But, comrades, the Party has a total of at least 50, units and if each of them is going to regard the C. Whence comes this sentiment of the Martynovs? What is there proletarian about it? And the Martynovs, mind you, support the opposition. Is there any difference between Martynov and Trotsky? Only in the fact that Trotsky launched the attack on the Party apparatus, while Martynov is driving that attack home.
And here is another college student, Kazaryan, who, it appears, is also a Party member. The difference between Trotsky and Kazaryan is that according to Trotsky our cadres are degenerating, but according to Kazaryan they should be driven out,. Whose sentiments do the Martynovs and Kazaryans express? The sentiments of the non-proletarian elements in the Party and in the country. And is it an accident that these exponents of non-proletarian sentiments vote for the opposition? No, it is no accident. I said in my report that I did not wish to touch on the history of the question because that would introduce an element of squabbling, as I put it, and mutual recrimination.
But since Preobrazhensky wishes it, since he insists, I am prepared to comply and say a few words on the history of the question of inner-Party democracy. How did the question of inner-Party democracy arise in the C. It came up for the first time at the C. Where was the opposition at the time? Trotsky, then in Kislovodsk, was finishing his articles on art and was about to return to Moscow. They had not yet returned when the Central Committee raised this question at its meeting.
They came back to find a ready decision and did not intervene with a single word, nor did they raise a single objection to the C. The situation in the Party was the subject of a report read by Comrade Dzerzhinsky at a conference of Gubernia Committee secretaries in September. That, so to speak, was Act I, the initial stage in the history of the issue. Act II began with the plenum of the C. The opposition, headed by Trotsky, seeing that the question of shortcomings in the Party was in the air, that the C. As you know, it is a spry sort of horse and could be used in an attempt to outride the C.
And so there ap-.derivid.route1.com/centro-de-arte-britnico-la-valiosa-aportacin.php
That same Trotsky, who in September, a few days before his factional pronouncement, had been silent at the plenum, at any rate had not objected to the C. But we knew that no great difference separates the Trotsky of the Tenth Congress period from the Trotsky of today, for now, as then, he advocates shaking up the Leninist cadres. He needs democracy as a hobby-horse, as a strategic manoeuvre. For, if the opposition really wanted to help matters, to approach the issue in a business-like and comradely way, it should have submitted its statement first of all to the commissions set up by the September plenum, and should have said something like this: We asked the C.
We are now forced to appeal to the Party, in order that the Party itself may take things in hand. But did the opposition act like that? Did it attempt, even once, to approach the C. Did it ever think of, did it make any attempt at, raising and settling the issues within the C. No, the opposition made no such attempt.
Evidently, its purpose was not to improve the inner-Party situation, or to help the Party to improve the economic situation, but to anticipate the work of the commissions and plenum of the C. Such are the facts. I demand that Preobrazhensky refute these statements of mine. I demand that he refute them, in the press at least. Let Preobrazhensky try to refute the fact that the commissions were set up in September by the C. Let Preobrazhensky try to refute the fact that neither Trotsky nor the other oppositionists attempted to present their proposals to the commissions. Let Preobrazhensky try to refute the fact that the opposition knew of the existence of these commissions, ignored their work and made no effort to settle the matter within the C.
That is why, when Preobrazhensky and Trotsky declared at the October plenum that they wanted to save the Party through democracy, but that the C. Iaughed at them and replied: No, comrades, we, the C. What did the C. This is what they decided: In one of his letters to the C. Only a man who has completely lost his head and is blinded by factionalism can, after the adoption of the document I have just read, maintain that the October plenum was the supreme expression of bureaucracy. And what did the C. The plenums note with regret that, in order to raise the questions touched on by him, Trotsky chose the method of appealing to individual Party members, instead of the only permissible method, — that of first submitting these questions for discussion by the bodies of which Trotsky is a member.
That statement threatens to subject the entire Party in the coming months to an inner-Party struggle and thereby weaken the Party at a supremely important moment for the destinies of the world revolution. As you see, comrades, these facts completely refute the picture of the situation presented here by Preobrazhensky. Act III, or the third stage, in the history of the issue was the period following the October plenum. The October plenum had voted to instruct the Political Bureau that it take every. I must state here, comrades, that in the period following the October plenum we took every measure to work in harmony with Trotsky, although I must say that this proved anything but an easy task.
We had two private conferences with Trotsky, went into all questions of economic and Party matters and arrived at certain views on which there were no disagreements. As I reported yester day, a sub-commission of three was set up as a continuation of these private conferences and of these efforts to ensure harmony in the work of the Political Bureau. This sub-commission drew up the draft resolution which subsequently became the C.
That is how things stood. It seemed to us that after the unanimous adoption of the resolution there were no further grounds for controversy, no grounds for an inner-Party struggle. It is said that the C. That is wrong, comrades. It would have been a highly dangerous step for the C. The Central Committee could not take so rash a step. That is the history of the issue. It follows from what has been said that the opposition has been concerned not so much with democracy as with using the idea of democracy to undermine the C.
That, Preobrazhensky, is the history of the issue, about which I did not want to speak here, but which, nevertheless, I have been obliged to recount in deference to your persistent desire. The opposition has made it a rule to extol Comrade Lenin as the greatest of geniuses. I am afraid that this praise is insincere and that behind it, too, is a crafty stratagem: But permit me to ask you, Preobrazhensky, why did you differ with this greatest of geniuses on the issue of the Brest Peace?
Why did you abandon and refuse to heed this greatest of geniuses at a difficult moment? Where, in which camp, were you then? And Sapronov, who now insincerely and hypocritically lauds Comrade Lenin, that same Sapronov who had the im-. Why did he not support the genius Lenin, say at the Tenth Congress, and why, if he really thinks that Comrade Lenin is the greatest of geniuses, has he invariably appeared in the opposite camp at difficult moments?
