Log in

View Full Version : Italian factory occupations and Gramsci



Искра
27th October 2009, 01:23
Read this text.
http://libcom.org/history/italian-factory-occupations-biennio-rosso



The Turin workers called for the CGL trade union and the Socialist Party (PSI) to help them spread the strike nationally. Both the CGL and PSI rejected the call.

Eventually the CGL leadership settled the strike on the employers’ terms i.e. limiting the shop stewards' councils to non-working hours. The anarchists "criticised what they believed was a false sense of discipline that had bound socialists to their own cowardly leadership. They contrasted the discipline that placed every movement under the 'calculations, fears, mistakes and possible betrayals of the leaders' to the other discipline of the workers of Sestri Ponente who struck in solidarity with Turin, the discipline of the railway workers who refused to transport security forces to Turin and the anarchists and members of the Unione Sindacale who forgot considerations of party and sect to put themselves at the disposition of the Torinesi." (Carl Levy, Gramsci and the Anarchists)

But after over a month, the workers were once again betrayed by the PSI and the CGL. They opposed the movement and promised the state a return to ‘normality’ in exchange for legalised workers’ control alongside the bosses. Of course, the workers’ control never materialised.

What do you think about PSI and CGL position? Do you consider it contra-revolutionary? I mean this could become Italian revolution...
I'll say my opinion when discussion starts :)

Stranger Than Paradise
27th October 2009, 03:42
Yes it was undoubtedly counter-revolutionary. It just returns us to the old favourite which is relevant to all struggles "the emancipation of the working class must be the work of the working class itself."

Devrim
27th October 2009, 08:00
Where does Gramsci come into this Jurko, or did you just mention him in the title to draw attention to your thread?;)

if I remember correctly the GCL held a national ballot on whether or not there should be a revolution. The result was very close, but their members voted against.

Of course, the Socialist Party was counter revolutionary. It is in their nature.

Devrim

Искра
27th October 2009, 09:01
Gramsci is just for a "shook" :)
He's not even mentioned in this text, even thou I would like to know what was his position here.