This article analyzes the role of soil in the making of authoritarian regimes and illustrates twentieth-century practices and discourses related to fertility across the globe. It compares two different approaches to and understandings of soil fertility: the first emerged in North Libya under Italian Fascist rule (1922–1943), the second in Central Brazil during the civil-military dictatorship (1964–1985). We compare two soil-forming processes that changed physical and chemical properties of the original matter and were embedded within specific ideologies of modernization. In both cases, state agendas of agrarian production played a paramount role not only in socioeconomic projects but also as an instrument to suppress opposition. Technocratic and political aspects of building and maintaining fertility were interwoven, although in different patterns in the two countries. We show how the rejuvenation of land bled into the regeneration of communities through processes that anchored the self-definition and development of these authoritarian regimes, and argue that attempts at landscape transformations through agricultural activity and strategies of fertilization are inescapable features of dictatorships. In so doing, we elaborate the concept of “authoritarian soil.” The juxtaposition of these non-synchronous cases reveals how agricultural modernization developed throughout the twentieth century. Our study is rooted in environmental history and contributes to the ongoing dialogue between that field and science and technology studies. Its cross-temporal, comparative methodology draws upon sources and historiographical debates in English, Italian, and Portuguese.

本文分析了土壤在建立威权政体中的作用，并阐述了20世纪与全球生育相关的实践和论述。它比较了两种不同的土壤肥力认识方法：第一种是在意大利法西斯统治下（1922-1943年）在北利比亚出现的，第二种是在军民独裁时期（1964-1985年）在巴西中部出现的。我们比较了两种改变原始物质的物理和化学特性并嵌入特定现代化意识形态中的土壤形成过程。在这两种情况下，国家农业生产议程不仅在社会经济项目中发挥着至关重要的作用，而且在抑制反对派方面也起着至关重要的作用。建立和维持生育力的技术官僚和政治方面交织在一起，尽管两国的模式不同。我们展示了如何通过锚定这些威权政权的自我定义和发展的过程使土地的复兴流血到社区的再生中，并指出通过农业活动和施肥策略进行景观改造的尝试是独裁政权不可避免的特征。在此过程中，我们阐述了“威权土壤”的概念。这些非同步案例的并置揭示了整个二十世纪农业现代化的发展。我们的研究扎根于环境历史，并为该领域与科学技术研究之间的持续对话做出了贡献。它的跨时间比较方法学借鉴了英语，意大利语和葡萄牙语的资料来源和史学辩论。