> [a PR newsletter, ed.] one has read interviews that maintained the revolutionary value of the break down of language and of pornography; theses furthermore which are not limited either to Italy or the Radical Party alone. Those who, like me, believe that language when it collapses, collapses of its own accord, whereas to produce Babel deliberately forces are needed which are as great as those required to overthrow a productive apparatus, and that the only result of personal stuttering is that one is not understood, can imagine that among some Radicals too false knowledge thrives.
Another thesis which I do not share on the function and history of the Radical Party (expressed in a very authoritative way) is that which sees a continuity in the struggle and the positions of the liberal left from the immediate post-war era until today and which makes of the Radical Party the only opposition in the country since 1948 against the compromise reached by the Catholics and the Marxists who would have divided up the power among themselves in all these years, thus guaranteeing order and conformity in the interests of the two opposing yet converging churches.
This results in the total expulsion from the scene of the social battles and transformations the changes in production, the great reawakening at the end of the Sixties, the international conflicts, Yalta, the clashes among secret services, which have contributed not a little to the shedding of tears and blood in recent years. And there is the empirical fact, much less dramatic but not negligible of the exclusion of noted Communists from all the seats of decisional power in the country except the Parliament and the municipal councils. Instead there is the enlargement to the point of collective history of the continuity over the years of a commitment certainly not unworthy of respect but not capable of transformation into political deeds.
The efforts seem no different to me of those who try to find common roots and continuity (among Morandi, Curiel, in the Merli case) in fragments of neo-Leninist parties. To me it seems important to seek the origins, social and ideological, of political aggregations, but I do not believe in the red threads because the genealogies of parties are very much harder to be interwoven than those of men. Anyone who wants to write its history must not forget that the cadres and grass roots of GL ended up in a range of parties going from the Communists to the Liberals and that the Radicals of today are the children of '68 (3) much more than of yesterday's Liberals, however great is the cultural and formative weight of those who have been Radicals for twenty years and not merely twenty months.
In saying the "children of '68" I naturally mean to allude to all the influences of movements and social transformations that have occurred on a world scale since the end of the Sixties and that in Italy exploded and grew in the students and workers battles of '68 and '69.
The explosion of those years had, however, a global character and aspirations; it involved not only the sphere of freedoms (in an institutional and behavioural sense), but also that of production, of the division and organisation of labour, of the type of consumption and of the distribution of profits between capital and labour. And there was no lack of success in these latter aspects as well. There was also a clear class disposition, because certainly the workers' struggles obtained the most important results. That it was not a matter of overweening ambition or fantasies or Utopian hopes is testified to by the very violent reactions of the dominating class. If they did so much shooting, if they blew up trains, if they had to upset and dirty the whole political and civil life of the country, then perhaps the wave of mutiny really did rise very high. Unfortunately the power for holding out, organising, replying, making projects and alliances was inadequate.
Today the workers' struggles find no outlet in a union policy that on the one hand is renunciatory (the acceptance of the reduction of salaries), and pays lip service on the other (proposals of action on production which never goes beyond the statement of values which are, furthermore, imprecise). And the political heirs of '68 (which means the entire left, indirectly and partially) are split into two groups, one being a neo-Leninist or neo-Stalinist wing lacking a working class base, and the other a libertarian wing: the Radicals, in fact.
Up to now, the Radicals seem to have been more coherent and incisive; their importance could even grow if the reaction to the violence, from whatever source, which a minimal part of the left approves, should lead - as it has already partly led - to a hardening of repression by the institutions. The tendency to the formation of a corporative state is strong in Italy - corporative here being used in the hierarchical sense of "harmonious", that is without any open conflicts, totalitarian, and not in the sense more widespread among the workers movement, of particular or categorical.
