Online ordering is currently unavailable due to technical issues. We apologise for any delays responding to customers while we resolve this. For further updates please visit our website: https://www.cambridge.org/news-and-insights/technical-incident
We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 01 August 2014
1 For a more protracted account of what “understanding” might be taken to mean cf. Gregor, A. J., An Introduction to Metapolitics (New York: Free Press, 1971), chap. 7Google Scholar.
2 Cf. Gregor, A. J., The Ideology of Fascism (New York: Free Press, 1969), pp. 95f.Google Scholar Any reasonably adequate assessment of Mussolini's intellectual capabilities would require an acquaintance with his collected works now available as the Opera omnia, 36 volumes (Florence: La fenice, 1951–1963)Google Scholar. In the bibliography appended to his book, Collier refers (p. 410) to Mussolini's Opera omnia as composed of “23 volumes,” which suggests that he is not well acquainted with the work. Furthermore, on the same page Collier cites the pre-war collection of Mussolini's speeches and essays, the Scritti e discorsi, as involving only 12 volumes when they, in fact, involve 13—and he gives “La fenice” as the publisher when the publisher was, in fact, Hoepli.
3 It would seem that Cassels, Alan (Fascist Italy [New York: Crowell, 1968] pp. 1f.Google Scholar) is correct in suggesting that because we have little serious understanding of the entire fascist phenomenon, we attempt to search out the “meaning” of it all in biographies devoted to fascist leaders. There is an incredible number of biographies devoted to Mussolini—and most of them, largely because they serve as surrogates to serious understanding, are hopelessly incompetent or transparently biased or both. The best biography of Mussolini is, of course, the as yet incomplete work of De Felice, Renzo (Mussolini il rivoluzionario [Turin: Einaudi, 1965]Google Scholar, Mussolini il fascista: la conquista del potere, 1921–1925 [Turin: Einaudi, 1966]Google Scholar, Mussolini il fascista: l'organizazione dello stato fascista, 1925–1929 [Turin: Einaudi, 1968])Google Scholar. The philofascist biographies of Pini, Giorgio and Susmel, Duilio (Mussolini: l'uomo e l'opera, 4 volumes [Florence: La fenice, 1953–1955])Google Scholar and de Begnac, Ivon (Vita di Benito Mussolini, 3 volumes [Milan: Mondadori, 1936–1940])Google Scholar are valuable for scholarly purposes: they undertake a careful review of the available historic evidence in their efforts to expose pervasive bias and scholarly irresponsibility in the academic treatment of Fascism. In this respect Spampanato's, Bruno Contromemoriale, 3 volumes (Rome: Illustrato, 1952)Google Scholar is not as useful, beset as it is by selective reporting of evidence and some significant historical inaccuracies. Most of the biographies available in English are all but totally inadequate. Most are written by nonacademics and are animated by an irrepressible bias. Those of Monelli, Paolo, Mussolini: The Intimate Life of a Demagogue (New York: Vanguard, 1954)Google Scholar and Fermi, Laura, Mussolini (Chicago: University of Chicago, 1961)Google Scholar, are among the worst. It is interesting, in this regard, to compare the “official” biography written by Giorgio Pini while he served the Regime, Fascist, The Official Life of Benito Mussolini (London: Hutchinson, 1939)Google Scholar, with the postwar biography he wrote with Diulio Susmel. Of the biographies available in English, Hibbert's, Christofer, Benito Mussolini: The Rise and Fall of Il Duce (Baltimore: Penguin, 1962)Google Scholar is among the best. We do not have, as yet, a fully objective and competent biography of Mussolini in English.
