I will first provide a short answer to each question and perhaps go into further and longer details later. There is some editing ongoing on those parts...

Also to give a sort of framework, I'd like to distinguish phases in the Regime development pinpointing some major events. I do it here for convenience; hopefully it will make sense but it is somewhat arbitrary.

Before we start, just two things: Italy was a Constitutional Monarchy before 1922, not a Republic. And despite the myth developed by the Fascist propaganda, there was no victorious revolution, no coup, since Mussolini was legally appointed by the King^1.

 

A first phase (of conservative authoritarian government) going from Mussolini's appointment as Presidente del Consiglio in October 28 1922 to his speech in January 3 1925, following the murder of Giacomo Matteotti.

A second phase (of police state), marked by the strengthening of the Regime's hold over the Italian society and the attempt to marginalize the traditional Institutions and structures of the State, up to the late 1927.

A third phase (of development of totalitarian structures) marked by an attempt to employ the increased power in order to solidify the Regime, insuring its longevity and at the same time attempting to rework the Italian nation and the people through a mixture of control and propaganda, which we could very well stretch into the 30s, and leads into the more proper Totalitarian Regime.

 

How totalitarian was the state? Were people capable of relaxing in the privacy of their own home, or were they constantly watched?

 

On a practical note; Fascism could be blunt - and even downright stupid at times - in its attempts to mobilize society, rebuild the Italians and so on. But the nature of a totalitarian regime tends to be more subtle than that, both in its aspirations and its practical form.

So, people could relax; the more the better even. Social security – passivity to some extent – actually increased with the growing Totalitarian nature of the Regime and the fading memories of the social conflict of the 1919-20 and the fascist violence of the early 1920s to reach its peak with the years 1929-36. Uncertainty resurfaced with the threat of war in the late 30s.

Consensus heavily relied on this sort of passive mobilization. Given that it was not realistically possible to bring every man and woman to give their souls entirely to the Regime, Fascism settled for having them taking part in Regime activities which were, of course, kind of the only possible activities.

It's great for kids to have a place to play together and socialize; so, let's make those places Fascist! It's great to watch a good football match; so, let's make football Fascist! It's great to watch movies; so, let's build a true Cinema industry! And put Fasces on every building so that everybody knows who made it!

The actions of the Regime were indeed more focused on offering people a large amount of aggregation space within the regime and to deny them any space outside of the regime, than to control their personal, private space^2.

 

What changes to the economy occurred? Were poor Italians pushed further into poverty as Mussolini directed more power into the hands of the elite?

 

Not much at first. In the 1922-24 Mussolini behaved in many ways as the prime minister of an authoritarian government. The finance ministry was held by a conservative liberist Alberto de Stefani (until July 1925).

In 1925 he was replaced by Giuseppe Volpi di Misurata, an industrial owner and prominent figure of the Italian electric energy industry. A choice that marked a shift favorable to heavy industry and a policy of State intervention, which started on a high note with the battle for Quota 90 in 1926-27 and would continue until the War.

As far as the italian workers were concerned; Fascism – kind of – had to appease the industrial world which had been a key to its rise to power. To do this, the Regime favored throughout a policy of State oversight of the salaries – which essentially resulted in a diminished purchasing power for almost all categories of workers throughout the entire 1922-43 period. Moreover trade unions were essentially dissolved (throughout an ongoing process starting already in 1923) and replaced with organizations under State control, which, toghether with suppression of the legal right to strike, denied a place of free association and brought worker's rights back to the late 1890s.

A distinction must be made about the poor, given that the regime was extremely careful in establishing social support for unemployed, and especially impoverished families, through food distribution and public works. And these were successful to some extent, helping to avoid open discontent among the lower strata of the population.

 

What was the common view of Mussolini? Was he seen as tyrannical, or did he see general support from the population?

 

Mussolini enjoyed a remarkable level of consensus throughout his entire tenure as Duce of the Fascist Regime. The lowest point perhaps being the months following the murder of Giacomo Matteotti, when a real chance existed for his dismissal. After that his popularity rose consistently until the 1942-43 when the disasters of WW2 ended up destroying his personal myth as well as the Regime.

Even when criticism towards the Regime, or more prominently the Party, was present, the blame did not extend to the Leader, who was seen as unaware of the issues or busy with more important matters. It was extremely common for people – fascist supporters or not – to write to Mussolini personally, in order to ask for help or to give him knowledge of something he would not have allowed, had he known^3.

 

How did media outlets change? Were they placed completely within government control for the purposes of propaganda broadcasting, or were they allowed leniency on what they published?

 

The question here is how many media outlets existed before the Regime. Not many, and not really that widespread or influential outside of a relative minority of the population. It is not to say that people did not read newspapers but their penetration within Italian society was far from pervasive. On the other hand, Mussolini had the chance to oversee and direct the development of modern media in Italy.

Mussolini was familiar with traditional media, since he had been for years Chief Editor and owner of nationwide newspapers. Even more he understood perfectly^4 that the new media – such as radio and cinema – were to play a new role in a mass society and that the Regime had the opportunity to build them from scratch.

This can be seen in his attitude in front of the cameras: he was aware that he was very often not only talking to a live audience but also being recorded for the radio and filmed for movie reels, where editing was possible to iron out possible awkward poses. The point was not to appear elegant or sophisticated or classical or in line with the tradition: it was to be new, striking, memorable for live audience, radio audience and movie goers alike. And indeed he was memorable, even when he looks goofy and offers hand to any sort of parody, his posture and tone and voice patterns are unmistakable.

As far as the traditional media went, in the 1924-26, the Regime developed instruments to suppress Party press and to wrestle out of power those who weren't palatable among the traditional press outlets.

Thus, by the late 1920s the Fascist Regime held an almost absolute control over the Italian media.

More so Mussolini pushed for the development of a true Media Industry (foundation of Cinecittà, foundation of Venice film festival), which came to fruition though only in the 1930s. The Italian modern media truly developed in the years of the Fascist Regime.

His interest into media went so far as to actually make him susceptible to criticism, since he kept spending a remarkable amount of his daily time reading pieces in advance and sending corrections before licensing those for the press^5, and this even for matters of barely any importance.

 

Did Italy, and its colonies, see any benefits come about from the early stages of Mussolini's rule?

 

During the early stages of Mussolini's rule, the Italian colonies consisted of a modest strip of land on the gulf of Aden (modern day Somalia) and Libya.

The only “positive” result for the Regime was the brutal pacification of Libya, completed only in 1931 by General Rodolfo Graziani, who ended a widespread guerrilla movement dating back to the years of WW1 through deportations and the establishment of concentration camps.

As for the mainland Italy, I'd say not much really. Unless you consider the end of social conflict and widespread violence – which had arguably been already quelled in the early 1920s and survived into the 1924-25 mostly because of Fascists themselves.

The economical situation partially improved; meaning – as I will show in more detail – that some indicators improved (mostly a reduction in balance deficit and a rise in GDP), while others worsened significantly.

Most of all, the workers' suffered a progressive worsening of their conditions and, while we shouldn't buy entirely on the narrative of the Regime “working” for the industrial world, it is true that, when faced with a choice, the Regime consistently favored the owners, as shown by the progressive decline of real salaries.

This approach did not result in a long term improvement of the Italian economics.

Even the “conquests” that the Regime claimed for itself – the land works, the new cities, sports, etc. - belong mostly to the 1929-39 years.