ABSTRACT: In an interview with Playboy magazine, Marco Pannella explains the reasons for the bitter contrast between the Radical Party and the Italian Communist Party. Pannella states there are two real poles in Italian politics, the communist pole and the radical one; on the one hand a socialism based on democratic values and on tolerance, on the other a socialism based on ideologies. It is necessary to defeat that policy of the Communist Party which aims at splitting and defeating the Left in order to reaffirm socialism as a value.

(Interview with Playboy - May 1979 from "Marco Pannella - Works and Speeches - 1959-1980", Gammalibri, January 1982)

Playboy - Recently you attacked the Communist Party rather severely. But ever since 1966, in a famous interview with "Nuova Repubblica", you expressed a bitter judgment on it. What are the faults of the Communist Party according to you?

Pannella - More than faults it would be better to speak of mistakes, in a lay sense. It is an important difference, because our lives are already so full of catholic and counterreformist elements that I believe we should at least try to expunge them from our language. In my opinion, the cardinal mistake (to use a Catholic expression) lies elsewhere. Over the last thirty years, the Communist Party has resorted to transformism, in other words, it has disguised itself as a moderate party in order to win. However, the operation carried out by these transformists may dupe the electorate once, but in the long run it's a losing game. In the medium and long term, this "Machiavellian" operation (but Machiavelli is something very different) is certainly doomed to fail. And this is exactly what's happening to the Communist Party. We might say that a disciple of Crispi (1) such as Palmiro Togliatti (2) was a master of this "style"; according to convenience or rather to small opportunities, Togliatti dissipated the lofty

values and the noblest applications of the progressive values of the Left, of socialism, etc.

Playboy - Are you suggesting Togliatti was a master of opportunism?

Pannella - He was the man who most promoted the ideology of opportunism in Italy. However, I am well aware of the fact that in the beginning, opportunism originated as a positive demand with Gambetta during the Third French Republic, when the radicals advocated opportunity in the sense of political ethics versus dogmatism. But where lies the fault of the opportunists? It is true that politics is the art of the possible, as they preach, but they should nonetheless keep in mind that politics is the art of "creating" the possible, not of "consuming" the possible. Who are the opportunists? Those who consume and reduce the possible, whereas true politicians create, extend the range of the possible.

Playboy - From this point of view it is undeniable that you have recently created a lot of real politics.

Pannella - That's why I believe the policy of the Communist Party is unsuccessful, and patently so. When the Communist Party became the spearhead of the front represented by 95% of Parliament in the struggle of the DC, of national Democracy and of the others on the referendums for the double 'no' ("Reale law" and public financing to parties), and this 95% subsequently reduces itself to 65-66%, and in order to halt this leakage it is forced to resort to the "mass media", that is, to mobilize frenziedly to cheat not the fascists or the Christian Democrats - who ignore it - but the communists and the worker, telling them that if the "Reale law" (which they had previously labeled as worse than the "Rocco law") is abrogated, that would mean Curcio, Concutelli, Vallanzasca (3) and the fascist rapists would come out of jail, then this can only mean that the communists' conscience is dirty, because they know they are lying and that they have to build the fortunes of the party by cheating their electorate and by ado

pting a wrongful policy. Therefore I say the direction taken by the Communist Party is a wrong one, a desperate one. Today there are two forms of despair in Italy: the despair of the communist bureaucrats and the despair of the terrorists and of the drug addicts. They are two different but equally destructive forms of despair.

Playboy - Therefore you believe the Communist Party is an opponent to be defeated even more than the Christian Democratic Party.

Pannella - As a militant of a left-wing force, it is obvious that my chief enemy is the policy that aims at splitting and defeating the parties of the Left. And today the promoter of this policy is not the DC, which is more shy, but the Communist Party. After all, the DC has always been afraid, even in moments when it wanted to make illiberal turnabouts; in fact, the whole story of Tambroni (4) is nothing but a huge trumpery. Quite simply, at the time (July 1960) Gronchi (5), who had been elected President of the Republic in spite of his party, as the man of the communists and of Mattei (6) - just like Fanfani (7) was at the time - wanted to settle his accounts with the Christian Democratic Party. And so he used his pupil Tambroni against his party, who was destroyed. But the truth is, it wasn't the country that defeated this idiocy of Tambroni, as they told us then, it was the DC itself, which planned to do away with Gronchi who had been elected Head of the State against the will of the DC and following an

