1. Leadership and the Political Class

Luigi Einaudi was born in 1874, he did not have a direct connection with the Risorgimento. Instead, he belonged to the generation that bore witness to the consolidation of Italian unity and was thereby positioned to critically evaluate the long-term consequences of this Italian “revolution”. Nonetheless, his intellectual and cultural milieu of education still bore the unmistakable imprint of the Risorgimento. To understand Einaudi's relationship with the foundational phase of the Italian state, it is essential to consider his distinctive “Piedmontese” identity. This identity was not only geographical but also intellectual, reflecting a profound attachment to his homeland, underpinned by an intimate understanding of its history and its political and economic institutions.

There can be no doubt that the Risorgimento, conceived also as an awakening of national consciousness, was deeply embedded in the history of Einaudi’s family. His grandfather, Luigi, a participant in the Napoleonic wars, served as mayor of San Damiano Macra. In this role, he oversaw the organisation of the first free elections for representatives to the Piedmontese Parliament following the enactment of the Statuto Albertino. Einaudi’s father, Lorenzo, who passed away when Luigi was just fourteen, worked as a concessionaire for the Piedmontese tax service. Equally significant was the educational influence of his mother, Placida Fracchia, who came from a family of ancient lineage that included an officer in the service of Emanuele Filiberto I of Savoy. Among his maternal relatives, Luigi’s uncle, Francesco Fracchia, played an especially pivotal role in his upbringing. Almost a second father to him, Francesco embodied the archetype of the liberal notabile. A notary public, as well as a provincial and municipal councillor in Dogliani, he, as noted by R. Faucci, instilled in the young Einaudi a passion for studying Piedmontese history. The influence of this familial environment on Einaudi’s early education is vividly described in a passage from his Ricordi di vita piemontese (Memories of life in piedmont), published in Gobetti’s Rivoluzione liberale in 1923. Here, he reflected all his consideration for his native land and on his people related to the unifying process on the: “[...] universal habits of the Piedmontese bourgeoisie for much of the 19th century; [...] one understands how those habits formed a ruling class that left profound traces of honesty, skill, thrift, and devotion to duty in the political and administrative life of the Piedmont that made Italy”.

Einaudi’s formative development was further shaped by experiences beyond his family circle, most notably through his brilliant schooling and his encounter with Salvatore Cognetti de Martiis at the Faculty of Law in Turin. Cognetti, the founder of the Political Economy Workshop, had a profoundly positive influence on Einaudi’s burgeoning enthusiasm for economic studies. Cognetti’s legacy as a ‘patriot’ who had campaigned alongside Garibaldi in 1866 did not go unnoticed by Einaudi, who commemorated his mentor’s passing with a reflective tribute in La Stampa di Torino.

Luigi Einaudi’s passion for Piedmontese history is evident in his early scholarly research papers, notably in his Monografia economico agraria del Comune di Dogliani (Agrarian economic monograph of the municipality of dogliani). This work, previewed in the Gazzetta di Dogliani in November 1893, represents a meticulous technical study of property distribution within the municipality of the province of Cuneo. Drawing upon data spanning a century, from 1793 to 1893, Einaudi demonstrated that no concentration of agricultural property had taken place in the region. Instead, the area was characterised by a prevalence of small and medium-sized landowners. These findings directly challenged the prevailing Marxist orthodoxy, which posited that periodic agricultural crises would inevitably lead to the consolidation of large estates. Einaudi’s conclusions are significant as they undermine interpretations of the Risorgimento that portray it as a product of an exploitative and land-hoarding latifundist bourgeoisie.

While Einaudi’s prolific publications include relatively few articles dedicated explicitly to the Risorgimento, there are abundant references to this pivotal period in national history. Piedmont, often serving as the background, is examined primarily through its political and intellectual class—the individuals who ‘made’ Italy—and their style of leadership. It is quite self-evident that Einaudi’s interest was particularly piqued by the intersection of economic thought with the Risorgimento movement.

Within this context, the figure of Camillo Benso, Count of Cavour, acquired a central role. In 1898, Einaudi lauded Cavour’s greatness as lying in his ability to having grasped the critical importance of economic and social issues and pragmatically implemented “those ideas that he [firmly believed] to be true”. Cavour exemplified a statesman in whom theory and practice were seamlessly integrated. According to Einaudi, “a scientist who becomes a minister, remaining rigidly faithful to his ideas, is always more or less a Jacobin”. Cavour’s virtue, by contrast, lay in his gradualism and his skill in adapting economic theories to the specific context in which they were applied. This pragmatic approach is exemplified by Cavour’s handling of economic policy. As a proponent of liberalism, he deliberately avoided a dogmatic or abrupt application of free trade principles, recognising that such an approach could jeopardise the ultimate objective. This caution underpinned his strategy of making “concessions to his opponents” and his deliberate effort to “smooth the corners of doctrines that are too one-sided and sharp”. In highlighting how the strength of Cavour’s statesmanship lay in his profound understanding of Italian social realities, Einaudi recalled how Cavour’s reflections on class dynamics had led him to conclude that a democratic revolution would not succeed in prevailing over a constitutional solution. Einaudi also highlighted Cavour’s critiques of socialist systems and his early recognition, as far back as the mid-1840s, of the urgency of addressing the social question, which he linked intrinsically to the national question. On the fiftieth anniversary of the Statuto Albertino, amidst a fraught socio-political climate Einaudi made reference to the uprisings in Sicily, Lunigiana, and the Marches to lament the neglect of Cavour’s legacy. (Il pensiero economico e sociale in Piemonte [Economic and social thought in Piedmont] published in Le arti, le scienze, la storia, le lettere in Piemonte, Primo cinquantenario dello Statuto italiano [The arts, sciences, history, and literature in piedmont. Fiftieth anniversary of the Italian Statute], Turin, Libreria Roux, 1898,

This same sense of disappointment resonates in an obituary penned by Einaudi upon the death of Francesco Ferrara, whom he regarded as “one of the greatest men of the Italian Risorgimento.” Ferrara, a Sicilian, was intrinsically linked to Piedmont, having been a distinguished exile and a professor of Political Economy at the University of Turin. There, he served as both a doctrinal authority and a paragon of “freedom of speech and thought,” to such an extent that he was suspended from his position in 1858 under the pretext of propagating subversive ideas. Once again, Einaudi lamented how Ferrara had been relegated to obscurity, his seminal Prefazioni della Biblioteca dell’Economista (1850–1870) [Prefaces to the Economist's Library] largely unread, and how contemporary youth had been drawn instead to the works of Marx. Despite Einaudi’s early intellectual engagement with the socialist movement, it is essential to underscore his enduring trust in the principle and in the instruments of libera economy to find a solution to social problema. About Ferrara, Einaudi asserted unequivocally that “political economy” was not a “bourgeois science”, “arid and shopkeeping,” because “love of the poor and faith in freedom and the well-being of all humans [had] always inspired the conceptions of the economists” (Questioni del giorno. Francesco Ferrara [Issues of the day. Francesco ferrara] , in La Riforma Sociale, Turin, VII, vol. X, 1900).

