A Sketch of Anti-Revisionism in Italy Part 1: The 1960s – Vigorous growth A hundred flowers seemed too have bloomed on the Italian ML scene in the 1960s.The traditional regionalism of Italian politics was mirrored in the fragmented nature of radicalism in Italy, and was no less true of the anti-revisionist experience. The early emergence of a self-declared Italian Communist Party (Marxist-Leninist) did little to unify the movement in which it seemed every city had its own group "Communist Italy" by Nick.mon - develop. Own work. Licensed under CC BY-SA 3.0 via Commons - The existence of arguably the largest and most developed of communist parties in Western Europe, a party with a history of armed resistance and mass electoral support, whose political line was subject to internationally distributed polemical criticism by the Chinese party, complicated the political environment. Internal critics of the Italian leadership had no need to draw upon the Renmin Ribao editorial ‘Differences between Comrade Togliatti and Us’1. The more substantial article ‘More on the Differences between Comrade Togliatti and US’2 was subtitled, ‘Some Important Problems of Leninism in the Contemporary World’. It opens with: At the Tenth Congress of the Communist Party of Italy Comrade Togliatti launched an open attack on the Chinese Communist Party and provoked a public debate. For many years, he and certain other comrades of the C.P.I. have made many fallacious statements violating fundamental tenets of Marxism-Leninism on a whole series of vital issues of principle concerning the international communist movement. 3 The Italians were no less forthright in their criticism of the Chinese critique of ‘The Italian way’ accusing the Chinese comrades of being “dogmatists and sectarians who hide their opportunism behind an ultra-revolutionary phraseology”4. The Italian leader Togliatti said the Chinese “lacked a sense of reality”.5 He rejected what he called the simplistically revolutionary interpretation of Marxism offered in the criticism from the CPC. In a real sense, the decisions taken in 1948 election had abandoned any thought of a “revolutionary seizure” of power for the Italian communist party. The PCI leadership was more moderate than their base of two million supporters in the post-war years. The PCI, with nine million votes proved to be a stabilising force in the face of mounting social tensions and grass root radicalism, particularly in the summer of ’48 after the attempted assassination of Togliatti. 1 http://www.marxists.org/history/international/comintern/sino-soviet-split/cpc/togliatti.htm. ‘Differences between Comrade Togliatti and Us’ December 31, 1962. 2 Hongqi (Red Flag), Nos. 3-4, March 4, 1963 3 http://www.marx2mao.com/Other/MTOG63.pdf 4 Luigi Longo, “The Question of Power”, L’Unita, January 16,1963 5 Togliatti, “Let Us Lead the Discussion Back to Its Real Limit”,L’Unita, January 10, 1963. The terms of the Polemic on the general line of the international communist movement were discussed in detail and at length, but in summary the attitude of the anti-revisionists was that the Italian party’s political strategy epitomised the modern revisionists that throw overboard the most elementary principle of Marxism-Leninism, the principle of class struggle, and all they want to retain is the Marxist-Leninist label, “robbing Marxism-Leninism of its revolutionary soul”. These criticisms were before the Italian and Spanish Communist Party (PCE), spearheaded the overtly reformist Euro-communist phenomenon in the 1970s. In 1963, the Chinese Party argued: “An ideological thread alien to Marxism-Leninism runs right through the Theses for the C.P.I. Congress and Comrade Togliatti’s report and concluding speech at the Congress. Along this line, they employed the same language as that used by the social-democrats and the modern revisionists in dealing both with international problems and with domestic Italian issues. A careful reading of the Theses and other documents of the C.P.I. reveals that the numerous formulations and viewpoints contained therein are none too fresh, but by and large are the same as those put forward by the old-line revisionists and those propagated from the outset by the Titoite revisionists of Yugoslavia.”6 Togliatti strove to contain the Italian left’s enthusiasm for Mao’s China and he sided energetically with the CPSU as the Sino-Soviet split widened. The PCI never officially broke with Moscow but did have a process of gradual distancing and grew more autonomous to the point of denouncing the repression of the Prague Spring of 1968 and further revising their tenets and practice from promotion of “polycentrism” to the development of “Eurocommunism” in the 1970s onwards. There was some sympathy for the Chinese viewpoints