Mussolini series reignites debate on fascism

Mussolini series reignites debate on fascism

Can fascism be depicted without turning it into spectacle? A series covering Benito Mussolini’s rise to power, from his socialist roots to the assassination of leader Giacomo Matteotti, has sparked a debate far beyond television fiction. The ambitious goal is to portray fascist sociopathy, incivil, and the opportunism of transforming antiestéticar among the disadvantaged into hatred. The production stops before the dictatorship’s proclamation, hinted at in a final speech and the complicit silence of those who allowed it, with King Victor Emmanuel III as a key figure.

The series quickly drew mixed reactions. Some consider it an essential biopic with satirical touches, while others accuse it of parodying and slandering Mussolini. As some ironically note, the dictator parodied himself perfectly well.

Was Mussolini a socialist before creating fascism?

One frequently raised point is Mussolini’s political origins. Before founding fascism, he was a member of the Italian Socialist Party, expelled for his nationalist shift. This fact has become central to a recurring argument: that fascism and socialism share roots. “Mussolini was originally communist,” one analysis claims, adding that “fascists, communists, and socialists are made of the same shit with different fur.” This assertion, repeated in various tones, seeks to equate both regimes.

Opposing this thesis, another current recalls that Mussolini was expelled from the socialist party precisely for nationalism, when being left-wing required internationalism. The distinction is significant: fascism turned the State into an end in itself, whereas socialism theoretically aimed to transcend it. However, the debate doesn’t end there. Some argue fascism is a variant of socialism with nationalism, totally detached from liberalism. Others respond that fascism is defined not by violence but by statolatry, a disease they believe afflicts 99% of the population.

Matteotti’s assassination and complicit silence

The series focuses on a key episode: the assassination of socialist leader Giacomo Matteotti, which precipitated the crisis in Mussolini’s government. It shows how the dictator filled parliament with loyal MPs, many lacking political stature, as some commenters note. “An impressive moment is when he has to fill congress with his deputies and can’t find any competent ones,” says one participant, drawing parallels with modern electoral list-making.

The silence of cowards who allowed the fascist advance is another pillar. The series hints at this in its final speech, with King Victor Emmanuel III giving his blessing. Several analyses link this directly to Spain’s Second Republic and Civil War. “The republic pursued these acts; Francoism encouraged them within its ranks along with rape. There are differences, but you must be human to see them,” notes one message.

Why compare Mussolini to Trump?

The series includes a character intended as a stand-in for Trump. The comparison isn’t gratuitous: both built their discourse on antiestéticar among the disadvantaged and contempt for institutions. The difference, some point out, is that Mussolini came to power democratically before dismantling it from within.

This reading provoked angry reactions. “Do you expect us to watch a series you promote where the thumbnail shows the protagonist looking crazy to parody and slander the Duce?” asks one message. The response trinc immediately: “The Duce parodied himself wonderfully.” The discussion shifts to Italy’s role in World War II, which some attribute more to its generals than to Mussolini himself.

Repression and political use of victims

The debate also addresses repression. One participant recalls two ancestors died in WWII due to Mussolini and Hitler. Another describes how his great-grandmother had crucifixes and religious paintings destroyed. The reply comes swiftly: “Many repressed people were scum, yet propagandists treat them all as innocent martyrs.” The question of who was victim and who perpetrator remains open.

What seems clear is that the series achieved something rare: discussing Mussolini without hagiography or pamphleteering. At least, for now.

---

Available on streaming platforms, the series generated over 150 responses. Among top-rated comments, one summarizes the general sentiment: “Uncle Benito’s life told by fabadas. Not even your brains.” Another, more acerbic, states: “Mussolini was originally communist. Like all fascists.”

The debate, 556 days after opening, remains active. And it doesn’t seem likely to close soon.