11 Editor’s Note The reader uninitiated in the history of the working class in Italy, and of the socialist and then communist parties in that country in the crucial years between 1912 and 1926, will find not find John Chiaradia’s text “Amadeo Bordiga and the Myth of Antonio Gramsci” an easy read. It does not pretend to substitute for a full social and political history of Italy in those years; it is rather an attempt to disclose, perhaps for the first time in English, the quite explosive truth about the long-cultivated historical oblivion of one of the great, and greatly ignored, figures of the 20th century Marxism, Amadeo Bordiga, leader of the Italian Communist Left, and the important initial role played in this oblivion by the far better known Antonio Gramsci. Chiaradia’s text might strike such a reader, or even one more familiar with the figures and developments to which he refers, as a vast academic “review of the literature”. But Chiaradia aims much higher than that: by debunking so many esteemed works and their authors, he is attempting to tell the story, largely unknown in the English-speaking world and, in reality little known to this day in Italy or the rest of Europe, of what one might call the Stalinization of the Communist Party of Italy (PCd’I) in the early to mid-1920’s, with Antonio Gramsci as Stalin’s hatchet man in that country. Chiaradia has had, to put it mildly, a difficult time getting this story out. Both academic and left publishing in the English-speaking world, where Italy is concerned, are dominated by what one might call the “Anglo-American Gramsci Mafia”. Chiaradia’s manuscripts, which go back to his 1972 doctoral thesis The Spectral Figure of Amadeo Bordiga1 have been rejected time and again by “outside readers” beholden to this particular form of academic omerta . Some of his manuscripts have been returned from publishers without comment. The following work, written in 2001, was also relegated to the “gnawing critique of the mice” (Marx), or, in more contemporary terms, of the computer virus, as it were. Only in the past two decades has the English-speaking radical left become vaguely aware of the name of Amadeo Bordiga. Even 1 Available from Amazon as a print-on-demand book: The Spectral Figure of Amadeo Bordiga: A Case Study in the Decline of Marxism in the West, 1912-26. 22 the broadly left communist and libertarian milieu, has had a hard time getting past the specter of the Bordiga, “more Leninist than Lenin” for whom Lenin was the unabashed “rehabilitator of Marxism”, who tried to convince Lenin to drop the term “democratic centralism” (too much of a concession to democratic ideology) for “organic centralism”. Difficulties are only enhanced by the few English translations of Bordiga’s work. Checking the on-line catalogue of the best university library in the U.S., I found 550 titles about Antonio Gramsci, and 10 about Bordiga, none in English. That is a 55:1 ratio. Yet I would say that Bordiga is easily 55 times more important than Gramsci in the current ferment attempting to discover and develop a revolutionary communist theory for our time. Before going any further, a cautionary note: Bordiga would retch at any personalization of his theoretical work, any attempt to concoct a “Bordigism”. He saw himself merely as the expression of the “invariance” of the work of Marx and Engels, however much one might quarrel with his understanding of that invariance, or whether there is such a thing. Bordiga, in his own mind, was one theoretician of the Italian Communist Left, nothing more or less. (For an elaboration of the full content of that current, see the invaluable book of Philippe Bourrinet, The Italian Communist Left, available at http://www.left-dis.nl/ ) What a contrast with the post-1945 reverence for Gramsci. A quick glance at recent titles of “Gramsci studies” reveals work on a neo-Gramscian theory of international relations, a similar one on a neo-Gramscian political economy, Gramsci on pedagogy as compared to Paolo Freire, Gramsci on hegemony, on psychology and on space; the post-colonial Gramsci, Gramsci and Walter Benjamin, Gramsci and Hannah Arendt, etc. One can of course not blame Gramsci for what others have done in his name since his death in prison in 1937, but one can surely recognize that the intransigence that shines through the writings of Bordiga and of the Italian Communist Left (many of whose books are collective, anonymous works) would hardly provide comparable material for all the academics, editors, publishers, etc. who have made careers from “Gramsci studies”. Chiaradia, in the text that follows, properly shows how all the key works on Gramsci available in English, including those of Cammett, Boggs, Piccone, and Hoare, are shot through with at best ignorance and at worst simple dishonesty about Gramsci’s 33 role in destroying the left-wing majority of the PCd’I. These works and many others tend to pass quickly over the crucial years of the early 1920’s and blithely discuss Gramsci’s development with nary a mention of Stalin or the “Bolshevization” i.e. Stalinization, of the international communist movement in 1924-25, nominally under the auspices