Does Sapronov know that Comrade Lenin, in submitting to the Tenth Congress the unity resolution, which calls for the expulsion of factionalists from the Party, had in mind Sapronov among others? Is all this accidental? Is there not a definite logic in it? It is very praiseworthy, Preobrazhensky, that you should have wanted to use your own brains. But just look at the result: Preobrazhensky has reproached the C. That Ilyich is superior to his disciples? But does anyone doubt that? Does anyone doubt that, compared with his disciples, Ilyich stands out as a veritable Goliath?
That is precisely why it has been stressed time and again that in the present circumstances, with Comrade Lenin temporarily absent, we must keep to the line of collective leadership. Preobrazhensky is wrong in asserting that our Party did not lag behind events in previous years. He is wrong because this assertion is untrue factually and incorrect theoretically.
Several examples can be cited. Take, for instance, the Brest Peace. Were we not late in concluding it? And did it not require such facts as the German offensive and the wholesale flight of our soldiers to make us realise, at last, that we had to have peace? Or take the repeal of the surplus-appropriation system. Were we not late in repealing the surplus-appropriation sys-.
Did not Ilyich himself admit that on this front we had sustained a more serious defeat than any we had suffered at the Denikin or Kolchak fronts? Was it accidental that in all these instances the Party lagged behind events and acted somewhat belatedly? No, it was not accidental. There was a natural law at work here. Evidently, in so far as it is a matter not of general theoretical predictions, but of direct practical leadership, the ruling party, standing at the helm and involved in the events of the day, cannot immediately perceive and grasp processes taking place below the surface of life.
It requires some impulse from outside and a definite degree of development of the new processes for the Party to perceive them and orientate its work accordingly. For that very reason our Party lagged somewhat behind events in the past, and will lag behind them in future too. But the point here does not at all concern lagging behind, but understanding the significance of events, the significance of new processes, and then skilfully directing them in accordance with the general trend of development.
That is how the matter stands if we approach things as Marxists and not as factionalists who go about searching everywhere for culprits. Preobrazhensky is indignant that representatives of the C. He is indignant, but has presented no arguments to the contrary and has made no attempt at all to substantiate his indignation, forgetting that indignation is no argument. Yes, it is true that Trotsky deviates from Leninism on questions of organisation. That has been, and still is, our contention.
Why has not Preobrazhensky challenged the basic ideas of these articles? Why has he not tried to support his indignation by arguments, or a semblance of arguments? Why then has Preobrazhensky not tried to refute this statement of mine? It is said that Trotsky is being baited. Preobrazhensky and Radek have spoken of this.
Comrades, I must say that the statements of these comrades about baiting are altogether at variance with the facts. Let me recall two facts so that you may be able to judge for yourselves. First, the incident which oc curred at the September plenum of the C. You will recall that the C. You will recall that Trotsky refused to comply with this request of the plenum, thereby demonstrating that he had not the slightest respect for his Central Committee. You know that Trotsky has not as. Why should not Trotsky — who is so fond of talking about planning — why should he not have a look into our State Planning Commission?
Is it right and proper for a C. Do not all these facts show that the talk about baiting is no more than idle gossip, and that if anyone is to be blamed, it is Trotsky himself, for his behaviour can only be regarded as mocking at the C. This is how he puts the question: In his conception, freedom of groups and democracy are inseparably bound up. That is not how we understand democracy.
We understand democracy to mean raising the activity and political understanding of the mass of Party members; we understand it to mean the systematic enlistment of the Party membership not only in the discussion of questions, but also in the leadership of the work.
- Articoli Recenti.
- Angelo Tasca e Ignazio Silone. Da una parte all’altra della stessa frontiera.
- Memoirs from the Rear Pew: The truth about spiritual growth.
- Aquinas on Being.
- My Childrens Mothers Diary!
Freedom of groups, that is, freedom of factions — they are one and the same thing — represents an evil which threatens to splinter the Party and turn it into a discussion club. You have exposed yourself, Preobrazhensky, by defending freedom of factions. The mass of Party members understand democracy to mean creating conditions that will ensure active participation of the Party members in the leadership of our country, whereas a couple of oppositionist intellectuals understand it to mean that the opposition must be given freedom to form a faction.
You stand exposed, Preobrazhensky. And why are you so frightened by point seven, on Party unity? What is there to be frightened about? Comrades of the opposition, are you against all this? Well, I did not know, comrades, that you were opposed to this. Tell us frankly, and perhaps we shall introduce an amendment or two. Can it be that you, Preobrazhensky, Radek, Sapronov, are thinking of violating Party discipline, of reviving factionalism? Well, if that is not your intention, then what are you afraid of?
Your panic shows you up, comrades. Evidently, if you are afraid of point seven of the unity resolution, you must be for factionalism, for violating discipline, and against unity. Otherwise, why all the panic? If your conscience is clear, if you are for unity and against factionalism and violation of discipline, then is it not clear that the punishing hand of the Party will not touch you?
What is there to fear then? We are intimidating the factionalists, not the Party. Do you really think, Preobrazhensky, that the Party and the factionalists are identical? Apparently it is a case of the cap fitting. What is there terrible in that? Is that not clear? I now pass to Radek. There are people who can master and manage their tongues; these are ordinary people. There are also people who are slaves of their tongues; their tongues manage them. These are peculiar people. And it is to this category of peculiar people that Radek belongs. A man who has a tongue he cannot manage and who is the slave of his own tongue, can never know what and when his tongue is liable to blurt out.
