-
tions. In a long statement, largely critical of the spd, the g
im said that "on the basis of this analysis, the Central Committee
of the g im . . . and the r k j . . . decided that their position
on the election cannot be reduced to recommending any specific
voteno matter how much this may be regarded as a deficiency." That
statement ended, "We must point to the bracing experiences the
workers had last April with parliamentarism and its parties and
hold up the struggle in the form of mass strikes and demonstrations
as a practical alternative to passive trust in the election of the
sp d ."26
On several occasions in later years the g i m took a more active
electoral role. In 1978 they gave "critical support" to the Green
Party in regional elections in Hamburg and Hesse.27 In 1980 they
urged their supporters to vote for the Social Democratic Party.
Among their slogans on that occasion were "No vote for the bosses'
parties c d u / csu or the f d p ! " "Vote s p d to prevent Strauss
from winning the elections!"28 (Strauss was the very conservative
leader of the Bavarian branch of the Christian Democrats, the
csu.)
Factionalism Within the GIM
Almost from the moment of their emergence as a public group once
again, the German Trotskyists associated with the United
Secretariat suffered severe factional problems. Some of these
reflected the struggles going on within the u s e c during the
1970s.
At least two splits occurred in u s e c 's German section in the
years immediately following the reestablishment of an open
Trotskyist group. In the Spring of 1969 a faction broke away to
form the Spartacus group.29 This Spartacusbund continued to exist
for a number of years, although itself suffering several splits. It
became associated with a dissident u s e c group known as the
Necessary International Initiative, headed by an Italian
Trotskyist, Roberto Massari.30
Subsequently, another schism took place in the g i m , with a
group reestablishing the i k d . According to one hostile observer,
"The split was in a leftward direction.. . . Several other splits
quickly fragmented the i k d leading to the existence in Germany of
unstable and competing left-centrist groupings.
>|31
Further dissension arose as the result of the establishment in
the winter 1969-70 by the g i m of another group, the Revolutionar-
Kommunistische Jugend ( R K j-R e v o lu t io n - acy Communist
Youth). At the time of the merger of the g i m and the r k j
several years later, Was Tun (What Is to be Done), the g i m
periodical, explained that "the r k j was never a 'youth
organization' in the classical sensea group guided by the 'mother
organization' and having specific tasks in the field of youth work.
The strategic conception of the r k j was rather that it be a
'lever' with which to build an organization capable of intervening
in the class struggle under the special conditions of the youth
radicaliza- tion. That is, fundamental to the founding of the r k j
was the g i m ' s extreme weakness after the end of entrism and the
split in the spring of 1969. . . ,"32
The r k j was formally established as a national organization in
a convention held in Frankfurt, May 29-31, 1971. It voted to become
a "sympathizing organization" of u s e c . Its function was spelled
out thus: "In a period of West German capitalism in which a larger
part of the worker youth, college students, and high-school
students are approaching revolutionary positions, the r k j will
intervene among the radicalizing youth to hasten the organization
of the vanguard for consistent anticapitalist struggle. In doing
this, the r k j will make an essential contribution to the
anchoring of the revolutionary organization in the class struggles
of the West German proletariat."33
However, the creation of the r k j apparently created confusion
among u s e c German Trotskyists rather than strengthening their
movement. As a consequence, only
Germany: World War II and After 431
-
five months after this founding conference a second national
convention of the r k j was held October 30-November 1971 in
Cologne. Although that meeting allegedly "reflected the rapid
growth of the West German Trotskyist movement," its most notable
decision was to call for the merger of the rk; a n d the g i m
.34
This merger was finally achieved at a "fusion conference" held
December 30, 1972- January 1, 1973. Although it was reported that
"broad agreement was reached on some key points" at that
convention, it was decided to have formal votes on three competing
draft political resolutions presented at the meeting "because
neither the proposed theses nor the state of the discussion within
the organization yet fully meets the objective requirements of the
struggles in West Germany. "3S
A resolution dealing with the reasons for unification of the g i
m and r k j was passed. Was Tun subsequently reported that "we
believe that the conception of the r k j , despite its great
