ABSTRACT: In his text Sechi explains why he considers Pannella's (1) initiative in favour of 17 million children as the onset of a criticism against the left's traditional way of practising anti-imperialism.

The peculiar characteristic of the anti-imperialism of the Left was that it did not change the social relationship with the work in the factories, offices or schools, but only the use of one's leisure time. Also, by failing to affect the material basis of the international chain of exploitation it defended the continuation of the economic inequalities between one nation and the other.

Pannella is the symptom of a general crisis of the Left: his initiative reveals the lack of international solidarity between the workers, and therefore poses to the Left the problem of nationalism, which has not been solved by the Marxist theory or praxis.

The personal dangerousness of his gestures of alarm are the uncontrolled symptom of answers which the Left is incapable of providing.

(ARGOMENTI RADICALI, BIMESTRALE POLITICO PER L'ALTERNATIVA, January-March 1979, n.11)

I dislike certain "instrumental" alliances and certain political and parliamentary behaviours of the radicals, and I consider them extremely dangerous. I believe it is important, instead, for the purpose of a general reflection of the Left, to analyse some of the means with which they support specific objectives: referendum, non-violence which is protracted to the point of becoming violence on themselves, and the psychological and moral violence against each of us which is represented by prolonged hunger strikes. I would like to try to explain why I perceived Pannella's initiative in favour of 17 million children as the "onset" of an attitude of criticism against the traditional way in which the left (PSI, PCI and areas of the new left) practices anti-imperialism.

The method symbolizes the problem of the reappropriation of decisions against the political method based on delegation and hetero-decision.

This general indication contains the political meaning and value of Pannella's individual act. It is not an alternative to the mass campaigns for Vietnam, but it represents a critical projection of it and it calls for a revision of that experience: 1) the support to Vietnam was based on popular mobilization, not on the incision of the mechanism of power of imperialism which the working class could achieve; 2) the crisis of the capitalist rationality affects both the needs of man and the ways of expressing political demands (from its ordinary meaning to the system of the parties); 3) it is the crisis of this "wholly political" anti-imperalism that has paved the way to the microphysics of Pannella's actions, to its "new" effectiveness if we are capable of grasping its potential in transforming our individual and collective behaviours.

I am not convinced by those who fail to realize the element of modernity (and who talk about a regression towards the liberal-democratic relationship between the establishment and the citizens), i.e. the demand for self-government which is implicit in the radicals' political methods. The renewed importance of the political action in the mature capitalism calls for its different functioning: not just grass-roots participation, i.e. "more direct control on the establishment", but also more "possibility of command" on it, i.e. of acting molecularly on its dissemination into the social body.

The anti-imperialism of the Left has had a precise characteristic: we used to take to the streets shouting slogans in favour of Castro, Mao and Ho Chi Min, on the basis of a political "delegation" to the PCI or the PSI and, generally speaking, to the forces maneuvred (politically, diplomatically and militarily) by the U.S.S.R. In other words, this did not change our social relationship with the work in the factories, in the offices or in the schools, but only our use of our leisure time. The productivity of our work in relation to the international division of the work grew to the extent in which our delegation to the "political bodies" reached. What was it that justified this separation?

1. A conception of imperialism based on a vision of "economic apocalypse" , in the sense of terminal-stage capitalism. At its highest point, this supposedly stops generating productive forces, technical power and science (as in Kautsky's analysis) but only convulsions of waste, parasitism and irrationality (and the use of war as an art and a political manoeuvre). At its terminal stage, the capital is like a bird with lead in its wings, declining towards death. It is a spontaneous and natural conception of the end of capitalism which has been handed down to us by Lenin and his successors.