At one discussion meeting Radek asserted that the question of inner-Party democracy was a trivial one, that actually he, Radek, was against democracy, that, at bottom the issue now was not one of democracy, but of what the C. At another discussion meeting this same Radek declared that democracy within the Party was not a serious matter, but that democracy within the C. And today this same Radek tells us in all innocence that inner-Party democracy. Which of these three Radeks are we to believe — the first, second or third?
And what guarantee is there that Radek, or rather his tongue, will not in the immediate future make new unexpected statements that refute all his previous ones? Can one rely on a man like Radek? I have already spoken, comrades, about Boguslavsky. As for Antonov-Ovseyenko, permit me to report the following. Antonov was removed from the Political Department of the Red Army by decision of the Organising Bureau of the Central Committee, a decision confirmed by a plenum of the Central Committee. He was removed, first of all, for having issued a circular about a conference of Party units in military colleges and the air fleet, with the international situation, Party affairs, etc.
He was removed from the Political Department, in addition, for having sent to all Party units of the army a circular concerning the forms in which inner-Party democracy was to be applied, doing so against the will of the C. He was removed, lastly, for having sent to the C. Comrades, oppositionists can and should be allowed to hold posts.
But we cannot allow the head of the Political Department of the Red Army, which has the status of a department of the C. We cannot allow a responsible official to trample underfoot the elementary rules of decency. Such a comrade cannot be entrusted with the education of the Red Army. That is how matters stand with Antonov.
Finally, I must say a few words on the subject of whose are the sentiments that are expressed in the pronouncements of the comrades of the opposition. You will forgive me, comrades, but such people, rotten through and through from the Party standpoint, are not to be found, and could not possibly be found, among those who voted for the C. There are no such people on our side, comrades.
There are none in our ranks who would ask: Or there is, for instance, the other comrade, Comrade Martynov, who thinks that the C. He says in effect: But we have 50, Party units, and if they are going to decide, say, the question of the Curzon ultimatum, then we shall not arrive at a decision in two years. That is indeed anarcho-Menshevism of the first water.
These people have lost their heads; from the Party standpoint they are rotten through and through, and if you have them in your faction, then I ask you, what is this faction of yours worth? Yes, unfortunately they are, but I am prepared to take every measure to ensure that such people cease to be members of our Party. I have said that the opposition voices the sentiments and aspirations of the non-proletarian elements in the Party and outside it.
Without being conscious of it, the opposition is unleashing petty-bourgeois elemental forces. Its factional activities bring grist to the mill of the enemies of our Party, to the mill of those who want to weaken, to overthrow the dictatorship of the proletariat. I said this yesterday and I re-affirm it today. But perhaps you would like to hear other, fresh witnesses? I can give you that pleasure. Let me cite, for instance, the evidence of S.
Ivanovich, a name you have all heard. Who is this S. He is a Menshevik, a former Party member, of the days when we and the Mensheviks comprised a single party. Later on he disagreed with the Menshevik C. How does he regard our opposition, this Right-wing Menshevik? What sort of testimonial has he given it? Let us be thankful to it for having dealt a serious blow, morally and organisationally, to the R.
Let us be thankful to it for its activities, because they help all those who regard the overthrow of Soviet power as the task of the Socialist parties. There you have your testimonial, comrades of the opposition! In conclusion, I would like nevertheless to wish the comrades of the opposition that this kiss of S.
Ivanovich will not stick to them too closely. There were present delegates with right of voice and vote and with right of voice only. The conference discussed Party affairs, the international situation, and the immediate tasks in economic policy. These decisions of the conference were endorsed by the Thirteenth Party Congress and by the Fifth Congress of the Comintern. The plenum of the Central Committee of the R. It demanded the recall of the Soviet plenipotentiary representatives from Persia and Afghanistan, the release of British fishing boats which had been detained for illegal fishing in the northern territorial waters of the U.
Questa iscrizione scolpita su di una lapide posta sulla facciata della Certosa di S.
Numéros en texte intégral
Condizioni particolari favorirono, naturalmente, anzi provocarono la sommossa e resero possibile la sua conclusione vittoriosa. Nei precedenti attacchi aerei Napoli aveva avuto 22 mila morti, decine di migliaia di feriti, di mutilati e di dispersi tra la popolazione civile oltre a centomila appartamenti distrutti. Numerosi furono gli episodi di resistenza. I tedeschi che si trovano nel palazzo reale sono fatti prigionieri; a piazza Plebiscito la battaglia si protrae per due ore, conflitti scoppiano anche in via Foria, a Porta Capuana, a piazza Umberto, in via Duomo, in via Chiaia, alla caserma Metropolitana, nel quartiere Vicaria.
Uomini, donne, ragazzi, soldati e marinai danno prova in cento episodi di audacia e patriottismo.
- Storia dell'anarchismo - Wikipedia.
- The Book of Jasher or Sefer ha-Yashar, Translated from the Original Hebrew to English.
- Physik mit dem Pc (German Edition).
- Hacking Your Education: Ditch the Lectures, Save Tens of Thousands, and Learn More Than Your Peers Ever Will;
- Menu di navigazione.
- Her Last Letter.
Oltre quattromila tra militari e cittadini vennero tratti prigionieri e immediatamente portati alla stazione per essere avviati alla deportazione ed al lavoro obbligatorio. Il 13 settembre veniva pubblicato il drastico proclama emanato il giorno prima dal Comando tedesco: Ordino il coprifuoco dalle ore 20 alle ore 6. Entro 24 ore dovranno essere consegnate tutte le armi e munizioni di qualsiasi genere, ivi compresi i fucili da caccia, le granate a mano, ecc. Cittadini mantenetevi calmi e siate ragionevoli.