within the Italian party, but never a section large enough to successfully challenge from the Left the existing leadership and its political line. Militants were resentful of Togliatti's revisionist rhetoric and pragmatic opportunism. However, the effectiveness of this challenge has been limited by its lack of organization. There was a heterogeneous current of opposition which has taken different forms in different centres. Opposition within the revisionist Italian CP represented anti-revisionist tendencies rather than a single pro-Chinese faction; it was at work partly clandestinely and partly in the open. One of the centres of the movement was Padua, where four prominent Communists were expelled from the party for publishing the first of three anti-revisionist pamphlets. The dissidents there issued a statement calling for the formation of a new "revolutionary movement or party. So the first avowedly Maoist -inspired organisation emerged in Padua, with their own journal Viva il Leninismo! The group’s name reflecting the polemical anti- revisionist politics in an article published by the CPC. The group was associated with Vincenzo Calo and Ugo Duse, began the "public" rebellion in August 1962. There was local anti-revisionist agitation in such areas as Milan, Genoa, Sardinia and Naples. Other forums of opposition emerged in the "Italian-Chinese Friendship Association" founded in clear opposition to the PCI-controlled friendship organisation. Within five months the association was reported to have a membership of 18,000 in 16 centres; it held a national conference, and spread its influence through a pro-Chinese monthly bulletin sent by mail to party militants. Pro-Chinese sentiment was seen strong within the Communist youth organization, the FGCI (where two Communist youth clubs in Rome issued an anti- 6 http://www.marx2mao.com/Other/MTOG63.pdf revisionist pamphlet). Both Rome and Milan saw bookshops specializing in pro-Chinese publications. The Italian Communist Party, the largest in Western Europe, has repeatedly come out in favour of Moscow against Peking and, in particular, welcomed the nuclear test ban agreement. When the Central Committee met in July 1963 it gave a warning that the acceptance of the Chinese theses would condemn the communist parties either to stagnation or to extremist adventures; at the same time it reiterated its faith in the Italian road to socialism and in united fronts as a means of advance in Western Europe. The leaders denied that there is any "Chinese wing" or crisis in the Party, although they claimed that the Chinese are using elements outside the Party to further their subversive activities and that in some branches the Chinese theses have been heatedly debated. The PCI, in response, tried to divert the open criticism into the channels of controlled debate. In the May-June issue of the party review Critica Marxista a Paduan dissident, Giorgio Tosi, enter into controversy with ex-Partisan and member of the Italian Chamber of Deputies on the PCI list, Luigi Longo on the PCI's peaceful road to socialism -- which he roundly denounces as "a reactionary utopia." Longo, who, in 1964, after the death of Palmiro Togliatti, became secretary of the PCI, travelled to Padua to lay down the party line at a local Communist "discussion"; the Unita report claims he was successful. The promised "ideological debate" would not be allowed to get out of control. Italian interest in China was stimulated by ‘Le Divergenze tra il compagno Togliatti e noi’ (Differences Between Comrade Togliatti and Us) published in 1963 by the CCP. It was a response to the Tenth Italian Communist Party Congress. Then, Italian leader Togliatti had directly criticised the Chinese party for its positions against de-Stalinisation, and its arguments on the politics within the international movement. Reill distils the essence of the Chinese argument to a question: “short but sweet, here it goes: Divergenze asked the accusatory question: Italian communists, what have you done since the war?” 7 Where was today the equivalent of the “glorious history of struggle”? Old and young proved receptive to a return to revolutionary politics, to reinvigorate Italian communism practice and to recapture that energy and momentum that partisan communism had embodied a generation earlier. The post-war history of cooperation and peaceful coexistence with political struggle and progress seen increasingly restricted to the parliamentary arena was criticised. This reverberated with veterans of the Partisan resistance – e.g. Giuseppe Regis and Luciano Raimondi – as well as younger activists schooled in the teachings of Marx and Lenin. “Just as ‘Old Guard’ Partisans responded with interest to Divergenze’s call to reinstill Italian communism with