Croce deniesthisrepeatedly and vigorously: the"Hegelian refuted conceptionhas not only been philosophically by the critics[for its false transcendence], but completely and crushedby actual shattered whichin thecourseof a century has gonebeyondall theHegelian history, of history of anyhint end-points.. . ."Sl In seekingto ridhis conception of a providential design or definite outcome,however,Croce, it seems, has succeeded in establishing is liberty only a simpletautology: history because it is active creation.As such it can do littleto ground liberalism or any otherpolitical doctrine.Indeed it would seem to be equally good since there is none which (or bad) as a groundforall politicaldoctrines, does notseek to engage in some form of activecreation.Hegel and Marx
5 Croce, La storia come pensiero e come azione (Bari: Laterza, 1952), pp. 37, 38, 39, 48-50, 223. 51 Ibid., pp. 40-41. It is notwithout reason,then, that manycritics, particularly in theAnglo-American community, call attention tothequasi-Hegeliancharacter of Croce's argument despite his own denials. See, for example, Denis Mack Smith, "Benedetto Croce: Historyand Politics," in Historians in Politics, ed. WalterLaqueur and George L. Mosse (London and BeverlyHills: Sage Publications, 1974), pp. 149, 151, 153.
230
Adamson
mayhave been wrong,but theirconceptionsof history carriedfarmore political weight. Havingrejected to history to anchor nature and utility, Crocehad turned his liberalism;buthavingalso rejectedany "philosophyofhistory," any totalizingconceptionwhich failed to grantproperweightto historical his history particulars, was too philosophically anemicto anchor anything. In thisrespect,his earlyrejection ofMarxismas ideologyandphilosophy of history to haunthis own laterattempt might be said to have returned at liberalism. Yet Croce did have what for him were good historicalreasons for believingin liberalism,ones whichcame to him fromthe studyof that "actual history"whichhe thought had destroyed Hegelianismand Marxism. For thesethecentraltextis theHistoryofEurope in theNineteenth a conventional Century. Readerswhopick up thisbook expecting history are likely to be quite surprised.The first threechaptersmove forward seemingly without muchcloser to epic poetry "facts," and in a manner thanto history. As thegeneralargument of thebook emerges,it is clear thatCroce's purposeis notsimplyto reconstruct thenineteenth-century past but to use thatpast as a way of offering an apology forliberalism. The book ends with a plea to "work accordingto the line thatis here laid down foryou, withyourwhole self, everyday, everyhour,in your everyact." Yet the apology and theplea, if fullof high-minded passion and nostalgia forthe reverencein which the "religion of liberty"was once held, seem to be fullof doubtsaboutits future. Liberalism,we are told, in a way whichrecalls the analysis of 1911, suffered a setback,if nota death,in 1870. The combination oftheBismarckian state,"perfect in itsmechanism ofreal human and in itsadministrative work" butempty content,and the new science, which "discredited" all the earlierphilosophical "ideas and ideals," was a recipe for disaster. The ideal of untilthe crisis of the First liberty held on in spite of greatself-doubts WorldWar, but now, Croce concedes, it too "has fallenfrom theminds of men even whereit has not fallen from theirinstitutions.""2 Unfortua plea to "workhard" to save liberty nately,in such a historical context, is boundto soundutopian ifnotempty. Even ifwe acceptCroce's romantic of pre-1870liberalism,we are apt to wonderhow it can characterization possiblyreviveitself. of if near fatalforthehistoricalunderpinnings These considerations, Croce's liberalism,did encouragehimto stressagain and again boththe death of ideology thesis and the dangersthis deathrepresented. Thus,
52 Croce, History trans.H. Furst(London: Century, ofEurope in theNineteenth George Allen & Unwin, 1934), pp. 362, 255, 258, 352.
BenedettoCroce
231
ideal (like as Croce wrotein 1939, ours "is not a crisis of a particular thatof the ancient polis withrespectto theEmpire,or thatof thefeudal and so forth) but a crisis of orderwithrespectto absolute monarchy, ideals as such. . . ."After 1870, the spiritsof Bismarckand Marx had a purely to discredit theideal ofliberty" andtofound "material "conspired and economic way of life." It follows thatliberalismhas not been the shows it to have been only casualty.And given thatits pre-1870history to the a "strong faith," it does offerthe hope of a humanalternative has unwittingly tradition culBismarckianstatein whichtherationalist minated."Human society,"Croce reminds other us, "has passed through periods of moral weariness and chokingmaterialism,and has always a spontaneous of enthusiasm and emergedfrom themthrough rekindling of spiritualspringtime. ..." 