practical value in building the section was based on a number of
mistakes, which are described in this resolution; an
underestimation of the newly arising revolutionary left itself,
which generally strove to overcome an outlook restricted to its own
sector and to work out a general perspective for the whole society;
an underestimation of the practical effects of the upsurge of West
German workers struggles, which opened up increasing possibilities
for bridging the gap between the working class movement and the
movement of radical youth by direct intervention in the
proletariat; an underestimation of the concrete significance of the
weight of the Fourth International in West Germany, which in the
long run, if this development of a 'special West German strategy
for building the organization' had been carried further, would have
led to a political regression."35
The sharp differences of opinion reflected in the "fusion
conference" continued within the g i m . This was reflected in
the
1975 national conference of the organization, when three
factions appeared: "These tendencies are the Internationalist
Tendency (i t ), which has held the majority on the Central
Committee since the 1974 conference and supports the majority
leadership of the Fourth International; the Compass Tendency |k t
), the second largest tendency; and a third, small tendency, the
Leninist- Trotskyist Tendency (l t t ), which supports the minority
tendency in the Fourth International."37
The German u s e c affiliate was thus split along the lines of
the controversy then raging generally within the United
Secretariat. The largest group was aligned with the "Europeans"
(Emest Mandel, Pierre Frank and Livio Maitan) who were then pushing
a "guerrilla" approach, particularly for theLat- in American
countries. The smallest group within the g i m was aligned with the
u s e c faction led by the Socialist Workers Party of the United
States. The second largest g i m faction (Compass Tendency) was
aligned with the so-called Third Tendency within u s e c , led by
the Italian Roberto Massari.34
Was Tun, in reporting on this meeting of g i m , noted that "in
the vote on the political resolution at the 1975 National
Conference, none of the three tendencies in the g i m was able to
win a majority. For a democratic- centralist organization, this is
a situation as difficult as it is unusual. It means that no
tendency has a mandate to lead the organization on behalf of a
majority of the membership." In the face of this situation, it was
decided to summon shortly a new national conference. Meanwhile, the
1975 meeting agreed to give the Internationalist Tendency an
absolute majority on the new Central Committee and provided that
its version of the political resolution be "the public general line
of the g i m . " -A sixteen-point program, for work in the labor
movement, among immigrants, and on other organizational issues was
adopted as an interim directive to the leadership. Of the thirty
members of the new Central Committee, the i t
432 Germany: World War II and After
-
kyist groups arose from factional controversies within the
United Secretariat during the 1970s. One was the Lega Comunista. In
the u s e c controversies of that period, in addition to the
International Majority Tendency led by Ernest Mandel, Livio Maitan,
and Pierre Frank and the Leninist Trotskyist Tendency aligned with
the Socialist Workers Party of the U.S., there was a Revolutionary
Marxist Fraction, which was represented at the 1974 Tenth World
Congress of u s e c by an Italian delegate, Roberto Massari. In1975
Massari led a split in the g c r / l c r to form the Lega
Comunista. It took the lead in organizing outside of u s e c an
"international opposition" to the United Secretariat, the Necessary
International Initiative (n i i ), with affiliates in Great Britain
and Germany as well as Italy. As late as 1980, the Lega Comunista
still existed.58
The second split in Italian Trotskyism resulting from the
quarrels of the 1970s within u s e c was the formation of the Lega
Socialista Rivoluzionaria (l s r ). It was formed by Italian
elements aligned with the International Bolshevik Fraction led by
the Argentine Nahuel Moreno, when that group broke with the United
Secretariat in 1979-80. However, in a congress in July 1982 the l s
r decided to withdraw from the Moreno international faction and to
assume an independent position.59
Another Italian group which by the early 1980s was unaffiliated
with any of the international Trotskyite tendencies was the
Revolutionary Workers Group for the Rebirth of the Fourth
International (Gruppo Operaio Rivoluzionario por la rinascita della
Quarta Internazionale g o r ). Its origins were in a split from the
g c r in 1976 of people opposed to participation in the Proletarian
Democracy electoral coalition of that year on the grounds that it
was a "popular front."