Il proclama non ebbe alcun risultato, le armi non furono consegnate, neppure quando i tedeschi prorogarono il termine della consegna. Non vi fu giorno che non fosse segnato da scontri e conflitti con i tedeschi, ogni quartiere ebbe il suo episodio di eroismo, ogni casa la sua croce. Seppure talvolta con lunghi periodi di interruzione, la stampa clandestina era stata diffusa nelle officine e nei quartieri operai dal in poi. Un periodico clandestino dal titolo: Anche a Napoli era stato costituito il Comitato unitario del Fronte di Liberazione nazionale.
Altri si trovavano a Ponticelli, a S. Il pane mancava, la fame era molta, ma non risulta che un solo prigioniero sia stato denunciato o consegnato nelle mani del nemico 8. Non pochi, in tale situazione, erano gli ascoltatori di Radio Bari e della radio inglese che incitavano i cittadini ad insorgere con le armi contro i tedeschi. I primi contingenti di giovani avrebbero dovuto presentarsi il 25, ma i posti di raccolta restarono deserti.
Coloro che non presentandosi sono contravvenuti agli ordini pubblicati, saranno dalle ronde senza indugio fucilati. Il Comandante di Napoli La caldaia era in ebollizione, stava per scoppiare. Elmo, al distretto di Foria, a S. Giovanni a Carbonara, al Vasto giovani patrioti penetravano nelle caserme e conquistavano armi e munizioni.
Durante la notte si sparse la notizia che gli inglesi sbarcati a Pozzuoli e a Bagnoli, stavano arrivando, al mattino del 28 la lotta infuriava in tutti i quartieri, dai tetti delle case, dalle finestre, dai muraglioni si sparava sui tedeschi; questi sin dalle prime ore del mattino avevano smesso di invadere le case per effettuare i rastrellamenti, ma da piazza Dante una colonna di tedeschi stavano spingendo alcune migliaia di giovani catturati.
Si combatte nella zona Ferrovia-Vasto, a S. Particolarmente aspra la lotta alla Speranzella, in via Poveri Bisognosi. I tram vengono rovesciati per impedire il passaggio ai carri armati tedeschi, barricate vengono erette in via Duomo, a porta S. Gennaro e nei vicoli che sboccano al rettifilo. Gli insorti dispongono ormai non soltanto di mitragliatrici; ma di cannoni e carri armati.
Al Vomero la direzione politico-militare viene assunta dal professor Antonino Tarsia. Un altro comando in via Salvator Rosa ha alla sua testa il ten. I tedeschi tentano ancora di scendere da Capodichino e da Capodimonte, con un frastuono infernale di carri armati che vomitano rabbiose sventagliate di mitraglia.
Dalla parte alta della discesa di S. Polito, che dovette essere sgomberata da quasi tutti gli armati, salvo pochi animosi eroi. Giunti i Tigre allo sbarramento tranviario, trovandolo davvero ostacolato, manifestarono la loro rabbia con un inutile mitragliamento delle vetture. Questi intanto assediavano il nemico al campo sportivo del Vomero.
Gli assediati mancavano di acqua e cominciavano a scarseggiare di munizioni. Vennero liberati nella notte e alle 5 del mattino il colonnello Scholl, sconfitto ed umiliato, transitava per via Roma dirigendosi al Nord. Si combatte ancora a Porta Capuana dove un nucleo di fascisti asserragliato nella torre non vuole arrendersi e rende impraticabile la zona con sventagliate di mitraglia; il combattimento dura sino a sera anche alla Pigna dove i tedeschi sfogano la loro impotenza sulla popolazione del quartiere.
Rifulse il loro eroismo in azioni temerarie, autentiche pazzie, compiute senza misurare il rischio pur di battere il nemico. Del Tetto il suo superiore. Barberini, comandante del Reggimento. A chi arresta tali prigionieri scappati, paracadutati, ecc. Napoli, 21 settembre Antonino Tarsia, coadiuvato dai tenn. Carmine Muselli, il gruppo combattenti nel settore Vincenzo Cuoco dal magg.
Luigi Einaudi. Guida alla lettura. Antologia degli scritti.
Francesco Amicarelli, quello della zona Museo dal magg. Salvatore Amato, quello di via Caracciolo a Posillipo dal ten. Attanasio da Raffaele Viglione. Alfredo Parente era uscito il 30 settembre quando ancora si combatteva. In una successiva antologia di scritti gramsciani si dice: Lo stesso accadeva a Firenze, Milano, Bologna. Rimasero sul terreno della battaglia 21 lavoratori uccisi.
Gli operai insorti riuscirono ad abbattere solo tre poliziotti, vi furono centinaia di feriti e arresti. I riformisti del suo partito militava nel Psi lo temevano, e lo temeva anche il governo, che sottoponeva a censura i suoi scritti. Tutti i deputati fascisti e lo stesso Mussolini lo interruppero continuamente per tentare di spezzare il filo del suo ragionamento,ma non vi riuscirono.
Erano tesi integralmente marxiste leniniste. Egli parlava da grande leninista. Riportiamo alcuni brani di quella meraviglios aanalisi:. La borghesia aveva allentato le redini del potere. Considerevoli settori della classe contadina cominciavano a sollevarsi contro i proprietari terrieri e contro lo Stato, ed erano disposti a sostenere la classe operaia nella sua lotta rivoluzionaria. I soldati erano contro la guerra e pronti a fraternizzare con gli operai. Si erano dunque realizzate le condizioni oggettive per una rivoluzione vittoriosa.
Mancava soltanto il fattore soggettivo; mancava un partito operaio deciso, pronto al combattimento,cosciente della sua forza, rivoluzionario, in una parola: Istintivamente, gli operai italiani spingevano verso la soluzione della crisi in un senso rivoluzionario. La classe operaia non ha saputo trovare forze sufficienti nel momento culminante del suo movimento per impossessarsi del potere: Si costituirono due partiti: La classe operaia era divisa e senza risorse.
