[FONT=Garamond]I just read a very interesting/terrifying line by Gramsci out of “The Italian Situation and the Tasks of the PCdI (Lyons Theses), specifically section 37 under the section: Strategy and Tactics of the Party (1926). He states: “”Communists must see the unity of the working class as a concrete, real result to be achieved, in order to prevent capitalism from implementing its plan of permanently fragmenting the proletariat and making all revolutionary struggle impossible (emphasis added).”[/FONT] [FONT=Calibri][FONT=Garamond] I shuddered when I read this. As a leading light to nearly all Communists everywhere whatever the stripe, I have a deep respect for the thought of Gramsci and I wonder, did he really think there was a point of no-return for the movement as far as success? Was there (is there?) truly a tipping point from which Communists can never return? If so, have we passed it? Or was he attempting to infuse a sense of purpose into the movement in Italy in light of the Fascist threat?[/FONT] [/FONT]
To understand the line we have to see the context it was written in. The PCd'I in its early years was in conflict with the Comintern over the implementation of the United Front policy. The Comintern called for Communist parties to set aside differences with the reformist and other socialist parties in order to have a more united action of the workers against the bourgeoisie in their nations. The justification was more or less that the Communist parties were still young and had yet to gain a significant portion of workers. Fighting with socialist parties would only divide the loyalties of the workers and make it easier for the capitalists to re-consolidate their power. At this time Gramsci and what would later become the party's "centre" would line up behind Bordiga, mainly out of fear that the PCd'I ran a risk of being liquidated back into the PSI, which was a stance advocated by Angelo Tasca and the so-called "right". Bordiga's main fear was that collaborating with reformist parties would mean a capitulation of Marxist principles to reformist bastardizations and a victory for the bourgeoisie. After the pro-Comintern elements of the PSI, led by Serrati, fused into the PCd'I, Gramsci and the centre began supporting the United Front policy as a source of united worker action against the bourgeoisie, which was beginning to act more and more through Mussolini's fascists. Bordiga and the left were opposed to the United Front in the form that the Comintern upheld and rather continued pushing for the concept of a United Front from below, that is in the work places and strikes but not a political coalition. They felt the Communist party above all should remain a bastion of communist thought and not be contaminated by working with reformists and non-Communist trade unionists. How to approach the fascist movement was one of the things that confused the Communists in all countries. The Italian Communists were confused as to whether the fascists represented one of the two tactics that the bourgeoisie were using, along with social democracy, to pacify and subdue workers. Another concern was whether fascists would only remain a party attempting to collaborate with other parties, or if it had a more graver implication beyond that. Fascism in Italy also went through a lot of fluctuations, at some points appearing strong and other points appearing near collapse (as was the case following the Matteoti assassination). This led to differing interpretations of what fascism was and its long-term prospects. Gramsci and others felt that Fascism was going to be something that had to be resisted against actively and overthrown, so far as to make overtures with reformist and other brands of socialists, if it was to fall. Bordiga and his supporters held the position that the contradictions and flaws in fascism would allow for it to fall on its own accord as workers became more class-aware, and that a socialist revolution would follow in the downfall of a fascist regime. Bordiga and the left were not warm to the idea of anti-fascist action and felt it would veer from the class struggle. This was one of many points of contention between Gramsci's Centre and Bordiga's left that carried into the Lyons Congress. What you see there in the Lyons Theses was the proposal advanced by Gramsci and the centre that was going to be pitted against the other proposal that Bordiga and the left were advancing. Obviously one of the differing points here was over the United Front policy. Gramsci and the centre supported it (as the Comintern was continuing to uphold), and the line you see there was their justification for it among other points in the Lyons Theses. They felt that they would have to put aside their differences with other socialists and have a united front for which the working class and other segments of society would pose a strong opposition to fascism. Anything otherwise would just mean sectarianism and infighting among workers, which Gramsci and his supporters felt would only benefit the capitalists. Gramsci I know from his