53 ideals, a reblooming in whicha hundred liberal However,to sustainthehope of a springtime mustfallclearlyoutsidetherationalistflowers bloom, Croce's liberalism and be developed as a "new religiousfaithforhudemocratictradition manityor forthe civilized peoples. . . . In practice,this meantnot butalso thathe had to write onlythathe had to rejectliberaldemocracy, or at the level of principlesrather thanwithspecificprograms entirely in view. Both requirements, sets of institutional unfortuarrangements which very much undercutthe degree of nately, become restrictions realismand specificity thatthedoctrine can have. To insiston liberalism withoutdemocracyin the mid-twentieth has a definiteair of century to writewithout reference to programs and institutions is to unreality; riskbeing accused of impossiblevagueness, if notworse.55 Croce had to rejectliberaldemocracy, he thought, because democracy and liberalism were antithetical and, as opposing "religious faiths," irreconcilably So. 5 One cannotmix religiousfaithswithout seeing one theother,and, in thepresent ultimately destroy politicalclimate,he had no doubtwhich would be the victorand whichdestroyed.At the same time, liberalismhad to be kept strictly separatefromany programor institutional trade"liberismo"forexample57-because arrangement-free to allow liberalism to become identified withanypoliticalprogram would
5 Croce, "Principio,ideale e teoriadella liberta,"inFilosofia,poesia, storia, ed. A. Gerbi (Milan: Ricciardi, 1955), pp. 627-28.
5 Italian liberals in the 1950s sensed theselimitations in Croce's liberalism and accused him of being partlyto blame for "the sterility of the [post-World War II] years of reconstruction." See Bobbio, Politica e cultura,p. 246. 56 Croce, Historyof Europe, p. 31. 57 See thecontrast betweenCroce andLuigi Einaudi on thispointin thevolume aptlyentitled Liberismoe liberalismo,ed. P. Solari (Milan: Ricciardi, 1957).
Ibid., p. 627.
232
Adamson
be to riskinfection byBismarck'sDisease in whichall programs become reduced to the statusof alternate means for achievingthe ends of materialism.To keep liberalismfreefromthetaintof materialism, it must be identified not as a programbut as a "concept of life."58Moreover, strictly speaking, accordingto Croce, one cannot develop a program theoretically; programs are aspects of practiceand, as such, derivenot fromthought but fromvolition. "The mind of the practical, political man takes up an attitude essentiallyof 'faith.' " His action is based on a volitionitselfgovernedloosely by thisfaith,butit is never"the trans59 lation or applicationof a ready-made program." whichCroce's libThese inadequacies of unreality and unspecificity eralism harboredbecause of his "death of ideology" analysis proved fascism's defeat.Earlier,in especially grave in thepostwarperiodafter the period of fascism, his liberalism's gravestproblemwas something verydifferent: its inability to offer a full ethicalcritiqueof fascismand still remaintrueto its own theoretical To see why this underpinnings. is the case, we mustreturn to Croce's conceptionof the two moments of practice and his resultingconceptionof the relationof politics and ethics. Sartorihas written that "the economic-political Croce of the 18961924 periodis above all intent on savingpoliticsfrom ethics . . ., while the liberal-moralist Croce of the succeedingperiod is whollyintent on savingethicsfrom politics."60Yet thisdifference, as Sartorirecognizes verywell, is a tacticalmove from advocacy to defensewithout anywellarticulated theoretical relation.As we have change in thepolitics-ethics noted,Croce insistedin Pagine sulla guerra (1915-16) thatpoliticsand ethics were distinct of practice. The logic of theirrelationis moments of degreesof spirit;as such thisrelation an instanceof thegeneraltheory is one of "distinction-unity." Politics as the "lower" and "pre-moral" theethical;buttheethical moment is whollydistinct (autonomous)from is "higher" and thusnot "pre-" but "supra-political."Fromits moment perspectivethereis a "unity" of the two momentsin thatthe higher subsumes the lower. Sartori's claim otherwisestated is that the late Croce stressedthis unity,while the earlierCroce had stressedthe distinction-politics as autonomousscience. Yet whatdoes it mean to say thatthe ethicalis the "higher" moment which subsumesthe two? For the early Croce it meantthatwhile there may be (oftenwill be) political action whichis not moral,therecannot
58
storia, pp. 172-73. my own Sartori,pp. 51-52. Sartori's analysis has very much influenced relationin Croce. accountbelow of theethics-politics
59 Croce, La
60
EP, pp. 291-300.
BenedettoCroce
233
