ABSTRACT: Spring-Summmer 1974. Upon initiative of groups of Catholic-Intergralists but with the full support of the Christian-Democrat Party and of the Catholic Church, a referendum will be held on the 12-13th of May to repeal the Fortuna-Baslini law on divorce, which had been passed in 1970 owing to the mobilization of the Liberal Party and the of Italian Divorce League (LID). The Radicals and the LID were the only among the lay movements who struggled to obtain the referendum, against the attempts at a collusion between parties in order to avoid it. The Radicals alone asserted their absolute confidence in the victory of the pro-divorce front. The referendum was in fact won by the pro-divorce front with 60% of votes. But the Radicals and the LID were nonetheless totally excluded from participating to the electoral programmes of the State TV, and from the campaign of the lay front. The victory of the Radical campaigns and political positions risks turning into the vanishing of the Radical Party's political p

resence. Marco Pannella has been carrying out a very long fast in order for the RAI-Tv to grant "reparative" spaces to the Radical Party and to the LID, and for Parliament to examine the draft bill concerning abortion, and generally to reconquer political citizenship for the Radical Party. And in general a battle for the right to information and for the respect of the republican legality.

Pasolini's interview to Pannella must be set against this background of initiative. It is the encounter between the themes of Pasolini's thought and those of Radical politics. The closure of the regime as a new and modern embodiment of fascism. The pervasive consumism, the scarce information which abrogates opponents in the awareness of the people, and presents them as "insane", the neo-corporative system which obliterates the concept of being "citizens", are the new aspect of a fascism which no longer needs violence to expropriate the vast majority of people of their human integrity, of their full capacity to fight.

The Christian-Democrat Party leaves more space for contradictions to the explosion of the liberal contradictions of the bourgeoisie rather than to the Marxist-Leninist culture, scientific in its repressive efficiency.

A rigorously liberal "historical right" today would be revolutionary, would be left of the Communist Party. The charismatic leadership of Pannella in the Radical Party and his not being a member of the Radical Party.

(Il Mondo - July 1974 from "Marco Pannella - Works and speeches - 1959-1980", Gammalibri - January 1982)

Pasolini: Speak, and talk about the things you are most interested in "this evening".

Pannella: What we are saying is that the regime is closing itself. The indifference of the press, for 70 days, as regards our case has been a convincing enough demonstration of this statement of ours: the regime is closing itself.

When can one say that a regime is a regime? That a regime is a fascist regime? One can say so when it no longer needs violence for its values to be accepted "by everyone". There is a "State violence" which is in contrast with the previous culture of the state, which was, at least potentially, a "dialogic" culture...a culture combining...which was a single organism...

(Today the violence of the state is equivalent to the violence of the imperative to consume, as you said; and therefore there is undoubtedly a subsequent "unity in consumption"...But consumption,

after all, means to consume your own self...in that we live consuming and not creating...in other words, our own life is consumed. The "unity in consumption" therefore is a deadly unity).

In our case all this manifested itself in a very evident way. The consumist power exerted on us its substantially fascist violence. It is not the old (fascist) Carabiniere or the old (fascist) deputy...it is those people who, though considering themselves antifascists acted in a "scientifically" fascist way...In other words, it divided our country between individuals on whom it may be discussed and individuals of whom it may not be discussed. It has programmed news and information.

For example, when a comrade priest of ours, a priest from the Romagna region,..fasted for six days in order to attract the attention of the provincial authorities on the case of an "alienated" boy...the Corriere della Sera (1) devoted three articles to the case...Il Giorno (2) )sent a special correspondent...At the time I had been fasting for fifteen days...And this priest rang me up to ask me for some advice on this "non-violent weapon" (and I gave him the advice: three cappuccinos a day, vitamins etc.). Now, this priest, completely bewildered, suddenly found himself the centre of national curiosity. It is therefore clear that this curiosity is induced and manipulated. However, these seventy (instead of six) days of fast have turned out useful, in that they enabled us to have a series of experiences, even if negative experiences as such (but positive in the end).