4 There are any number of books devoted to special aspects of the Fascist Regime. Among the best are Deakin's, F. W. The Brutal Friendship (New York: Harper & Row, 1962)Google Scholar, which deals with the final years of the Regime, Fascist, and Aquarone's, Alberto L'organizzazione dello stato totalitario (Turin: Einaudi, 1965)Google Scholar which deals with the organizational infrastructure of the “totalitarian” state. Several reasonably good books on Fascist diplomacy have been written from a variety of points of view. That of Rumi, Giorgio, Alle origini della politico estera fascista (Bari: Laterza, 1968)Google Scholar deals with the period from 1918 through 1923 and exploits archival material hitherto inaccessible. Villari's, Luigi Italian Foreign Policy under Mussolini (New York: Devin-Adair, 1956)Google Scholar should be read, if only because it is philofascistic. Pencil's, Giorgio Mussolini nei Balcani (Milan: Longanesi, 1966)Google Scholar and Jacomoni, Francesco di Savino's, San La politico dell'Italia in Albania (Rocca San Casciano: Cappelli, 1965)Google Scholar are specialized histories of Fascist relations with the Balkan countries. Silvestri's, Carlo Mussolini, Grazjani e l'antifascismo (Milan: Longanesi, 1949)Google Scholar is a specialized history of various aspects of Mussolini's Social Republic. It generated a storm of controversy at its publication and merits reading. There are a number of histories and documentaries devoted to the relationship between Fascism and the Italian press. Among the more interesting is the volume by Signoretti, Alfredo, “La Stampa” in camicia nera (Rome: Volpe, 1968)Google Scholar and the anthology edited by Del Buono, Oreste, Eia, Eia, Eia, Alalà! La stampa italiana sotto il fascismo (Milan: Feltrinella, 1971)Google Scholar.
5 Garruccio, Ludovico, L'industrializzazione tra nazionalismo e rivoluzione (Bologna: Mulino, 1969), pp. 139'45Google Scholar.
6 Cf. Michels, Robert, Sozialismus und Faschismus in Italien, 2 volumes (Munich: Meyer & Jensen, 1925)Google Scholar; Lederer, Emil, The State of the Masses (New York: Norton, 1940)Google Scholar; Bennecke, Heinrich, Wirtschaftliche Depression und politischer Radikalismus (Vienna: Olzog, 1968)Google Scholar; Parsons, Talcott, “Some Sociological Aspects of Fascist Movements,” Essays in Sociological Theory, revised edition (New York: Free Press, 1959)Google Scholar.
7 These kinds of formulations are found sprinkled through works of the following kind: Gasset, Jose Ortega y, The Revolt of the Masses (New York: Norton, 1932)Google Scholar; Kohn, Hans, Political Ideologies of the Twentieth Century (New York: Harper, 1966)Google Scholar; Tasca, Angelo, Nascita e avvento del fascismo (Rome: La nuova Italia, 1950)Google Scholar; Arendt, Hannah, The Origins of Totalitarianism (New York: Harcourt, Brace, 1951)Google Scholar; Cole, George D. H., Socialism and Fascism, 1931–1939 (New York: St. Martin's, 1960)Google Scholar and even Hoffer, Eric, The True Believer (New York: Harper & Row, 1951)Google Scholar.
8 In this regard, cf. Welk, William, Fascist Economic Policy (Cambridge: Harvard University, 1938)Google Scholar; Benni, Antonio, “Lo sviluppo industriale dell'Italia fascista,” in Lo Stato Mussoliniano, ed. Sillani, Tomaso (Rome: La Rassegna Italiana, 1930)Google Scholar, updated as “The Industrial Development of Fascist Italy,” in What is Fascism and Why?, ed. Sillani, Tomaso (New York: Macmillan, 1931)Google Scholar. The most readily available comparable aggregate statistics on Fascist economic development are to be found in Maddison, Angus, Economic Growth in the West (New York: Twentieth Century Fund, 1964)Google Scholar. There is no single comprehensive and competent account of Fascist economic policy and achievement. Of the many discursive treatments of Fascist economic policies, almost all are totally inadequate for anyone attempting to assess overall economic performance. Even the treatment by an internationally recognized economist, Einzig, Paul (The Economic Foundations of Fascism [New York: Macmillan, 1933])Google Scholar, is loosely argued and almost totally innocent of any statistical analysis, and contemporary books like that of Organsky, A. F. K., The Stages of Political Development (New York: Knopf, 1965)Google Scholar, devoted to the analysis of Fascism as an economic system, fail to cite any substantive data on industrial growth, diversification, or sectoral change. Turner's, Henry Ashby recent essay on “Fascism and Modernization” (World Politics, 24 [July, 1972], 547–564)CrossRefGoogle Scholar, in which he attempts to make a case for an interpretation of “fascism” as an “antimodern utopianism,” fails to include any data at all on rates of industrialization in Fascist Italy. Fascist publications provided an abundance of raw and presumably standardized data on the economic aspects of the Fascist Regime in publications like Critica Fascista and Era Fascista. An English edition of Era Fascista was published annually by the Fascist Confederation of Industrialists, but literally no effort has been made to sort out of that material a body of defensible statistical data that might provide insight into Fascist economic policy, its accomplishment or failure of accomplishment. To date we must remain content with general and fragmentary accounts like that to be found in Romeo, Rosario, Breve storia dell'industria italiana (Rocca San Casciano: Cappelli, 1963)Google Scholar or tendentious and incomplete analyses of aspects of Fascist economic policy such as that found in Schmidt's, Carl T. Plough and the Sword (New York: Columbia University, 1938)Google Scholar. Brief accounts like that of Lombardini, S., “Italian Fascism and the Economy,” in The Nature of Fascism, ed. Woolf, S. J. (New York: Random House, 1969)Google Scholar and Clough, Shepard B., The Economic History of Modern Italy (New York: Columbia University, 1964), pp. 222–287 Google Scholar, are suggestive, but hardly adequate. The most significant gap in the literature devoted to Mussolini's Fascism is to be found in the general area of economic analysis. Whatever evidence we do have seems clearly to indicate that Italy proceeded to economic maturity during the Fascist period. (In this regard cf. Garruccio, pp. 50–53, 140–144).