alliance between fascists and communists on the one side and Mattei's oil on the other. But let us put aside the DC for the moment. What I'm saying is that the two poles of the Italian political scene (therefore not only of the Left) are the communists and the radicals. The evidence of this is the fact that in Trieste the first party of the Left is the Communist Party, but that when we reap 6% of votes at the election of 1978, the Communist Party loses 8% of its votes. Now, what is the principal trouble with the Communist Party? The fact is, the historical communist is basically not a Stalinist: he is simply a person who believes Stalin is a good father of a family. Togliatti, not the worker of the FIAT, is the true Stalinist, because the FIAT worker honestly believes Stalin is a good father of a family.

But why does he believe that? Because Togliatti, who has met Stalin, assures them, against the opinion of the liberals, the democrats and the socialists - who have never met him - that Stalin is a good father. And when the socialist, the dissident communist or the liberal tell the FIAT worker that "millions of farmers have been slaughtered there, that the entire communist leading class has been tortured and assassinated, morally as well as juridically", the worker believes Palmiro Togliatti who is lying instead of believing the others who are telling the truth. They believe him because Togliatti has been there, and the others haven't. Therefore I have great respect for the Stalinist worker, because he has been cheated all the time. In fact, when I was elected member of Parliament in three different constituencies, I chose Turin; moreover, in certain sections of Mirafiori, which are traditionally dominated by the Communist Party, we reaped as much as 62% of votes in the election of the referendums. Worker are

therefore basically not Stalinist, and we warn them against Stalinism, because in the West Stalinism has always been a phenomenon of the Right, never of the Left. In Italy, Stalinism is represented by Togliatti: and it is a phenomenon of the Right, because Togliatti stipulates the agreement with the Church on the Concordat and on article 7 of the Constitution, because Togliatti is more flexible than the socialists and the other lay parties with respect to the position of Vittorio Emanuele III, because Togliatti grants an amnesty to the principal fascist culprits. Togliatti conducts no major battles in Parliament against the fascists because if he had, he would have won them.

This is why the Christian Democratic Party - as I said in that interview of 1966 - is indebted to the communists. When the DC says "after the war we reconstructed the State", it is says something dangerous because it is true: except that they reconstructed the authoritarian State of Alfredo Rocco (8). But the greatest reconstructors were De Gasperi (9) and Togliatti together.

Playboy - A sort of "historical compromise"...

Pannella - Not "a sort" of historical compromise! "That" was the "historical compromise"! That is the "true historical compromise", because that is when co-administration, socialism, pacifism and neutrality are given up; because the Communist Party with its leader Berlinguer (10) stops supporting the East and the Warsaw Pact to support NATO. Before that it was possible to enact communism only with the sponsorship of the U.S.S.R. and the Warsaw Pact, then comes Berlinguer who says "no, socialism needs the balance of powers. Therefore socialism can be better achieved with NATO".

We oppose this Machiavellianism with our choice of freedom. We radicals are no ideological party, we are a party of experimentalists: a libertarian, socialist, self-managed party. We are a party based on values. In other words, we tell our followers: "My aim is to aggregate you not on the basis of complex strategies, but by upholding two, three, four important things at a time, because once we have upheld ten things, we will have a historical link, not the ideological one of the professors". Thus, our values have been disarmament, world hunger, pacifism, unilateral but controlled disarmament in the European area, free and responsible love. All values of the early century: free love, the one feared by the Victorian society, which wasn't a liberal society, as they tell us, but a repressed and tormented society dominated by a puritan austerity and schizophrenia.

This is why we say socialism itself is a value. It is no chance that people like Ignazio Silone (11) and Vittorini (12) referred to the Radical Party in these last twenty years. When Vittorini died, he was president of the Federal Council of the new Radical Party, this party, our party. Ignazio Silone left his meagre belongings - two tables belonging to the Association for the freedom of culture, a couple of chairs, a few card files - to us. He was truly a humane socialist, one who believed in values. And he was a peasant, a Southerner from the Abruzzi, like myself...

Playboy - Are you from Teramo?

Pannella - I am from Teramo, he came from the Marsica: two peasants. He too advocated a socialism based on values versus the socialism based on ideologies. After all, values have a solid scientific content in itself, whereas Leninism's pseudo-scientific claim has turned out to be nothing but a sad, gloomy and terrible utopia which has lead to massacres and assassinations.