Returning to the subject of the political class, Einaudi revisited the figure of Cavour in a 1912 review of Francesco Ruffini’s L'educazione politica del Conte di Cavour (The Political Education of Count Cavour). Ruffini, a historian, jurist, and Einaudi’s colleague and friend, presented a richly human portrait of the young Cavour, based on unpublished documentation. Cavour emerged not merely as an intellectual and a shrewd politician but also as a worldly figure with multiple facets —a seducer, a gambler, and a man of passion—without ever losing sight of his lofty ideals. Two aspects of Cavour’s character highlighted by Einaudi attract particular attention. First, despite Cavour’s “European” education, shaped by frequent travels to France and England and extended stays in Switzerland, he maintained a deep attachment to his homeland. Einaudi was careful to emphasise that Cavour was far from being a déraciné. The unwavering sense of belonging he had always felt was one of the driving forces behind his dedication to public service. In this vein, Einaudi quoted the young Cavour’s heartfelt declaration: «Malheur à celui qui abandonne avec mepris la terre qui l’a vu naitre, qui renie ses freres comme indignes de lui! […] Jamais je ne separerai mon sort de celui des Piemontais. Heureuse or malheureuse, ma patrie aura toute ma vie, je ne lui serai jamais infidele […][¹] Second, Cavour’s educational and professional trajectory allowed Einaudi to outline the traits of an efficient political class, chief among them being economic independence. He noted how Cavour recognised the irreversible decline of the old aristocracy, yet harboured little regard for the petty bourgeoisie or the emerging political class, which he saw already looming on the horizon and populated by steep speech energumens. Cavour did not shy away from issuing harsh critiques of both the demagogic tendencies of radicalism and the timidity of the “conservative trumbleurs”. Einaudi's reflections articulate the model of a new, functional aristocracy—a redefined elite that played a pivotal role in the making of Italy. Cavour, in Einaudi's view, epitomised this ideal: “independent by means of wealth, a leader of notables and himself notable through intellect, education, and, where possible, family tradition,” and uniquely equipped to champion “all reasonable reforms, that is, those genuinely beneficial to the people” (Review of F. Ruffini’s L'educazione politica del Conte di Cavour [The political education of the Count of Cavour], in La Riforma Sociale, 1912, later reprinted in Gli ideali di un economista, La Voce, Florence, 1921).

[¹] Woe to him who abandons with contempt the land of his birth, who disowns his brothers as unworthy of him! [...] I shall never separate my destiny from that of the Piedmontese. Whether my homeland is fortunate or unfortunate, it shall have my entire life; I shall never be unfaithful to it [...].

Einaudi revisited Cavour in a 1920 review of a work by Giuseppe Prato, another prominent figure from the Turin Laboratory of Political Economy. Prato's study complemented Ruffini’s by offering a “comprehensive portrait of the intellectual and social climate in which Camillo Cavour’s political philosophy matured”. Prato’s reconstruction of the Subalpine political and cultural milieu of 1848, a time when economic studies were flourishing, allowed Einaudi to underscore the critical “Piedmontese” contribution to the advancement of economic and social sciences. Non only Prato highlighted the significance of scholars such as Carlo Ignazio Giulio, Ilarione Petitti di Roreto, Prospero Balbo, and Luigi Cibrario, among others. He also noted the prominence of the publisher Guillaumin, whose imprint oversaw the most extensive collections and journals in political economy and found Piedmont to be the most lucrative market of any French province. This provided compelling evidence of the pervasive economic culture within the Piedmontese ruling classes, exemplified by the 4,000 members of the Subalpine Agrarian Association, where discussions on economic policy were a regular occurrence. From this, Einaudi concluded that “the reign of Charles Albert [had been] the true precursor to the achievements of the great Piedmontese statesman between 1850 and 1860.” He observed that Cavour’s reforms were not the result of an “imperious act of will imposed upon a recalcitrant nation, but rather the culmination of a gradual transformation in the collective mindset, achieved through decades of persistent and widespread cultural effort”. Einaudi further affirmed that Piedmont deserved to lead the initiative for Italian unification, not only because it “possessed an ancient dynasty, a strong army, and a well-organised bureaucracy committed to its duties, but also because there existed within the bourgeoisie a genuine ruling class.” This focus on the issue of ruling classes, which Einaudi identified as an urgent question even before the Great War, is here explored through the prism of Risorgimento events (Review of G. Prato, Fatti e dottrine economiche alla vigilia del 1848 L’Associazione agraria subalpina e Camillo Cavour,[Facts and economic doctrines on the eve of 1848 The Association of Agricultural Workers in the Subalpine Mountains and Camillo Cavour] Torino, Bocca 1920, in «Minerva», XXI, Roma, 16 feb. 1921).

Einaudi acknowledged the profound influence of foreign ideas on the political class of the Risorgimento, emphasising the French contribution to the genesis of the national movement. For a well-known Anglophile such as Einaudi, this observation is particularly striking. Writing on 5 May 1921 in the Corriere della Sera to commemorate the centenary of Napoleon Bonaparte's death in a distinctly “Manzonian” manner, Einaudi contended that Napoleon had planted a “fertile seed” of liberty in Italy. He taught Italians to resist the tyranny of monarchs, to conceive of themselves as a nation, and to aspire to “a common soul”, even providing them with “the semblance of a state called the Italic Kingdom”. While Einaudi conceded that Italian freedom was ultimately won “outside and against” Napoleon's designs and noted that a united Italy might not have emerged had Victor Emmanuel I not returned to Turin in 1814, he insisted on Napoleon “simultaneously suppressing and exalting the Italian spirit for his imperial aims, he awakened a collective sense of identity”. Einaudi correctly reminded readers that it was “his” soldiers who, in Turin in 1821, staged “the first ill-fated attempt for Italian independence” (5 maggio 1821. Napoleone, il miraggio dell’impero universale e l’idea della libertà italiana [5 May 1821. Napoleon, the Mirage of Universal Empire and the Idea of Italian Freedom], Corriere della Sera, 5 May 1921).

Einaudi's engagement with the Risorgimento deepened in two essays published in 1936 in the Rivista di storia economica. These writings are particularly significant from a political standpoint, as a careful reading disclose how Einaudi’s discourse is functional to a veiled critique of the Fascist regime. While the prevailing historiography has often dismissed Einaudi's attitude in the Fascist Ventennio as a period of “years of withdrawal", it is fair to recognise that his moral resistance to Fascism evidenced by his non-participation in Senate activities from 1922 onwards, reflected an ethical stance shared by many liberal intellectuals of the time. This "moral resistance" manifested itself in subtle but deliberate and uncommon acts of dissent aimed at undermining the regime's authority and legitimacy. For Einaudi, this period was one of intellectual refinement and “preparation”, culminating in his eventual role as a leading figure in the reconstitution of the Liberal Party even before the fall of Fascism on 25 July 1943.

A brief essay on Stefano Jacini's role as Cavour's secret informant between 1857 and 1859 exemplifies this stance. Co-authored in 1936 with his nephew Stefano Jacini Jr., and later Minister of War in the Parri government, the article examines a memorandum written by Jacini Sr. in 1859 concerning Lombardy’s public debt. Based on a meticulous data collection, Jacini unequivocally demonstrated Austria’s fiscal mismanagement and misrule since 1814. About this writing, one can read: “The texts that terrify tyrannical governments are never the impassioned declarations of orators, however fiery, but the sober, detailed, and precise indictments.” This insight hints at Einaudi's own covert efforts through Rivista containing articles on history and economics to challenge authoritarian regimes. Furthermore, the article notes that Jacini, who had conducted studies commissioned by Archduke Maximilian, was derided as a collaborator by “brilliant drawing-room patriots”, as Einaudi sardonically referred to the circles around Countess Maffei. In reality, Jacini was a respected scholar in British liberal circles, and his writings contributed significantly to the “profound shift in British public opinion” that ultimately bolstered support for Italy’s national revolution. Cavour, recognising Jacini's expertise, offered him the position of Minister of Finance upon his regaining power in January 1860. Although Jacini declined, he was eventually persuaded to accept the role of Minister of Public Works (Un rapporto segreto di Stefano Jacini al Conte di Cavour sul Monte Lombardo Veneto [A Secret Report by Stefano Jacini to Count Cavour on the Lombard-Venetian State], Rivista di storia economica, Vol. 3, September 1936, pp. 205–213).