9 The literature that identifies the sustained similarities between “fascist” and “Marxist” political systems, particularly in terms of “totalitarianism,” is abundant; cf. Friedrich, Carl and Brzezinski, Zbigniew, Totalitarian Dictatorship and Autocracy (New York: Praeger, 1956)Google Scholar; Germino, Dante. The Italian Fascist Party in Power (Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 1959)Google Scholar; Halevy, Elie, The Era of Tyrannies (New York: Doubleday, 1965)Google Scholar; Ingersoll, David, Communism, Fascism and Democracy (Columbus, Ohio: Merrill, 1971)Google Scholar; N. Kogan, “Discussion—Fascism and the Polity,” in S. J. Woolf, The Nature of Fascism; Manoilescu, Mihail, Die einzige Partei (Berlin: Stellberg, 1941)Google Scholar; Matossian, Mary, “Ideologies of Delayed Industrialization,” in Political Change in Underdeveloped Countries, ed. Kautsky, John H. (New York: Wiley, 1962)Google Scholar; von Mises, Ludwig, Planned Chaos (New York: Foundation for Economic Education, 1947)Google Scholar; Gregor, A. J., “Classical Marxism and the Totalitarian Ethic,” Journal of Value Inquiry, 2 (Spring, 1968) 58–72 CrossRefGoogle Scholar, and The Fascist Persuasion in Radical Politics (Princeton: Princeton University Press, forthcoming).
10 Nathan, Peter, The Psychology of Fascism (London: Faber, 1943)Google Scholar.
11 Osborn, R., The Psychology of Reaction (London: Gollancz, 1938)Google Scholar.
12 Fromm, Erich, Escape from Freedom (New York: Holt, Rinehart, and Winston, 1941)Google Scholar.
13 After the Second World War a group of social scientists attempted to provide empirical evidence of the existence of, and the factors that produced, the “authoritarian personality”; cf. Adorno, T. W. et al., The Authoritarian Personality (New York: Harper, 1950)Google Scholar. The entire work was subjected to sustained and telling criticism in Studies in the Scope and Method of “The Authoritarian Personality,” ed. Christie, R. and Jahoda, Marie (New York: Free Press, 1954)Google Scholar. Brown, Roger provides a convenient review and criticism in his Social Psychology (New York: Free Press, 1965)Google ScholarPubMed, particularly page 523. Kirscht, John and Dillehay, Ronald C. provide a sustained criticism in their Dimensions of Authoritarianism: A Review of Research and Theory (Lexington: University of Kentucky, 1967) particularly pp. 134f.Google Scholar
14 Fascist arguments are found in a wide variety of places. The most compelling are those of Gentile, Giovanni, The Genesis and Structure of Society (Urbana: University of Illinois, 1960)Google Scholar and “Origini e dottrina del fascismo,” in Il fascismo, ed. Casucci, Costanzo (Bologna: Mulino, 1961)Google Scholar; Panunzio, Sergio, Teoria generate dello stato fascista (Rome: Cedam, 1939)Google Scholar; Costamagna, Carlo, Dottrina del fascismo (Turin: UTET, 1940)Google Scholar, Canepa, Antonio, Sistema di dottrina del fascismo, 3 volumes (Rome: Formiggini, 1937)Google Scholar. There were efforts to vindicate Fascism's claim to political power as early as the organization of the Fascist movement; cf. Panunzio, Sergio, Stato nazionale e sindacati (Milan: Imperia, 1924)Google Scholar, Lo stato fascista (Rocca San Casciano: Cappelli, 1925)Google Scholar; Giuliano, Balbino, L'esperienza politica dell'Italia (Florence: Vallecchi, 1924)Google Scholar; Grandi, Dino, Giovani (Bologna: Zanichelli, 1941 Google Scholar. [A collection of Grandi's essays from the period 1913 through 1920]).
