Not only did the system take until 1936 to implement – around 8 years since its conception, but many economic decisions were not under the corporations’ control, apart from matters related to labour and wages. In fact, historian Townley saw the system as a ‘mirage’, that it would never eliminate tension between businesses and labour. Though the corporate system was too inefficient to be deemed a success, employers were favoured employers by providing a docile workforce, organised into fragmented syndicates that were unable to defend workers’ interests. As such, Mussolini was successful in establishing a basis of support from businessmen by forcing down labour costs. What was more important was the way the corporate state acted as propaganda, a ‘middle way’ between the failure of liberal capitalism and socialist command economy – at face value, particularly to foreign visitors, the corporate state seemed an impressive system, thus it was successful in shaping the image of Mussolini’s rule. Similarly, Mussolini’s policy of autarky did little but to support industrialists - demand for consumer goods were depressed to reduce imports, so that the living standards of workers, too, decreased. The goal of a country should be to provide for its population, not to encourage ‘austerity’ as justification for dismal living conditions – for consumers, workers in particular, Mussolini’s leadership was certainly unsuccessful economically. Yet the importance of autarky and corporatism for asserting national strength, a fascist ideal, supports the argument that though his rule yielded little physical success, his obsession with creating an image was satisfied. Perhaps it may be considered as a personal success, not success for the economic prosperity of his