In a similar vein, Einaudi penned an article a few months later on the economic liberalism of Lombard publicists during the Risorgimento, in his review of a volume by K.R. Greenfield published in 1934. In this piece, Einaudi revisited the calibre and intellectual depth of the Risorgimento’s ruling class—as previously discussed in his review of Prato’s work—and highlighted the importance of analysing the economic and social issues intertwined with the quest for national unity and independence. He emphasised the proliferation of journals, newspapers, and pamphlets devoted to economic matters, which had formed the basis of Greenfield’s research. Einaudi focused particularly on one striking characteristic: the "moderation" of language employed by these publicists. He remarked that figures such as Gioia, Romagnosi, Tommaseo, Sacchi, Cantù, Lambruschini, Cavour, Tenca, Correnti, and others “knew” Einaudi wrote, “that the journals would be suppressed and the editors sent to Spielberg; they did not wish to become martyrs, nor exiles, as they distrusted conspiracies and disdained the prospect of living safely abroad while their compatriots at home faced suspicion and persecution. They were supreme in the art of building a free Italy, ignoring the foreign oppressor”. This represents a praise to the method of moderation moderate which is nothing but his genuine distinctive of his “moral resistance” to Fascism. His retrospective verdict on the effectiveness of their moderate approach is strikingly optimistic, particularly given the time in which he was writing: “Against them Austria felt powerless. Metternich, obsessed with conspiracies [...] failed to see that the most powerful enemy was acting in broad daylight, within his own domain” (Il liberalismo economico dei pubblicisti lombardi del Risorgimento in «Rivista di storia economica» [The economic liberalism of the Lombardy publicists of the Risorgimento in Journal of Economic History], Dec. 1936, pp. 323–327).

Einaudi returned to the figure of Cavour as a paragon of responsible political leadership in one of his final public addresses, delivered in Santena as chairman of the Cavour Commission. In this speech, his unequivocal praise for Cavour served to underscore Einaudi’s enduring advocacy for an independent political class rooted in civil society. He reiterated the importance of the trials and tribulations of everyday life in shaping a politician’s character, particularly in the realm of business, which he deemed an indispensable wellspring of practical experience (Cavour 1861–1961).

2. Piedmont, Italy, Europe

As previously discussed, Piedmont and its historical legacy consistently occupy a central, albeit subtle, presence in Einaudi’s discourses about the period of the unification of the Italian state. This focus, however, should not be misconstrued as a parochial or narrowly localist perspective. Rather, it reflects a conception of the nation as the outcome of a historical process, underscoring the importance of continuity and tradition as foundations for the legitimisation of national institutions.

In this regard, Einaudi’s thinking remains closely aligned with English political culture. Furthermore, it is crucial to acknowledge Einaudi’s sensitivity to the vision of a fraternal and cooperative Europe, an ideal he perceived in the intellectual legacies of key Risorgimento figures who acted as “fathers of the nation”. From the early post-war years, Einaudi’s reflections on Piedmont and Italy increasingly converged with his thoughts on national sovereignty and the evolving European project.

On the occasion of the fiftieth anniversary of Italy’s unification, Einaudi contributed an article to the Corriere della Sera, characteristically supported by a meticulous array of statistical data. In this piece, he expounded upon the contributions of the Kingdom of Sardinia to the Italian cause, highlighting, among other aspects, the economic sacrifices willingly undertaken by these Piedmontese “subjects”. These efforts, he argued, were embraced “because they knew their objective, and the objective was considered sacred”. By contrast, he noted that in other states, governments, driven by conservative imperatives, had been reluctant to pursue stringent fiscal policies. Admittedly, Einaudi observed, “better choices could have been made, and much could have been avoided”. Nonetheless, “the comparison between the budgets of 1862 and 1911–12 was, in his view, such as to inspire pride among Italians” (Cinquant’anni di vita dello Stato italiano - [Fifty Years of the Italian State], Corriere della Sera, 2 April 1911).

In the transitional period from Fascism to the Republic, the memory of the Risorgimento assumed for Einaudi the role of an ideal background of the struggle against Nazi-Fascism and efforts to restore democratic norms and reintegrate Italy into the international order. At this juncture, Einaudi was deeply immersed in the political arena: a member of the Italian Liberal Party (PLI), Governor of the Bank of Italy, a member of the Consulta, a deputy to the Constituent Assembly, and later Vice President of the Council and Minister of the Budget in the fourth De Gasperi government. An editorial he authored for Risorgimento Liberale, the PLI’s publication under the editorship of Mario Pannunzio, published on 1 February 1945, stands as a poignant appeal to military honour during the climactic phase of the resistance against Nazi-Fascism. In it, Einaudi evoked an episode from the early history of the Risorgimento, a page of Piedmontese history with began in 1793 after the loss of Savoy and Nice and the military campaign to defend the Alps to end in 1796 when Napoleon Bonaparte ultimately overwhelmed “the glorious resistance of the Piedmontese”. The analogy to the resistance against German occupation, waged by partisans and the regular army in northern Italy, is unmistakable. Einaudi cited a passage from a letter written by General Costa de Beauregard, one of the commanders who negotiated the 1796 Armistice of Cherasco, addressed to his wife. The excerpt merits repetition: “Until they tear out our tongues, they will never forbid us from teaching our children that true nobility lies solely in the refined sense of duty, the courage to fulfil it, and the unwavering loyalty to family traditions” (Pagine di storia, Risorgimento Liberale[Pages of history pages, Liberal Risorgimento] , 1 February 1945). This editorial exemplifies the propaganda and national mobilisation efforts championed by the liberal newspaper in support of the liberation struggle whatever form it may take, adopting rhetorical strategies and tones reminiscent of the First World War propaganda following the Caporetto defeat.

The sentiments of the Piedmontese following the Armistice of Cherasco must have been strikingly resembling to those experienced by Luigi Einaudi after 8 September 1943 and throughout the fraught period culminating in the signing of the Paris Peace Treaty on 10 February 1947, which was subsequently ratified on 31 July of the same year. The treaty, regarded by the Liberals as a diktat imposed by the victorious powers, elicited profound consternation. While Einaudi, in alignment with De Gasperi, supported ratification, however he did not refrain from expressing deep dismay over the disregard for the sacrifices made by anti-Fascist Italy during the final two years of the war. In his address during the ratification debate, Einaudi adopted a resolutely forward-looking perspective, positing European unity as the sole viable path to Italy’s redemption. “Only by becoming bearers to the world of the need to replace the sword of Satan with the sword of God will we be able to regain our lost supremacy”, he proclaimed from the benches of the Constituent Assembly. His vision drew upon the ideals of cooperation, fraternity, and liberty, which he regarded as the highest achievements of the Risorgimento. These values, “disseminated through the tireless advocacy of Giuseppe Mazzini and rendered practicable within the constraints of political reality by Camillo di Cavour, had, in Einaudi’s view, secured for the nascent Italian state the sympathy, respect, and support of Europe” (Sulla ratifica del Trattato di pace, Discorso alla Costituente, 29 luglio 1947 [On the Ratification of the Peace Treaty, Address to the Constituent Assembly, 29 July 1947], Parliamentary Speeches and Reports, vol. II).

