PCI: Party Like It's 1969

[Die Neue Zeit]

http://jacobinmag.com/blog/2012/07/party-like-its-1969/



By Bhaskar Sunkara

I was reading The Tailor of Ulm this weekend. It’s Lucio Magri’s history of the Italian Communist Party, a party that was for many years one of the bright spots on the Western left. The topic may seem anachronistic, but it struck me as relevant.

With the communist movement long dead and Italian politics vacillating between the dry and technocratic and the bombastic and corrupt, that’s an odd thing to say. But the history of the PCI is the history of a vibrant and deeply political organization that in a few short decades embedded itself within the Italian working class, attempting to chart a new course between Stalinism and social democracy. Its premature disappearance left that class in disarray. And today, Italy’s anti-austerity movement is as weak and scattered as our own.

So Rome inspired no one at Zuccotti. Unlike, say, Athens. In Greece, the far left has come close to leading a governing coalition and a radical extra-parliamentary movement has been fighting for years to stave off a European Central Bank austerity package.

But it goes unnoticed that the Left’s rise in Greece is partially the result of a unique history. Almost alone in Europe, Greece’s unapologetically Stalinist Communist Party and its Eurocommunist splinters clung to life after the fall of the Berlin Wall. This tradition of working class organization, even in its ossified “Party” form, has fueled eclectic protests that make Occupy look like a tea party. Or the Tea Party.

“Eclectic” and “ossified” seem like they don’t belong together. Today, the Old Left is invoked as a convenient foil: humorless, militaristic, rigidly holding onto a stale ideology. It’s a critique that has roots in the New Left. But the revolution danced before Emma Goldman, much less Abbie Hoffman.

As Magri explains, the Italian Communist Party incubated a social movement and a real community:

“In the evening you went to a meeting on your bicycle or moped, where you would discuss the newspaper articles or membership campaigns; then you came back late to eat a plate of tripe or have a drink or two at the cafe attached to the House of Labor.”

The web of solidarity made it possible for the unemployed to get by with no income and to feel a sense of belonging and power, whatever their personal ability or status. It was similar to the way the early German Social Democratic Party earned the loyalty of workers by filling the holes in the Bismarckian welfare state. Late night dances and sporting events were just as important as propagandizing.

So you have this weird dichotomy between a Party-centric social movement doing something plenty of anarchists are good at—the food co-ops and urban gardens stuff—in the grassroots, just on a mass scale, while still being grey and bureaucratic up top.

[ed miliband]

can we party like the workers who told the pci to fuck off in '69?

[The Douche]

can we party like the workers who told the pci to fuck off in '69?

How about we party like the workers who the PCI snitched on, to the fucking cops?

[Die Neue Zeit]

Save for the political point at the end, this is a cultural article, folks. Like myself, the author doesn't have a favourable political view of the Euro-com trash.

[Ethics Gradient, Traitor For All Ages]

Is the PCI's attempt at integrating itself so fully into the lives of the worker's the reason it turned against them when they decided that they wanted to stop being workers in 70s?

[o well this is ok I guess]

I'd have to hear about he details about these late night dances before I could pass judgement.

[islandmilitia]

Save for the political point at the end, this is a cultural article, folks. Like myself, the author doesn't have a favourable political view of the Euro-com trash.

This is really a sad post. You would expect a Marxist to be able to recognize that the bifurcation of culture and politics (or politics and economics) is a component of bourgeoisie ideology and one that actually prevents us from understanding the nature of cultural artifacts - because cultural artifacts do not exist as autonomous texts, as bourgeois criticism would have us believe, they take place in determinate conditions of social production, involving distinct institutions and forms of discourse. This is an important general principle for understanding culture in all its forms as Marxists, but the more particular issue at hand, that of the activities of the PCI, is even more obviously political because the decision of the PCI (or the SPD) to devote itself to, say, providing film screenings or whatever, regardless of the content of those screenings, has to be understood as a decision based on a specific conception of the role and nature of the party, and its relationship to the working class, a conception that was obviously political in nature insofar as any party is an inherently political organization. That conception was general, in the sense that the commitment of the SPD to its taverns (or whatever) was in no way separate from the reformism and chauvinism of the same party, because the party was overall averse to seriously acknowledging the overthrow of the state as the key immediate objective of any genuinely revolutionary party, and in that sense its community activities provided a safe outlet for its activists and resources. The decision of a party to commit itself to activities like dance parties is, judging from the experience of the SPD and PCI, a symptom of a broader turn for reformism, and can help exacerbate that same process, by moving activists away from those forms of practice which directly express the class struggle and all the social contradictions of capitalist society, and by making the party a basically conservative organization that has no aims beyond the maintenance and gradual expansion of its moderate commentary activities.

There are a whole other set of issues about whether, even if it were desirable, the reformist practices of the SPD and PCI could be revived in current conditions, given that those parties relied on their close relationships with trade union organizations to maintain their community activities, and we are now living in a period where trade unions themselves no longer exist as organizations that encompass a majority or even substantial section of the working class in European countries.

[A Marxist Historian]

This is really a sad post. You would expect a Marxist to be able to recognize that the bifurcation of culture and politics (or politics and economics) is a component of bourgeoisie ideology and one that actually prevents us from understanding the nature of cultural artifacts - because cultural artifacts do not exist as autonomous texts, as bourgeois criticism would have us believe, they take place in determinate conditions of social production, involving distinct institutions and forms of discourse. This is an important general principle for understanding culture in all its forms as Marxists, but the more particular issue at hand, that of the activities of the PCI, is even more obviously political because the decision of the PCI (or the SPD) to devote itself to, say, providing film screenings or whatever, regardless of the content of those screenings, has to be understood as a decision based on a specific conception of the role and nature of the party, and its relationship to the working class, a conception that was obviously political in nature insofar as any party is an inherently political organization. That conception was general, in the sense that the commitment of the SPD to its taverns (or whatever) was in no way separate from the reformism and chauvinism of the same party, because the party was overall averse to seriously acknowledging the overthrow of the state as the key immediate objective of any genuinely revolutionary party, and in that sense its community activities provided a safe outlet for its activists and resources. The decision of a party to commit itself to activities like dance parties is, judging from the experience of the SPD and PCI, a symptom of a broader turn for reformism, and can help exacerbate that same process, by moving activists away from those forms of practice which directly express the class struggle and all the social contradictions of capitalist society, and by making the party a basically conservative organization that has no aims beyond the maintenance and gradual expansion of its moderate commentary activities.