I therefore explained that in Italian politics today there are two real poles: the communist pole and the radical pole. This truth which emerged in 1978: who, if not the Communist Party and the Radical Party, were the two antagonists on the referendums? Later they accused me of a long series of things: they called me Pannella the radical-fascist, they turned all this hate against me...The fact is they are disturbed by the truth: that is, that we both are the two poles of the Left.

Playboy - Obviously, your stories on via Rasella (13) and similar episodes stirred up a hornet's nest...

Pannella - First let me insist on this point: that in Italy today the two key forces are the communists and the radicals. Even the Italian Right splits on the referendums. When they defend the "Reale Law", the communists show they have assimilated the values of the "Rocco Code"; the fascists follow them, but the liberal and popular base of the Right splits and follows us, as it did in 1974 with divorce. The true antagonists in Italy are two antagonists belonging to the Left, the radicals and the communists, and politically (though not numerically) speaking, it is the radicals who win. Nonetheless I repeat: when the communist Party loses 8% of votes, we win 6%.

Also, to conclude the question of the second pole, if we calculate that we are the party of the referendums, that is, the party that splits up all the other parties on a horizontal line, a party that promotes different referendums and collects signatures on them, you realize we are very, very strong. Do people realize what it means to collect six million signatures a year for civil campaigns? That is another thing of huge importance! That is the moment of collusion between the two political proposals which are most clear and attractive in Italy. But you might object that the polemic between the Communist Party and the radical Party lately has been harsh, and that I have put out fire with gasoline. In other words, the things I said against the responsibles for the attack of via Rasella, which infuriated Terracini (14), Amendola (15) and others. But this question of the immorality of terrorists attacks is something we followers of nonviolence have repeated every day, for twenty years. The fact is, if you acce

pt military laws in the political struggle and even in the international struggle, the only difference between an abominable assassin and a heroic partisan is whether the Germans or the English win. Obviously, if the Germans, the Nazis, had won, the men of via Rasella would have been labeled as infamous terrorists who had caused the death of a quantity of people. But the others win, and they are heroes.

But the whole thing is dishonest, because if you justify war attacks like the one of via Rasella, if you accept that "style", you pave the way for a justification of Curcio's terrorism, and you can no longer pronounce a clear condemnation. What I'm saying is that if the Left wanted to be able to be fiercely against Curcio in terms of moral lynching (in other words, a communist party that explained that Curcio is not a communist Catholic but a fascist), it should start by strongly condemning via Rasella. In fact, Curcio hadn't chosen the terrorism that assassinated Moro (16); he acted in the context of the previous terrorism, when victims were very rare. At that point, you have to be clear: a struggle which implies the need for heroism and martyrdom, for military liberation and the killing of 350 or 330 hostages, is something that should be rejected very resolutely. And even when you want to free the countries of the Third World thanks to long and major military campaigns, and you thus have Vietnam, Cambodia,

etcetera, it means your new societies will be constructed by the military, and will therefore be dominated by their tendency to do away with every international difference though war. Those societies will be regulated by the military, and this is something unacceptable. Therefore, I say 'no' to via Rasella because I want to be able to say no to Curcio. And already at the time of that action there was a polemic, because the men of that revolutionary communist Movement - which claimed 159 victims here in Rome, 30 of whom at the Ardeatine graves - being hard boiled revolutionaries immediately denounced Carla Capponi and Rosario Bentivegna.

I will tell you more: on Resistance Day, which is my holiday, I failed to recall that there is an aspect in the Liberation - Piazzale Loreto (17) - which is a sign of barbarity. I wanted to mention it last 25 April and I didn't. Why? Because there was no Risorgimento Liberale (18) of those days. I wanted to quote the words of Pannunzio (19), not of Lupinacci, who represented the right wing of the movement, but of Pannunzio, of the antifascist liberal Left, which condemned that mistake. At the time, despite the fact that we were all coming out of prison, we commented "it is an episode day of barbarity".

You see, by talking this way I am destroying the taboos of the Left. At this point, I have clearly become the dangerous comrade, because I have a few elements of Trotski, a few of Zinoviev, a few of Bucharin ,"si parva licet magnis comparare" (if it is lawful to compare small things to great ones). I am Enrico Berlinguer's Trotski, and therefore anything I do must be exorcised.