By the time Italy marked the centenary of its unification, Einaudi was nearing the end of his life. In one of his “Predica della domenica” (Sunday Sermons) a column he regularly contributed to the Corriere della Sera, he evoked vivid images of life in Piedmont during his youth. He recalled accompanying his father, a tax collector, on trips to Cuneo, and the village of San Damiano Macra, his father’s birthplace, nestled in the mountains above Dronero. He also remembered Don Alisiardi, a primary school teacher and former military chaplain who had served in all the campaigns for independence, and his mother, who had been an elementary school teacher before her marriage. Einaudi included reflections on the social structure of Piedmont during that era, and although he limited his discussion, he noted that “the Risorgimento was contemplated in every home through prints of Victor Emmanuel II, Cavour, Garibaldi, and Mazzini” (Predica della domenica [Sunday Sermon], Corriere della Sera, 2 April 1961). While Einaudi seldom wrote directly on the Risorgimento, it is evident that its figures, ideals, and political, economic, and military developments permeated his intellectual outlook. The article, published in an edition of the Corriere whose leading editorial, titled Mazzini, was chosen by Missiroli for its grandiose resonance, stands out for its nuanced tone and literary sophistication. Free from rhetorical excess, it exudes a subdued and “intimate” atmosphere, which, arguably, constitutes the most eloquent testament to the profound extent to which the Risorgimento was integral to the life of this Piedmontese liberal citizen who had so honourably served Italy.

3. Labour Policies and the Labour Movement. Elites Replacement and the Bourgeoisie as Open Class

It is well known that Einaudi consistently demonstrated a profound sensitivity to social issues. This sensitivity, as evident from his reflections on the unification process, stemmed from a conception of liberalism imbued with strong moral undertones—an ethos centred on the improvement and moral elevation of the individual. This perspective naturally led him to closely observe the evolution of the organised labour movement. For instance, he showed great interest in the strikes in the Biella region during the latter half of the 1890s, which became the subject of his essay La psicologia di uno sciopero (The Psychology of a Strike). This work was later included in the renowned collection edited by Gobetti in 1924 under the title Lotte del lavoro (Labour Struggles). Einaudi also contributed essays to Turati's Critica Sociale, focusing particularly on the potential liberal role of a socialist party led by a reformist leadership.

As the new century began, his engagement with social issues persisted, however he increasingly harboured doubts about the liberal potential of the socialist movement. With the advent of Giolitti’s new political course, Einaudi took a firm stance against what he perceived as “subsidence” to organised socialism, growing ever more convinced that genuinely liberal solutions were required to address the social question.

Einaudi was notably supportive of the workers' league movement, drawing inspiration from the English model. He envisioned a trajectory akin to the development that had led to the Trade Union Act of 1871, later amended in 1876, which he described as “the magna carta of workers' freedoms” (Il riconoscimento delle leghe operaie [The Recognition of Workers' Leagues], Corriere della Sera, 29 July 1901). This issue remained central to his reflections throughout the years leading up to the Great War. In the summer of 1901, during the Zanardelli government’s deliberations on workers' representation, Einaudi advocated for the legal recognition of workers' associations, including their right to own property, initiate legal proceedings, and be subject to litigation. He argued that, aside from requiring the public disclosure of statutes, social acts, and annual financial accounts, no additional obligations had to be imposed, as “excessive restrictions risked stifling the workers' movement”. Einaudi also emphasised the principle of voluntarism, asserting that workers' leagues must arise from the spontaneous will of their members. He cautioned against any legal measures that might make membership compulsory, warning that such an approach would resurrect the restrictive guild structures of arts and crafts, ultimately harming economic progress. A few months later, Einaudi returned to the subject, reiterating his opposition to excessive regulation of labour organisations. He cautioned that over-legislation risked curtailing organisational freedom by confining it “within the strictures of regulations”. Instead, he believed that granting workers' leagues legal capacity was sufficient. He argued that only those leagues capable of “promoting the welfare of the working classes without detriment to industry and commerce” would endure, regardless of their political affiliations. This, he contended, was “the only liberal and honest way to contend with non-constitutional leagues” (La superstizione delle leggi [The superstition of the laws], Corriere della Sera, 29 August 1901).

Conversely, Einaudi’s evaluation of the deviations within peasant associationism—particularly when it assumed a political dimension—was decidedly negative. He was especially critical of the league leaders, the organisers who had, in his view, instilled “strange hopes of social palingenesis in the workers of the land” and erred in advocating for “uniform pacts” across vast territories marked by widely divergent conditions “of fertility, location, and land size” (Il momento della sosta [The moment for a stop], Corriere della Sera, 22 January 1903). It is worth noting that a significant number of these league leaders were not themselves members of the peasant class.

Did, however, associationism within the labour sector and the use of strikes as a means of assertion yield tangible results? An opportunity for reflection on this question arose from Alessandro Schiavi’s statistical study, published in 1902 in Riforma Sociale. Although Einaudi recognised the merit of Schiavi’s work, his conclusions ultimately diverged from those of the socialist scholar. Schiavi exhibited confidence in the moderating influence of the Leagues and Federations, linking this to the decline in strike activity observed in 1902. Einaudi, while acknowledging that the expansion of local leagues into national federations could exert such a moderating effect, remained sceptical as to whether Italy was following the same developmental trajectory as the English Trade Unions. Prejudices among workers were still pervasive, and in the agricultural sector, the movement had largely been unsuccessful—apart from limited successes in Tuscany, Umbria, and Apulia (Gli scioperi del 1902. Le statistiche di un socialista [Strikes in 1902. The statistics of a socialist] Corriere della Sera, 22 February 1903).

Einaudi revisited this same issue following the publication of the Statistical Yearbook of 1904, an occasion which also allowed him to extol the significance of statistics, a discipline integral to his analytical work, and to lament the passing of the “wonderful activity with Bodio” in the field. The data, however, offered no means to assess the financial gains workers may have achieved through strikes—a task Einaudi considered exceedingly difficult. He praised the Directorate of Statistics for “refraining from officially endorsing the widely publicised claims of 40 or 50 million profit announced by Mr Giolitti at the Chamber of Deputies”, he added polemically. What the data did reveal, however, was a continued decline in strike activity, which Einaudi attributed not to the spread of conciliation and arbitration practices but rather to the deleterious effects of political interference (Due anni di sciopero in Italia [Two years of strike in Italy], Corriere della Sera, 5 October 1904).

Writing in the columns of Corriere della Sera, Einaudi expressed sharp criticism of the reformist processes in labour relations initiated during the early years of the century. He devoted considerable attention to the issue of arbitration, condemning procedural approaches that resulted in ineffectual pacification measures, which, more often than not, merely generated confusion—“run with the hare and hunt with the hounds” in pursuit of a superficial quietude. He observed, however, that deep-seated prejudices against arbitration persisted within the socialist camp, where it was viewed as a tool to circumvent the “scourge of strikes” Similarly, within the liberal camp, opposition to compulsory arbitration was widespread, particularly in the absence of legal recognition for workers’ representatives (Arbitrato e scioperi obbligatori e reato di crumiraggio [Arbitration and compulsory strikes and the crime of strike-breaking], Corriere della Sera, 13 October, 9 and 27 November, and 10 December 1904).