There are a whole other set of issues about whether, even if it were desirable, the reformist practices of the SPD and PCI could be revived in current conditions, given that those parties relied on their close relationships with trade union organizations to maintain their community activities, and we are now living in a period where trade unions themselves no longer exist as organizations that encompass a majority or even substantial section of the working class in European countries.

Yes, this is all very much to the point. In fact, I'd make the point stronger.

What is the country in Europe where the left used to be strongest? Italy.

What is the country in Europe where the left now is the weakest? Same answer, Italy.

Does this have a lot to do with the political, social, and cultural practices of the PCI? Of course it does, that seems self-evident.

So any examination of the PCI in the old days should mostly be trying to figure out just which of its practices were worst and which we need to avoid the most.

-M.H.-

[Rowan Duffy]

What is the country in Europe where the left used to be strongest? Italy.

What is the country in Europe where the left now is the weakest? Same answer, Italy.

I find it bizarre that so many lefties seem so proud of the fact that they've been utterly incapable of being a serious contending force for change that they've never had any height to fall from.

The ability of the PCI to form a vibrant party in difficult circumstances and with the ability to somehow deal with the lunacy being spouted from the cominform is impressive. They've certainly made mistakes and those should be looked at seriously so we can hope to avoid them in the future.

Further the current weakness of the left is a very sorry situation. Part of that is probably due to the new-left that began to rise in 1969 and the completely incorrect supposition that it's not necessary to organise in the party, but you can keep the sort of mass movement going with a patch work of autonomous groups. On the contrary, this approach is going nowhere in a very large number of countries, not just Italy.

It also has to be remembered that the PCI was growing in the shadow of a fascist regime in Italy. The de-fascisation never fully took place, and the roots of fascism remain to the current day. Perhaps in your country you don't have to deal with this problem, but it's hardly down to the fact that the PCI existed, on the contrary, they are certainly part of the reason that it's not as bad as it could be.

[Roach]

If this indicates anything, one of the reasons behind the ideological split between Albania and China against the Soviet Union was the constant support that the SU gave to parties that followed un-marxist opportunist lines such as the PCI, actually the rejection of such opportunist practices becamme one of the main reasons for the creation of Marxist-Leninist Anti-Revisionism, both Chinese and Albanian. Enver Hoxha personnally despised Togliatti and attacks against him and the PCI were constant in his works:


For the Italian revisionists the existing Constitution is their Bible and the bourgeoisie could not find better advocates to defend it or more zealous propagandists to advertise it. The ardent defence which the Italian revisionists make of the Constitution of their capitalist state shows that they cannot conceive any other social system outside the existing bourgeois society, outside its political, ideological, economic, religious and military institutions. To them socialism and the present-day Italian capitalist state are the same thing. The opportunism in which the leaders of the Italian revisionist party were born and raised, has clouded their eyes and shut off all horizons to them. The Italian revisionists have become the guardians of the capitalist order. They even present this role as a virtue and mention it in their documents. ". ..in these'30 years," say the theses for the 15th Congress of the ICP, " the Communist Party has followed a line of the consistent defence of democratic (read- bourgeois) institutions; a line of the organization and development of democratic life amongst the masses of workers and citizens, a line of struggles for individual and collective freedoms, for observance and the application of the Constitution. The ICP has implemented this policy through continually seeking unity with the ISP', with the other democratic forces, secular and Catholic, and seeking every possible convergence even with Christian Democracy itself, even from the opposition, with the aim of avoiding the damage to the democratic constitutional framework".(The politics and the organization of the italian communists, Rome 1979) From Eurocommunism is Anti-Communism.

[Ravachol]

They've certainly made mistakes and those should be looked at seriously so we can hope to avoid them in the future.

Yes, one of those mistakes to avoid is trying to whitewash one of the most stable pillars of post-war Capitalism in Italy. From Togliatti to Berlinguer and beyond, the PCI's position has been one of the cessation of the class war, the pacification of the working class and the unwavering praise of the development of Capitalism. The hardest struggle the PCI waged was against the combative proletariat, preaching the gospel of workerist work-ethic, slaving away for the 'development of the productive forces' and seeing one-day token strikes as the pinnacle of revolutionary fervor. :rolleyes:

There's a reason it's party and trade union hacks were beaten out of the factories and universities with sticks or shot through the knees.



Today the problem facing Italian workers is not that of doing what was done in Russia.
(..)
[We propose the recovery of Italy] on the basis of low costs of production, a high productivity of labour and high wages.

[Rowan Duffy]

The hardest struggle the PCI waged was against the combative proletariat.

It's difficult to take such hyperbolic exaggerations seriously. We're talking about the main force in Italy behind democratisation and for the weakening of the role of fascistic elements in Italy.

The PCI was not perfect, but you haven't pointed out any of its problems. It's ludicrous to claim that the PCI was the major force behind support for capitalism or the primary stumbling block for the working class.

There is an odd symmetry between this sort of thinking and the belief that the trade unions are the major stumbling block to revolution for the working class. It's a kind of cannibalism of the left. The left wants the most revolutionary situations possible, and tends to turn in on itself when it doesn't get them.

Revolutions are not made by sheer force of will. You need to have conditions appropriate. Togliatti had many failings, but it was a great success realising that Italy was not in a condition for insurrection by communist forces. It simply would not have won.

Further, the rejection of work is completely ultra-left. We can't even reject work now, much less in the 1970s when productivity was vastly lower. We need to work. There are legitimate questions as to how much, how this work should be apportioned, and what type of work we do, but it's pure insanity to reject work as such. It's just not physically possible.

Somebody needs to spell out what exactly this opportunism was. I think there are certainly points at which the PCI acted opportunistically, but from the reactions here, I rather expect that they wanted a pure proletarian dictatorship in conditions which could not possibly supported it. There is no value in paying special attention to orthodoxy at the expense of looking at the actual conditions and balance of forces.

[The Douche]

We need to work

Sorry man, you should probably get that corpse out of your mouth, I can't hear you.

[Ethics Gradient, Traitor For All Ages]

There is a difference between thinking the insurrection would fail and activly working with the state to crush it once your leadership role has been rejected by the participants.

[campesino]

can someone please explain to me or link me to an article about what the PCI did that is so controversial.

[Drosophila]

Sorry man, you should probably get that corpse out of your mouth, I can't hear you.

You should probably enlighten us all with your wisdom by explaining why wandering around like nomads is better than working.