Playboy - You say you are Trotski, and yet Montanelli (20) likes you to some extent...

Pannella - Montanelli writes an article on me for which I should bring an action against him. The whole article is conceived in the following way: obviously Pannella is a charlatan, however...I'll read it out for you, because it's important. This is what it says: "Pannella will be one of the principal protagonists of the upcoming elections. This will displease many of our readers, who view Pannella as a mixture of demagogy, charlatanry and histrionics. And not without good reasons". Then he says "and a demagogue, a ham and a charlatan he is". Full stop.

Playboy - Obviously the sentence was meant in a paradoxical, provocative sense.

Pannella - Listen to this: "They also call him an accomodationist, a sort of left-wing Giannini (21). With Giannini, Pannella shares the theatricality". Then he says Giannini was a Zacconi (22), and Pannella a Carmelo Bene (23). Personally speaking, I prefer Zacconi to Carmelo Bene. Then it says: "If Pannella were nothing but an accomplished comedian...". Therefore I am a comedian. "...His comedy would have long since been over". "He has the impudence of an accomplished prostitute". "The fact is, Pannella has understood more things than professional political analysts have". "But as a patent and brilliant liar such as he is...".

Playboy - Clearly you don't view yourself that way...

Pannella - Try to look at it from my point of view! I am called a "snatcher and a muddler of words" and so on. Then what does he say? "Clearly, we cannot pronounce a favourable judgement on Pannella; he operates in a field which is not ours". This is the political sentence of the article: "This is Pannella. We cannot give him votes. But we hope he will be the one to receive the votes that don't belong to us". This article obeys a single morality: that of preventing the people of the liberal area who like me and are on the verge of voting for me from doing so, with this series of nice, provocative things. "He's nice, but we cannot vote for him". This is Montanelli's scheme: blocking his followers who might vote for me. And he explains: true, I like him too, he's a son of a bitch but I like him. But beware: don't vote for him!

And there's more. On the following day, L'Unità (24) reprimands me, with motivations that would deserve an action for libel, for the things Montanelli writes of me. They maintain that article is an apology of Pannella. And they stress the fact that Montanelli says: "Pannella is our son". But Montanelli knows all too well that when he says "Pannella is our son", Fortebraccio (25) will answer "therefore, in addition to being a demagogue, a word snatcher, he is also a son of a bitch". Obviously he knows that, that is why this an anti-Pannella operation, even if superficially I am awarded the honour of the arms. L'Unità turns this article into a leaflet. This article, which is a manifesto warning not to vote for me, becomes the pretext to say that Pannella is Montanelli's man.

Playboy - Yet you flirted with De Carolis, who was a great friend of Montanelli's (now I think they've quarreled).

Pannella - The communists organize debates with De Carolis on TV in Milan every day! No, the fact is that anything I do must be deformed. I must be lynched at all times. If, for example, I go to the Communist congress, because I have been invited, and I go there with the only coat I have, that coat becomes a blue "loden coat". It was the only one I had and obviously I was thin, after 25 days of hunger strike, and pale because I was moved.

Playboy - ...And they said you were Nosferatu the vampire.

Pannella - They all stood stiff in front of me, insulting me, cursing me: the whole communist congress on its feet. A terrible scene, which reminded me of the thirties, of the trials in Moscow, of the purges. An anathema: they were all on their feet, insulting me. It was enough to say that I went to the congress, foreseeing the anathema. And the whole Italian press said Pannella, this accomplished actor, pale (I was probably wearing powder!) defied the communists with his black cape...And the funniest thing - which further reminded me of the thirties - remember at the time there we two axes of the propaganda, Goebbels on the one hand and Beria on the other - is that most of the journalists saw me exactly as they should have seen me: with a cape! But the cape was my old "loden", and the challenge consisted in the fact that I had risen to my feet out of respect for the presidency, which was standing up. Instead, they said that with my cape I was defying the whole world.