These dissidents first organized as theBol- shevik-Leninist
Group for the Reconstruction of the Fourth International. They soon
established contacts with the ex-Lambertist Italian organization,
the Bolshevik-Leninist
Group of Italy, but the two organizations found it impossible to
agree on unity terms.
The 1976 dissidents from the g c r then decided in April 1978 to
reorganize as the Lega Trotskista d'ltalia (l t i ). By that time
they had entered into contact with the international Spartacist
tendency [sic] and the l t i had fraternal delegates at the
August1979 conference of the ist in London. However, controversies
resulting from that encounter led first to the formation within the
Lega Trotskista d'ltalia of the Internationalist Proletarian
Opposition, which in April1980 broke away from the Lega to
establish the Grupo Operaio Rivoluzionario por la rinascita della
Quarta Internazionale.60 Although thereafter unaffiliated with any
international alignment, the g o r did issue a call for a "genuine"
international Trotskyist tendency.61
The Spartacist tendency originated in Italy in 1975. At a
"European encampment" of the ist in July 1975, a group of Italian
participants who had recently broken with Roberto Massari's
Revolutionary Marxist Fraction announced the establishment of the
Spartacist Nucleus of Italy.62 It apparently became part of the
Lega Trotskista d'ltalia when that was established in 1976, and
gained control of that group. In August 1980, it was formally
announced that the l t i was becoming the Italian Sympathizing
Section of the ist.63
The Italian Spartacists were centered principally in Milan. From
there they issued a monthly periodical, Spartaco, which consisted
principally of translations of articles from the New York
Spartacist newspaper Workers Vanguard. From time to time they
organized "debate assemblies" on subjects of current interest.
Still another international Trotskyist tendency to be
represented in Italy at least for a time was the International
Trotskyist Liaison Committee, the so-called Thornett group. The
Gruppo Bolscevico Leninista (g b l ) had originally been part of
the Lambertist c o r q i but broke with that group in
t
iItaly 597
-
However, the l t f draft claimed that the i m t document
"revises the Trotskyist position. It reaffirms the guerrilla
orientation adopted at the 1969 congress. At the same time it seeks
to make that orientation more palatable.. . . What is referred to
in the resolution . . . is not armed struggle as initiated and
carried out by the majority of the population but violent actions
initiated and carried out by small groups. Such actions are
supposed to serve as examples to the masses." The i m t proposal
put "emphasis on the action of miniscule groups. In reality that is
all the resolution deals withthe action of miniscule groups
isolated from the masses."
The l t f draft also argued that the blanket endorsement of
guerrilla war for Latin America by the majority, if valid for that
region, ought logically to be expanded throughout the world. It
argued that "if it is true that the bourgeoisie will grant
concessions in face of small mobilizations, as the resolution
states elsewhere, but will seek to smash big mobilizations, doesn't
that hold for Western Europe and for the United States?"38
Finally, the l t f document claimed that the acceptance of the
guerrilla line by the Fourth International had been due largely to
the influx of young people into the Fourth International who were
inspired by the Chinese, Vietnam, and Cuban revolutions, but not by
the Russian one. Furthermore, it said, a number of old-timers who
should have known better had acquiesced to the youngsters.
Denouement of the Factional Conflict of 1970s
Hansen noted after the Tenth Congress that there had been
extensive negotiations between the i m t and l t f before the
meeting to assure its orderly procedure, and that there had also
been accord between the two groups concerning the policy to be
followed after the congress. It had been agreed to sus
pend further discussion on the issues voted on at the congress
for one year, to maintain discussion in a monthly international
discussion bulletin on the Chinese Cultural Revolution, youth
radicalization, the women's movement, the Middle East, Vietnam, and
Eastern Europe. It was also agreed to hold the next congress within
two years.