Einaudi identified the true degeneration of society as stemming from the gradual replacement of a system of free competition with one centred on "social solidarity," characterised by the increasingly pervasive intervention of the state. A conspicuous symptom of this decline was evident in proposals related to the crime of strikebreaking, which he viewed with scepticism. Einaudi was particularly critical of what he described as a “so-called new workers' law”, asserting that it had nothing to do with advancing the welfare of the working classes. His criticism extended to a ruling by the Court of Cassino on 30 October 1902, not merely because members of a workers’ league had been acquitted, but because the judgement ventured into profuse appraisal about the profits of property owners. “Marx's doctrine of surplus labour and the usurping origins of capital’s profit ”, he remarked, “has already infiltrated the judgements of the Courts.”

Since this period, Einaudi’s polemics against socialism grew sharper, particularly in response to the demagogic excesses of revolutionary rhetoric. He observed with disdain that the state's “duty to pay civil servants their monthly salary punctually” was not balanced by an expectation “to discipline them when they were idle or insubordinate […] as soon as there is any mention of reminding civil servants of their duties”, he lamented, "they proclaim: Give them to the capitalists, the exploiters, the bourgeois! Just as in Robespierre's time, every opponent was decried with protest: Down with the aristocrat!" (La formula di Robespierre [Robespierre’s formula], Corriere della Sera, 11 March 1905). Einaudi also noted a prejudice in socialist newspapers that condemned the formation of leagues among industrial firms in Turin, portraying them as instruments designed "to destroy the freedom of labour, condemn workers whose only desire is working to starvation, drive them to desperation, and ultimately to crime and imprisonment" (Le leghe di industriali [The industrial leagues], Corriere della Sera, 31 July 1906). In Einaudi’s view, the recourse to association by entrepreneurs was not only legitimate but beneficial, as it served as a counterbalance to workers' associations and thus contributed to social harmony. This belief aligned with his liberal perspective on conflict, which he would broadly articulate in his essay La bellezza della lotta (The Beauty of Struggle). There, among his pivotal enunciations, he argued that “a balance achieved through discussion and struggle is preferable to one imposed by external force”.

Therefore, we can clearly state that Einaudi’s opposition to organised socialism and his criticism of the Giolitti-based governance approach were, therefore, two facets of the same coin, in line with his broader denunciation of any deviation from genuinely liberal principles. Must not go forgotten His criticism of what he termed the “chattering democracy” that is resolutions which have no respondence to facts, devoid of any practical foundation and unsupported by rigorous analysis of the general and specific conditions of the context of their implementation. Even when he conceded the necessity of government intervention, he often criticised its execution. For instance, in 1903, he expressed opposition to a clause in proposed railway agreements that would allocate a portion of company profits to staff. While Einaudi was not inherently opposed to such systems—he cited how brilliant was the innovative example of the United States Still Corporation’s profit-sharing scheme, which he analysed the complex mechanism in detail — however, he argued that under Italian conditions, particularly in large enterprises, the proposed approach by the government only bring negative outcomes to both workers and entrepreneurs (Democrazia capitalistica [Capitalistic democracy], Corriere della Sera, 22 March 1903).

In a 1907 article, Einaudi did not hesitate to criticize a draft law for the city of Rome concerning the expropriation of land for construction. He contended that the law covertly harboured collectivist ambitions, demonstrating through technical analysis how expropriation could often occur at prices “below market value, sometimes even without compensation, and even with the added obligation for the owner to pay a fine for being expropriated free of charge” (Come avvengono le rivoluzioni sociali in Italia [How social revolutions occur in Italy], Corriere della Sera, 28 May 1907).

In a 1911 article titled Are the Ways of Socialism New?, Einaudi presented one of his most direct denunciations of socialism, critiquing both its theoretical underpinnings and its manifestation as an organised political movement. At the same time, he censured a timorous bourgeoisie that lacked awareness of its own strengths—a phenomenon epitomised by the Giolitti government. This administration, in Einaudi's view, was excessively attentive to "ghosts surviving from the movements of half a century ago" (Sono nuove le vie del socialismo?[Are the ways of socialism new?], Corriere della Sera, 29 March 1911). Such complicity, he argued, was detrimental to the liberal state, whose degeneration was marked by nefarious statisation, municipalisation, and the rise of monopolistic and corporatist tendencies.

Although Einaudi’s critique of socialism grew more pointed during this period, it would be incorrect to conclude that he dismissed the utility of workers’ organisations altogether. The essential condition, however, hinged on their capacity to remain independent of the demagoguery associated with their affiliated political parties. Writing on the occasion of the Congress of Resistance Societies, which convened in Padua on 24 May 1911, Einaudi praised figures such as Rinaldo Rigola and the positive contributions of labour and business organisations in an article published on Corriere della Sera. However, he also acknowledged that these organisations were still “burdened” by certain historical legacies, such as the Confederation's tendency to lobby individual deputies in pursuit of legislative concessions on labour or the reluctance of employers to confront the issue of protectionism “boldly” and directly. Einaudi particularly commended Rigola’s proposal to increase workers’ individual membership fees from 50 cents to 1 lira. He noted that this measure would promote a more responsible approach to strikes and foster an appreciation of welfare benefits by encouraging individuals to “sacrifice the present for the future” (Il Congresso della Resistenza. Organizzati e organizzatori in Italia [The Congress of the Resistance. Organized and organizers in Italy], Corriere della Sera, 24 May 1911). Beyond these practical considerations, Einaudi emphasised the broader social role of labour organisations. They served as vehicles for social elevation, enabling workers who chose to bear higher costs in the present for well being to be gained in the future and through this develop a mindset akin to that of the bourgeoisie. This perspective offered an alternative to the view of labour organisations as mere instruments of class struggle, reflecting concepts rooted in elite theory, particularly of Pareto’s inspiration. In the aforementioned article on social revolutions in Italy, Einaudi remarked that “sometimes, when the lower classes do not know how to rise and the ruling classes know how to resist and acquire new vitality by enriching themselves with vigorous elements drawn from the virgin popular strata, every whiff of revolution goes out and the transfer of property does not happen”. For Einaudi, the virtues of the bourgeoisie lay in its status as an “open” class defined as “universal, diverse, and dynamic” because “It constantly attracts fresh talent while discarding only the lazy, the uninformed, and those who, having attained the glories of wealth, are preparing for the decline in this or the next generation”. Henceforth, one can talk about a rejection of class struggle while embracing the utility of class organisation. This dynamic, he argued, had fostered the emergence of a new working-class elite destined to be assimilated into the bourgeoisie, which in turn had spurred the refinement of productive mechanisms.

4. Fighting Protectionism, Nationalisations, the Statist Bureaucracy

Einaudi’s anti-protectionist polemic was emblematic of Giolitti’s tenure in government, with much of this critique articulated in the pages of Riforma Sociale, which he directed from 1908, steering it in a markedly different direction from the Nitti era, as well as in the columns of the Corriere della Sera. Notably, in the preface to the third volume of his Cronache economiche e politiche di un trentennio (Economic and political chronicles of a thirty-year period), Einaudi provided a reflective self-analysis of his focus on the anti-protectionist theme. He underscores that “customs protection is not under scrutiny per se”, acknowledging that it would have been unfair to condemn the efforts of those who had sought to equip Italy with a vital mechanism for fostering a robust industrial base. Indeed, the concept of protecting “nascent industries just like young children requiring the shelter of a metaphorical hothouse to guard against the competitive forces of England and France” —had its foundation in respectable economic theory, with figures such as Friedrich List and John Stuart Mill providing intellectual support. However, while Einaudi acknowledged this rationale as a necessary but temporary measure, he argued that its validity was no longer relevant in Giolitti’s era. “By the late 19th century, the new and growing customs protection appeared to a respectable share of the Italian political class as a suitable instrument to guide Italian industry to overcome its vulnerable early age, in need for support, in order to reach an independent and thriving maturity”. In that time of Giolitti’s government, however, that period had already elapsed for Einaudi, then, the justification for continued protectionism had expired.

