Italian Communists Move Beyond Communism

Il Manifesto

Fausto Bertinotti, Secretary of the Italian Communist Refoundation Party (PRC), talks to Valentino Parlato, founding editor of the Communist daily Il Manifesto, about the challenges facing the next center-left government, the challenges to Marxist orthodoxy posed by the powerful rise of democratic mass movements, and the development of the Party of the European Left, a project which Bertinotti is leading in Italy. (Translated by Vittorio Longhi)

These days much has been said and written about Fausto Bertinotti, the political shifts he has taken, and his innovative and even daring approach to the problems faced by the Italian and European left. One afternoon recently, the editor-in-chief of Il Manifesto, Gabriele Polo, political editor Cosimo Rossi, and I went to talk with him. The result was a useful and thought-provoking conversation, full of interesting digressions.

Q: Let’s try to divide our discussion in two parts. The
first is about what we read in the newspapers: the idea
of the individual replacing the concept of class, and
bidding farewell to Communist symbols such as the
"hammer and sickle," i.e. what we call "the shift," or a
paradigm shift. Another question is what will happen
after the vote: it looks like we will win these
elections, but how will the Rifondazione deal with the
centre-left government?

FB: Regarding the first aspect, the big shift, the
corporate media tend to be misleading about this. It may
be right to term it the completion of a political phase,
which, as part of the movement of the European left, is
a major shift. However, in terms of political culture as
a whole, it does not constitute a major shift. On this
plane, we are still awaiting the radical break with
capitalism that is needed for such a shift to occur.
Also, since this idea is a politically subjective one,
there is a certain rashness in promulgating it. I view
the "shift" as part of the process involved in founding
the Italian wing of the Party of the European Left. In
terms of political culture, the shift can be seen in
terms of the development of certain points of
discontinuity. The inspiration is always the same:
extracting from the tough core of the anti-capitalist
critique a basis on which to rebuild a political culture
and theory of transformation, i.e. the overcoming of
capitalism. Therefore, our first task is to make a
complete break with Stalinism. Why is this break
necessary? Because it is a definite encumbrance to the
process of transformation.

Q: But isn’t the break with Stalinism an anachronism?

FB: Perhaps you think so, but I believe it’s still very
relevant. I think that Stalinism is a political approach
that constantly self-reproduces and threatens politics
permanently. Every time we strive for change, there is a
factor that constantly looms over us, now for a century
or more, and that is the stress on the attainment of
power, and all the arrogance and autonomy of politics.

Q: But it’s a fact that whenever you are faced with a
real shift, there’s a hard fight.

FB: Fine. But that doesn’t mean that military methods
are required, as still seems to happen sometimes. The
truth of this can be seen in the fact that the echo of
Stalinism continues to resound in what we call
orthodoxy. However, I by no means feel that this is just
an external problem, one that exists only elsewhere. I
feel it’s inside us as well; it’s a very strong vice.

Q: But perhaps in certain situations it is a necessity.

FB: I don’t think so at all. I think that would be a
catastrophe. And I strongly believe that we must include
the idea of transformation as a basic element of the
process. We must return to the idea of "critical
participation" instead of relying on the dominance of
large-scale organized forces.

Q: To put it another way: democracy instead of
communism?

FB: Let’s describe it as "democracy through
transformation." The meaning is not democracy "instead
of" but rather "moving towards" communism. But then
there is the question of non-violence.

Q: I disagree with you on that issue because violence is
part of society; it’s part of the way things are.

FB: So is capitalism, and that’s why I want to overcome
it.

Q: But we don’t live in a world where everyone is good.

FB: I agree, but it’s up to us to be different.

Q: Right, but once you are part of the government, how
will your principles of non-violence be used to deal
with the forces that practice violence by means of the
state and the military?

FB: I think that today, with all the alienation and
exploitation that exists, we are moving toward a real
crisis of civilization. For me, it is a crisis brought
on by capitalism and its focus on total competition, so
that it now faces a real risk of implosion. In the face
of this, the idea of Europe and a Mediterranean where
the cross-fertilization of cultures can take place is
fundamental. To accomplish this, war must be banned
structurally; it must be made taboo.

Q: Nice words, but what can politics do?

FB: First, you need to have some political ideas to
propose to your party and your government. I choose
pacifism, but I am not saying that my allies must adopt
it. What should the government do? I ask the government
to return to the fundamental value expressed in article
11 of our constitution, the refusal to wage war.

Q: Prodi (recently elected as prime minister) says that
together with the UN we could intervene.

FB: That is a necessary, but not sufficient, condition.
Is the existence of genocide practical grounds for
intervention where there is a general consensus? Yes.
But is a general consensus sufficient for intervention
where there is genocide? No. And this is especially true
since the UN itself has often been manipulated by others
and subjected to threats.

Q: And so, once you win the election ...?

FB: We will withdraw Italian troops from Iraq, and
that’s no small thing.

Q: It’s important, but I still wonder how you will deal
with other conflicts as part of the next government.
Prodi says yes to UN intervention, you say no.