Another part of the agreement between the two factions
introduced an innovation in the Fourth International. It gave
recognition to the fact that rival "sections" representing the two
factions had come into existence. Although it instructed the i e c
to use all its influence to bring about a merger of these groups,
it also provided that "at the congress, Fourth Internationalist
groups already existing separately were recognized regardless of
their size as sympathizing groups; but this exceptional measure was
not to be regarded as a precedent."39
The Eleventh Congress did not in fact take place until November
1979. During the intervening period a number of events transpired
which ultimately brought the conflict between the i m t and l t f
to an end, but which also resulted in a substantial split in the
United Secretariat.
One relatively minor development following the 1974 World
Congress was the breaking away from u s e c of the Third Tendency,
which had stood apart from both the i m t and l t f at the
congress, and had been led by an Italian Roberto Massari. Soon
after the Tenth Congress Massari split the Italian affiliate to
form the Lega Comunista. He then took the lead in establishing the
Necessary International Initiative (n ii), a kind of "opposition"
to u s e c conceived of as having a role similar to that of the
Left Opposition to the Comintern in the early 1930s. A Third
Tendency faction in Great Britain, and the Spartacusbund, which had
earlier broken away from the German u s e c affiliate, were among
the groups participating in the n i i .40 We have no information
concerning how long the n ii continued in existence.
One of the most significant events of the
USEC: Trajectory 755
-
TRASCRIZIONE:
Factionalism Within the GI
Almost from the moment of their emergence as a public group once
again, the German Trotskyists
associated with the United Secretariat suffered severe factional
problems. Some of these reflected
the struggles going on within the USEC during the 1970s.
At least two splits occurred in USECs German section in the
years immediately following the reestablishment of an open
Trotskyist group. In the Spring of 1969 a faction broke away to
form the
Spartacus group29. This Spartacusbund continued to exist for a
number of years, although itself
suffering several splits. It became associated with a dissident
USEC group known as the Necessary
International Inititiv, headed by an Italian Trotskyist, Roberto
Massari30. Subsequently, another schism took place in the GIM, with
a group reestablishing the IKD.
According to one hostile observer, The split was in a leftward
direction Several other splits quickly fragmented the IKD leading
to the existence in Germany of unstable and competing left-
centrist groupings31. Further dissension arose as the result of
the establishment in the winter 1969-70 by the GIM of
another group, the Revolutionar-Kommunistische Jugend
(RKJ-Revolutionary Communist Youth).
At the time of the merger of the GIM and the RKJ several years
later, Was Tun (What Is to be
Done), the GIM periodical, explained that the RKJ was never a
youth organization in the classical sensea group guided by the
mother organization and having specific tasks in the field of youth
work. The strategic conception of the RKJ was rather that it be a
lever with which to build an organization capable of intervening in
the class struggle under the special conditions of the
youth radicalization. That is, fundamental to the founding of
the RKJ was the GIMs extreme weakness after the end of entrism and
the split in the spring of 196932. The RKJ was formally established
as a national organization in a convention held in Frankfurt,
May
29-31, 1971. It voted to become a sympathizing organization of
USEC. Its function was spelled out thus: In a period of West German
capitalism in which a larger part of the worker youth, college
students, and high-school students are approaching revolutionary
positions, the RKJ will intervene
among the radicalizing youth to hasten the organization of the
vanguard for consistent anticapitalist
struggle. In doing this, the RKJ will make an essential
contribution to the anchoring of the
revolutionary organization in the class struggles of the West
German proletariat33. However, the creation of the RKJ apparently
created confusion among USEC German Trotskyists
rather than strengthening their movement. As a consequence, only
five months after this founding
conference a second national convention of the RKJ was held
October 30-November 1971 in
Cologne. Although that meeting allegedly reflected the rapid
growth of the West German Trotskyist movement, its most notable
decision was to call for the merger of the RKJ and the GIM34.