E veniamo ora alle obbrobriose falsificazioni revisioniste di Gramsci. Paolo Spriano, storico del Pci ma anche dirigente di quel partito ha togliattianamente distinto il Gramsci pre-carcere del quale non si poteva direa cuor leggero che non fosse un rivoluzionario — a meno di non coprirsi di ridicolo dal Gramsci prigioniero: Gramsci ha scritto in carcere 33 quaderni per un totale di paginea stampa. Checosa dice in questo passo Gramsci? La monarchia Sabauda e il suo primo ministro Cavour.
Essa trova espressione nel movimento di Grillo. Egemone delle masse sfruttate,i l proletariato russo ha lottato per prendere il potere nelle proprie mani e servirsene per il proprio interesse contro la borghesia, contro il capitalismo. Spriano, come abbiamo visto, scrisse che Gramsci ha inventato una nuova teoria della rivoluzione. Ma la morte interviene a troncare un tale processo di ripensamento: Le rivoluzioni sono rivoluzioni, o trionfano o sono schiacciate dalla reazione, e di fronte al fermento rivoluzionario che si accese in Europa, che cosa avrebbe dovuto fare la III internazionale voluta da Lenin se non rianimarlo, propagandarlo, dare una cassa di risonanza a questo fermento, spingerlo verso la vittoria?
E poi che significa: Losurdo ci da questa rappresentazione: E poi vorremmo chiedergli: Era troppo rozzo Stalin per avere simili ripensamenti? Innalzare Gramsci al livello di Lenin apparentemente potrebbe sembrare una cosa lusinghiera per il grande rivoluzionario sardo. Ma egli stesso non avrebbe gradito tale accostamento. Altrimenti cadremmo vittime della miserabile teoria borghese del genio al di sopra della storia. I marxisti leninisti hanno il sacro dovere di tenere Antonio Gramsci al riparo da simili operazioni ciniche e immorali e di smascherarle e denunciarle instancabilmente.
The disgraceful handling that damages great Revolutionary: Gramsci according to the new revisionists. In China in the publishing house of the People published the Prison Notebooks. In a subsequent anthology of writings Gramsci it says: He understood immediately the Russian Revolution , and he deeply understood the line of Lenin before the Bolsheviks took power.
V. I. Lenin
When , on August 13 , , the provisional government of Kerensky sent its representatives in Italy , Gramsci organized a mass demonstration in Turin with 40, demonstrators who shouted aloud the slogan: The same thing happened in Florence, Milan , Bologna. The week after the strike began in some factories turned into insurrectional general strike. The army had to use tanks and heavy machine guns to subdue him. They sat on the ground of the battle killed 21 workers. The workers insurgents managed to put down only three policemen , there were hundreds of wounded and 1, arrests.
Gramsci was 26 years old and that was great revolutionary climate that was formed as an executive Leninist. The revolutionary tide continued to rise, until, in Turin , generalized employment in the factories where the workers barricaded fully armed and ready for a final showdown against capitalism and against the rule borghese.
The reformists of his party Gramisci , militant in Psi feared him and feared him even the government , which subjected to censorship of his writings. What will go down in history as the Red Biennium was a contemporary to the establishment of the Soviet Republic in Hungary and followed the little German Revolution of , there was a revolutionary ferment everywhere in Europe.
On the causes of the defeat of the Red Biennium and the rise of fascism will quote a supporting document of the Third Communist International. On 16 May , as a parliamentarian and former chief recognized and feared by the reaction he was thirty years old Gramsci spoke to the Chamber a heroic anti-fascist discourse and moving.
All Members fascists and Mussolini himself interrupted him continuously for groped to break the thread of his argument , but failed. He concluded this first revolutionary intervention from the parliamentary rostrum which was also the last with the following words: The following year , the political theses written by Gramsci for Congress clandestine held in Lyon who was the 3rd after the foundation of Livorno in and Rome in , took up the almost unanimous except for a 9. They were fully Marxist-Leninist thesis.
The analysis of more authentically true, that Marxist historical conditions of the first post-war Italy and the lack of the victory of the revolution he did, in , the 4th Congress of the Communist International. Here are some excerpts from that admirable analysis:. The bourgeoisie had loosened the reins of power. The apparatus of the bourgeois state was shaken , restlessness had taken possession of the ruling class.
The masses of the workers were tired of the war in various regions so that they were already in a state of insurrection. Significant sectors of the peasantry began to rise up against the landlords and against the state, and were willing to support the working class in its revolutionary struggle. The soldiers were against the war and ready to fraternize with the workers. They had therefore made the objective conditions for a successful revolution.
If the working class has not triumphed in the most important thing is explained precisely because of the absence of a revolutionary workers party. Instinctively , the Italian workers pushed towards the solution of the crisis in a revolutionary way. The working class has not been able to find sufficient forces at the height of his movement to seize power , which is why the bourgeoisie , in the guise of fascism, his wing more energetic , you could soon bite the dust to make the working class and to establish his dictatorship.
In Livorno , the center chose to separate themselves from the Communist and 58, Italian Communists , simply not to break with the reformists 16, It formed two parties: The working class was divided and without resources. With the help of the reformist bourgeoisie consolidated its positions. It was only then that he began the offensive of capital both in the economic and political. It took almost two full years of uninterrupted betrayal on the part of the reformists because even the leaders of the center, under the pressure of the masses, recognize their mistakes and declare themselves ready to draw all the consequences.
