WI: Italian Revolution during the “Bienno Rosso”

In OTL, the Bienno Rosso (Two Red Years) was a short period of intense political and social unrest in Italy in which the left and right clashed all over the north and center of the peninsula. This led to sharp repression of the revolutionary left and the rise of the Blackshirt fascists and ultimately to their March on Rome in 1922

So, what if instead the Kingdom of Italy collapsed during the “Bienno Rosso” and the industrial cities of the north erupted into armed insurrection against the Kingdom and the fascists? Do they have a chance of success? What would the political scene of Italy look like during and after this civil war?

Another interesting question to this is what if the March on Rome failed and Italy erupted into a civil war similar to the Spanish Civil War in which Republicans and a broad left coalition clashed with the King and Mussolini.
 
If the March on Rome fail, well it's over for the PFI as the entire leaderships minus Benny was there...sure there will be some violence in the next week but nothing that will last or even seriously menace the Kingdom.

No, the Biennio Rosso in the end and with a later analysis have never had any serioius possibility to succeed, too divided was the left and not strong enough and the great part of the army and police still loyal to the king...sure they can try but they will not last enough and the only result will be the King appoint a military dictator (probably Diaz)
 
Too many of the workers organisations were tied to the reformist PSI which tried to stymie conflict in order to gain electoral power and because they feared a blockade from the Allied powers - you even had the Milan PSI, controlled mainly by the reformists, refuse to publish information about the Genoa strike where it was the most militant. Biennio Rosso shows the limits of the general strike in leading to revolution and, perhaps as a 20th century phenomenon, the necessity of an organised revolutionary party of the sort that the PSI just couldn't become. An earlier split of the PSI, perhaps a worse war performance (or earlier entry into the war) and more unpopular conscription, a linking of the urban workers movement and the peasant land war that was ongoing in both the south and north, and maybe it could have developed into something more than what it actually became.
 

Deleted member 94680

The only real hope for the left is if Benny didn’t switch to the right. OTL they lacked a figure to unite and direct their efforts.
 
The only real hope for the left is if Benny didn’t switch to the right. OTL they lacked a figure to unite and direct their efforts.

One of the reason for the turn to the right was that there Benny was more or less the only game in town (in term of new blood) while in the left there were a lot more competition
 
The Biennio Rosso was mainly characterized by strikes, and the occupation of factories and uncultivated land. The Fascists still were not all that significant or powerful; it was, indeed, in reaction to these labour problems that industrialists and wealthy landowners began looking for, and funding, a champion of their interests. The Communists had not yet split from the Socialists, and the latter were not in favor of a violent all-out revolution.
So the first problem is to have the left actually want a revolution.

Assuming the Socialists change their mind, and convince the various components of the Biennio Rosso (not all of which were on the same page), that a revolution has to be carried out... the army destroys it in two days, and a military government is appointed by the King.
The upshot is that the Fascists will be under the thumb of the general (possibly Diaz) serving as prime minister, even more than the Falange came under complete control of Franco in OTL.
 
The only real hope for the left is if Benny didn’t switch to the right. OTL they lacked a figure to unite and direct their efforts.

Matteotti and Turati were both reasonably popular, but the problem is the same the German left had by the late 1920s - the reformists and the revolutionaries could not cooperate. It's not a matter of leaders, it's a matter of a key difference in policies.
 

Deleted member 94680

Matteotti and Turati were both reasonably popular, but the problem is the same the German left had by the late 1920s - the reformists and the revolutionaries could not cooperate. It's not a matter of leaders, it's a matter of a key difference in policies.

I meant a leader who could force or coerce the reformists and the revolutionaries to work together much the same as Benny managed with the fascists, blackshirts, militarists and monarchists. Something more than “reasonably popular” and with a broader appeal or ability to build a coalition.

I’m only going by what I've read in Origins of Fascism in Italy by Gaetano Salvemini who lived through the period in question. Saying that, what I wrote is my view of the period as he presents it, other interpretations are entirely possible.
 
I meant a leader who could force or coerce the reformists and the revolutionaries to work together much the same as Benny managed with the fascists, blackshirts, militarists and monarchists.

As you can see, the problem is exactly the one I mentioned. The groups above can agree on a lot of key things. Socialist reformist and Communist revolutionaries disagree on the main goal. And, as mentioned, by way of comparison, note how the red-hot disagreement between the KPD and the SPD helped the NSDAP in.
It's not a matter of a charismatic leader, when I want the revolution and you don't.

I’m only going by what I've read in Origins of Fascism in Italy by Gaetano Salvemini who lived through the period in question. Saying that, what I wrote is my view of the period as he presents it, other interpretations are entirely possible.

Congratulations, then, you've read more than many who comment about Italy! Well done.
 
Top