This merger was finally achieved at a fusion conference held
December 30, 1972-January 1, 1973. Although it was reported that
broad agreement was reached on some key points at that convention,
it was decided to have formal votes on three competing draft
political resolutions
presented at the meeting because neither the proposed theses nor
the state of the discussion within the organization yet fully meets
the objective requirements of the struggles in West Germany35. A
resolution dealing with the reasons for unification of the GIM and
RKJ was passed. Was Tun
subsequently reported that we believe that the conception of the
RKJ, despite its great practical value in building the section was
based on a number of mistakes, which are described in this
resolution; an underestimation of the newly arising
revolutionary left itself, which generally strove
to overcome an outlook restricted to its own sector and to work
out a general perspective for the
whole society; an underestimation of the practical effects of
the upsurge of West German workers
struggles, which opened up increasing possibilities for bridging
the gap between the working class
movement and the movement of radical youth by direct
intervention in the proletariat; an
-
underestimation of the concrete significance of the weight of
the Fourth International in West
Germany, which in the long run, if this development of a special
West German strategy for building the organization had been carried
further, would have led to a political regression36. The sharp
differences of opinion reflected in the fusion conference continued
within the GIM. This was reflected in the 1975 national conference
of the organization, when three factions
appeared: These tendencies are the Internationalist Tendency
(IT), which has held the majority on the Central Committee since
the 1974 conference and supports the majority leadership of the
Fourth
International; the Compass Tendency (KT), the second largest
tendency; and a third, small
tendency, the Leninist-Trotskyist Tendency (LTT), which supports
the minority tendency in the
Fourth International37. The German USEC affiliate was thus split
along the lines of the controversy then raging generally
within the United Secretariat. The largest group was aligned
with the Europeans (Ernest Mandel, Pierre Frank and Livio Maitan)
who were then pushing a guerrilla approach, particularly for the
Latin American countries. The smallest group within the GIM was
aligned with the USEC faction
led by the Socialist Workers Party of the United States. The
second largest GIM faction (Compass
Tendency) was aligned with the so-called Third Tendency within
USEC, led by the Italian Roberto
Massari38.
Was Tun, in reporting on this meeting of GIM, noted that in the
vote on the political resolution at the 1975 National Conference,
none of the three tendencies in the GIM was able to win a
majority.
For a democratic-centralist organization, this is a situation as
difficult as it is unusual. It means that
no tendency has a mandate to lead the organization on behalf of
a majority of the membership. In the face of this situation, it was
decided to summon shortly a new national conference. Meanwhile,
the 1975 meeting agreed to give the Internationalist Tendency an
absolute majority on the new
Central Committee and provided that its version of the political
resolution be the public general line of the GIM. A sixteen-point
program, for work in the labor movement, among immigrants, and on
other organizational issues was adopted as an interim directive to
the leadership. Of the
thirty members of the new Central Committee, the IT was given
sixteen, the KT twelve and the
LTT two; with the IT getting seven alternate members, the KT six
and the LTT two39.
Factionalism continued. On July 9, 1978, the Central Committee
of the GIM adopted a resolution
which indicated that the internecine struggles were threatening
the very existence of the
organization. This resolution started out by proclaiming that
despite at times violent political conflicts, the GIM has not yet
fallen apart. While this fragile unity may rest on the realization
that
left to their own resources splinter groupings cannot arrive at
any political perspective for the long
run, nonetheless the fundamental common basis that still exists
must be underlined. It claimed that the extant differences of
opinion are of a tactical and not of a principled nature40. The
resolution went on to note that a widespread criticism of the
national leadership appeared at the June National Conference. In
all probability the critics will be able to find support only from
a
minority in the future as well. But on the other hand, no other
grouping, coalition or political
conception has appeared from which an alternative leadership
could emerge. Hence it is as good as
certain that the present up-in-the-air situation will continue,
and the collapse of the organization will
be hastened. The Central Committee therefore resolved that
extraordinary efforts to unify the organization had to be taken.
These were the establishment of a Working Group, with
representatives of all factions,
even those not represented in the Central Committee, and the
request that the United Secretariat
name someone to preside over that organization. The Central
Committee prescribed that The task of the Group will be to produce
a detailed program for the GIMs work in the coming year, which as
far as possible will not be open to interpretation, and it appealed
to parts of the GIM to take part in this attempt at unifying our
practice, to work out suggestions for it, name representative
delegates to the Working Group, and to work with it in a spirit
of compromise41.
