One of the driving forces behind fascism was to create a new aristocracy. This wasn't limited to the Italian version, but is also manifested in the others, including the German variant. Of course, any society worth its salt is aristocratic. I find serfdom preferable to what we have now, and regardless, I'm convinced that at some point in the future, universal education (rivaled only by feminism for the title of "the worst liberal idea") will have to be dismantled and a new underclass formed.
It's also plainly not true that the Tsar was contemptuous of the lower orders. His main failing, and that of many other monarchs of the time, was that he dithered too much. As Tocqueville pointed out, revolutions often occur after
some
reforms have already been undertaken and the masses grow impatient for more. If Pyotr Stolypin hadn't been assassinated, the Tsar might've had a chance, but once he was gone, there just weren't many people left who knew how to handle the needed reforms with the proper delicacy.
There were numerous conservatives throughout the nineteenth century who attempted to co-opt the lower classes, often proposing improved conditions through a form of paternalist corporatism: Franz von Baader, Frédéric le Play, Albert de Mun, and René de La Tour du Pin, to name several. Bismarck and others introduced many welfare programs to lure people away from left-wing doctrines. The fascists were not the first to do this.
And finally, Europe would've been much better off with an aristocrat like von Stauffenberg at the helm in Germany rather than a vulgar piece of trash like Hitler.