be ethicalactionwhichis not also political (i.e., usefulor economical). even ifone must by actingethically One is neverviolatingone's interest ethical dutyin actingpolitically.6" The pointthen oftenignore strictly oftheethicalinorder toprovide a singleconsistent is to upholdtheprimacy reconcileconforindividualaction,whichmustof necessity orientation can regulate traries.Yet the early Croce explicitlydenied thatmorality For the late world.62 or impose its standardson the economic-political obstacle. While he refuses becomes an annoying Croce, thisrestriction to give up his political realism, and in particularthe doctrineof the ofpolitics,he also senses and fearsthepowerofcontemporary autonomy therefore froma politics to erode any and all ethicalbearings.He turns of spheres thepractical whichgoverns concern withgrasping thehierarchy action of individualsto a concernwithgainingleverage forethicsas a whole over the collective worldof politics. A good example of Croce's effort to make thisturn is his 1928 essay, In view of his earlieroppositionto theLeague "International Justice."63 in general, of Nations and to Wilson's brandof idealistinternationalism for of this is indeed the one is prepared anotherdefense realism, and whatever note upon whichhe begins. A man who holds political office, his personalethicsor beliefs,must"act solely on thebasis of thestate's in thatact." Consequently, welfare,withwhichhe is whollyidentified "to seek the solutionof the moral problemsof mankindby perverting the State and politics fromtheirtruenatureis an errorof logic... Yet Croce does not thengo on to oppose efforts at moralizingstatesby "Mankind," he declares, "has buildingsupranational legal institutions. not renouncedits yearningand its demand for a morejust, moderate, and civilized world," a world withoutwar and with humanrights,a worldcomposedof "ethical States" or "States ofculture."Andmankind ofpoliticalrealism is perfectly correct to seek suchends. Iftheprinciples were to contradict them,he says, it would be "so much the worse for forthey them[theprinciples]," wouldonlybe "exposingtheir falsehood." Yet realistprinciples are "reconcilable"withtheselargerethicaldesires. Poetry,he maintains,is completelydistinctfromphilosophy,yet phion poetry,knockingat its door losophy exerts a "perpetual influence and being welcomed by it." And "just as the poet, who knows only statesof mind and not philosophicalconcepts, findshis statesof mind so thepolitician,who knowsonlyinterests pervadedwithnew thought, and a new utility which and utility,findshimselfamong new interests have arisen fromnew moral needs, needs which he cannot evade and
61
62
Croce, Filosofia della pratica, p. 238. Ibid., p. 247. 63 EP, pp. 353-57.
234
Adamson
withwhichhe mustreckon.He mustaccept thenew materialalong with theold-and in thesame way thathe acceptedtheold-and he mustgive from thembothpoliticalform."If ethics,whichremainswhollydistinct that politics, translatesits "yearnings" and "demands" into interests then theyare as valid as any otherset of politicians can understand, interests and mustbe takenintoproperaccount. to perform dialectical high-wire Croce's effort act is imyet another pressive,buttheproblemswithit are obvious. In thefirst place, it is not at all clear thattheanalogyhe drawsbetweenthepoet and thepolitician leads to theconclusionhe seeks to obtain.For,even on his own account, thepoet who finds"new thought"pervading his artis perfectly able to to freehimself from thereunconsciously, attempt it, or, if it has arrived underno obligationto acknowledgeit. Whythenshould he is certainly thepoliticianbe obliged to takethenew moralinterests intoaccountand even to give them "political form"? And this leads to the still more troubling questionof whatactuallyremainsof the autonomy of politics when the politicianis obliged to take morality, in whateverform,into account. Of course, Croce's language intimates the possibilitythathis formulation But if thisis so, thenhis entire has become contradictory. of politics is in need of some new form of architecture other philosophy thanthe theory of degrees. a followerof Croce (albeit a critical Gramsci,who consideredhimself he had an answerto the problemof how to conceive the one), thought .64 His move,inessence,was tohistoricize relationship ofethics andpolitics the relationship along Marxistlines; the resultis whathas come to be of hegemony.Like Croce, Gramsci separatedthe knownas his theory moments of "politics" and "ethics," or as he also referred to them,of "force" and "consent," "domination" and "hegemony," "state" and "civil society." Yet, unlikeCroce, Gramscitreated politics and ethics, or state(i.e., government) and civil societyas aspects of a whole which he termed"state" in a broadersense. This state, he argued, has been continualevolutionas partof thegenerallogic of historical undergoing In thebourgeoisform ofthisstate,politicsand ethicswere development. strictly separate; while a bourgeois government mightuse consensual means as a way of increasingor protecting its power, such means were never trulyethical, thatis, based on the rationalacceptance of a fully self-conscious("hegemonic") workingclass. Once that "hegemony" has been achieved, the bourgeois state will sooner or later pass away,