But Stalinism is like that. In 1939 they make treaties for the division of Poland, Germany and Russia, and then they kill Trotski; Stalin orders to kill that old man, the rebel, the enemy, who was writing in exile and who wrote until his death. Here in Italy we have the "historical compromise", but in the meanwhile they destroy Pannella with moral lynching. But I continue nonetheless, because they haven't understood that if one were to give a moral judgment (this is why as a lay person I always repeat only political judgements should be given), what is morally more despicable? Curcio, who injures and kills a few people and can kill perhaps a thousand democrats in his life, or Palmiro Togliatti, who day after day, for five, six years, witnessed the physical torture of companions with whom he had lived thirty years - physical torture, extorted confessions - and who wrote communiqués to say that that person had confessed. And as Ercole Ercoli, he lies to his fellow party members, and expels those who have any d

oubts from the party. "This" is monstrous: and at this point, if we fail to say these things, there is the risk that the Left will once again produce Stalin, Togliatti and the attempt of via Rasella: and I reject those things, because I want a successful Left, whereas those events have created a split and losing Left.

This is why we are the alternative to the communist leadership's policy. And we are lynched because our policy, if acknowledged, would be the most popular one. The TG2, the social-communist public service, and the GR1, do not even mention the communist and socialist parliamentarians who leave their parties for ours.

Playboy - Nonetheless there are also people you like. For example, in spite of all your traditional radical anticlericalism, you don't seem to dislike Pope John Paul II. And yet, you had advocated a hermit pope as the successor of Paul VI.

Pannella - Of course: a man with an extreme spirituality who would choose to retire in Avignon, or in the mountains of the Abruzzi, like Celestino V, only without resigning or refusing his office. This Pope, on the contrary, is the complete opposite of a monk. He has the charisma of the leader, and he is somewhere between Bartolomeo Colleoni - Julius II - and De Gaulle. He rides, no longer on the papal mule, but on a handsome steed. He proclaims "it is God's will", and gathers everyone. He likes open field battles, he loves to fight, he is an accomplished leader, and that is why people like him. Therefore I am fond of this Pope. My slogan, extremely ironical, is "God gave him to us, no one dare touch him". And an anticlerical, a Christian like Pannella believes this Pope is an antagonist on many an issue, but that he can find points in common with him. Whereas there was no contact, no understanding with Pope Paul VI. I believe Pope John Paul II could be the last of the popes-leaders, the one thanks to whom

a certain neo-temporality could be defeated forever. And God knows how badly we need to defeat it, in this highly undecipherable Italy.

Translator's notes

(1) Francesco Crispi (1818-1901): Italian politician. A follower of Mazzini, he took part in the Sicilian revolution of 1848, and from 1860 on he became the political mastermind of Garibaldi's "dictatorship" in Southern Italy. Representative of the Left as of 1861, in 1864 he joined the monarchy and was Minister of the Interior with Depretis (1877-78). Prime Minister (1887-91; 1893-96), he soon manifested authoritarian and nationalist tendencies; he repressed irredentism and the socialist movement (dissolution of the Fasci in Sicily and of the Socialist Party in 1894) and advocated the Triple Alliance and the colonial expansion in Ethiopia. He resigned after the defeat of Adua (1896).

(2) Palmiro Togliatti (1893-1964): Italian politician. Among the founders of "Ordine Nuovo", he cooperated with Gramsci in opposing the extremist theses of Bordiga. Secretary of the Italian Communist Party from 1927 to his death, he lived abroad for long periods, in Moscow as member of the secretariat of the Comintern, in Spain during the civil war. Back in Italy in 1944, he launched the Communist Party's national policy by supporting the other antifascist forces, by recognizing the role of the Catholics and by participating in several governments from 1944 to 1947. After the elections of 1948, he was head of the left-wing opposition. Mastermind of the "Italian way to socialism", Togliatti laid down the premises of the Italian Communist Party's independence from the U.S.S.R.

(3) Renato Curcio: leader and founding father of the Red Brigades. Currently serving a life sentence.

(4) Fernando Tambroni (1901-1963): Christian Democratic Minister of the Interior (1955-59) and of Budget ('59-60), Prime Minister (1960). He was forced to resign following the popular protest against the support given to him by the MSI.

(5) Giovanni Gronchi (1887-1978): Italian politician. Among the founders of the Popular Party (1919) and of the Christian Democratic Party (1943), President of the Chamber ('48-55), and of the Republic ('55-62).

(6) Enrico Mattei (1906-1962): Italian entrepreneur. Developed oil researches in the Po Valley. President of the ENI (1953), he sought for direct agreements with the oil-producing countries of the Middle East and with the U.S.S.R. He died in a plane accident.