What is the extreme synthesis of such a document? Gramsci wrote in prison 33 notebooks for a total of pages to print. Sooner or later you will have to appear a Marxist-Leninist reading of the Prison Notebooks to crumble point by point all the tricks of those notebooks that have woven Togliatti in the first place and the whole plethora of intellectuals who are put at its service. A new interpretation of the Notebooks applies not only to give back to Gramsci the honor of the great Italian Marxist-Leninist which he was , and that has taken away Togliatti , but also finally allow light in its original and innovative contributions to Marxist-Leninist theory of revolution.
It is linked to the issues raised by Bronstein ndr. Trotzkji who in one way or another, can be considered political theorist front of the attack in a period in which it is only because of defeat. This step only indirectly in political science is linked to that which occurred in the military, although there is certainly a link and essential. What he says in this passage Gramsci? Accept this idea as an unprovable dogma , is unhistorical , it is anti — Marxist , Gramsci, for these revisionists has become a gradualist , a reformist , Gramsci ultimately a precursor , a forerunner of the revisionist positions and conciliatory of Togliatti.
It is understandable that the great revolutionary Sardinian in a dramatic condition of cruel , total isolation from the world when the bourgeoisie already sharpening their knives in preparation for the Second World War and could fall prey to pessimism. The Gramsci who struggled against the physical and moral degradation imposed by the fascist executioners , Gramsci was not that of the New Order Ordine Nuovo and the Congress of Lyon: Gramsci himself , if he had survived a few more years of torture who smote him with fascism , and had lived the debacle of the war and the anti-fascist armed revolution , it would hardly have remained tied to his idea of warfare.
We read the books, essays and articles on Gramsci is a group of nineteen thousand documents in 41 languages , which make up the most extensive bibliography devoted to a single author! We should investigate why this extraordinary posthumous fortune of gramscismo the above classes. The first ever that have ventured into this operation of transfiguration were the revisionists who had to give birth to the noble Italian road to socialism. Is a hegemony that weighs a ton and numbs the brain: There is no need of large organic intellectuals of the bourgeoisie as B.
Croce to spread values antagonists to Marxism: This hegemony to counter bourgeois absolutely preponderant, in the name of political ideological cultural values which was offset by the hegemony of the Communist Party of the revisionist, reformist and conciliatory Togliatti? The Risorgimento was a process matured with centuries of lagging behind other European nations and then became irresistible, that finally led to the unification of Italy with the expulsion of the Austro-Hungarian Empire from the Lombardo-Veneto and the destruction of Ducati and Grand Duchies, the overthrow of the Kingdom of the Two Sicilies and the Papal States.
But who was, ultimately, to make dominant in this fight? The Savoy monarchy and its prime minister Cavour. The possibility of a successful democratic-republican Mazzini-Garibaldi was defeated. The unity of Italy was an important political fact, of course, but that did not have virtually no effect on the social and economic benefits for the broad masses of peasants the large estates was not touched and the working masses in general. The truth lies elsewhere: Hegemony of proletarian revolutionary Lenin and Stalin not only have written, but they also have really exercised both within the decrepit Tsarist Russia is after leading an armed revolution to victory, both in the international arena.
The first is to recognize Gramsci: In accordance with a Chinese classical scholar. Those who still usurp the name and symbols of communism, they would have to exercise hegemony denouncing the narrowness and lack of resolve in this fight, you are instead made themselves bourgeois hegemony by a judge hundred times more moderate movement of the petty bourgeois, led by a comedian of Genoa, G. Petersburg and Moscow and the Soviets were organs of power, or rather against power, organs of dual power that the scalzarono the other end of the power that was the Kerensky government.
The hegemony of the proletariat is a revolutionary line adhering to the given historical situation, is a complex of ideas that meet the urgent needs of the oppressed masses: It was a struggle to the last blood against all the misinformation, deception and misrepresentation of the reactionary power and the latter did slip back the democratic revolution in Russia since Tsarist reactionary climate began on the way to destroy the Bolshevik printers and hunt Lenin to let him go the way that the Germans Kerensky devote to Rosa Luxemburg and Karl Liebcnecht.
During an interview with a delegation of U. Hegemon of the exploited masses , the Russian proletariat has struggled to take power into their own hands and use it for his interest against the bourgeoisie , against capitalism. It is therefore no wonder that the bourgeois parliamentarism has not caught on to us. Gramsci was a profound and original theoretical hegemony and has therefore made a real contribution to Marxist theory, but to elevate it to the level of Lenin is also a hoax. Spriano, as we have seen, Gramsci wrote that he invented a new theory of revolution.
Losurdo, which evidently is considered one of the greatest living Marxist, goes beyond Spriano and with less caution than the old foxes revisionists writes: But the death intervenes to sever such a process of rethinking: This analysis of Losurdo, apart from the tone of arrogance that permeates, is completely false. Lenin saw in the October Revolution the prelude of the revolution not only Europe, but also worldwide, was absolutely right. Perhaps the horrors of the first imperialist war and the consequent October victory did not lead to a revolutionary ferment spread throughout Europeand that will bring the proletariatGerman and Italian on the edge of the seizure of power?
It was not constituted in Hungary, still on the wave of October, the Republic of Soviets? End a very possible victory in Italy or Germany of the proletarian revolution would not have given a further massive boost to the entire proletariat against the bourgeoisie in Europe?
The revolutions are revolutions, or triumph or are squeezed by the reaction, and in front of the revolutionary ferment that was kindled in Europe, what he should have done the III International commissioned by Lenin if you do not revive him, propagandarlo, give a sounding board in this ferment , push him to victory? And then that means: Losurdo us from this representation: Lenin expected the outbreak of other revolutions, and if it stands still, fingers crossed, waiting for these revolutions or at least one of them to come to the victory.