A key point in this discourse is Einaudi’s recollection of how the anti-protectionist campaign was conducted through the Corriere della Sera, a publication often “suspected of being influenced by the interests of the cotton industry” while Einaudi’s articles demonstrated the editorial independence of the newspaper. This was a testament to Luigi Albertini’s leadership and his ability “to steer the paper clear of any dependence on the interests of either employers or workers”—an independence that, Einaudi noted, was rare in Italy.

In an article on the sulphur industry in Sicily where a compulsory consortium had been established to counter competition from American producers in Louisiana, Einaudi expounded his views about this being an experiment in monopoly, one “created, guaranteed, subsidised, and effectively administered by the state” (Uno sperimento di intervento dello stato [An experiment in state intervention], Corriere della Sera, 8–9 August 1906). This event was of great significance to Einaudi, as in his opinion it introduced a novel form of industrial organisation: a mandatory syndicate of producers, deprived by law of the right to independently sell their products, and subjected to state supervision. The state, in turn, assumed the role of guarantor for the substantial economic risks faced by an industry competing against powerful foreign rivals. Einaudi considered this development monumental, however the socialists failed to grasp its implications. In another article, written a year after the enactment of the consortium’s founding legislation, Einaudi explored the historical struggles of the Sicilian sulphur industry. Here, he expressed his reservations about what he described as a “bold experiment in state collectivism” (La questione solfifera siciliana. Pericoli e dubbi [The Sicilian sulphur question. Dangers and doubts], Corriere della Sera, 6 August 1907).

An essay published in Riforma Sociale in 1911 concerning state intervention in support of Italy’s oil producers serves as a paradigmatic example of Einaudi’s anti-protectionist polemic. The essay’s title, I trivellatori di stato (The state drillers), evolved into a metaphor for all industrialists—particularly iron and steel manufacturers —who conducted their operations under the protective shield of public subsidies. Returning to the original context, the article, characteristic of Einaudi’s work, was meticulously documented and bolstered by extensive statistical data. Certain passages merit attention, such as Einaudi’s deconstruction of the spectre of American dumping—the alleged practice of selling below cost—which was routinely invoked by Italian industrialists and at the same moment denying the government connivence. It was in this essay that Einaudi referenced Stuart Mill and his theory on nurturing nascent industries. Yet, Einaudi questioned whether this was really the case of the Italian oil industry. Could one reasonably describe as “childlike, an industry that was forty years old but being coddled until this very last days by the protective warmth of protective customs so delightful that few industrialists could have dared to hope for more”? He recalled how, between 1871 and 1887, protectionist duties on oil had progressively increased from 20% to 100%, and from 1887 to 1907, had escalated further to levels of 200% to 250% (I trivellatori di stato [The state drillers], Riforma Sociale, XVIII, vol. XXII, 1911).

Another issue that drew Einaudi’s critical attention was the nationalisation of life insurance under Nitti’s initiative, with the establishment of the National Life Insurance Institute in 1911. This measure effectively introduced a state monopoly intended to promote savings for supplementary insurance and redirect these funds towards public finance. Einaudi openly opposed various aspects of this initiative, notably the retroactive expropriation of private insurance companies, which he found particularly objectionable (Il monopolio delle assicurazioni sulla vita. Calcoli o cabale? [The life insurance monopoly. Calculations or cabals?], Corriere della Sera, 13 April–11 July 1911).

In the same year, Einaudi turned his focus to the disproportionate growth of bureaucracy, a defining feature of Giolitti’s Italy. Recent scholarship has documented this phenomenon, though it had already drawn the attention of contemporary observers. Einaudi lamented that by 1911, public employment encompassed nearly two million individuals—some 5–6% of the population—who depended on “state wages”. He warned of the risks that the unaware creation of a coercive “regime of coercitive collectivist social organisation that would stifle freedom and suppress individual initiative (Ruoli chiusi o ruoli aperti? Freno al dilagare della burocrazia? [Closed roles or open roles? A brake on bureaucratic expansion?], Corriere della Sera, 26 April–30 May 1911). Einaudi linked this growth in bureaucracy to the pervasive inclination towards “statism,” a trend that would attract his focus after the First World War when he would warn about the requirement to dismantle the complex bureaucratic architecture that had been put together under contingency, but had eventually aggravated the situation. In early 1919, he authored a series of articles for Corriere della Sera, where his critique of ministerial bureaucracy converged with an appeal for effective liberalisation of the economic system. Confronted with the entrenched inertia of the economic bureaucracy’s upper echelons, Einaudi argued that “each of us must confess ignorance before the humblest producers, who risks both labour and savings in their enterprise” (Faccia il suo mestiere! [Do Your Job!], Corriere della Sera, 15 January–19 April 1919). This principle resonated with young liberals like Guido Carli during the immediate post-Second World War period, though, regrettably, little changed from Einaudi’s time. Through evocative headlines such as Dismiss the Godfathers!, Off with the Oysters from the Rocks, and With the Oysters off the Rocks, Einaudi underscored the urgency of dismantling the harness of the war economy. Recognising the political and social unrest gripping Europe, with the working masses in agitation, he contended that only a policy of liberalisation—abolishing constraints and barriers to ensure raw materials could be acquired at the lowest prices and sold in the most lucrative markets—would enable industrialists to adopt labour policies addressing workers’ demands. Such a course, he believed, would diminish revolutionary fervour.

5. The Southern Question, Emigration, Colonialism

The Giolittian era, marked by the first significant phase of economic development since the unification of Italy, offered a renewed opportunity to engage with the Southern question, an issue to which Einaudi demonstrated a keen sensitivity. This engagement began with his responses to Nitti’s Nord e Sud [North and south], published in La Stampa di Torino in June 1900. In this work, the Lucanian intellectual highlighted the financial exploitation of the South that followed unification. Among the most prominent commentators on the Southern question in the early 20th century, Einaudi belonged, almost self-evidently, to the anti-protectionist school of thought. This current, exemplified most notably by De Viti De Marco, attributed the economic stagnation of the Mezzogiorno to the protectionist policies that favoured Northern industries and imposed high tariffs on Southern agricultural products.

Particularly noteworthy are Einaudi’s contributions from 1905, a period during which the debate gained renewed vigour, spurred in part by the passage of the Special Law for Naples in 1904, prepared by Nitti for the Giolitti government. It is worth noting, however, that Nitti himself shared a distaste for protectionism, parasitism, and state bureaucracy, a perspective shaped by the influence of Giustino Fortunato.

In his writings, Einaudi reiterated anti-protectionist arguments in defence of the Mezzogiorno, yet certain of his observations deserve a special attention. For instance, regarding the Sicilian latifundium, he departed from the prevailing narrative, which prescribed its “violent dismemberment” as the sole solution. Einaudi argued that the latifundium in Sicily was not merely a product of legislation or the deliberate actions of the ruling classes but was instead rooted in climatic factors and economic pragmatism. As such, he advocated for “structural” interventions, such as regulating water resources and facilitating the sale of manufactured agricultural products derived from wheat. Einaudi did not shy away from proposing state intervention for such structural initiatives, envisioning the resolution to lie in a balanced partnership between public and private efforts (Problema meridionale, riforme tributarie, opere pubbliche e iniziative private [The Southern Italy Problem: Tax Reforms, Public Works, and Private Initiatives] Corriere della Sera, 13 November 1905).