[Ethics Gradient, Traitor For All Ages]

can someone please explain to me or link me to an article about what the PCI did that is so controversial.

The PCI failed to gain control of the radicalism in Italy from 68 through the 70s so it took it's ball home and completely integrated itself into the Italian state where it turned against the various autonomous movements and wild cat strikers as well as the guerrilla groups.

It had grown so comfortable in its years as a mediator between the workers and the Italian state that when those workers began to reject the state and even their role as workers in society, the party collectively lost it's mind and began hunting them down in order to reassert state control and it's reason for existence.


Or maybe you could enlighten us with your wisdom and tell us all why wandering around like nomads is better than working.

You need an explanation for this?

[Drosophila]

You need an explanation for this?

Yes, I do. I don't see why we should oppose civilization.

[Ethics Gradient, Traitor For All Ages]

Rejection of work leads to civilization, we live in actually existing barbarism.

[Drosophila]

Rejection of work leads to civilization, we live in actually existing barbarism.

Alright, explain further.

[Ethics Gradient, Traitor For All Ages]

Spending life producing value for capitalists whether they have top hats and cigars or red stars and neat mustaches represents barbarism for reasons that should be obvious for Marxists. The failure of revolutions has not been due to lack of consciousness or trotskyist wreckers, it’s due to those ‘revolutionaries’ forcing the workers to reproduce a fundamentally flawed society. A real liberation struggle will have at its center the abolition of work as the base on which an actual new society will be created; anything else is just different factions of capitalists struggling for control. The history of the PCI is a perfect example of this, though any revolutionary state will work just as well.

[Ravachol]

It's difficult to take such hyperbolic exaggerations seriously. We're talking about the main force in Italy behind democratisation and for the weakening of the role of fascistic elements in Italy.


Apart from the fact that that's not true (the PCI purged large swathes of the partisan cadres in the aftermath of WII, either disarming them and integrating them in the party or forcing them underground through intimidation. Most battle-hardened partisans who rejected the PCI's embrace of social peace in favor of what they believed to be revolution formed small time guerrilla groups like Volante Rossa who were heavily denounced by the PCI) combating fascism in favour of liberal democracy is neither here nor there when it comes to revolutionary credentials. In the Netherlands, the main force to do this apart from the Stalinist CPN were the protestants and royalists who played a major role in the resistance against fascism in favor of liberal democracy.



The PCI was not perfect, but you haven't pointed out any of its problems. It's ludicrous to claim that the PCI was the major force behind support for capitalism or the primary stumbling block for the working class.


I suggest you read into the history of the PCI because I don't even know where to start. Here are some base materials:

http://libcom.org/history/italian-background-ernest-dowson

http://libcom.org/library/italy-1977-8-living-earthquake-red-notes

http://libcom.org/library/storming-heaven-class-composition-struggle-italian-autonomist-marxism-steve-wright

http://libcom.org/history/states-emergency-cultures-revolt-italy-1968-1978

http://libcom.org/library/autonomia-post-political-politics



There is an odd symmetry between this sort of thinking and the belief that the trade unions are the major stumbling block to revolution for the working class. It's a kind of cannibalism of the left. The left wants the most revolutionary situations possible, and tends to turn in on itself when it doesn't get them.


I'm not part of what you think 'the left' is.



Revolutions are not made by sheer force of will. You need to have conditions appropriate.


Obviously. There's a difference between that and recasting historical materialism to some kind of ode to the development of the productive forces and all that blablabla bullshit which sacrifices the present to an ever receding future, a revolution that is always just beyond the horizon of "we're not ready yet", a promised paradise to be reached through staunch Stakhnovism, mirroring the christian work-ethic which promises wealth in heaven.



Togliatti had many failings, but it was a great success realising that Italy was not in a condition for insurrection by communist forces. It simply would not have won.


Yes, what a success that was....



Further, the rejection of work is completely ultra-left. We can't even reject work now, much less in the 1970s when productivity was vastly lower. We need to work.


I'm sorry, I can't hear you over the other side of the barricade mr. manager.


There are legitimate questions as to how much, how this work should be apportioned, and what type of work we do, but it's pure insanity to reject work as such. It's just not physically possible.


I think you'll find everyone from Marx to Kropotkin will disagree with you here.


You should probably enlighten us all with your wisdom by explaining why wandering around like nomads is better than working.

If you have no quarrel with work I suggest you apply to the nearest bureau of the local social-democratic party. Communism is the abolition of work or it is nothing at all.

[Drosophila]

If you have no quarrel with work I suggest you apply to the nearest bureau of the local social-democratic party. Communism is the abolition of work or it is nothing at all.

Well thank you, almighty arbiter of communism. Do you disregard Marx's theories on labor and alienation?


Spending life producing value for capitalists whether they have top hats and cigars or red stars and neat mustaches represents barbarism for reasons that should be obvious for Marxists. The failure of revolutions has not been due to lack of consciousness or trotskyist wreckers, it’s due to those ‘revolutionaries’ forcing the workers to reproduce a fundamentally flawed society. A real liberation struggle will have at its center the abolition of work as the base on which an actual new society will be created; anything else is just different factions of capitalists struggling for control. The history of the PCI is a perfect example of this, though any revolutionary state will work just as well.

You two seem to be arguing against the need for people to work under capitalism. People go to work now because they need to make a living, yes. That is one of the major reasons why we all should oppose capitalism. However, work still gets things done. It builds and maintains bridges and roads. It gives us cars and buses. It gives us an overall better standard of living.

Sure, people should be working a lot less in a post-capitalist society. But that doesn't mean we should completely disregard the need for labor.

[The Douche]

If you think you can or ought to force people to labor you are not a communist. If people dont want to build cars and roads in communism then we will not have them.

How dare you speak about alienation while telling people work is fucking necessary. That corpse isn't in your mouth, you are the fucking corpse.

[Die Neue Zeit]

It's difficult to take such hyperbolic exaggerations seriously. We're talking about the main force in Italy behind democratisation and for the weakening of the role of fascistic elements in Italy.

The PCI was not perfect, but you haven't pointed out any of its problems. It's ludicrous to claim that the PCI was the major force behind support for capitalism or the primary stumbling block for the working class.

First opportunism, comrade: Entering into a Popular Front-esque coalition government during the immediate post-WWII years. It's just like the SPD coalition government ushering in the Weimar republic. Ravachol posted other details on this time above.

Second opportunism: Municipalism and provincial governance, fostering the reform coalition strategy.