But the resistance is also strong in conflicts as well, both expressed or unexpressed ones. Thus it is necessary and possible to fight for liberty and the transparency of the institutions. If there is the risk that in some form or other Gentile's (4) state is going to pop up, then one will have to fight for that of Croce. (5) (I do not want to be accused of using two references, both of them negative and out of date, because no country in reality can escape from its situation and there is such a lot of Gentile around, on both the right and the left, that it is frightening.)
But joking apart, no one on the left thinks of defending freedom in the sense of restoring the liberal state. Many Radicals would even be capable of feeling offended by the very mention of it. Above all everyone is, or should be, aware that one cannot defend personal liberty without defending economic liberty; that there are no freedoms which do not belong to everyone, and thus also, and above all to the exploited, the oppressed, the isolated. One cannot forget that the workers movement, even though often taking its start from non-liberal ideologies, is the great author of freedom in this country.
These considerations are the basis of some of the very few criticisms I would make of the Radicals, or better of some Radicals, among whom Marco Pannella is typical, whose image as an emblem of the party is so vivid in public opinion due to his considerable intellect and his unusual ability to utilise television.
I am in total agreement with all the "coercive" moves of the Radicals. If everyone, even those who have no aspirations to reach government power, who have no institutional power, were to ask themselves at each step whether telling the truth might, by chance, bring down the government, or if to accuse the thieves would crowd the prisons, or if to defend perfectly legitimate but unusual behaviour would not spoil one's image, nothing would ever be changed at all. I equally agree that one can, one must, say in television that Gentile was about a mile higher than Malfatti. (6) He really was. One can say bad things about Lama (7); one can even say bad things about Di Vittorio who yet for many is more of a symbol than a person by now.
One must not forget, however, that the strength of the ideas that the Radicals have maintained lies in those who have believed in Di Vittorio; (8) that we won the divorce referendum because the workers of Turin, Milan and Naples voted "no" and we will win the eight referendums if they vote for them. I don't think it will be the bourgeoisie to vote for the abolition of the Rocco Code (9) or the Concordat.(10)
Some Radical representatives, in their assemblies, have not always manifested awareness of this. And yet, in some cases, they have been orators belonging undoubtedly to the Radicals' left wing, who have gone through it all in person, not academics, certainly not against the workers. It may be the lack of synchronisation peculiar to a political group whose cultural influence and opinions, whose practical efficacy is infinitely greater than its influence on the organisation (and let us hope that it remains so, because that is the only road to survival).
But I do not want to give advice on how to communicate to those who certainly know how better than I do. -----------------------------------------------------------------
TRANSLATOR'S NOTES
* Qualunquisti/qualunquismo - a much-used term in Italian political parlance referring to an attitude of mistrust towards political parties and the party system in general.
1) Plebe - A member of the neo-Fascist MSI party who seemed to be seeking membership in the PR. (Dual party memberships are allowed by the PR.) The situation created heated conflict within the PR between those who felt the party would have no choice, morally or even legally, but to accept this possible application and those who insisted that it must be rejected.
2) Giustizia e Libertà - A liberal Socialist and anti-Fasicst movement founded in Paris by Italian exiles during the Fascist era. Established the Partito d'Azione in 1942 and furnished resistance brigades that bore its name.
3) '68 - A year of heated students and workers protests.
4) Gentile - Giovanni Gentile (1875-1944), a philosopher and collaborator of Benedetto Croce's who broke with the latter and joined the Fascist Party.
5) Croce - Benedetto Croce (1866-1952), the influential Neapolitan philosopher and historian, a defender of liberalism.
6) Malfatti -
7) Lama - Luciano Lama, for many years head of the Communist labour union CGIL.
8) Di Vittorio - Giuseppe Di Vittorio, (1892 -1957) Communist labour leader.
9) The Rocco Code - The Fascist penal code still in force in Italy many years after the fall of Fascism.
10) The Concordat - The pact with the Vatican - dating back to Fascist times (1929) - establishing the juridical position of the Roman Catholic Church and granting it particular powers and privileges.