We have applied the same concepts also to the present crisis, ascribing the rules of capitalist development to it. While it was enough to manipulate the political bodies (foreign policy, party system, war arsenals, etc.) to push imperialism to its end, we have been coherent in pressing on its articulations, mobilizing all the available "social" elements (the unions, the bishops, the public expenditure, the "communist" local administrations to "arm" a ship with food, health services, etc.). But the political bodies were not enough. And in fact imperialism has not lost, and capitalism is reproducing itself with a recurrent pattern of crisis, reprise and development. Why? because the extraordinary, voluntary contribution of a part of the salary (the hours of strike in favour of Vietnam), certain symbolic forms of boycott (against the Pinochet junta) or the use of leisure time did not affect the material base of the international chain of exploitation. We have been effective for what we represent, to some degre

e, with respect to colonial or post-colonial countries: a link of working-class aristocracy. Which is to say that our "political" rejection of wars, military occupations and exterminations has corresponded, and still corresponds, to our "real" participation in the production of weapons, technology, industrial assets, etc. of the imperialist market. By failing to boycott our lines of production and exchange, and by failing to "reorganize the productive base", we were defending the continuation of the economic disparities between one nation and the other.

I do not wish to repeat the theses according to which the workers of the dominated countries are exploited by the dominant countries, in the name of an unequal exchange. I will simply point out that the imperialist middle class (which, in other words, lives by exploiting the workers of another country as well) "reduces", albeit relatively, the intensity of the exploitation which it subjects the workers of its country to. A "working-class aristocracy" arises, related to the industrial capital by a bond of objective and natural solidarity. The fact that such classes of workers let themselves be corrupted and tend to transform themselves into a middle class pertains more to the productive relations than the ideological ones. There remains the problem advanced by Sismondi and Marx, and later taken up by Lenin and Arghiri Emmanuel: vast areas of the European proletariat also live, along with the middle class, on the work and exploitation of the masses of the Third World. There has been no political consequence of

the colonial chauvinism and of the opportunism of the early twentieth century; but we certainly have experienced an anti-imperalism that reminds on the one hand of a strong integration of the industrial economies and, on the other, forms of subordination and corporative involution of the working class into the system. Certainly Pannella's generous initiative will not prevent the removal of the economic surplus from the suburbs to the metropolis, through the appropriation - on the part of the latter - of the advantages of the increased productivity of the work of the developing countries. But Pannella's initiative poses the problem on which our anti-imperalism is patent and fragile: that of a certain subjective "loyalty" to the rules of the system, i.e. a lack of international solidarity among the workers. In other words, Pannella poses the left the problem of nationalism (and of the "nationalization" of the working class) which is the great problem which the Marxist theory and praxis of development and revo

lution has not solved. Lenin's indication in the thesis on the eastern issue has remained politically deprived of interlocutors.

There is another consequence related to the investment of trust and ideal solidarity and of the solemn, mass forms which our anti-imperalism often boils down to. It stems from the ideological certainty that a Reason (not just an ideological one but also a scientific one) led towards a "forced conclusion of their insolubility and a cumulative worsening of the contradictions related to the "historical evolution of the capital". The Marxist thought, experiencing its relationship with the bourgeois thought as a form of separation (and not as a critical confrontation) rather than studying, interpreting and thus controlling the future, has done nothing more but reassure on the forecast of what would have come "after" capitalism. The myth of doing as in Russia was born. Its natural offspring is the concentrationist universe of Pol Pot. But what does its race against time (mechanization, science, modern technique) the Jacobin solution, the quest for a radical shortcut stem from, if not "also" from the ideology of th

e "general crisis of capitalism"? A nation that has invaded Cambodia by proxy such as the U.S.S.R. should know that the forms of "war communism" of the regime of the Khmers Rouge have been developed by that "opium of the poor" which is the communist ideology, especially (but not exclusively) the Russian one, where the end of capitalism is analysed or dismounted like a mechanism, according to the principle of a positivist, Newtonian and mechanistic science. The paradox of Breznev's deadly war against Pol Pot is that forced mass migrations, evacuation of the cities, police and ideological regime and the revolt against technique and science itself are the fruit of a model which has theorized the end of colonialism and capitalism as possible and "contextual".