of Gregory Zinoviev. Bordiga, whose role as key figure in the majority left-wing of the first years (1921-1923) of the PCd’I can hardly be denied, is referred to repeatedly in these works as “dogmatic”, “rigid”, and “sectarian”, but no one excels in this school of distortion and falsification like Paul Piccone, in whose book Italian Marxism Bordiga is referred to as a “vulgar” “Marxist-Leninist” and a Stalinist. Piccone is obviously quite innocent of any knowledge of Bordiga’s speech to the Extended Executive Committee of the Communist International (ECCI) in 1926, in which he, as the last western revolutionary to do so, read the riot act to Stalin and his flunkies over the destruction of the International, after which Stalin was heard to say that while not agreeing with him, “Bordiga says what he thinks”, a searing if inadvertent commentary on all those figures populating the heights of the Russian and other parties who had already learned not to say what they thought2. In conclusion, one can hardly read Chiaradia’s polemical “review of the literature” without recalling the grandeur of the years from 1917 to 1923, when the European parties that emerged to found the Communist International in England, France, Germany and Italy were quite different from what they were by 1924, for the simple reason that they were based on, and expressed, radical mass working-class movements. Bordiga, who lived until 1970, may have spent decades of his life in his study, producing after 1945 the highly original works for which he is now becoming known3, but from 1912 till 1926 he was a prominent figure in a mass workers’ movement. We, today, may feel separated as by an abyss from the realities that produced Rosa Luxemburg, Karl Korsch, Sylvia Pankhurst, Pierre Monatte, Alfred Rosmer, Herman Gorter, or Anton Pannekoek (or John Reed in the 2 I believe it was James P. Cannon, future leader of American Trotskyism, who said around this time that the Third International “takes leaders and turns them into shit, and takes shit and turns it into leaders”. 3 His very early discovery of the importance of Marx’s 1844 manuscripts, a two-volume study of Soviet capitalism, pamplets of the 1950’s and 1960’s demonstrating the social character of what became known as the environmental crisis, on the agrarian question, and much more, regrettably still not widely translated into English. 44 U.S. or Andres Nin in Spain or the peripatetic Victor Serge), and all had their strengths and weaknesses, which were, we should recall, the strengths and weakness of the world working- class movement of that era. Looking back, it is above all the Italian Communist Left and the German-Dutch councilists, who in very different ways, at the dawn of the Third International, insisted that the Russian Revolution and its worker-peasant alliance could not be a universal model for the advanced capitalist world, who speak to us most directly from that moment. Chiaradia, in his decades-long attempt to clear away the webs of falsification, ignorance and complacency about Amadeo Bordiga and the Italian Communist Left, has made one contribution to a retrieval of what is living from that era. Loren Goldner New York City August 2013 John Chiaradia AMADEO BORDIGA AND THE MYTH OF ANTONIO GRAMSCI PREFACE A fruitful contribution to the renaissance of Marxism requires a purely historical treatment of the twenties as a period of the revolutionary working class movement 55 which is now entirely closed. This is the only way to make its experiences and lessons properly relevant to the essentially new phase of the present. Gyorgy Lukács, 1967 Marxism has been the greatest fantasy of our century. Leszek Kolakowski When I began this commentary, both the USSR and the PCI (the Italian Communist Party) had disappeared. Basing myself on earlier archival work and supplementary readings, I set out to show that the change signified by the rise of Antonio Gramsci to leadership (1924-1926) had, contrary to nearly all extant commentary on that event, a profoundly negative impact on Italian Communism. As a result and in time, the very essence of the party was drained, and it was derailed from its original intent, namely, that of class revolution. As a consequence of these changes, the party would play an altogether different role from the one it had been intended for. By way of evidence, my intention was to establish two points and draw the connecting straight line. They were: one, developments in the Soviet party; two, the tandem echo in the Italian party led by Gramsci, with the connecting line being the ideology and practices associated at the time with Stalin, which I label Center communism. Hence, from the time of Gramsci’s return from the USSR in 1924, there had been a parental relationship between the two parties. Discussion accompanies the origin and rise of this dependency. One cannot fully understand the history of the PCI, the influence it exerted on Italian politics, and its undramatic and quiet demise without knowledge of this early period. The 66 dissolution of the USSR surprised me, although it should not have. In contrast, the disappearance of the Italian party, if