We found out that certain "comrades" (comrades so to say, people who claimed to antifascist etc.) in fact behaved the same way as the "silent majority" behaved during fascism as regards the scanty two thousand antifascists there were in Italy...Who - at the time as us now - were presented to the public opinion as irresponsibles ("monsters" with their mothers, with their families, etc). Therefore, between the fascists in power and the imprisoned antifascists, it was the latter who were the "lunatics". This appalling falsification of reality was easy to accomplish in those days: nowadays it is more difficult (we are not in prison, we can talk, etc). And yet the regime manages to accomplish it in the same way. "We" are the lunatics. And at this stage it took eighty days of fast in order to at least let people know that these lunatics exist, and that they have some requests.

Requests which are perfectly legal from a formal point of view; requests which, finally, are useful to parliamentary activity. No. They don't even want to use us as an alibi. They don't even want to transform our protest into help for their own institutions, which are losing prestige day after day...That which infuriated the people who must take "authoritative" decisions concerning us, is the fact that our "irresponsible" fast has in fact been formulated in terms of republican virtues and civil rights...

We were aware that we would have won on the 12th of May. But we also knew that such a victory would have meant neglecting other misdemeanours on the part of the regime: the passing of laws granting public funds to parties, and a whole range of measures to fascistize - that is to corporativize - the structures have decidedly been increased.

Therefore: I am fasting today, whereas I will remain silent on May 3, conscious of the fact that on the 13th of May hundreds of people will be celebrating a great victory. On the 12th of May at the Messaggero (3) I said that we would have won with at least 58% of votes...

Pasolini: A few days previously I had said with 57% of votes. I told this to Panagulis, who could hardly believe me.

Pannella: I hope both you and I made presumptuous forecasts: because if these forecasts were correct, it would mean that we are on the verge of a 1940-1943. In the near future you fear a catastrophe for the "induced" mass culture. To avoid this the Radicals's slogan is: Irresponsibility. Man is not free if, confronted with TV, confronted with the induced creation of needs, he does not liberate his senses...This is the great, terrible problem of our epoch. The Eiar broadcasting service (4), it is true, would never had succeeded in turning us into "consumers". But today, the Rai-Tv can.

On this I agree with you. This is the basis for your legitimate outrage against L'Espresso (5), against so-called progressists and Radicals - we agree. The other day I wrote an invective directed against my friends of L'Espresso, who took it very sorely. "Marco has gone bananas" they say (and my sister says so too). "We are the only ones who love him, we are on his side, he is our conscience..." Whereas I am saying that theirs is a magazine completely made up of advertisement. On the one hand the traditional advertisement of dish-washing machines or luxury cars, on the other hand the scandal-oriented advertisement concerning the Sid (6) or the Sifar (7) or Fanfani (8). At this point you attack communists as well. And they should be attacked even more.

There is a certain scientific ability to be clericals, stalinists, fascists: to be expressive - against truth and against dialogue, against the others and against oneself. Now, this scientific ability, the Christian Democrats do not possess it. It is so base and confused that it cannot prevent the bourgeois contradiction to emerge and explode from the gaps of its press organs. Now, I believe that the explosion of the bourgeois contradictions is even more dangerous than the revolutionary theses of Marx or Lenin. The explosion of the contradictions can in fact occur even in the sense of freedom. There are no doubts as to the fact that the Marxist-Leninist culture has inexorably become petit bourgeois, with features that are equally inexorably repressive.

No Italian newspaper of these years has ever been capable of abrogating with equal rigour and ability the very existence of our dissent, as L'Unita'(9) and Il Paese Sera (10). It has not been denied: it was the communists who requested our exclusion from the Rai-Tv. And precisely through the person of Maurizio Ferrara (so L'Espresso says). But the thing - and this is appalling - was conducted in perfect honesty of intentions. The communists wanted to exclude us from the Rai-Tv because, quoting Ferrara, "if we had talked we would have made them lose votes". As for me, I believe that the common feature of all Italian leaders is precisely this: the conviction of having been invested from some higher entity with the office of acting for the well-being of the people, considering people as idiots, and abrogating the existence of opponents.

Pasolini: Are you referring to you Radicals?