Third opportunism: Eurocommunist trash more generally.

That's three baseball strikes - well, more than three, given the numerous baseball strikes in the second category.


Further, the rejection of work is completely ultra-left. We can't even reject work now, much less in the 1970s when productivity was vastly lower. We need to work. There are legitimate questions as to how much, how this work should be apportioned, and what type of work we do, but it's pure insanity to reject work as such. It's just not physically possible.


Sorry man, you should probably get that corpse out of your mouth, I can't hear you.

The Douche, withdrawal of labour power isn't a revolutionary strategy by any stretch.


There is a difference between thinking the insurrection would fail and activly working with the state to crush it once your leadership role has been rejected by the participants.

Why do I get the feeling you said the same thing that Rowan said above, but for different reasons?

It's a kind of cannibalism of the left. The left wants the most revolutionary situations possible, and tends to turn in on itself when it doesn't get them.


A real liberation struggle will have at its center the abolition of work as the base on which an actual new society will be created


If you have no quarrel with work I suggest you apply to the nearest bureau of the local social-democratic party. Communism is the abolition of work or it is nothing at all.

"From each according to his ability" is quite obvious about the concept of socially necessary labour.

[Drosophila]

If you think you can or ought to force people to labor you are not a communist. If people dont want to build cars and roads in communism then we will not have them.

I never said people should be forced to work. An autonomous society should recognize that labor is necessary.


How dare you speak about alienation while telling people work is fucking necessary. That corpse isn't in your mouth, you are the fucking corpse.
Alienation is about a worker losing their connection to the significance of their labor because they work for a wage. It's not an anti-labor theory.

I'm not sure what the "corpse in your mouth" thing was about, but it sounds pretty strange.

[Ravachol]

The Douche, withdrawal of labour power isn't a revolutionary strategy by any stretch.


That's not what he's saying.

[Ravachol]

Alienation is about a worker losing their connection to the significance of their labor because they work for a wage. It's not an anti-labor theory.


You seem to confuse creative activity with work. These are completely different things. All work is alienated activity.

[bcbm]

You should probably enlighten us all with your wisdom by explaining why wandering around like nomads is better than working.

better diet, fresh air, exercise, you are allowed to freely socialize with your friends, no bosses

[The Douche]

I never said people should be forced to work. An autonomous society should recognize that labor is necessary.


Alienation is about a worker losing their connection to the significance of their labor because they work for a wage. It's not an anti-labor theory.

I'm not sure what the "corpse in your mouth" thing was about, but it sounds pretty strange.

You still advocate a social wage. Which is a wage nontheless. What about artists, authors, painters, sculptors etc. They don't create value through their labor. Does your communism not have a place for them? What is to prevent me from filling one of those roles in communism?

As for the corpse thing its from this:


Those who talk about revolution and class struggle without referring
to everyday reality have a corpse in their mouth.

A situ quote.

[Drosophila]

You seem to confuse creative activity with work. These are completely different things. All work is alienated activity.

"Creative activity" can be a lot of things. Not all work is alienated activity.


better diet, fresh air, exercise, you are allowed to freely socialize with your friends, no bosses

All of that would be achievable. People wouldn't need to work their asses off like they do now.


You still advocate a social wage. Which is a wage nontheless. What about artists, authors, painters, sculptors etc. They don't create value through their labor. Does your communism not have a place for them? What is to prevent me from filling one of those roles in communism?

That's not a social wage. A social wage is a government handout paid along with a regular wage.

Why would artists, authors, painters, or sculptors be at a disadvantage? I don't see why anyone would have advantage over another in a wage-free and classless system.

[Die Neue Zeit]

You still advocate a social wage. Which is a wage nontheless. What about artists, authors, painters, sculptors etc. They don't create value through their labor.

Sure they do, if it enters the workers consumption bundle.


Does your communism not have a place for them? What is to prevent me from filling one of those roles in communism?

I remember from here a comrade or two saying to me years ago that a number of artists, authors, painters, sculptors, etc. live off of relations that carried forward from feudal times: patronage of some sort.

Instead of philanthropic patronage, they could be compensated by the public but in a similar manner. Also, an example of going the other way: whatever royalties don't go to artists would flow into the public purse.

[Grenzer]

If you think you can or ought to force people to labor you are not a communist anarchist.

Fixed that for you.

You can hold that view if you want, but don't call it communism. It's amazing how some anarchists have a tendency towards extreme revisionism. It seems that it's mainly because no serious person has ever espoused these views and they try to falsify instances(in this case, by lumping it in with the greater body of communist thought, which it has no place in) of it being a legitimate school of thought to make up for their lack of credibility. Communism is not, and never has been, about this idealistic notion of "abolishing work"; it's always been about the abolition of the state and of class. Workers will have a social obligation to work because it is only through such work that the material abundance required for communism can materialize.

I don't mean to sound like an ass or anything, but it's insulting to just make crap up about what communism is when it has no basis in communism logically(or historically, for that matter) and slur everyone who refuses to embrace this fabrication.

Though to be clear; no one should be 'forced' to work, but they shouldn't expect anything from society if they don't. Forgive me if I'm wrong, but what you seem to be implying through the term 'forced labor' is the requirement for people to work(extenuating circumstances aside) if they are to be part of society.

[A Marxist Historian]

I find it bizarre that so many lefties seem so proud of the fact that they've been utterly incapable of being a serious contending force for change that they've never had any height to fall from.

The ability of the PCI to form a vibrant party in difficult circumstances and with the ability to somehow deal with the lunacy being spouted from the cominform is impressive. They've certainly made mistakes and those should be looked at seriously so we can hope to avoid them in the future.

Further the current weakness of the left is a very sorry situation. Part of that is probably due to the new-left that began to rise in 1969 and the completely incorrect supposition that it's not necessary to organise in the party, but you can keep the sort of mass movement going with a patch work of autonomous groups. On the contrary, this approach is going nowhere in a very large number of countries, not just Italy.

It also has to be remembered that the PCI was growing in the shadow of a fascist regime in Italy. The de-fascisation never fully took place, and the roots of fascism remain to the current day. Perhaps in your country you don't have to deal with this problem, but it's hardly down to the fact that the PCI existed, on the contrary, they are certainly part of the reason that it's not as bad as it could be.

The power of the PCI was not because of Togliatti etc., but due to the militance of the Italian working class, who overthrew Mussolini. Actually, there's probably no country in Europe where fascism is ultimately less of a problem, because workers there know in their bones how to deal with fascism, they've done it before.