unexpected, was fully in keeping with the changes alluded to below and its subsequent history. Many years ago in the conclusion of an early study of Italian communism, I had written, “When a Western Stalinist party finally breaks down--the PCI in Italy--it remains on the right, never moving to the left, thus disclosing again the nature of its genesis.”4 One of the most astounding aspects of this story is not the transformation undergone in the mid-1920s, but that in the English-speaking world the change has remained unknown. One may surmise that when faced with the beginning of the total collapse of the “socialist camp” at the end of the 1980s, the Communist leadership found itself confronted by a stark dilemma: either go to the left--a step it could not undertake because of its very nature--and assert its intention of remaining a party of socialism, bringing into play a reconsideration of past policies and history going back to Gramsci and earlier with all the destabilization that might arise as had already happened in the Soviet party, or move “to the right and to the front” and declare its fealty to the bourgeois order, thereby closing off that past and openly acknowledge its own non-socialist allegiance. The leadership chose the latter, and the largest communist party in the West disappeared in the twinkling of an eye. In reality, as in the USSR, programmatically and ideologically the reconciliation with capitalism had been building within the party for decades. Meanwhile, I had to react to the appearance of a number of new studies and a conference on Gramsci at Columbia University. The first of the new titles, a work by Donald Sassoon, One Hundred Years of Socialism, the Western European Left in the 20th Century,5 was brought to my attention by a friend to whom I had given an early manuscript for critical comment. When it became 4 In unpublished Ph.D, pp. 378-379. See n66. 5 New York, New Press: 1996. 77 clear that Sassoon knew absolutely nothing about the origins of Italian communism yet continued to repeat the old disinformation about the early years, I found his history the perfect foil for my views. The same may be said for the conference. My knowledge of what transpired there was due also to friends who attended, did not agree with the views expressed, and brought me papers distributed by the discussants. The only speaker who actually centered his comments on “Gramsci and modernity,” the stated theme of the deliberations, was Giancarlo Corsini; that said, I believe that the annual American Halloween fad celebrating vampires does not necessarily imply a significant social influence going back to Bram Stoker’s lively and imaginative writing. My treatment of the conference will clarify this point. As the second millennium approached its own fin de siecle, a cascade of new analytical studies emerged in Italy centering on the political activities of the two major figures of early Italian communism, Amadeo Bordiga and Antonio Gramsci.6 The significance of these new titles to this writing is that they provided additional reinforcement of my own archival findings from the early 6 These include: 1.) volumes I&II of an VIII-volume anthology of all of Bordiga’s writings to 1926: 1) Luigi Gerosa, Amadeo Bordiga, Scritti 1911-1926,I, Dalla guerra di Libia al Congresso socialista di Ancona, 1911- 1914, (Graphos, Genova: 1996); Amadeo Bordiga, Scritti 1911-1926, La guerra, la rivoluzione russa e la nuova Internazionale, 1914-1918,II, (1998). 2.) Arturo Peregalli & Sandro Saggiorno,Amadeo Bordiga, la sconfitta e gli anni oscuri (1926-1945) (Nuova Grafica, Milan: 1998), covering the years from the Congress of Lyons to the end of WWII. 3.) Giuseppe Vacca, Gramsci a Roma Togliatti a Mosca (Einaudi, Turin: 1999), an attempt to vindicate Gramsci’s behavior in light of the mounting historiographic criticism, but at the expense of Togliatti and the Russian leadership in Moscow. 4.) Luigi Cortesi, Le origini del PCI (FrancoAngeli, Milan: 1999), a reissue of his earlier history with up-to-date commentary. 5.) Edited by Luigi Cortesi, Amadeo Bordiga nella storia del comunismo (Edizioni Scientifiche Italiane, Naples: 1999), papers originally delivered at a conference in Bologna in 1996, with additional commentary. 88 1970s, and further confirmed the assessments already laid down in this commentary. I made liberal use of their new data. To fully understand my argument, let me explain further what I mean by the key term Center communism. I intend a movement that aspires to socialism and comes to power either from a delegation of authority, as happened in Eastern Europe, or after a long, difficult revolutionary struggle, the case with Russia, Yugoslavia, China and other lands of East Asia. More tellingly, these regimes introduced economies based on state-capitalism, transformed the ruling party into an elitist formation served by power and special privileges, and excluded the working population from meaningful empowerment, even as they laid claim to building an existing socialism. By meaningful, I mean the ability to raise, consider, and carry through command decisions by the working class itself. By state-capitalism, I mean