There is, therefore, a crisis of Marxism. It does not affect the still huge force of the working-class thought, if, by surrendering on the field of the old anti-capitalist Reason, it will recover the struggles within a project that can restore to the persons the self-decision they have ben deprived of by the "forms" of the workers' movement (union and party) for historically grounded reasons.

The radicals point out (but do no more than this) the problem of self-determination of the "social" bodies, but not the project of the political structures.

But Pannella is the symptom of a general crisis of the Left. His "court of miracles" is something well-defined, as is the new ideology (which is only apparently identifiable as a liberal-democratic repression) which this disgregated "social" sphere produces. I am referring to the conclusion of a long cycle which, in the capitalist circles and the working class, has identified ideological mediation as essential.

Both in the relationship between capital, society and State and in the relationship between workers' movement, party and organization (Tronti). The process of de-ideologization of the masses as a result of the crisis of the welfare state and of the ideological state (social democracies and 'real' socialisms) makes the social sphere and its independence emerge.

The result of the degradation of the Welfare State into a Kickback State as well as of the crisis of the political command on the crisis of the post-thirties capitalism, the "new social" as a reflection of radicalism, does not boil down to the stereotype forces of the new extremism, to a "socialism of the bourgeoisie", or to a liberal-democratic ideology or to an "American ideology". Obviously there is this risk. But only a "catastrophic" conception of the crisis of terminal-stage capitalism can think that the new social classes are temporary, and can condemn them as residue materialists (the result of a corporative fragmentation and of unproductive work) simply because they resist against the State and the working class, i.e. production and politics, as they have been historically experienced by the workers' movement. In fact, there is no contradiction between the collapse of the ideological (and political) system of the unity-centrality of the working class and its reorganization into a political project w

here the independence of the social forces is recognized as antagonism and spontaneity. Pannella's theory stops short of the threshold of a project of transformation, i.e. it extols the collapse (with the relative social guaranties) of the system of organized capitalism (Tronti talked about a social system "without" a political reform). He does not pose himself the problem of the collapse-government of democracy and thus can contribute to destabilizing it and eradicating it.

While the role of the radicals is that of demolishing the system, and they "risk" being the point of aggregation of an anti-workers bloc of the new socialization (grown outside and within the major subject of the political sphere), it is because the failed change of the party-form, and of the union-form and the absence of a project of the workers' movement that can be recognized by the masses extols that which we need to avoid: the assimilation of the political sphere into the state, the power into the technique of command.

But this project, developed by a social brain which is different from the offices, is the function of the workers' movement. This has the task of carrying out a synthesis and a social reorganization. The historical role and the possible ambiguity of radicalism is that of exhibiting the loss and the relative demand for protagonism and self-government brought about by the molecular dissemination of power, by the micro-physics of the needs, the corporatization of democracy in an anti-crisis function. Just as the working class does not relinquish its old instruments (union and party) to replace them with something that does not exist, the radicals will not surrender on the use of the regulation of the Chambers to paralyse them against the presumed coup of the group chairmen; thus, a perverse use of the social instruments can be attempted, transforming the corporatization into the idea of the common good.

These are forms of "certainty" in the crisis which the welfare state is in. But they are the "uncertainty" that erodes and empties democracy, unless the crisis is overcome through a decision, by undoing and redoing the social bodies. Like the political sphere it is condemned to a balance of counter-power. It can let its original root (self-government) tend towards an alliance that will cement the autonomy to "any" exercise of power (neo-liberalism or a new more or less fascist despotism"). Two hegemonies (the workers' government of the labour force and a liberalist economic policy) do not confront each other in vain for long before others decide in their place.