15 Drucker's notions are shared by Benedetto Croce; cf. “Chi è ‘fascista’?” in Croce, , Pagine politiche (Bari: Laterza, 1945)Google Scholar, and “Il fascismo come pericolo mondiale,” and “La libertà italiana nella libertà del mondo,” in Croce, , Per la nuova vita dell'Italia (Naples: Ricciardi, 1944)Google Scholar. The same ideas resurface in a number of places where an explanation of Fascism is sought in terms of the “corruption of the Idea of Liberty”; cf. Einaudi, Luigi, Il buongoverno (Bari: Laterza, 1954)Google Scholar and von Mises, Planned Chaos. The entire notion that “masses” act because their “ideas” or “conceptions” are “corrupted” is not only tendentious but scientifically primitive. In this regard see Reinhard Kuehnl's discussion of Nolte's, Ernst The Three Faces of Fascism (New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston, 1966)Google Scholar in “Problem einer Theorie ueber den Internationalen Faschismus,” Politische Vierteljahresschrift 11 (November, 1970) 318–341 Google Scholar.
16 For the Fascist treatment of the notions of “liberty” and “equality,” cf. Gentile, Genesis and Structure of Society; Di Giamberardino, Oscar, L'individuo nell'etica fascista (Florence: Vallecchi, 1940)Google Scholar; Pannese, Gerardo, L'etica del fascismo (Rome: Voce, 1942)Google Scholar; Spinetti, G. Silvano, Fascismo e libertà (Padua: CEDAM, 1941)Google Scholar.
17 The literature tracing the appeals of Fascism for various classes and segments of the population includes a wide variety of sources. For a discussion of Fascist appeals to large and small landholders, particularly in the Po valley, cf. Missiroli, Mario, Il fascismo e il colpo di stato dell'Ottobre, 1922 (Rocca San Casciano: Cappelli, 1966)Google Scholar and De Falco, Giuseppe, “Il fascismo milizia di classe,” in Il fascismo e i partiti politici italiani, ed. De Felice, Renzo (Rocca San Casciano: Cappelli, 1966)Google Scholar. For an account of Fascist appeals to declassed intellectuals and the technical and humanistic petty bourgeoisie, cf. Michels, , Sozialismus und faschismus, pp. 253–323 Google Scholar; Giovanni Ansaldo, “Il fascismo e la piccola borghesia technica,” in Casucci's Il fascismo; and Salvatorelli, Luigi, Nazionalfascismo (Turin: Gobetti, 1923)Google Scholar. Renzo De Felice provides an extended account of Fascist appeals to business interests, veterans, the military and the constabulary; cf. Mussolini il rivoluzionario, particularly chaps. 12 and 14, and Mussolini il fascista: la conquista del potere, particularly chaps. 1, 3 and 4.
18 Cf. Dino Grandi, “Le origini e la missione del fascismo,” in De Felice, Il fascismo e i partiti politici italiani; and Ugo Spirito, “Il corporativismo come liberalismo assoluto e socialismo assoluto,” in Casucci.