64 For a fullertreatment of this theory,see myHegemonyand Revolution:A StudyofAntonioGramsci's Political and CulturalTheory(Berkeley:University of CaliforniaPress, 1980), chaps. 5-6.
BenedettoCroce
235
statewill become a "regulatedsociety" in and theresulting proletarian that whichpoliticsand ethicswill be so fullyreconciledand harmonized theywill disappearas separatemoments. Croce, however, could never entertainsuch a historicistsolution. himto adoptone, his distance have tempted Howevermuchfascismmight actors from necessaryMarxistpremises,like classes as leadinghistorical as the "universal" class, was simplytoo great.And, and theproletariat sensehe was correct. Gramsci'shistoricism ofcourse,inthemost important in large partbecause his conceptof theproletariat ultimated foundered, as theleading and universalclass provedto be only a "faith" (as Croce realized.Yetthiscontrast historically suspected),andone whichwas never betweenGramsci and Croce bringsus to the heartof Croce's political On the one hand, he feltthe need to to its centralantimony. thought, to a set of theoretical upholdsome largerworldview or "faith" attached hope and direction.On the otherhand, he principleswhichcould offer "materialist" civilizationwas inbelieved not only thatcontemporary to any political worldview or ideologyotherthan herently antagonistic suspectand one, but also thatit had rendered its own vulgarrationalist ideologieslikephilosophies nonserviceable all thetools ofthetraditional of history,appeals to purely spiritualcommitments, and any idea of for an end otherthan thatof producinggreaterwealth. social reform then,Croce's politics are necessarily Like his conceptionof history,65 from ironic-a restlessmovement ideologyto ideologyin fullknowledge thatthe modernworldrejectsthemall. Thus the consequences for Croce of his 1911 discoveries were very grave. These discoveries meanthis rejectionof socialism and his recof theantispiritual consequencesof anypoliticsof social reform; ognition theyled him to nationalismand made him vulnerablefor a time to a misplaced trustin fascism; and theywere responsiblefor some of the of liberalism.Yet, to balance centralweaknesses in his late philosophy of thisessay, one mustalso recognizethat theessentially negativethrust of twentiethon the most profound Croce had his finger development withmanyversionsof thethesis century politics. We are todayfamiliar in themostadvancednationshas form of organization thatthedominant becomethe "technological society."This is a societyso whollygoverned by the logic of technethatpraxis is largelyreduced to administration and, insofaras this is not the case, involves littlemorethanselecting themeansto keepingtechnology movingforward or, less optimistically, undercontrol. complexity Despite his endorsement keepingtechnological
TheHistorical ImaginationinNineteenthSee HaydenWhite,Metahistory: Press, 1973), chap. 10. HopkinsUniversity Thought(Baltimore:Johns Century
65
236
Adamson
ofsomething the"end ofideology" close to (and arguably moresubtle than) thesis now sometimesassociated with that of the "technological" or "post-industrial" society,Croce did notforeseethetechnological society and thus did not grasp the "death of ideology" thesis as the reflection in thought of its rise. If he had, he would not have fallenback on the in his view thatwe maystillhope cyclical historical explanationimplicit fora spiritual to followthewinter ofourmaterialist springtime discontent. he did see thatEuropean But, like.Weberand Thomas Mann in Germany, civilization afterthe First World War was in the throesof a crisis so profound as to call into question the entiremodernproject. Like them too, he respondedby movingfroma nonliberal past towarda politicsof and the search forstability aroundsome formof toleration, flexibility, a liberal political principle.But Croce lived threedecades longerthan he was aboutpolitics,he was muchmore Weberand, howeverconflicted thepoliticalthinker than Mann. His politicsareperhaps themostsignificant bridgewe have betweenour world,whichCroce neverfullyknew,and theolder one of vibrant ideologies persuasiveto many,whichCroce did know we had lost.

Croce Death of Ideology

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Croce Death of Ideology

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Benedetto Croce and the Death of Ideology Author(s): Walter L.

Benedetto Croce and theDeath of Ideology

The review is now in Conversazionecritiche,1: 282-85.

. I believe thatthose Germansocialists who

force," see Croce's 1917 introduction to Materialismo storico, pp. xii-xiii.

of April 21; see PS, 2: 380-83.

Croce repliedon May 1, 1925 to the"ManifestooftheFascistIntellectuals"

EP, pp. 291-300.

You might also like