Pannella: This is what we are attempting to do today to oppose all this. First of all, we don't want to fail our rigor even for one moment. For example, if we support the women's liberation movement, we equally support the Fuori (11): even if the attempt of the Fuori is confused and substantially failed.

But the important thing is, that these attempts - failed or not - be many...This is, however, the point: even if the political situation is very serious and dangerous, "we want to appear exactly the way we are". The others, confronted with danger, obey the laws of prudence, of tactics, of common sense, they say: "Given that the moment is critical, let's make some concessions, let's hide some of our aspects...At the right moment we will once again be rigorous and sincere...". Not us. And it is for this decision - taken once and for all - never to deflect from rigour and sincerity, that I, for example, am no longer a member of the Radical Party. We had long known that this would have been a decisive year for our country: "Enough with formalisms, a decisive year awaits us: we must try - by imposing the 8 referendums - to overturn the course of official history, of the regime, and to underline the reality of a majority which has, in the mean while, matured, has become literally "another"...At thi

s stage therefore you must once again take the official and formal "leadership" of the party".

No, I answered - or rather: we answered together. "If we really believe in freedom as a method, if we are libertarians, then we must consider freedom as a true means to live, not as a goal. If this then is the moment for fighting - and we must fight by experiencing freedom - it is also the moment for me not to be the "leader" of the party, not even to be a member of it".

We are idealists. We know that there are group psychodynamics which automatically lead to a charismatic unity. While large groups, or parties, tend to bureaucratic unity, small groups such as ours tend precisely toward a charismatic unity: which in itself is neither a libertarian or a liberating value.

This is the core of our morality: not to deny our reality, even if perhaps we would want it to be different from the way it is. No longer secretary of the party therefore, and no longer member of the party. And what is the difference? None. We live and work together. Ours is a "constant dialogue". And we are certain that this choice of ours is "also" scientific and rational.

Pasolini: It seems to me that at a certain point of your speech you were referring to a sort of dramatically possible alternative, today, between classical fascism and a new fascism (to be called differently perhaps). What is the difference between these two fascisms?

Pannella: The old fascists, you see, were in fact asking for nothing more than an abstention from politics. This is what they advocated: "Leave it to the bureaucrats, to the corporations of workers to conduct the debate". Fascism is a moment of abolition of the debate, which we consider the essential thing. Only in the squares, in the forum, in bed, at home, man and woman can be present in all their integrity. If man and woman are considered simply in terms of workers (old fascism) or consumers (new fascism), they are decapitated.

At this stage one becomes critically aware however, that the clerical, catholic, bureaucratic, counter-reformist structure is still the most suitable to ensure the satisfaction of this moment of neocapitalism based on consumption (which is nothing but, in Marx's terms, fully accomplished capitalism). As a matter of fact, by abolishing old institutions (perhaps renovated, such as the family), everything would be invested bt a crisis. Such crisis has been made explicit to the consciences of America by the vast protest - of a religious and irrational nature - of these last years. In our country, on the other hand, old institutions - albeit renovated - have remained. It is for this reason that we are saying that the Christian Democrat party is the Regime. By abolishing the "lords of the steel-mills" - with their historical contradictions - and giving the power to people like Cefis (12), that is, to anonymous bureaucratic owners, it has done nothing but tremendously increasing capitalist growth.

Pasolini: I don't agree with you completely. What you said about the DC is correct, but is valid only until recent years. After that something broke in the chain of values of capitalist entropy (albeit full of classical contradictions). The growth has been so enormous as to transform the very quality of capitalism: to revolution it. You yourself were saying, in fact, that old capitalism needed military force (the "base" fascism), whereas this one only needs the force of its ideology (a sort of basically anti-military and anti-clerical hedonism).

Pannella: Not precisely. Instead of the janitor who spied on people and the Carabinieri marshal who arrested, today capitalism has its great observing posts - in the headquarters of the Guardia di Finanza, of the police Corps - which can control us and listen to millions at a time...It probes into everything, right into the heart of human life. It has reached women, for example. Women were once spared: the patriarchal society used her only in terms of economic exploitation within the family. Today instead, women are praised as consumers.