the elimination of private ownership of all aspects of productive resources, without the socialist corollary: the laboring class involvement as an expression of mastery in all aspects of the change, and the steps toward the elimination of commodity production. Most importantly of all, that class continued to experience degradation and exploitive alienation, labored and lived in social relations not dissimilar from those of capitalism, and never matured--never was permitted to mature--politically and intellectually into a “ruling class” endowed with the decisive voice, authority and understanding to implement, qua working class, the change of relationships and the assumption of responsibilities that would transform and move itself and society onto a new stage--that of socialism. The absence of private ownership became the fiction concealing the invariant continuity in social relations. Such an undertaking would have to be preceded by an enormous educational effort by the party, a party capable of both leading and following, motivated by a different vision of its role and 99 acceptance of its limits; one that understands socialism to be the handiwork of the many million- numbered working and allied classes, not of the short-lived exiguous party, and responds to the ever changing realities of the class to the point of knowing when its very existence is no longer needed. Therefore, a party not only of democratic incorporation but dedicated also to revolutionary transformation. With the change enacted, both the doctrine and the organization have no further role. Instead, the arrival and formation of a command economy give notice that the socialist transformation has been derailed. In this age of triumphant capitalist elitism one can both not imagine and find unreal the thought of working and lower-class millions involved in the actual common effort of devising and laying out the social relations of a new society; of the common working people bearing up and delivering themselves from the deforming heritage of the old society as they face, in concert with peers, the daunting responsibility of sacrifice, power, decision-making, and error; venturing into social relations never conceived of before; of what this will do to them and to their society, a transformed social surrounding that must come to exclude all relations and transactions of a commercial or monetary nature, including wages, wealth, titles and inheritance. In summary, this would involve the conscious and deliberate construction of an entirely new social order, that, in the end, would be of a sight and scale—internationally, that is-- more awing, inspiring, and astonishing than the building of pyramids in that early dawn of antiquity. One might paraphrase and quote here those magnificent lines from Lenin’s State and Revolution, often dismissed as mere utopian babble by the hard, practical men of class society and class restoration. Discussing the Paris Commune and how the society it had briefly given life to was something “qualitatively” different, a democracy “transformed from capitalist democracy into 1100 proletarian democracy,” and the state “into something which is no longer the state in the accepted sense of the word,” Lenin continued with the dismantling of the old regime: “the organ of suppression is now the majority of the population [the dictatorship of the proletariat] and not a minority, as was the case with slavery, serfdom and wage labor. And, once the majority of the people itself suppresses its oppressors, a ‘special force’ for suppression is no longer necessary. In his sense the state begins to wither away...[T]he more the discharge of state power devolves upon the people generally, the less need is there for the existence of this power.”7 In Lenin’s lifetime such an implementation was nigh impossible. Never did the opportunity arise during the decades when the “socialist camp” towered on the world scene. We see now that it signaled a derailment, perhaps better described as a changing of tracks, for the very leadership of those Centrist regimes would have been amongst the most opposed. For the skeptical of mind who regard such views as mere fantasy, in its initial ages on the Earth mankind faced and solved through communal social effort even greater problems; to name a few, the development of language, the creation of a social organization and the invention of technology, which allowed it to survive more easily and progress to the level of establishing documented history. Nevertheless, no Center communist movement ever ventured beyond a capitalism of state; no working class functioned in those societies other than to produce surplus value, never rising above a salaried labor force. My use of the term, therefore, is simply instrumental--to make clear my views. I intend no wider application. I do insist that behind the political changes discussed in Italy and the USSR there was a commonality of practice and ideology of no small importance. Many historians have discussed and analyzed the Soviet ties with the Western parties; nonetheless, to the very end, one 7 State and Revolution (International Publishers, New York: 1974), p. 37.