And then we would like to ask: There, in the analysis of Losurdo something amazing: And in the meantime? Stalin was too rough to have similar thoughts? For Spriano, we repeat yet again the Gramsci has proposed a new theory of revolution, for Losurdo instead Gramsci is the theoretical long times of the revolution, in spite of the fact that both the first and the second world war the Italian proletariat has been very close allapresa of power. NO, Gramsci, more simply, it was a great Leninist, which has the merit of having imperishable split the PSI and also given birth to in Italy in a then revolutionary Marxist-Leninist party, the Italian section of the Third International.
When within the Bolshevik party opponents, after the death of Lenin, decuplicarono their energies to splinter seize power, Gramsci was always on the side of the majority Bolshevik who defended Leninism and he defeated the opposition. Gramsci raise the level of Lenin could seem something flattering to the great revolutionary Sardinia. But he himself would not have liked that approach. They are the great upheavals in the international arena, the great revolutions are brought to victory, are the processes of building socialism taking place for the first time in history that produce the great theorists of communism.
Otherwise we would fall victims of miserable bourgeois theory of the genius above the story. And who intends to raise Gramsci, at the same level of Lenin it does to give more authority to his own vision opportunist who has of the revolution, with the aim to throw this his opportunism on Gramsci. The Marxists Leninists have a sacred duty to keep away from Antonio Gramsci similar operations cynical and immoral and unmask and denounce them tirelessly.
The present English edition of J. Minor changes have been made in the translation and the notes. References to English translations are added, as footnotes, by the present publisher. Comrade collective farmers, men and women! I did not intend to speak at your congress. I did not intend to because the previous speakers have said all that had to be said — and have said it well and to the point.
Is it worth while to speak after that? I shall say a few words on various questions. Is the path which the collective-farm peasantry has taken the right path, is the path of collective farming the right one? That is not an idle question. You shock brigaders of the collective farms evidently have no doubt that the collective farms are on the right path. Possibly, for that reason, the question will seem superfluous to you. But not all peasants think as you do. There are still not a few among the peasants, even among the collective farmers, who have doubts as to whether the collective-farm path is the right one.
And there is nothing surprising about it. Indeed, for hundreds of years people have lived in the old way, have followed the old path, have bent their backs to the kulaks and landlords, to the usurers and speculators. It cannot be said that that old, capitalist path was approved by the peasants. But that old path was a beaten path, the customary path, and no one had actually proved that it was possible to live in a different way, in a better way. The more so as in all bourgeois countries people are still living in the old way. And suddenly the Bolsheviks break in on this old stagnant life, break in like a storm and say: It is time to abandon the old path, it is time to begin living in a new way, in the collective-farm way; it is time to begin living not as everyone lives in bourgeois countries, but in a new way, co-operatively.
But what is this new life — who can tell? May it not turn out to be worse than the old life? At all events, the new path is not the customary path, it is not a beaten path, not yet a fully explored path. Would it not be better to keep to the old path? Would it not be better to wait a little before embarking on the new, collective-farm path? Is it worth while to take the risk? These are the doubts that are now troubling one section of the labouring peasantry. Ought we not to dispel these doubts? Ought we not to bring these doubts out into the light of day and show what they are worth? Clearly, we ought to.
Hence, the question I have just put cannot be described as an idle one. And so, is the path which the collective-farm peasantry has taken the right one? Some comrades think that the transition to the new path, to the collective-farm path, started in our country three years ago. This is only partly true. Of course, the development of collective farms on a mass scale started in our country three years ago. The transition, as we know, was marked by the routing of the kulaks and by a movement among the vast masses of the poor and middle peasantry to join the collective farms.
All that is true. But in order to start this mass transition to the collective farms, certain preliminary conditions had to be available, without which, generally speaking, the mass collective-farm movement would have been inconceivable. First of all, we had to have the Soviet power, which has helped and continues to help the peasantry to take the collective-farm path: Secondly, it was necessary to drive out the landlords and the capitalists, to take the factories and the land away from them and declare these the property of the people.
Thirdly, it was necessary to curb the kulaks and to take machines and tractors away from them. Fourthly, it was necessary to declare that the machines and tractors could be used only by the poor and middle peasants united in collective farms. Finally, it was necessary to industrialize the country, to set up a new tractor industry, to build new factories for the manufacture of agricultural machinery, in order to supply tractors and machines in abundance to the collective-farm peasantry. Without these preliminary conditions there could have been no question of the mass transition to the collective-farm path that started three years ago.
Hence, in order to adopt the collective-farm path it was necessary first of all to accomplish the October Revolution, to overthrow the capitalists and landlords, to take the land and factories away from them and to set up a new industry. It was with the October Revolution that the transition to the new path, to the collective-farm path, started. This transition developed with fresh force only three years ago because it was not until then that the economic results of the October Revolution made themselves fully felt, it was not until then that success was achieved in pushing forward the industrialization of the country.
The history of nations knows not a few revolutions. But those revolutions differ from the October Revolution in that all of them were one-sided revolutions. One form of exploitation of the working people was replaced by another form of exploitation, but exploitation itself remained. One set of exploiters and oppressors was replaced by another set of exploiters and oppressors, but exploiters and oppressors, as such, remained. Only the October Revolution set itself the aim of abolishing all exploitation and of eliminating all exploiters and oppressors. The revolution of the slaves eliminated the slave-owners and abolished the form of exploitation of the toilers as slaves.
But in their place it set up the serf-owners and the form of exploitation of the toilers as serfs. One set of exploiters was replaced by another set of exploiters. The revolution of the peasant-serfs eliminated the serfowners and abolished the form of exploitation through serfdom. But in their place it set up the capitalists and landlords, the capitalist and landlord form of exploitation of the toilers. It was only our Soviet revolution, only our October Revolution that dealt with the question, not of substituting one set of exploiters for another, not of substituting one form of exploitation for another, but of eradicating all exploitation, of eradicating all exploiters, all the rich and oppressors, old and new.