19 The literature on the Marxist interpretation of Fascism is abundant. There is, of course, no single Marxist interpretation. One version is that of orthodox Marxism-Leninism standardized by the Third International which includes among its major expressions the work of Guilio Aquila, “Il fascismo Italiano,” in De Felice, Il fascismo e i partiti politici italiani; Zetkin, Clara, “Der Kampf gegen den Faschismus,” in Theorien ueber den Faschismus, ed. Nolte, Ernst (Berlin: Kiepenheuer & Witsch, 1967)Google Scholar; Togliatti, Palmiro, “A proposito del fascismo,” in Dutt's, Casucci. R. Palme Fascism and Social Revolution (New York: International Press, 1934)Google Scholar constitutes an effort to standardize and formalize the “orthodox Marxist-Leninist” account. Cammett, John, “Communist Theories of Fascism, 1920–1935,” Science and Society, 31 (Spring, 1967) 149–163 Google Scholar, provides a reasonably competent survey of this version. Slobodskoi's, S. M. Storia del fascismo (Palermo: Riuniti, 1962)Google Scholar is a trivial postwar restatement of the prewar version. Guerin, Daniel, Fascism and Big Business (New York: Pioneer, 1939)Google Scholar is a prewar Trotskyist version of the “Marxist” thesis. Leon Trotsky and Antonio Gramsci left (for the purposes of analysis) only fragmentary comments on the fascist phenomenon; cf. Trotsky, Leon, Fascism: What it is—How to Fight it (New York: Pioneer, 1944)Google Scholar and The Struggle Against Fascism in Germany (New York: Pathfinder, 1971)Google Scholar; Gramsci, Antonio, Socialismo e fascismo: L'Ordine nuovo 1921–1922 (Turin: Einaudi, 1967)Google Scholar. For the “non-orthodox Marxist” assessments of Fascism, the views of August Thalheimer (“Ueber den Faschismus”), Arthur Rosenberg (“Der Faschimus als Massenbewegung”), Herbert Marcuse (“Der Kampf gegen den Liberalismus in der totalitaeren Staatsauffassung”) and Otto Bauer (“Der Faschismus”), are available in Faschismus und Kapitalismus, ed. Abendroth, Wolfgang (Vienna: Europa Verlag, 1967)Google Scholar. Rossi's, Ernesto Padroni del vapore e fascismo (Bari: Laterza, 1966)Google Scholar is an “independent Marxist” account. Perhaps the most astonishing “Marxist” interpretation of Mussolini's Fascism is that provided recently by Mihaly Vajda of the Hungarian Academy of Sciences, “The Rise of Fascism in Italy and Germany,” Telos, 12 (Summer, 1972), 32'6Google Scholar, in which Fascism is conceived to have been the “only progressive solution” to Italy's retarded industrial development!
20 Lopukhov, Boris R., “Il problema del fascismo italiano negli scritti di autori sovietici,” Studi Storici, 6 (1965) 240–255 Google Scholar.
21 Fetscher, Iring, “Faschismus und Nationalsozialismus: Zur Kritik des Sowjetmarxistischen Faschismusbegriffs,” Politische Vierteljahresschrift, 3 (March, 1962) 42–63 Google Scholar; De Felice, Renzo, Le interpretazioni del fascismo (Bari: Laterza, 1969)Google Scholar.
22 Franz Borkenau, “Zur Soziologie des Faschismus,” in Nolte, Theorien ueber den Faschismus.
23 Resolution zum Referat des Genossen Dimitrow, angenommen vom VII Kongress der Kommunistischem Internationale,” in Utopie und Mythos der Weltrevolution, ed. Pirker, Theo (Munich: Taschenbuch Verlag, 1964), pp. 226–229 Google Scholar.
24 Galkin, Alexander, “Capitalist Society and Fascism,” Social Science, Soviet Academy of Science, 2 (1970), 128–138 Google Scholar.
25 Dutt, Palme, Fascism and Social Revolution, pp. 27, 69, 72 Google Scholar; Galkin, , “Capitalist Society and Fascism,” pp. 128f.Google Scholar
26 Palme Dutt, pp. 29, 155, 77, 79f., 89.
27 Galkin, pp. 129f.
28 Palme Dutt, pp. 182, 193, 131.
29 Galkin, p. 134.
30 Galkin, p. 134.
31 Galkin, p. 130.
32 Galkin, p. 130.
33 Alatri, Paolo, Le origini del jascismo (Novara: Riuniti, 1963), p. 264 Google Scholar.
34 Matossian, “Ideologies of Delayed Industrialization”; Tucker, Robert, “Towards a Comparative Politics of Movement-Regimes,” American Political Science Review, 55 (June, 1961) 281–292 CrossRefGoogle Scholar.
35 Cf. Shapiro, Leonard, “What is Fascism?” New York Review of Books, 14 (February 12, 1970) 13–15 Google Scholar; Gregor, A. James, “Fascist Lexicon,” Trans-action, 8 (May, 1971) 54–58 Google Scholar; Gregor, , “Totalitarian Age,” Transaction, 6 (October, 1969) 56–57 Google Scholar.