29 Intercontinental Press, New York, February 26, 1973, page
211
-
30 Workers Vanguard, New York, January 23, 1977, page 3
31 Spartacist, New York, Winter 1979, page 10
32 Reprinted in Intercontinental Press, New York, February 26,
1983, page 211
33 Intercontinental Press, New York, July 19, 1971, page 695
34 Intercontinental Press, New York, December 6, 1971, page
1063
35 Intercontinental Press, New York, February 26, 1972, page
210
36 Reprinted in Intercontinental Press, New York, February 26,
1973, page 211
37 Intercontinental Press, New York, June 23, 1975, page 894
38 Spartacist, New York, Winter 1979, page 1
39 Reprinted in Intercontinental Press, New York, June 23, 1975,
page 894, page 895
40 Spartacist, New York, winter 1979, page 11
41 Ibid., page 17
[]
Latter-day GCR and Lega Comunista Rivoluzionaria
The end of the entrist experience brought about a major crisis
within the ranks of the Italian
Trotskyists. It is Maitans opinion that the crisis arose because
the decision to end the entrist policy came at least two years too
late. As a consequence of this controversy an important part of the
leadership and the cadres quit to join the formations of the
extreme left, particularly Avanguardia
Operaia48. Elsewhere, Maitan has written about the gravity of
the 1968-69 crisis in Italian Trotskyism. In 1972
he wrote that the active intervention of Trotskyism as an
organized political force in the Italian situation was very
seriously hampered by the extremely grave crisis the organization
suffered in the
second half of 1968 and the beginning of 1969. During crucial
months the organization was
paralyzed, and later it was enormously restricted, not only in
relation to the big mass movements,
but also within the vanguard49. During the 1970s, the GCR
rebuilt its ranks substantially. However, the basis on which it
was
reconstructed was largely via recruits brought into their ranks
by the student revolt of the late 1960s
and early 1970s50. Although there was penetration of some
segments of the labor movement, the
membership and leadership of the group came principally from the
ranks of student activists.
Meanwhile, the GCR had changed its name to Lega Comunista
Rivoluzionaria (LCR).
During the 1970s and early 1980s the GCR-LCR considered
themselves as part of what they
frequently referred to as the vanguard. This consisted not only
of their own organization, but a variety of other far left parties
and groups, including Maoists, ex-Maoists, and some others not
easily catalogued. The Trotskyists tended to picture the
vanguard as an alternative to the Socialists and Communists on the
Left, to measure their own performance particularly in relation
to
that of other vanguard elements, and from time to time to seek
various kinds of cooperation with those elements.
One can cite various examples of such cooperation. In January
1975 an anti-Vietnam War
demonstration was held in Rome with the support of the GCR,
Avanguardia Operaia, Potere
Operaio, Viva il Comunismo, Il Comunista, Gruppo Gramsci, and
the Communist Party of Italy
(Marxist-Leninist)51. In the 1976 election the GCR collaborated
with Proletarian Democracy, a
coalition including Avanguardia Operaia, Partito dUnit
Proletaria per il Comunismo, Lotta Continua, and various other far
left elements. The GCR ran three candidates on the Proletarian
Democracy ticket52.
In an interview published in 1977 Maitan sketched the importance
which the Trotskyists gave to
their particular vanguard orientation: Beginning with the 1970
and 1971 national congresses, we worked out a strategy for building
the revolutionary party as the outcome of a three-part
movement: gathering together the vanguard groups around coherent
platforms based on a common
-
experience in struggle; attracting the worker and student
vanguards around this pole; and
developing the antibureaucratic and antireformist consciousness
of those working class sectors that
are under the influence of the traditional parties53. There are
no membership statistics available for the GCR/LCR. However, its
strength is said to
have been centered in the north, including the cities of Turin,
Milan, Genoa, and Brescia. Its
principal center in central Italy was Rome, and in the south it
had some membership in Taranto54.
It was not until 1973 that the GCR decided to orient its
activities towards the organized labor
movement55. It certainly did not become a major element in the
trade unions. However, it has been
reported that the LCR had good influence in several factories,
including the Fiat plant in Turin, the Alfa Romeo, Imperial, and
Face Standard factories in Milan, and the Italsider plant in
Taranto.