Einaudi, however, was fully aware of the deterioration in local administrative governance, increasingly slipping beyond the control of the state. This issue had already been extensively explored by contemporaries such as Colajanni, Nitti, and Mosca. In fact, during 1905, Mosca published Uomini e cose di Sicilia (Men and things of Sicily), a work to which Einaudi undoubtedly alluded, even if he refrained from citing it directly. To address the problem, Einaudi contemplated the possibility of implementing drastic measures, including the establishment of a special Commission. He drew inspiration from Di Rudinì’s earlier actions with Codronchi but envisioned a more enduring solution—one that could operate with stability for “at least five, if not ten years”. Such an approach, he argued, “would ultimately transform the political psyche of Sicilian partisans, as vividly described by Mosca. When individuals came to realise that the tortuous paths of intrigue no longer bore fruit, and that the rule of law alone prevailed above both them and their adversaries” their behaviour would inevitably change (Politica e amministrazione del Mezzogiorno [Southern Italy policy and administration], Corriere della Sera, 10 November 1905).

However, this stance should not be misconstrued as an endorsement of excessive statism. Einaudi was no a proponent of administrative centralisation. In a 1907 article, he directly refuted the French foreign minister Hanoteaux’s claim that Italy had achieved a balanced relationship between central authority and local autonomy. Einaudi instead underscored exactly the opposite approach, he highlighted the plight of municipalities, which he argued were often subject to ministerial overreach. The woes of Southern Italy, he contended, could largely be attributed to the “pernicious corruption wrought by the central government” and the “tyrannical solidarity of interests binding large electorates, municipal administrations, MPs, and the Government” (Le illusioni della grandezza [The illusions of greatness], Corriere della Sera, 3 April 1907).

Years later, in October 1910, the publication of findings from the Parliamentary Inquiry into the Conditions of the Peasants in the Southern Provinces and Sicily offered Einaudi another occasion to reflect on these issues. The report collated analyses and proposals from leading political thinkers of the era, prominently featuring Nitti’s extensive report on the benefits of emigration. Einaudi, who regarded emigration as the quintessentially spontaneous and thus most effective solution, valued it far more than any legal intervention (La grande inchiesta sul Mezzogiorno. Diboscamenti, malaria ed emigrazione [The great survey on the Mezzogiorno. Deforestation, malaria and emigration], Corriere della Sera, 22 October 1910). In two subsequent articles in 1911, Einaudi revisited the conclusions of the inquiry into Southern agricultural conditions, framing the Southern question as a fundamentally moral issue. He underscored the profound tragedy of the North-South divide, which he saw as devolving into a sharp and destructive antagonism. His hope lay in the emergence of a new Southern bourgeoisie—one that should have been capable of demanding with determination the end of granting of favours from the State (Mali secolari ed energie nuove. Le conclusioni dell’inchiesta sul Mezzogiorno agricolo [Secular evils and new energies The conclusions of the enquiry into the Mezzogiorno agriculture], Corriere della Sera, 12, 16 August 1911).

As a keen observer of Italy under Giolitti, Einaudi also engaged with the issue of colonialism, particularly in the context of Italy's conquest of Libya. His perspectives “around” this matter are exemplified in two writings from 1913 that encapsulate his nuanced approach. Reflecting on the Treaty of Lausanne, signed in October 1912 following Italy’s victory over the Ottoman Empire with this last ceding Tripolitania and Cyrenaica, Einaudi described it as a “masterpiece of the art of government”. The treaty stood out for its respect for existing religious statutes, its emphasis on cooperation with the indigenous population in governance, and its recognition of their right to representation. In responding to critics who accused the Italian government of excessive leniency, Einaudi clarified that his position did not endorse the notion of placing government of Tripolitania and Cyrenaica entirely “in the hands of the natives”. Instead, he advocated the establishment of “as many political statutes as there were distinct groups within the population—natives, Israelites, and Italian settlers—ensuring that none [could] oppress the other” (Il valore italiano del Trattato di Losanna [The Italian value of the Treaty of Lausanne], Corriere della Sera, 1 November 1912). Einaudi reiterated this principle in the economic domain, using the example of an agronomic commission established by Minister Bertolini. Rejecting the widespread euphoria over the agricultural potential of the newly acquired territories, he emphasised the importance of respecting existing practices, such as small-scale cultivation of garden plots. Collaboration with the indigenous population and significant investments of Italian capital were, in his view, essential for sustainable development (La creazione della terra nella zona di Tripoli [The creation of land in the area of Tripoli], Corriere della Sera, 2 March 1913). This approach, it must be noted, stands in stark contrast to the exploitative practices typically associated with imperialism.

Einaudi's reflections on colonialism maintained their consistency into the immediate post-war period. Addressing the Consulta nazionale in January 1946, during discussions surrounding the post-war peace treaty, he courageously defended the right of Italy to abdicate full sovereignty over territories to be considered by then former colonies. Instead, he argued, Italy had to actively contribute to the United Nations’ programme of trusteeship, governing on behalf of and for the benefit of indigenous populations. In making his case, Einaudi drew a clear distinction between the liberal colonialism he espoused and the fascist imperialism that had tainted Italy’s reputation. He recalled an earlier sharp debate with his friend Edoardo Giretti, a prominent figure in the Italian liberalist movement. Both had identified two distinct phases in any colonial enterprise: the phase of conquest, characterised by the extension of a nation’s dominion on a broader geographical surface, the opening of new markets, then new opportunities and gain for the country and, inevitably, the exploitation of indigenous labour. This is a phase of civilising contribution, marked by soldiers who will provide law and order, magistrates who will impart justice impartially and will allow the weak to be protected against the chief of tribes, and provide education through teachers who sought to elevate indigenous populations to the dignity of free individuals. In that earlier debate, Einaudi had articulated a sort of “decalogue”, a set of guidelines for liberal colonialism—principles echoed in his 1913 writings. Among them was the conviction that effective colonisation must be gradual and costly. To support this view, he cited data demonstrating the substantial sacrifices Italy had made in managing its colonies, as well as its investments in agriculture, infrastructure, healthcare, and education. Defending such a position was no small task in the politically charged atmosphere of the immediate post-war period, however, can one say that any of the powers represented at the San Francisco Conference claim to be entirely without fault? On this point, he asserted: “There have been faults in all colonising nations, and we too have committed our share. But that people who are without sin is the only who have the right to cast the first stone. I believe that when it comes to colonialism, no nation is without blame” (Consulta nazionale. Discussione sulle dichiarazioni del Presidente del Consiglio, Ministro degli Affari Esteri Alcide De Gasperi, a proposito delle Colonie [National Consulta. Discussion on the statements by Prime Minister and Foreign Minister Alcide De Gasperi regarding the colonies], 16 January 1946, in Interventi e relazioni parlamentari, Vol. II).