36 Friedrich and Brzezinski's criterial characterization of “totalitarianism” in Totalitarian Dictatorship and Autocracy is not, as both Friedrich and Brzezinski clearly understood, an explanatory theory of either fascism or totalitarianism (pp. vii, 7). What they offered was a syndromatic and criterial definition of a class of political systems called “totalitarianism.” The concept was to serve as a mnemonic repository of “reasonably well-established matters of fact” as well as pedagogical aid of some consequence (p. vii). That they permitted themselves to talk of their work in terms of “models” and a “theory” is unfortunate. It conveyed the impression that they were attempting to explain and predict (although they were careful to call their account a “descriptive theory”). Most of the criticisms of “totalitarianism” that have become so popular of late turn on this misapprehension. Groth, Alexander (“The ‘isms’ in Totalitarianism,” American Political Science Review, 58 [December, 1964] 888–901)CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Ebenstein, William (“The Study of Totalitarianism,” World Politics, 10 [January, 1958] 274–288)CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Spiro, Herbert (Totalitarianism,” in International Encyclopedia of the Social Sciences, ed. Sills, David [Volume 16. New York: Macmillan, 1968])Google Scholar; Curtis, Michael (“Retreat from Totalitarianism,” in Friedrich, Carl, Curtis, Michael and Barber, Benjamin, Totalitarianism in Perspective: Three Views [New York: Praeger, 1969])Google Scholar; Stammer, Otto (“Aspekte der Totalitarismusforschung,” in Wege der Totalitarismusforschung, ed. Seidel, Bruno and Jenkner, Siegfried [Darmstadt: Wissenschaftliche buchgesellschaft, 1968])Google Scholar, and Peter Christian Ludz (“Entwurf einer soziologischen Theorie totalitaerverfasster Gesellschaft,” in Seidel and Jenkner) all concern themselves with the putative explanatory and predictive pretensions of “the theory of totalitarianism.” There is, in fact, no “theory” of totalitarianism—and such criticism is misplaced (the discussion found in Fleron, Frederic J. Jr., “Soviet Area Studies and the Social Sciences,” in Soviet Studies, 19 [January, 1968] 313–339 CrossRefGoogle Scholar is about the best). Similarly, the more contemporary criticism of the notion of totalitarianism which conceives it as the product of the “ideological requirements” of the Cold War period (cf. Spiro, Herbert and Barber, Benjamin, “Counter-Ideological Uses of ‘Totalitarianism,’” Politics and Society, 1 [November, 1970] 3–21 CrossRefGoogle Scholar, and Benjamin Barber, “Conceptual Foundations and Totalitarianism,” in Friedrich et al.) is equally unpersuasive. The fact is that the concept “totalitarianism” i.e., the suggestion that fascist and revolutionary “Marxist” political movements shared sustained similarities, dates from at least 1922 (cf. for example, Rodolfo Mondolfo, “Il fascismo in Italia,” in De Felice, Il fascismo e i partiti politici italiani; Panunzio, Che cos'e il fascismo; and Giuseppe. Prezzolini, “Ideologia e sentimento,” in De Felice, Il fascismo e i partiti politici italiani), and is hardly the consequence of Cold War ideological bias. The similarities were recognized throughout the 'thirties and 'forties by such notables as Trotsky, (The Revolution Betrayed [New York: John Day, 1937])Google Scholar, Erich Fromm (Escape from Freedom), Rizzi, Bruno (Dove va l'U.R.S.S.? [Milan: La prora, 1928])Google Scholar, as well as by Fascists themselves (cf. Nasti, Agostino, “L'Italia, il bolcevismo, la Russia,” Critica fascista, 15 [March, 1937] 162–163 Google Scholar; Napolitano, Tomaso, “Il ‘fascismo’ di Stalin ovvero I'U.R.S.S. e noi,” Critica fascista, 15 [October, 1937] 396–398 Google Scholar; Ricci, Berto, “Il ‘fascismo’ di Stalin,” Critica fascista, 15 [July, 1937] 317–319 Google Scholar. Certainly the conception of totalitarianism was not the product of the Cold War period. Its popularity might well have been. But that information helps us very little in assessing its cognitive merits.
37 Rostow, Walt W., Politics and the Stages of Growth (New York: Cambridge University Press, 1971)CrossRefGoogle Scholar, The Process of Economic Growth, second ed. (New York: Norton, 1962)Google ScholarPubMed, The Stages of Economic Growth: A Non-Communist Manifesto (New York: Cambridge University Press, 1960)Google Scholar.
38 Moore, Barrington Jr., Social Origins of Dictatorship and Democracy (Boston: Beacon, 1966)Google Scholar; Organsky, The Stages of Political Development; Organsky, “Fascism and Modernization,” in Woolf, The Nature of Fascism.
39 Garruccio, L'industrializzazione tra nazionalismo e rivoluzione; Garruccio, , “Le tre età del fascismo,” Il mulino, 213 (January-February, 1971) 53–73 Google Scholar.
Comments
No Comments have been published for this article.