At one time, in 1969-70, it also had considerable influence in
the labor movement in the southern
port of Bari. This did not result in any long-term strength for
the Trotskyist movement in that
region, and after 1973 a number of the Trotskyist trade union
cadres from Bari were sent to work in
Milan, Florence, and other cities56.
Other Trotskyist Groups in Italy
Although the GCR-LCR has been the longest-lived and probably
largest group in Italy proclaiming
loyalty to Trotskyism, it has by no means been the only one.
Most other major elements in the
world movement have had some representation in the country.
The oldest non-USEC Trotskyist group in Italy was the Partito
Comunista Rivoluzionario
(Trotskyista), affiliated with the Posadas version of the Fourth
International. At least in its early
years, the Italian group was less prone than most of the Posadas
parties to devote its time
exclusively to the writings of J. Posadas. For example, the
August 10, 1964, issue of its newspaper,
Lotta Operaia, although containing one two-page article of
Posadas on contemporary Brazilian
events, was taken up largely with analysis of contemporary
Italian political developments, including
the Communist Partys betrayal of a supposed workers movement to
occupy key factories, and the evolution of the left-wing Socialist
party, the PSIUP, with which the Posadas people apparently
had substantial contact. As late as 1975, the Posadas Fourth
International still reported that Lotta
Operaia was appearing as the organ of its Italian affiliate57.
We have no further information about
the evolution of the group.
At least two of the dissident Italian Trotskyist groups arose
from factional controversies within the
United Secretariat during the 1970s. One was the Lega Comunista.
In the USEC controversies of
that period, in addition to the International Majority Tendency
led by Ernest Mandel, Livio Maitan,
and Pierre Frank and the Leninist Trotskyist Tendency aligned
with the Socialist Workers Party of
the U.S., there was a Revolutionary Marxist Fraction, which was
represented at the 1974 Tenth
World Congress of USEC by an Italian delegate, Roberto Massari.
In 1975 Massari led a split in the
GCR/LCR to form the Lega Comunista. It took the lead in
organizing outside of USEC an
international opposition to the United Secretariat, the
Necessary International Initiative (NII), with affiliates in Great
Britain and Germany as well as Italy. As late as 1980, the Lega
Comunista
still existed58.
The second split in Italian Trotskyism resulting from the
quarrels of the 1970s within USEC was
the formation of the Lega Socialista Rivoluzionaria (LSR). It
was formed by Italian elements
aligned with the International Bolshevik Fraction led by the
Argentine Nahuel Moreno, when that
group broke with the United Secretariat in 1979-80. However, in
a congress in July 1982 the LSR
decided to withdraw from the Moreno international faction and to
assume an independent
position59.
Another Italian group which by the early 1980s was unaffiliated
with any of the international
Trotskyist tendencies was the Revolutionary Workers Group for
the Rebirth of the Fourth
International (Gruppo Operaio Rivoluzionario per la Rinascita
della Quarta InternazionaleGOR).
-
Its origins were in a split from the GCR in 1976 of people
opposed to participation in the
Proletarian Democracy electoral coalition of that year on the
grounds that it was a popular front. These dissidents first
organized as the Bolshevik-Leninist Group for the Reconstruction of
the
Fourth International. They soon established contacts with the
ex-Lambertist Italian organization, the
Bolshevik-Leninist Group of Italy, but the two organizations
found it impossible to agree on unity
terms.
The 1976 dissidents from the GCR then decided in April 1978 to
reorganize as the Lega Trotskista
dltalia (LTI). By that time they had entered into contact with
the international Spartacist tendency [sic] and the LTI had
fraternal delegates at the August 1979 conference of the ist in
London.
However, controversies resulting from that encounter led first
to the formation within the Lega
Trotskista dltalia of the Internationalist Proletarian
Opposition, which in April 1980 broke away from the Lega to
establish the Gruppo Operaio Rivoluzionario per la Rinascita della
Quarta
Internazionale60. Although thereafter unaffiliated with any
international alignment, the GOR did
issue a call for a genuine international Trotskyist tendency61.