writings in Fascism was worried that it would become something more profound- it wasn't just a temporary phase for capitalists to reconsolidate their power. As we saw this, among other things, led to the position of the Centre being more resounding and led to its adoption at the Lyons Congress as the policy of the PCd'I. However this was not kept in place. The PCd'I, like other parties which were in the Comintern, abandoned the United Front policy in favor of the Third Period policies the Comintern adopted in 1928, and came into full swing by 1929. Third Period policies essentially called for Communist parties to focus their efforts against reformist/social democratic parties, reasoning they were the real danger to the working class, rather than fascists. This was part of the supposed "left-turn" of the Comintern and the CPSU that followed the downfall of Bukharin and abandonment of various concepts, such as NEP, United Front, and other concepts. It also had ramifications in other member parties of the PCd'I, leading to the expulsions of members who criticized the "left turn" By the time this had occurred Gramsci was already sometime in prison. A PCd'I informant inside the jail reported that Gramsci was displased with the party's decision to dismiss three members of the CC who felt the "left-turn" was nothing more than opportunistic politics at work. Gramsci's brother Gennero would relay a different account to the PCd'I saying that Gramsci agreed with the decision, but would later tell Gramsci's biographer that he had lied to prevent actions being carried out against Gramsci. Gramsci had told his brother he was in fact against it, corroborating the story that Athos Lisa reported. The Third Period was followed by the Comintern's adoption of the Popular Front policy in 1934, in light of Hitler's victory in Germany and Mussolini's fascist state appearing not to be falling anytime soon. The Popular Front policy shifted to a struggle against the Fascists that not only incorporated just Communists and socialists, but other mainstream bourgeoisie parties (i.e. popular, broad anti-fascist action) as a means of overthrowing fascism. So to answer your question, Gramsci was making an observation of Italy's situation as Fascism was beginning to get more bold and consolidate its power, shedding its former appearance of just merely being a tool of the bourgeoisie. But it has ramifications in our day too, because the question of whether or not Communist parties should work with other socialist parties is always a matter of contention, particularly more so during the 1920s when the Communist movement was divided over its approach.
Ha Ha! Thats the best, most thorough answer, anyones ever given me! Thank you very much for the details, you really know your stuff when it comes to Italy. Still, on a philisophical plane, my question still stands: Was there (is there) truly a tipping point from which Communists can never return?
We can't turn back time. If we missed an opportunity it is gone for ever. We can't keep looking backwards but rather forwards and see what the current opportunity provides. The revolutionary situation that was present in the years following WW I up to the early 1920s was a critical point for the Communist movement in general. The Soviets repelled the invasion and the Red Army was advancing towards Warsaw. Workers in Germany were rising up against the government. There was labor unrest in France and the United Kingdom. We saw a successful Communist revolution in Hungary. In Italy workers occupied factories and formed councils. Farmers seized control of the large land estates and distributed it among themselves. In this confusion socialist parties were utterly divided in their approach to it. The Comintern and the Soviet Union on the one hand was encouraging workers to rise up. Reformist parties were attempting to make overtures to the governments to gain power. And we saw the aftermath. The Hungarian Soviet collapsed. The uprisings in Germany were put down. The revolutionary situation in Italy fell apart. The Soviet westward invasion was halted at Warsaw. The western world saw a general repression of worker activity. That tipping point had passed. Many of the Marxists blamed the failure on this on the reformists, who they said divided the loyalties of the workers and in other cases sold out to the ruling class. The Marxists in the PSI in particular were fed up with the reformists and weak willed socialists, leading them to break off and form the PCd'I in the first place. The United Front policy was controversial with some due to the fact that they would have to work with the groups that they had blamed for the failure of the prior revolutionary situation. Those who upheld the United Front reasoned that such a stance was needed if they were to resist attempts by the capitalists who were re-asserting themselves in the instability. I don't think we can ever replicate the class-awareness and belief in socialism people had then, it is gone. However with the economic situation as it is, there are always opportunities.