It also helped that Mussolini's coming to power to early meant that the PCI was to a partial degree safeguarded from Stalin and Stalinism until Mussolini was overthrown. It still had some of the original vigor of its Leninist early years with Bordiga and Gramsci, before Stalinist suffocation descended on it--until it did.

The new left in Italy never was a serious contender for the following of the working class vs. the PCI. Who even remembers the names of the Italian New Left organizations, except the Red Brigades I suppose, but they were a split from the PCI and not really New Leftist at all. Italian workers have always been pretty clear you had to have a party, though anarchists were influential a long time ago. The problem was that their party, the PCI, really sucked.

The incredible hara kiri the PCI committed, actually fusing with the Christian Democrats, the Pope's party, can only be blamed on the PCI's dreadful leadership, the Togliattis and Napolitanos and so forth. And it has everything to do with the kind of party they perverted the PCI into becoming.

-M.H.-

[A Marxist Historian]

It's difficult to take such hyperbolic exaggerations seriously. We're talking about the main force in Italy behind democratisation and for the weakening of the role of fascistic elements in Italy.

The PCI was not perfect, but you haven't pointed out any of its problems. It's ludicrous to claim that the PCI was the major force behind support for capitalism or the primary stumbling block for the working class.

There is an odd symmetry between this sort of thinking and the belief that the trade unions are the major stumbling block to revolution for the working class. It's a kind of cannibalism of the left. The left wants the most revolutionary situations possible, and tends to turn in on itself when it doesn't get them.

Revolutions are not made by sheer force of will. You need to have conditions appropriate. Togliatti had many failings, but it was a great success realising that Italy was not in a condition for insurrection by communist forces. It simply would not have won.

Further, the rejection of work is completely ultra-left. We can't even reject work now, much less in the 1970s when productivity was vastly lower. We need to work. There are legitimate questions as to how much, how this work should be apportioned, and what type of work we do, but it's pure insanity to reject work as such. It's just not physically possible.

Somebody needs to spell out what exactly this opportunism was. I think there are certainly points at which the PCI acted opportunistically, but from the reactions here, I rather expect that they wanted a pure proletarian dictatorship in conditions which could not possibly supported it. There is no value in paying special attention to orthodoxy at the expense of looking at the actual conditions and balance of forces.

Gutless nonsense. Italy was definitely ready for revolution in 1969, when the PCI worked so hard to prevent it. Just like it had been ready for revolution in 1919, and the Italian Socialist Party, which was calling itself a Communist Party and had even joined the Comintern, decided that it just wasn't the right time, which is exactly what made it the right time for Mussolini and fascism.

Even if a workers uprising led by the PCI in 1969 had failed, rather unlikely actually, that would have been another Paris Commune or 1905, the kind of defeat that leads to victories in the future.

-M.H.-

[A Marxist Historian]

You seem to confuse creative activity with work. These are completely different things. All work is alienated activity.

I dunno. I think I preferred the attitude of the Wobblies.

Like in the most famous Wobbly song:

"You will eat, by and by,
when you learn how to cook and to fry."

Or, like it sez in the bible, he who shall not work, neither shall he eat. A thing radicals, socialists, anarchists and especially Wobblies used to like to say to the lazy parasitical greedy capitalists.

You, Ravachol, seem to be into your own "anarchist" version of pie in the sky. It's a lie.

-M.H.-

[Rowan Duffy]

The power of the PCI was not because of Togliatti etc., but due to the militance of the Italian working class, who overthrew Mussolini. Actually, there's probably no country in Europe where fascism is ultimately less of a problem, because workers there know in their bones how to deal with fascism, they've done it before.

I didn't say it was Togliatti's fault that the PCI were so strong, I said specifically that the decision he made not to pursue an insurrectionary strategy was good.

The premise here looks oddly inverted. What does it take to make a strong working class? Why is it that we generally get some sort of large coherent organisation when the working class seriously contends for power? I don't think this correlation is an accident. Disorganised people are atomised people and can't express collective power. The failure of the post PCI left is not to understand this critical point, and it's something that carries over to the current period.

The post PCI left may not have seriously challenged the PCI for power, but they did erode the PCIs power. Some of that is the PCIs fault, some is due to unavoidable changes in society, the expansion of advanced capitalism that marks the rise of the '69 left which reject seriously organising to create dual power and prefer to take a la carte socialism commoditised and consumed as is a product in capitalism. Contrary to the self-image of this post-organisational left, they are a direct consequence of the supremacy of capitalism, and the deterioration of the organised left.

[Rowan Duffy]

Gutless nonsense. Italy was definitely ready for revolution in 1969, when the PCI worked so hard to prevent it.

Give me some examples of revolution in states which are not in a state of total collapse and disorganisation where the security services are not interested in defection which was successful. This is such an amazing claim that it really requires extraordinary amounts of analysis an evidence.

It's a serious problem for leftists to think they can take on the state prior to it's partial disintegration. It simply has never worked, and it's total voluntarism to think you can. It's a dangerous misjudgement that will cause leftists to orientate towards strategies which must necessarily fail, while eschewing more rational building. Further it provides a lot of the ammunition for denunciations for the organisations that are big and become "conservative" because they are filled with the working class who is actually much more sensible than most leftists, and not willing to die on the barricades for the long odds.

[Ravachol]

You can hold that view if you want, but don't call it communism.


I'll call it communism if I want to. I'll call it communism in conversations with other people and I'll call it communism in leaflets and propaganda whether you like it or not. You can choke on your 'serious views'.



The realm of freedom does not commence until the point is passed where labor under the compulsion of necessity and external utility is required.






In communist society, where nobody has one exclusive sphere of activity but each can become accomplished in any branch he wishes, society regulates the general production and thus makes it possible for me to do one thing today and another tomorrow, to hunt in the morning, fish in the afternoon, rear cattle in the evening, criticise after dinner, just as I have a mind, without ever becoming hunter, fisherman, herdsman or critic.


The most valid aspect of that statement remains the idea that people living in a communist world would not be tied to a trade or function for life, which still remains the fate of most of us. When this is not the case, mobility is often forced upon us: the least skilled usually get the worst jobs, the poorest pay and lowest social image, and they are the first to be laid off and pressured into a re-training scheme. Besides, "multi-tasking" is a way of making workers more productive.

