• The analysis so far has been relatively abstract, focusing exclusively on the political theory of Mosca and Gramsci.

• This limitation is intrinsic to the nature of the investigation, as explained in the Introduction.

• It would be desirable to test or supplement the theoretical rapprochement between Mosca and Gramsci by analyzing at a level closer to political practice.

• There is a case of practical political convergence that is emblematic and merits study for other reasons as well.

• The episode involves speeches by Mosca and Gramsci in 1925 in Parliament against a bill presented by the Fascist government, designed to disempower the Freemasons.

• These speeches provide a revealing glimpse into Mosca’s and Gramsci’s views not only on Freemasonry and Fascism but also on more general sociopolitical issues.

The Fascist Bill Against Freemasonry

• On 18 November 1925, Mosca delivered a speech in the Italian Senate opposing a Fascist bill aimed at regulating secret organizations, particularly Freemasonry.

• This speech has attracted little attention from Mosca scholars and none from Gramsci scholars, who rarely engage with Mosca.

• Gramsci’s speech on the same subject, delivered on 16 May 1925 in the Chamber of Deputies, is well known as his only parliamentary speech during his two and a half years in office.

• Gramsci’s speech is considered an important document, marking a significant reflection, more serious than much of his earlier journalistic writings.

• The comparative analysis of both speeches is important for two reasons: Gramsci’s speech is intrinsically valuable, and both Gramsci and Mosca oppose the same Fascist bill, showing political convergence.

• There might be differences in their justifications for opposing the bill, but the speeches reveal many similarities in their views, making the convergence surprising.

• A parliamentary speech is a circumstantial document, distinct from scientific research, and the value of this case is emblematic and supplementary to the broader analysis of their works.

• Another relevant document is Mosca’s essay answering a survey on Freemasonry in 1913, which he references in his speech.

• The bill was presented on 12 January 1925 by Mussolini, titled “Regulation of the Activities of Associations, Organizations, and Institutions and of the Membership therein by Employees of the State, Provincial and Municipal Governments, and Public Service Institutions.”

• The first article of the bill required all organizations to provide information to the police about bylaws, officials, and membership lists, with the chief of police having the authority to disband organizations that failed to comply.

• The second article prohibited public employees from belonging to secret organizations bound by secrecy, with the penalty being dismissal.

• The second article was amended to include a retroactive clause, requiring public employees to declare both past and present membership in such organizations when requested.

Gramsci’s Speech in Parliament

• Gramsci’s speech exhibits anomalies, particularly in the frequent interruptions by Fascist members of Parliament, including Prime Minister Mussolini, who object to his statements.

• These interruptions result in the speech appearing more like a dialogue than a traditional speech and make it longer than intended.

• Gramsci’s responses to these interruptions often digress from the main argument, which he later admits prevented him from presenting his speech as planned.

• The speech appears intellectually incoherent due to a lack of logical connections and apparent contradictions between different sections.

• Gramsci begins by exploring the reasons for the Fascist government’s law regulating secret associations, particularly Freemasonry, and introduces the historical context of his opposition to Fascism.

• He claims that Freemasonry has been the only real and efficient party representing the bourgeois class for a long time.

• Gramsci contrasts Freemasonry with the traditional opponent, the clerical party, which represented rural elements in both northern and southern Italy.

• He describes Fascism as a rural reactionary force that is antibourgeois and anticlerical, replacing the Vatican in representing the rural classes.

• Gramsci gives a relatively positive evaluation of the bourgeoisie in his interpretation, indirectly referencing Freemasonry.

• The speech discusses Italian societal problems: lack of raw materials, absence of colonies, the Southern Question, and the issue of emigration.

• Mussolini interrupts Gramsci’s list of problems to justify emigration, leading to a digression on the nature of imperialism.

• Gramsci critiques Giovanni Giolitti’s attempt to create an alliance between northern industrialists and a labor aristocracy, and also critiques a program from Corriere della Sera for its proposal of an alliance between northern industrialists and southern rural democratic forces.

• Gramsci acknowledges the democratic aspects of both solutions but asserts that they were attempts to give the Italian state a broader basis than before, relating to the Risorgimento.

• Gramsci resumes his critique of Fascism, arguing that the Fascist bill simply replaces Masonic officials with Fascist ones, and claims that Fascism does not represent a real revolution.

• Mussolini protests this thesis, but the disagreement remains unresolved.

• Gramsci introduces a contradiction in his interpretation of Fascism: the earlier bourgeois interpretation and the rural interpretation appear to contradict each other, though this may be more apparent than real.

• He states that the law against Freemasonry is not primarily targeting Freemasonry, but instead, Fascism will compromise with the Freemasons.

• Gramsci argues that the violence used by Fascists is regressive, whereas the violence used by the Communists is progressive, justified by their representation of the majority of the population.

• Gramsci’s view on violence expresses a democratic sentiment and introduces an elitist principle: a class must form a vanguard to solve its problems and achieve its goals.

• Gramsci argues that the proposed law does not explicitly target Freemasonry but addresses organizations in general, allowing him to discuss the organization of capitalism in Italy.

• He critiques the exploitation of southern Italy by the state through taxation, noting that southern Italy is taxed more than it receives in state expenditure.

• Gramsci’s argument is interrupted by Mussolini’s comparison of Italy’s situation to Russia’s taxation system.

• Gramsci resumes his argument, claiming that Fascism cannot solve Italy’s problems and that the law is ineffective.

• A final digression on violence occurs, and Gramsci attempts to conclude, but the speech ends abruptly without a proper conclusion due to further interruptions.