It has been scientifically proven that womens' automatic processes are identical to mens': advertisement is processed by the brain in the same way, in a monstruous equality of the sexes.

Pasolini: Therefore according to you it is "literally" true that one repression is equivalent to another".

Pannella: Yes. Physical violence on the body is equivalent to the consumist aggression on people. On the other hand, is it not "physical" (as for example, torture in the past) to act on the nervous centres, to disinform, to abrogate data on the basis of which to judge, to subtract the possibility of knowing and therefore of deciding?

As I said before, neocapitalism is nothing but the full accomplishment of old capitalism. They are the same thing, even if at times there are enormous concrete differences. For example, the contradictions of the bourgeois who experiences his bourgeois condition have taken root (contradictions which arose, for example, at the origins, from the historical concomitance of puritan protestant revolution and industrial revolution, etc), the "idealist" bourgeois today has two extreme alternatives: either to belong to the extreme left by taking more or less libertarian positions, or to deny his idealism, falsified and betrayed in the exercise of power...

Pasolini: In Italy a great Right has never been possible. Would it be possible today?

Pannella: The only possible great Right is the Left.

I believe as a matter of fact that a libertarian, an anarchist today can continue without fear the project of the historical Right, the project contained in the expression "The law is equal for all". An equal law for all is in fact the "less violent" among the possible laws. As such it causes the regression of the amount of violence which is institutionally implicit in the law.

Our fast today has no other purpose but that of asking for laws to be made and for them to be respected, as well as that of abrogating unjust laws. Our fast has the purpose of breaking the silence around the law. Any liberally promulgated law, if fully applied, would have an explosive value. This is because corporativism, clericalism, consumism, these different but equally clear forms of that which I call "Regime", cannot tolerate as such a liberal law equal for all persons. This is why it can be said that a libertarian person today, though remaining basically faithful to the historical Right, from a political point of view is left to the PCI.

Pasolini: In that case: is a clerical Right (or a clerical-fascist Right) still possible according to you?

Pannella: No. The pontificate of John XXIII was an exceptional event. The concept of tolerance (which, I believe, referred to as charity, is "also" a Christian concept) is a value of denial of power: and it is the very essence of laity. Pope John applied this "value" in the Catholic milieu. But it was, as I said before, an exceptional event. With Pope Paul VI it was all over, irreversibly: everything returned to the cultural misery of before.

Pasolini: Must the continuity between fascism and palaeo-capitalism and the fascism of neo-capitalism (in Italy there never was a...capitalism), be found in the praxis, in the concrete results?

Pannella: Yes. In earlier times, a man was reduced to silence by putting him in prison: now there is no need to put him in prison. Repression simply uses other techniques. On the other hand, if I took my clothes off and went in the street naked, I would be the living testimony, through my body, of the continuity of Buchenwald.

Pasolini: And where do you find the strength to do what you are doing? I, who do not believe in the continuity you mentioned, and feel that there is something new, tragically "worse" in the world, ot at any rate in Italy, am deeply interested in your optimism...

Pannella: You see, one often speaks about 'different' people: women as different, poor people as different, farmers as different, homosexuals as different. The life of these 'different' people is difficult. But there are other different people which are never mentioned, in spite of the fact that their life is even more difficult: it is those people who want to live in freedom, be one thing with freedom. Now, these "different people in freedom" are increasing in number, their voice is starting to be heard. And what do these "different in freedom" want? First of all, what they want they want it here and now, just like the extremists of Lotta Continua (13) or "Potere Operaio" (14): here and now, not tomorrow. But what they want here and now is not to "take", it is to "grow". And this wish of theirs is, of course, a reason for

joy.

Translator's notes:

(1) Italian daily newspaper

(2) Italian daily newspaper

(3) Italian daily newspaper

(4) Former radio broadcasting service, now RAI

(5) Italian weekly

(6) Italian secret service

(7) Former Italian secret service, now SID

(8) Christian Democrat politician

(9) Press organ of the Communist Party

(10) Italian daily newspaper

(11) Italian gay movement

(12) Former President of Montedison (leading chemical company)

(13) Extreme left political movement

(14) Extreme left political movement