FB: It’s not like that. Let’s take a look at the
documents. In the center-left program it’s clearly
written that we are in favor of disarmament. If there’s
a fight on that issue, we’ll confront it.

Q: What is original here is that we can fight over an
issue like this, without delivering ultimatums.

FB: In this context, I don’t see the main difficulties
as being in the area of foreign policy, but in social
and economic policy. In foreign policy, I see a sharp
discontinuity (on the part of the current centre-left)
compared to Berlusconi and also compared to previous
governments of the Olive Tree Coalition (1996-2001),
which we left before the war in the Balkans. I can’t say
for certain we are never going to face a similar
situation again, but that is not my expectation. Today
there is a common program regarding foreign policy that
marks a clear break with the past. I think the country
has changed since 2001, for the worse because of
Berlusconi from above, but it has also changed for the
better because of the movements from below.

Q: And yet there isn’t political representation of this
wave of movements.

FB: There is a dual problem here. Not only is there the
matter of political representation, there is also a real
question of the ability of the various organizations
that comprise the movement to directly confront the
problems which the movement faces. There is a real
problem of providing a unified "composition" for this
movement. And this is a problem that does not belong to
the movements only but to the left as a whole. For the
latter cannot re-define itself without the movement.
This, for me, is paradigm shift. Today what is meant by
politics cannot be re-defined unless there is a
political effort that is primarily focused on the
movements. And what is it that really interacts with
these movements? Before the forces of organized
politics, there is a culture of politics.

Q: This may be the most important and interesting
challenge faced by Rifondazione. We come out of
communism, and if our tools are no longer effective, our
goals are still valid.

FB: More valid than ever! There is an element in this
history that cannot be ignored, and that is the decisive
role played by labor in the lives of people and society.
That is the why I say that the Marxist schema is
necessary, but not sufficient. That is why I like the
formulation "beyond Marx", because it includes it. This
is what feminism, environmentalism, and the "culture of
criticism" have all been demanding of us in recent
years. These are the basic elements from which we can
begin to build a new political culture. And this is why
I also believe that the relationship between liberty and
equality matters so much today.

Q: Hasn’t freedom always prevailed over equality?

FB: In real socialism, not at all. There equality
prevailed so much that it suppressed liberty. And this
has happened even in the best moments of our history.
Even in the form of direct democracy we have allowed
equality to prevail, and the championing of homogeneity
instead of difference. In doing so we have sacrificed
individuality, the person.

Q: So how would you bring unity to all these different
elements?

FB: Just look at the movement: what it did well, how was
it done? By means of a central committee or by working
and deciding on things together?

Q: Looked at in this way, political parties as they now
exist need to be thoroughly rediscussed and transformed.

FB: Absolutely. But always through a process of cross-
fertilization. Let’s look at our own example. There is
the Party for the Refoundation of Communism (PRC) and
there are other forces that share with us three
essential points: no to war, no to neo-liberal policies,
and yes to participatory democracy. But they have a
certain antipathy to the PRC, either because it’s a
party, or because it’s a "re-founding," or just because
it’s communist. As for myself, I will continue with this
process of re-foundation, and to those who are
interested, I can propose the "foundation" of a new
framework of political debate. In this new foundation,
some will apply themselves to the re-foundation of the
communist party and others will concentrate on different
problems, all according to the principle of the
movement: Everybody is in and everyone is equal.

Q: How much of this is a reflection of the recent
creation of the Democratic Party in Italy, which
threatens to smother everything else?

FB: There are two things of importance here. The first,
I don’t deny it, is achieving the transition to
governing....

Q: But you need water to cross the desert!

FB: I believe we cannot make it across with the politics
we have now, because in the present mode we are tempted
by an attitude of either/or, either acceptance or
severance. In order to overcome this, we need to engage
in the rebuilding of autonomous political programs.

Q: What weight does the Democratic Party carry?

FB: One has to make distinctions. I am opposed to the
idea of a Democratic Party because it seeks to remove
from politics one of the chief constitutive elements of
the contemporary world, i.e. labor. And I’m against it
because it emphasizes the process of coalition-building,
as opposed to the firm rooting of the party within
society. Therefore I am not so sure that this is the
direction in which things should really be moving. I
find it pretty hard to believe.

Q: But it’s a serious development?

FB: Certainly, but in the event such a party loses shape
and substance, I think that an aristocratic attitude
toward it would be disastrous. Perhaps in a society
where the class struggle, even if it is a crucial
element, does not ascend to the level of politics, the
idea of a ’big container’ party may be attractive enough
to gain some ground in civil society. Therefore we’d do
well not to underestimate it.

Q: We don’t underestimate it; we simply dislike it.

FB: Do I detect a hint of snobbism? I believe that
instead of stressing differences, we need to choose the
path of competition. We represent something different,
another kind of aggregation. This is the way in which I
think we can attract a good part of civil and political
society. Also, in respect to the risk involved, I can
state very firmly that in a contest between a democratic
party and one that represents leftist orthodoxy, the
former will win hands down.

[Additional translation by Peter Zerner.]

http://info.interactivist.net/article.pl?sid=06/04/19/0045246