As long as work exists as such, that is as a time-space reserved for production (and earning money), a hierarchy of skills will remain. Only the opening-up of productive acts to the rest of life will change the situation. Among other things, this implies the end of the present work-place as a specific distinct place, where only those involved in it are allowed in.




Communism is not, and never has been, about this idealistic notion of "abolishing work"; it's always been about the abolition of the state and of class. Workers will have a social obligation to work because it is only through such work that the material abundance required for communism can materialize.


I presume this 'social' obligation is the veil covering the bayonets at the back of the workers? What your creed seeks to do is generalize the proletarian condition and put it at the service of the 'labor republic'. Communism is the negation of the proletarian condition and thus of work, period.



I don't mean to sound like an ass or anything


You're not doing a particularly well job.



Though to be clear; no one should be 'forced' to work, but they shouldn't expect anything from society if they don't.


So, what does this 'work' look like in your 'communism'?


I dunno. I think I preferred the attitude of the Wobblies.

Like in the most famous Wobbly song:

"You will eat, by and by,
when you learn how to cook and to fry."

Or, like it sez in the bible, he who shall not work, neither shall he eat. A thing radicals, socialists, anarchists and especially Wobblies used to like to say to the lazy parasitical greedy capitalists.

You, Ravachol, seem to be into your own "anarchist" version of pie in the sky. It's a lie.

-M.H.-

I don't give a shit about wobblie songs (no disrespect to that tradition btw). I just love how mentioning communism is the abolition of work grinds the gears of all the fossilized skeletons of the would-be labor overseers of the future society.

And you taking a bible quote to back up your position contributes more to my position than anything else.

[Rowan Duffy]

First opportunism, comrade: Entering into a Popular Front-esque coalition government during the immediate post-WWII years. It's just like the SPD coalition government ushering in the Weimar republic.

Let's not forget the dominance of the western powers in this period. The US and UK just won WWII. It would have been a seriously tricky thing to advance armed struggle rather than a popular front-esque coalition government in favour of *democracy*. Let's not forget the major western powers were pushing for a quasi-fascist monarchy - so this is a real seriously big deal. There are two things which have to be answered about "opportunism" here. Firstly, is it opportunistic to lower ones sights to obtaining democracy if you think you can't get marshall the forces necessary to get socialism? Secondly, if you think you might be able to win the vote over through being the most consistent champions of democracy, isn't it worth the chance? I'm not persuaded that this was opportunistic.



Second opportunism: Municipalism and provincial governance, fostering the reform coalition strategy.

Third opportunism: Eurocommunist trash more generally.


I think there is some truth to point two. Point three is just an epithet without much useful content. I can't really respond to it unless you unpack what you dislike about Eurocommunism and what you think was misguided, in which case we can explore whether or not it might have been.

[Ethics Gradient, Traitor For All Ages]

I agree that the workers rejecting both the idea of work and the idea of organizing along its lines, undermines the power and influence that political parties try to exhert over them. Their time has come and gone, good riddance. They have proven their complete inability to challenge capitalism so why should we continue to allow them to have a say in our lives anymore? Their presence reprents dead weight around our necks.

[Die Neue Zeit]

Let's not forget the dominance of the western powers in this period. The US and UK just won WWII. It would have been a seriously tricky thing to advance armed struggle rather than a popular front-esque coalition government in favour of *democracy*.

Comrade, while I agree with your assessment on 1969 not being a revolutionary period, I disagree about the post-WWII years. The PCI didn't have to advocate explicit armed struggle to avoid Popular Front antics, just Dual Power tactics with explicit armed struggle (plus either Yugoslav or Soviet military support) on close standby. The Bolsheviks didn't organize armed struggle proper until days before the ouster of Kerensky. All they did was educate their base and agitate for military breakdown.


Let's not forget the major western powers were pushing for a quasi-fascist monarchy - so this is a real seriously big deal. There are two things which have to be answered about "opportunism" here. Firstly, is it opportunistic to lower ones sights to obtaining democracy if you think you can't get marshall the forces necessary to get socialism? Secondly, if you think you might be able to win the vote over through being the most consistent champions of democracy, isn't it worth the chance? I'm not persuaded that this was opportunistic.

Define "democracy," comrade. The PCI stooped down to the level of "liberal democracy"/rule-of-law constitutionalism and not even the kind of radical democracy pursued by Old Bolshevism (which already included things like workers militias). Not even political Bolivarianism a la Chavez (communal councils, Popular Power, etc.) was pursued.

That was opportunistic enough.


I think there is some truth to point two. Point three is just an epithet without much useful content. I can't really respond to it unless you unpack what you dislike about Eurocommunism and what you think was misguided, in which case we can explore whether or not it might have been.

Some truth? What's wrong with that second point?

Parliamentary "socialism" tends to a dead end re. the third point. I like the pareconist description of "participatory socialism" in terms of dumping "democratic socialism" and using a new term that it's between.

[Rowan Duffy]

Define "democracy," comrade. The PCI stooped down to the level of "liberal democracy"/rule-of-law constitutionalism and not even the kind of radical democracy pursued by Old Bolshevism (which already included things like workers militias). Not even political Bolivarianism a la Chavez (communal councils, Popular Power, etc.) was pursued.

Liberal democracy, not quasi-fascist monarchy. Seeing as how the west was in opposition to that move, I think it was brave enough and the fact that they managed it despite an entrenched fascist picked bureaucracy is pretty impressive.



Parliamentary "socialism" tends to a dead end re. the third point. I like the pareconist description of "participatory socialism" in terms of dumping "democratic socialism" and using a new term that it's between.

Tends to be a dead end but what hasn't proved one? I don't think pure parliamentarian approaches can make it anywhere, but neither was the PCI purely parliamentarian. Neither do I think there is much meaning in the participatory democracy aspect either. It might be useful for getting people to feel more included, but I doubt that it will deeply change the course of events. The real critical problem is not democracy, it's having some way of creating the economic pre-conditions for socialism - which means dealing in some way with the hegemonic power of capital over public consciousness.

[A Marxist Historian]

I didn't say it was Togliatti's fault that the PCI were so strong, I said specifically that the decision he made not to pursue an insurrectionary strategy was good.

The premise here looks oddly inverted. What does it take to make a strong working class? Why is it that we generally get some sort of large coherent organisation when the working class seriously contends for power? I don't think this correlation is an accident. Disorganised people are atomised people and can't express collective power. The failure of the post PCI left is not to understand this critical point, and it's something that carries over to the current period.