(7) Amintore Fanfani (1908): Politician. Professor of economic history, secretary of the Christian Democrat Party (1954-59; '73-75), Prime Minister ('58-59; '60-62; '62-63; '82-83), foreign minister ('64-65; '65-68), president of the Senate ('68-73; '76-82).

(8) Alfredo Rocco (1875-1935): Italian jurist and politician, minister of Justice from '25 to '32, author of the penal codes and codes of penal procedure issued between 1930 and 1931, which were congenial to the ideological, political and economic demands of fascism.

(9) Alcide De Gasperi (1881-1954): Italian politician. Member of the Italian Parliament for the Popular Party (1921), of which he was Secretary from '23 to '25. An antifascist, he was arrested in 1927. Organizer of the clandestine Christian Democrat Party and Secretary of it from '44 to '46, Prime Minister as from '45, he signed the peace treaty with the allies. Guided the Christian Democrat Party toward the electoral success of 1948, in which it obtained the absolute majority.

(10) Enrico Berlinguer (1922-1984): Italian politician. Secretary of the Communist Youth Federation (1949-56), member of Parliament since 1968, secretary general of the Communist Party from 1979 to 1984.

(11) Ignazio Silone (1900-1978): Italian writer. Participated in the establishment of the Italian Communist Party, which he left in 1930. "Fontamara" (1930), "Pane e vino" (1936), "Il segreto di Luca" (1956), "L'avventura di un povero cristiano" (1968).

(12) Elio Vittorini (1908-1966): Italian writer. Collaborated at "Solaria", and introduced American fiction in Italy with the anthology "Americana" (1942). His works of fiction include "Il garofano rosso" (1933-34), "Uomini e no" (1945), "Il Sempione strizza l'occhia al Frejus" (1947).

(13) Via Rasella: name of a street in Rome where a group of partisans of the GAPs (small clandestine groups of armed elements created during the Resistance in Italy at the initiative of the Communist Party to carry out attacks and sabotages against the German occupants and the fascists of the Repubblica di Salò) carried out an attempt on 23 March 1944 against a German police column on foot. 33 German soldiers died, following which the Nazi occupation authorities killed 350 Italians in retaliation.

(14) Umberto Terracini (1895-1983): among the founders of the Italian Communist Party; imprisoned during fascism (1926-43), from 1947 to '48 he was president of the constituent assembly.

(15) Giovanni Amendola (1882-1926): Italian politician. Member of Parliament, minister in the Facta government (1922), he was head of the liberal-constitutional opposition to fascism and the organizer of the parliamentary secession of the Aventino after the assassination of Matteotti (1924). He died in exile.

(16) Aldo Moro (1916-1978): Italian politician. Secretary of the Christian Democratic Party (1959-65), minister on several occasions, Prime Minister ('63-68), he was the mastermind of the Centre-Left policy. Foreign Minister ('69-74), Prime Minister ('74-76), President of the DC since 1976, he favoured the participation of the Communist Party in the government. He was kidnapped by the Red Brigades on 16.3.78 and found dead on 9.5.1978.

(17) Piazzale Loreto: a square in Milan where Mussolini's dead body was exposed after his execution.

(18) Risorgimento Liberale: Newspaper published from 1943 to 1947.

(19) Mario Pannunzio (1910-1968): Editor of the newspaper "Risorgimento Liberale" (1943-47) and of the weekly "Il Mondo" (1949-66).

(20) Indro Montanelli (1909): Italian journalist and writer, editor (since 1974) of "Il Giornale Nuovo". "Incontri" (1950-59), "Storia di Roma" (1957), "Storia d'Italia" (1966-76).

(21) Guglielmo Giannini (1891-1960): Playwright and journalist. Founder of the weekly "L'uomo qualunque" (1944) and of a political movement, Il Fronte dell'uomo qualunque, which achieved considerable success at the elections of 1946.

(22) Ermete Zacconi (1857-1948): Stage actor.

(23) Carmelo Bene (1937): Stage actor and director.

(24) L'Unità: daily newspaper of the Italian Communist Party established in Turin in 1924.

(25) Fortebraccio (Melloni Mario) (1902): Journalist, political columnist for "L'Unità" with the pseudonym of Fortebraccio.