6. In the Shadow of the Risorgimento

Einaudi's assessment of Giolitti was notoriously very critical. The Lettere politiche di Junius [Junius’s political letters], a series of articles published as letters to the editor in Corriere della Sera between July 1917 and October 1919, later compiled in a 1920 collection, vividly reflected Einaudi’s bitterness toward his compatriot statesman during this tumultuous period. These were the years of war and post-war reckoning, during which Einaudi expressed severe criticism of the Versailles peace settlements while reflecting on the Giolittian era. Central to his critique was the interplay between Piedmontese history and the history of united Italy, with the figure of Cavour serving once again as a lens through which to offer a scathing evaluation of Giolitti’s legacy. Among other aspects, Einaudi challenged Giolitti’s claim to the inheritance of Cavour’s political tradition as misplaced which Giolitti considered as a precedent legitimizing this continuous “progressive shift leftward” that characterised Giolittian politics during the ora nuova period. He dismissed the tendency to invoke Cavour’s unionist vision as a legitimising precedent for Giolitti’s policies as both misplaced and reductive (Intorno ai detti memorabili dello statista erede della tradizione piemontese [Around the memorable sayings of the statesman heir to the Piedmontese tradition], in Lettere politiche di Junius, Laterza, Bari, 1920, pp. 33–42). Einaudi argued that Cavour’s political legacy could not be simply confined to a “single topographical memory”. He recalled that, during his time, Cavour was regarded as an aristocrat—mocked as “milord Camillo”—a landowner, a stockpiler, and an adversary of “urban and rural workers”, whom Giolitti now championed as though they were “the sole members of Italy’s army by land and sea”. Equally caustic was Einaudi’s critique of the demagoguery surrounding the themes of war and peace, which he observed united prominent leaders such as Wilson, Briand, and Lloyd George whose apocalyptic discourse- and prominently a speech by the British Liberal leader - had been adeptly co-opted by Giolitti. Einaudi reminded Giolitti that from the time of Thucydides, every war had been perceived by contemporaries as the greatest catastrophe imaginable. Only the judgment of history could properly assess the magnitude of the present conflict; all else, he contended, consisted of hasty assessments—“good only to inflame the imaginations of excitable peoples”.

Einaudi was determined to dismantle any perceived similarity between Cavour and Giolitti, which he considered as the result of a profound distortion—a “comical counterfeit” of the former’s biography. He particularly rejected the portrayal of Cavour as an “empiricist” detached from theoretical underpinnings. On the contrary, Einaudi highlighted the young Cavour’s intellectual rigour as a devoted student of Francesco Ferrara at the University of Turin and as the author of a compendium on economic science, and hold a far-reaching scientific knowledge. Just as Einaudi rejected the notion that the so-called Giolittian “great decade”, during which Italy undeniably experienced significant progress, was solely attributable to the efforts of the statesman who fancied himself the heir to “Cavour’s temperament”. Einaudi recalled how in all the Countries of the World across “Europe and America, Asia, and Oceania, the great decade had been marked by rising wages, dramatic increases in national wealth, and unprecedented levels of prosperity” (Lasciar fare alla storia [Let history do the work], ibid, pp. 55–66).

The founding of the Italian Liberal Party at the Bologna Congress in 1922 provided another opportunity for Einaudi to critique Giolittism—this time with greater subtlety and restraint, but no less incisively. In an article for Corriere della Sera, Einaudi presented what he termed a “psychological analysis of what Piedmontese liberalism is”. He characterised Piedmontese liberalism “more than a doctrine or a fixed set of principles that politicians might apply in response to life’s contingencies” but rather as a state of mind. Over time, Einaudi argued, the connection to liberal doctrine—Cavour’s liberal doctrine—had grown increasingly tenuous. Piedmontese liberalism had come to disdain theory, anything in contrast to the intellectual richness of the period from 1826 to 1848, the formative years of Cavour’s thought. Liberalism as a “state of mind”, in this context, meant embracing the merits that might also be found in opposing political forces and doctrines, a tactic where Einaudi traced “a large share of tactical wisdom, and good common sense in daily matters” which he attributed to the “unsurpassed duos Depretis and Giolitti”. Einaudi’s words vis-à-vis the Piedmontese governance tradition were words of respect in his summary—“to administer with tact, with wisdom, with competence”. However, he was no less critical of its shortcomings when he argued that this tradition now needed to know “why one should govern well”, that is it was now lacking of “the liberal idea” which, he contended, was precisely what Italy required “in the present moment” (Piemonte liberale [Liberal Piedmont], Corriere della Sera, 14 October 1922).

7. After Fascism and in the Republic of the Political Parties

In Einaudi's case, it cannot be said that there was a radical revision of his judgement on Giolitti's Italy after the Second World War. In the prefaces to volumes II and III of Cronache economiche e politiche di un trentennio [Economic and political chronicles of thirty years], written between 1959 and 1960—shortly before his death—Einaudi reiterated that, in economic and social matters, the governmental actions had not been particularly fruitful. He revisited the main “stages” of what he described as an erratic policy: at times relinquishing its responsibilities, prone to deferring decisions, and one that, while occasionally avoiding “hasty and damaging solutions”, in other instances caused greater harm. Nevertheless, these pages reveal a greater willingness to evaluate Giolitti’s work within the broader context of the time. Einaudi cautioned readers against interpreting his earlier writings as a wholly “negative judgement on the entirety of the economic and political actions of the man who ruled the sum of things in the first decade of the century”. A government, he explained, is never solely responsible for its successes or its failures. The most striking aspect of these “final” reflections by the Piedmontese economist is his attempt to understand Giolitti as a man and to consider what “governè bin” (Piedmontese dialect for “to govern well”) meant to him. Einaudi recounted how, in 1898, as a young man in Luigi Roux's study, he had asked Giolitti what should be done to address the country's problems. Giolitti’s reply in native dialect encapsulated his pragmatic essence. Now, Einaudi sought to restore the positive core of Giolittism, outlining what he saw as the defining qualities of an effective statesman: an exact knowledge of men and the ability to select them wisely, the capacity to “dominate” them with firmness and courtesy, an intimate understanding of public administration, regularity in work, assiduity and expertise in parliamentary procedures, clarity and brevity in speech, and the ability to distil the most complex issues to their essence. A lifestyle marked by modesty and restraint complemented these traits. Such attributes, Einaudi argued, were by no means insignificant. He then posed a rhetorical question: did the political scenario of those years offer anyone better equipped to govern Italians than Giolitti? This very question, he observed, had compelled even the most obstinate contemporary critics “of the time” —including himself—to “bow respectfully to his memory” (Cronache economiche e politiche di un trentennio [Economic and political chronicles over three decades] (1895–1925), Preface, II, Einaudi, Turin 1959, pp. 37–40).

Einaudi also recalled the relatively open atmosphere of the Giolitti years, when opposition voices were heard in parliament, and newspapers were free to criticise the government. At the same time, he recalled how whenever it seemed the opposition might gain the upper hand, the majority “silently voted”, despite the relevance of opponents’ arguments. Einaudi pictorially described the majority as a “swamp”, marked by “voluntary subservience”, obsequiousness in exchange for “former favours”, recognition “of the leader’s skill in managing men”, and by the satisfaction of opposing factions. Between 1910 and 1914, this situation seemed stable and unassailable. Who could have imagined, Einaudi asked, that this swamp would one day “submerge everything with the senators kneeling as they passed before the seat of the impassive Duce in their hall of Palazzo Madama?” Equally unimaginable was the post-Fascist proliferation of three or four swamps, where deputies and senators would “vote in disciplined fashion [...] at the nod of a party secretary, external to parliament in their official capacity” he wrote.(Cronache economiche e politiche di un trentennio [Economic and political chronicles over three decades] (1895–1925), Preface, III, Einaudi, Turin 1960, pp. 11–12).