The post PCI left may not have seriously challenged the PCI for power, but they did erode the PCIs power. Some of that is the PCIs fault, some is due to unavoidable changes in society, the expansion of advanced capitalism that marks the rise of the '69 left which reject seriously organising to create dual power and prefer to take a la carte socialism commoditised and consumed as is a product in capitalism. Contrary to the self-image of this post-organisational left, they are a direct consequence of the supremacy of capitalism, and the deterioration of the organised left.

We have an odd failure to communicate here.

Why did Togliatti not pursue an insurrectional strategy? Moscow orders? Well, yes, but he went along with them because he agreed with them, because he was thinking along the same lines you are thinking.

When he and his epigones stopped agreeing with them, they stopped following them, and you got Eurocommunism. The Italian Communist Party was just too big and too powerful in Italy to simply be tools of whatever whims came out of Moscow.

Quite simply, the PCI, the party of the formerly extremely militant and revolutionary Italian working class, sold out to capitalism, and sold out as early as the collapse of Mussolini, after which it helped the Americans and the British and the Pope and the Mafia put an end to a developing proletarian revolution, disarming the Partisans, pressuring striking workers back to work and revolting peasants to return the land to the landlords, and participating in a coalition government headed by the King.

Why did they do it? Quite simply, because they were thinking along the same lines you are thinking, and that seemed to them the best practical alternative under the circumstances.

Until the Americans and Brits decided that the services of the PCI were no longer required, and kicked them out of the government. Which the PCI spent the next half century trying to get back in to. And now the president of Italy is Napolitano.

Most of the original leaders of the PCI from the 1920s opposed this course, indeed just about all of them except Togliatti, so they were purged if they hadn't been purged already previously, and sometimes murdered. How Gramsci would have felt about it we will never know, he died too early, but Bordiga's attitude to all this is well known.

-M.H.-

[A Marxist Historian]

Give me some examples of revolution in states which are not in a state of total collapse and disorganisation where the security services are not interested in defection which was successful. This is such an amazing claim that it really requires extraordinary amounts of analysis an evidence.

It's a serious problem for leftists to think they can take on the state prior to it's partial disintegration. It simply has never worked, and it's total voluntarism to think you can. It's a dangerous misjudgement that will cause leftists to orientate towards strategies which must necessarily fail, while eschewing more rational building. Further it provides a lot of the ammunition for denunciations for the organisations that are big and become "conservative" because they are filled with the working class who is actually much more sensible than most leftists, and not willing to die on the barricades for the long odds.

You think that for a revolution to happen, the security services have to defect? In fact, they never do, in any revolution I've ever heard of. They certainly didn't in 1917, the revolutionary workers had to hunt them down and kill them.

Italy was definitely in a state of revolutionary chaos in 1969, workers were taking over factories right and left. Could a revolution have succeeded? Well, the state hadn't collapsed yet, but the working class was obviously in a revolutionary mood. A working class revolution in 1969 in Italy would probably have had if anything broader popular support than the Bolsheviks had in 1917.

The revolution in 1905 did not succeed, and the fact that the Tsarist state was intact certainly had a lot to do with this. But the Empire came quite close to toppling, major concessions of a political nature had to be adopted, and, most of all, there could never have been the 1917 Revolution without the 1905 "dress rehearsal," as Lenin put it.

And in 1905 the Bolsheviks and the Mensheviks and SRs too were small underground organizations isolated from the working class, with memberships in the low thousands. Vastly weaker than the PCI in 1969 by several orders of magnitude. It was only in the course of 1905 that they became mass organizations with mass support.

-M.H.-

[Die Neue Zeit]

You think that for a revolution to happen, the security services have to defect? In fact, they never do, in any revolution I've ever heard of. They certainly didn't in 1917, the revolutionary workers had to hunt them down and kill them.

The comrade meant "security forces" in the broad sense. That means both the police and the military. Naturally, the rank-and-filers in the latter tend to defect.

[black magick hustla]

The counterrevolution inside the PCI started long before 1969. Even if some people don't accept the wrestling out of the left by the stalinist gramscites in the 20s as a counterrevolution, by the end of WWII Togliatti was too busy ratting out and slaughtering bordigists and trotskyists and getting in bed instead with his bourgeois allies to cast any doubt to the rotten nature of the party. PCI was a party of cops and traitors and by the 60s, it was clear that the most advanced sections of the working class where rejecting it. The PCI played a similar role to the counterrevolutionary role of the PCF in may 68. Nothing admirable or unique about the fact that they joined the bourgeosie in peddling out bread and circus, there was nothing "alternative" about it.

[Vladimir Innit Lenin]

Seems like there's been a cataclysmic crossing of wires in this thread, and on the position of work more generally.

Anarchists say (rightly) that work is barbarism and that the abolition of work heralds civilisation. Authoritarian communists take this to mean an advocating of workers individually withdrawing their labour under Capitalism. This is not the point. Rather, it is a broader philosophical point by the anarchists, not constrained by mere ideology or political system. It is absolutely right that the source of capitalist hegemony, the source of surplus, of proletarianisation, immiseration and destitution is wage-labour, whose core component is labour itself. Our aim, in opposing Capitalism and supporting the establishing of Socialism, should be to abolish work alongside abolishing the wage.

Also, love that DNZ opposes the withdrawal of labour as a revolutionary strategy. Very typical. As if giving the ECB a bit more power is a viable revolutionary strategy. :rolleyes:

The strike is a core component of working class rejection of the Capitalist notion of labour.

[Rowan Duffy]

Well, the state hadn't collapsed yet, but the working class was obviously in a revolutionary mood.

Definitely not leaving you in charge of the proletarian insurgency. Mood does not make revolution.

[Die Neue Zeit]

Liberal democracy, not quasi-fascist monarchy.

Like I said above, that was the problem. I presented a third option.


Neither do I think there is much meaning in the participatory democracy aspect either.

How so?


Also, love that DNZ opposes the withdrawal of labour as a revolutionary strategy. Very typical. As if giving the ECB a bit more power is a viable revolutionary strategy. :rolleyes:

The strike is a core component of working class rejection of the Capitalist notion of labour.

The strike can be a viable tactic, but by itself is, again, no revolutionary strategy. Organizing the class politically is what counts.

[Vladimir Innit Lenin]

The strike can be a viable tactic, but by itself is, again, no revolutionary strategy. Organizing the class politically is what counts.

Obviously not by itself, but the mass strike is surely the final death knell for capitalism? Withdrawal of labour is the last, most powerful tool the working class has at its disposal.