Pannella reveals the symptoms of a crisis of growth, he exposes the materials of a political reform. The personal dangerousness of its actions are the uncontrolled symptom of answers which the left is incapable of providing. Intent on following the new epoch with the conceptual instruments of the past, the left insists on a division of contemporary history between that which is "ahead" and that which is "behind" the Russian revolution, "before" and "after" capitalism, driving out the new social movements into the corridor of the politics-productive working class. I fear that if the party-form continues to remain closed within a "given" enclosure (union and party as the collectors of what is central, "organized" and "protected") it will see an aggregation of what is the result of the political crisis, including the "pedagogic one" (the manoeuvre of the summit, according to Togliatti's conception) of the workers' movement. I am referring to the danger of an alliance between the destabilizing drive of "radicali

sm" with terrorism. They are not the same thing, obviously, but two "forms" of structural politics. Those who refuse them as political interlocutors (i,e, refuse to acknowledge them for what they already are) cannot explain why they cannot be defeated by mass mobilization and the moralistic refusal or by a sociological explanation (according to which one cannot discuss or, even worse, make alliances with the disgregation, with the degenerated children of the welfare state).

Their meaning can be turned upside down, if there is a project of transformation.

The extermination of innocents through economic means is already taking place through political means (historical left or not) thanks to our silence and our impotence. Pannella is thus fasting for us too, but unlike him (who represents a small political formation, whereas we represent the historical left) we will no longer be able to eat our means where there is no relation between the mass character, the new social subjects of politics and the top-level management (and production) of politics.

Translator's notes

(1) PANNELLA MARCO. Pannella Giacinto, known as Marco. (Teramo 1930). Currently President of the Radical Party's Federal Council, which he is one of the founders of. At twenty national university representative of the Liberal Party, at twenty-two President of the UGI, the union of lay university students, at twenty-three President of the UNURI, national union of Italian university students. At twenty-four he advocates, in the context of the students' movement and of the Liberal party, the foundation of the new radical party, which arises in 1954 following the confluence of prestigious intellectuals and minor democratic political groups. He is active in the party, except for a period (1960-1963) in which he is correspondent for "Il Giorno" in Paris, where he established contacts with the Algerian resistance. Back in Italy, he commits himself to the reconstruction of the radical Party, dissolved by its leadership following the advent of the centre-left. Under his indisputable leadership, the party succeeds in

promoting (and winning) relevant civil rights battles, working for the introduction of divorce, conscientious objection, important reforms of family law, etc, in Italy. He struggles for the abrogation of the Concordat between Church and State. Arrested in Sofia in 1968 as he is demonstrating in defence of Czechoslovakia, which has been invaded by Stalin. He opens the party to the newly-born homosexual organizations (FUORI), promotes the formation of the first environmentalist groups. The new radical party organizes difficult campaigns, proposing several referendums (about twenty throughout the years) for the moralization of the country and of politics, against public funds to the parties, against nuclear plants, etc., but in particular for a deep renewal of the administration of justice. Because of these battles, all carried out with strictly nonviolent methods according to the Gandhian model - but Pannella's Gandhi is neither a mystic nor an ideologue; rather, an intransigent and yet flexible politician - h

e has been through trials which he has for the most part won. As of 1976, year in which he first runs for Parliament, he is always elected at the Chamber of Deputies, twice at the Senate, twice at the European Parliament. Several times candidates and local councillor in Rome, Naples, Trieste, Catania, where he carried out exemplary and demonstrative campaigns and initiatives. Whenever necessary, he has resorted to the weapon of the hunger strike, not only in Italy but also in Europe, in particular during the major campaign against world hunger, for which he mobilized one hundred Nobel laureates and preeminent personalities in the fields of science and culture in order to obtain a radical change in the management of the funds allotted to developing countries. On 30 September 1981 he obtains at the European parliament the passage of a resolution in this sense, and after it several other similar laws in the Italian and Belgian Parliament. In January 1987 he runs for President of the European Parliament, obtaini

ng 61 votes. Currently, as the radical party has pledged to no longer compete with its own lists in national elections, he is striving for the creation of a "transnational" cross-party, in view of a federal development of the United States of Europe and with the objective of promoting civil rights throughout the world.