Did the peasants act rightly in supporting the October Revolution? They acted rightly, because the October Revolution helped ehem to shake off the yoke of the landlords and capitalists, the usurers and kulaks, the merchants and speculators. But that is only one side of the question. It is all very well to drive out the oppressors, to drive out the landlords and capitalists, to curb the kulaks and speculators. But that is not enough. In order to become entirely free from the old fetters it is not enough merely to rout the exploiters; it is necessary also to build a new life — to build a life that will enable the labouring peasants to improve their material conditions and culture and make continuous progress from day to day and year to year.
In order to achieve this, a new system must be. That is the other side of the question. What is the difference between the old system and the new, collective-farm system? Under the old system the peasants worked singly, following the ancient methods of their forefathers and using antiquated implements of labour; they worked for the landlords and capitalists, the kulaks and speculators; they worked and lived half-starved while they enriched others. Under the new, collective-farm system the peasants work in common, cooperatively, with the help of modern implements — tractors and agricultural machinery; they work for themselves and their collective farms; they live without capitalists and landlords, without kulaks and speculators; they work with the object of raising their standard of welfare and culture from day to day.
Over there, under the old system, the government is a bourgeois government, and it supports the rich against the labouring peasantry. The old system leads to capitalism. The new system leads to socialism. There you have the two paths, the capitalist path and the socialist path: There are people who think that some sort of third path could be followed. Saggi di economia e politica , a cura di E.
Rossi, Roma-Bari, Laterza, , vol. Ragioni analoghe stanno alla base di un saggio giustamente famoso, composto sul finire del per La Rivoluzione Liberale di Piero Gobetti e successivamente ristampato in veste di prefazione alla celebre raccolta Le lotte del lavoro: In base a queste premesse, Einaudi delineava inoltre i profili assai differenti del socialismo e del liberalismo:. E tuttavia Einaudi si stava scagliando contro un nuovo bersaglio polemico: Qui Einaudi pare portare alle estreme conseguenze le premesse di partenza.
La bellezza della lotta. Dalla sua impostazione antagonistica discende infatti una particolare visione del mercato e della concorrenza: Il lavoro viene quindi concepito non solo come mezzo di sussistenza o di conquista del benessere, ma come fonte di crescita e di gratificazione personale, una merce assai rara e preziosa, un bene da tutelare. Galasso, Milano, Adelphi, , pp. Spriano, Torino, Einaudi, , pp.
Einaudi, Liberismo e liberalismo , a cura di G. Malagodi, Milano-Napoli, Ricciardi, , pp. Dei diversi significati del concetto di liberismo economico e dei suoi rapporti con quello di liberalismo 5. Anzi, tutto il contrario. Bassan, Roma, Einaudi, , p.
Se si lascia libero gioco al laissez-faire laissez-passer , passano soprattutto gli accordi e le sopraffazioni dei pochi contro i molti, dei ricchi contro i poveri, dei forti contro i deboli, degli astuti contro gli ingenui. Od almeno, molti uomini hanno altri ideali di vita. Molti, moltissimi, forse tutti in un certo momento della vita o in dati momenti di ogni giorno della vita sentono il bisogno di riposo, di difesa, di rifugio. Guai al giorno in cui essa domina incontrastata in tutti i momenti e in tutti gli aspetti della vita.
Questo punto rimandava direttamente alla concezione einaudiana dello Stato liberale, che da lungo tempo stava coerentemente sviluppando. Lineamenti di una politica economica liberale 6. Se gli industriali, se gli agricoltori, se gli intellettuali, se i contadini o gli operai vogliono far sentire la loro voce, debbono agire per mezzo dello strumento discussione. VII, Torino, Einaudi, , pp. Un concetto che venne ulteriormente ribadito in un lungo brano risalente al , che sembra utile riportare per esteso:. Esso ha una dottrina e in base a questa dottrina agisce.
Vuol dire anzi avere una fede virile, una dottrina maschia. Ma se una delle principali funzioni attribuite allo Stato liberale era la tutela del diritto al dissenso, alla critica, alla messa in discussione di qualsiasi idea e provvedimento, come attuare concretamente un simile ordinamento? Naturalmente gli sceglie in guisa che essi rappresentino le varie correnti della maggioranza, od, in caso di coalizioni, necessarie nelle ore gravi, sovrattutto di guerra, le diverse opinioni esistenti in seno al parlamento.
Un ruolo preponderante, comunque, avrebbe dovuto essere giocato dalle autonomie locali: La centralizzazione avrebbe peraltro impedito la formazione di una classe politica capace e responsabile, effetto indesiderato e, per Einaudi, addirittura intollerabile:. Impara ad ubbidire, ad intrigare, a raccomandare, a cercare appoggi. Dove non esiste il governo di se stessi e delle cose proprie, in che consiste la democrazia? Il governo politico deve essere in mano di una minoranza organizzata…Dalla buona scelta della classe politica dipende la fortuna di un paese.
Pluralismo sociale come condizione, necessaria ma non sufficiente, per la formazione di una classe politica variegata, colta e sana. Sono i cristiani dei primi due secoli, i grandi filosofi, i saggi ed i virtuosi di ogni tempo. Costoro compongono la classe eletta. Assai di rado accade che la classe eletta sia chiamata a governare gli stati od abbia parte preponderante e decisiva nel governo.
Related Saggio sul comunismo e sul socialismo (Classici della libertà Vol. 6) (Italian Edition)
Copyright 2019 - All Right Reserved