A strike is not sufficient for revolution and I agree no substitute for revolutionary strategy, but it is necessary for that Socialist rupture i've been talking about recently :cool:

[A Marxist Historian]

Seems like there's been a cataclysmic crossing of wires in this thread, and on the position of work more generally.

Anarchists say (rightly) that work is barbarism and that the abolition of work heralds civilisation. Authoritarian communists take this to mean an advocating of workers individually withdrawing their labour under Capitalism. This is not the point. Rather, it is a broader philosophical point by the anarchists, not constrained by mere ideology or political system. It is absolutely right that the source of capitalist hegemony, the source of surplus, of proletarianisation, immiseration and destitution is wage-labour, whose core component is labour itself. Our aim, in opposing Capitalism and supporting the establishing of Socialism, should be to abolish work alongside abolishing the wage.

Also, love that DNZ opposes the withdrawal of labour as a revolutionary strategy. Very typical. As if giving the ECB a bit more power is a viable revolutionary strategy. :rolleyes:

The strike is a core component of working class rejection of the Capitalist notion of labour.

There is perhaps a crossing of wires here, but your post is not helpful. Wage labo[u]r is one thing, work or labor in and of itself is another.

Work, the use of tools to change the world around us, is what according to Engels distinguishes humans from other animals. In a communist society work will be the prime joy of life, something people do for the fun of it and because otherwise they would get bored stiff.

Just like men (and lately women, as society advances) go hunting and fishing these days not to feed themselves in advanced capitalist societies, but because they actually like to.

The problem, at the highest philosophical level, is not labor but the alienation of labor. (Something we can't really deal with now, but will become a prime concern during the inevitably lengthy and difficult transition from socialism to communism.)

-M.H.-

[A Marxist Historian]

Obviously not by itself, but the mass strike is surely the final death knell for capitalism? Withdrawal of labour is the last, most powerful tool the working class has at its disposal.

A strike is not sufficient for revolution and I agree no substitute for revolutionary strategy, but it is necessary for that Socialist rupture i've been talking about recently :cool:

No, unfortunately it isn't. As the IWW should have learned but didn't, you can't overthrow capitalism with folded hands.

The most powerful tool the working class can have at its disposal is its own "armed bodies of men (and women)." The smashing of the bourgeois state and the construction of a proletarian state.

Under whose protection the proletariat can seize the means of production and use them to produce the weaponry and other tools necessary to finish the job on the capitalists and their states.

-M.H.-

[Die Neue Zeit]

Obviously not by itself, but the mass strike is surely the final death knell for capitalism? Withdrawal of labour is the last, most powerful tool the working class has at its disposal.

It does not pose the question of authority properly, though:

http://www.cpgb.org.uk/home/weekly-worker/618/reform-coalition-or-mass-strike (also in the corresponding Revolutionary Strategy chapter)


But a movement of this sort still poses the question of political power, and for exactly the same reasons. A mass strike wave disrupts normal supply chains. This can be true even of a strike in a single industry, like the miners' strikes in Britain in 1972 and 1974.

[...]

A strike wave or revolutionary crisis can last longer than a truly all-out indefinite general strike, but it cannot last longer than a period of months - at most a couple of years. In this situation, if the workers' movement does not offer an alternative form of authority - alternative means of decision-making which are capable of running the economy - the existing social structures of authority are necessarily reaffirmed.

[...]

Workers' councils and similar forms have appeared in many strike waves and revolutionary crises since 1917. In none have these forms been able to offer an alternative centre of authority, an alternative decision-making mechanism for the whole society. This role is unavoidably played by a government - either based on the surviving military-bureaucratic state core, or on the existing organisations of the workers' movement.

[Vladimir Innit Lenin]

[QUOTE=A Marxist Historian;2500824]In a communist society work will be the prime joy of life, something people do for the fun of it and because otherwise they would get bored stiff.

Good luck with that. That's really quite fanciful because:

work is not meant to be 'enjoyed' per se. That's why communism strives to reduce work hours by taking advantage of automation and technological progress in combination with organisational efficiency via workplace democracy and production for need rather than for profit.

To say that work will be the prime joy of life is really to ignore reality. Why would work suddenly become wonderful merely because of the absence of exploitation? As far as i'm aware nobody exploits me when I take a dump but, tbh, taking a dump still isn't my prime joy in life (though it is up there) and never will be.

The whole point of reducing work via automation, technological progress and workplace democracy is so that people have more leisure time do to what they actually want. Work is work and that'll never change - there'll never be a total amalgamation of work and leisure. Sure, work will be much less bearable, more dignified and useful and less exploitative in a post-capitalist society, but only insofar as it enables those currently of the working class to live a more dignified life by

a) working less
b) having more time for consumption, leisure etc., and
c) having control of their own destinies in the workplace and as consumers.

[Vladimir Innit Lenin]

No, unfortunately it isn't. As the IWW should have learned but didn't, you can't overthrow capitalism with folded hands.

The most powerful tool the working class can have at its disposal is its own "armed bodies of men (and women)." The smashing of the bourgeois state and the construction of a proletarian state.

Under whose protection the proletariat can seize the means of production and use them to produce the weaponry and other tools necessary to finish the job on the capitalists and their states.

-M.H.-

Ah, so you can't overthrow capitalism with folded arms, but you can establish a society without war and hate at the barrel of a gun using the long arm of the state to kill, maim and terrorise your way to Socialism?

Makes sense! :thumbdown:

[A Marxist Historian]

Ah, so you can't overthrow capitalism with folded arms, but you can establish a society without war and hate at the barrel of a gun using the long arm of the state to kill, maim and terrorise your way to Socialism?

Makes sense! :thumbdown:

Minus your scare words, the answer is yes, that's dialectics for you.

Slavery in the US could only be eradicated through a bloody brutal civil war. Getting rid of all the horrors of the Old Regime in Europe required all the violence of the French Revolution, the Terror, the bloody suppression of the Vendee, etc. etc.

As Trotsky put it, no child is ever born without blood and pain.

Why is this? Because the ruling classes are hellbent on using every conceivable form of violence to defend themselves, so answering violence with violence and terror with terror is an unfortunate necessity, if you want to win rather than losing.

If you feel differently, I recommend that, instead of trying to get the oppressed to be less violence-prone vs. the oppressors, better would be to try to get the ruling classes to be nicer and better behaved. Won't work, but if it did somehow that would actually defuse things considerably.

-M.H.-