(Published in Il Popolo d'Italia, July 4, 1933)
By Benito Mussolini
In countries with a predominantly industrial type of economy and in which the ever more intensive use of machines has created permanent unemployment — which is called technological — the cry to “return to the countryside!” is launched every now and then. The programs of many political parties in the various nations of the world contain this postulate. Agriculture returns to the fore, not only in Italy, but in Germany, England and the United States. Already in the most intense flourishing of the capitalist economy, sociologists recognized the imbalance — not only the demographic one — that was forming between the countryside and the city. I recall reading a book on the subject, written by a Belgian economist, at least 25 years ago. The war, by depopulating the countryside and inflating the cities, has further aggravated the phenomenon: men who have in mind the destiny of their nations now cry out that we must go back. It is a question of seeing whether this is possible within the limits of human will. In the golden age of industrial capitalism, the men of agriculture were attracted to the city due to job security and the convenience of wages. The farmer in Italy does not see much money: that is, it only happens at the time of the harvest. The worker, on the other hand, has a fortnightly salary. The crisis has arrived. Are these massive masses of ex-farmers or former inhabitants of small rural villages likely to be reabsorbed in a revival of industry? The odds are absolutely uncertain. We must resign ourselves to suffering a more or less high rate of chronic unemployment. Is it possible to bring this mass of ex-farmers back to their villages which they abandoned? It is possible, but one should not have many illusions.
Only those who have recently become urbanites, who have been struck by the crisis even before taking on the urban psychology, can still feel a nostalgia for returning to the countryside. Those who have been settled in cities for over a decade could no longer return even if they wanted to, owing to the network of interests, acquaintances and new relationships that have put the old ones in the shadows. Only he who still has the psychology of a rural person can return and it is a necessary prerequisite for him to have been prodded and disheartened by many years of unemployment and misery. In Italy, since 1926 I have adopted drastic measures to deflate the large urban agglomerations, but the results — although comforting, given the discipline of the people and the energy with which the Fascist ordinances are applied — are far from having eliminated the phenomenon. Of course I will continue to pursue this policy, but the area in which I promised myself to have (and already have had) the most fruitful results, is the other program that aims to keep the rural people in their land. This task is also relatively easier, but to achieve these goals it is necessary to follow these guidelines. From the moral point of view, it is necessary to honor the people of agriculture, to consider the peasant farmers as first class elements in the national community, to remember them often and not only during election time. This political and moral re-evaluation of the peasant farmer and agriculture will act all the more effectively the more it deviates from the Arcadian literature exhibited by those who know the countryside only from having seen it while traveling. Just as the true soldier in the trenches despised the man of letters who wrote "colorfully" about war, so the peasant smiles when his life in the field is depicted unrealistically, under poetic colors, as if working the land was something idyllic, when in reality it is a severe labour that sometimes waits in vain for a reward. The real farmer hates those who seek to pander to him with verbose words. Therefore, the exaltation of the peasant farmer must be serious, virile and such as to make him proud to work the land. My numerous speeches to the peasant farmers have always been held along this line.
Secondly, the peasant farmer's economic conditions must be in relation to the most elementary demands of life. It's not just about wages or other working conditions, it's about the home. Now in many European countries and also in Italy, the conditions of rural homes are absolutely deplorable. There is a lack of space and the most primitive hygiene. The young farmer who saw the urban homes during his years of military service draws a comparison and realizes that what he is is inadequate. In my opinion, a large and decent house is indispensable if the farmer's family is to remain united and not be dispersed by an exodus towards the city.
The third factor to keep the rural people in their villages is to make them know and use technological discoveries and modern scientific inventiveness. The village must have light, telephone, cinema, radio and a system of roads that facilitate the trafficking of rural commodities and the movement of men. If the village looks like a prison, the farmer will want to escape. But the return to the countryside, or rather keeping people there, has a presupposition that everyone understands and whose solution is prejudicial: namely a solution to the agricultural crisis. Elsewhere I have said and here I confirm that agriculture is the first to fall under the crisis and the last to get back on its feet. The agricultural debt in all countries reaches astronomical figures and the sufferings of farmers are cruel. In some States radical measures have been adopted, such as the forced reduction of interest or defaulting on payments or the suspension of seizures by creditors. My government has followed a line of State intervention, but without too large upheavals, the consequences of which are sometimes unpredictable. I have repeatedly said that if surgery is applicable in politics, it is not always so with regard to the economy. In this case the application is valid, which in turn can be drastic. The Italian agricultural debt fluctuates between six or eight billion lire, all inclusive, namely mortgage and operating debts.
The measures that the Fascist government took to relieve the fate of Italian agriculture — particularly difficult in certain regions of northern Italy — were numerous, but the main ones were the following:
l. Fair customs defense of certain products of Italian agriculture, without ever resorting to the dreadful system of quotas.
2. Special measures in favor of certain particularly affected provinces, consisting of a State contribution in the payment of interest on onerous debts.
3. Contributions of six million per year for thirty years to the Association of Agricultural Consortia, which supplies machines, fertilizers and seeds to farmers.
4. Non-repayable aid to deserving farmers in the amount of 46 million lire per year for twenty-five years. The total burden on the Italian Treasury as a result of these measures, albeit diluted over time, is 1,744 million lire, which, capitalized in current value, represents approximately 900 million.
These measures and others that are being studied have not solved the agricultural crisis, but they have undoubtedly alleviated it. The resolution lies in the moderate and logical increase in prices and the increase will not be the result of monetary maneuvers, but of an increased consumption capacity. This will be the consequence of a general situation that allows the resumption of business, in a political environment of collaboration and world peace.