The Spartacist tendency originated in Italy in 1975. At a European
encampment of the ist in July 1975, a group of Italian participants
who had recently broken with Roberto Massaris Revolutionary Marxist
Fraction announced the establishment of the Spartacist Nucleus of
Italy62. It apparently
became part of the Lega Trotskista dltalia when that was
established in 1976, and gained control of that group. In August
1980, it was formally announced that the LTI was becoming the
Italian
Sympathizing Section of the ist63.
The Italian Spartacists were centered principally in Milan. From
there they issued a monthly
periodical, Spartaco, which consisted principally of
translations of articles from the New York
Spartacist newspaper Workers Vanguard. From time to time they
organized debate assemblies on subjects of current interest.
Still another international Trotskyist tendency to be
represented in Italy at least for a time was the
International Trotskyist Liaison Committee, the so-called
Thornett group. The Gruppo Bolscevico
Leninista (GBL) had originally been part of the Lambertist CORQI
but broke with that group in
1975 over the issue of the Lambertists violent denunciations of
Varga and his followers at the time they broke with CORQI. Although
for a while indicating some attraction to the Spartacists, the
Gruppo Bolscevico Leninista finally ended up in 1980 joining
with the Workers Socialist League of
Great Britain and a few other groups to establish the Liaison
Committee64.
The GBL changed its name to Lega Operaia Rivoluzionaria, and by
the early 1980s was working
more or less closely with the United Secretariats Lega Comunista
Rivoluzionaria. There were some discussions between the two groups
of the possibility of unity, but by the end of 1983 these
discussions did not seem likely to result in their proximate
unification65.
Conclusion
Trotskyism has never been a major force in general Italian
politics, or even on the Italian Left. It has
persisted as an element in the Far Left since before the end of
World War II. Both in the 1930s and
during the forty years after the Second World War, it provided
important leadership for the
international Trotskyist movement.
48 Letter to the author from Livio Maitan, December 13, 1983
49 Livio Maitan: Some Data on Italian Problems, Intercontinental
Press, New York, June 5, 1972, page 651
50 Letter to the author from Livio Maitan, November 14, 1983
51 Intercontinental Press, New York, February 5, 1973, page
115
52 Intercontinental Press, New York, June 21, 1976, page 986
53 Intercontinental Press, New York, May 23, 1977, page 585
54 Letter to the author from Livio Maitan, November 24, 1983
-
55 Intercontinental Press, New York, May 23, 1977, page 585
56 Letter to the author from Antonio Moscato, September 14,
1983
57 Revista Marxista Latinoamericana, April 1975, page 79
58 Workers Vanguard, New York, January 28, 1977, page 3; see
also Lega Trotskista dltalia: Contrappunto lamentevole in basso
buffo, Gli Anti-Spartachisti: Il Blocco GLI-WSI-LOB, Genoa, August
1980
59 Letter to the author from Livio Maitan, November 24, 1983
60 Trotskyist Position, Rome, May 1981, pages 2-5
61 Ibid., pages 11-18
62 Spartacist, Italian Edition, September 1975, page 22
63 Spartaco, Milan, February 1981, pages 17-18
64 Lega Trotskista dltalia: Contrappunto lamentevole etc., op.
cit., page 3 65 Letter to the author from Livio Maitan, November
24, 1983
[]
Denouement of the Factional Conflict of 1970s
Hansen noted after the Tenth Congress that there had been
extensive negotiations between the IMT
and LTF before the meeting to assure its orderly procedure, and
that there had also been accord
between the two groups concerning the policy to be followed
after the congress. It had been agreed
to suspend further discussion on the issues voted on at the
congress for one year, to maintain
discussion in a monthly international discussion bulletin on the
Chinese Cultural Revolution, youth
radicalization, the womens movement, the Middle East, Vietnam,
and Eastern Europe. It was also agreed to hold the next congress
within two years.
Another part of the agreement between the two factions
introduced an innovation in the Fourth
International. It gave recognition to the fact that rival
sections representing the two factions had come into existence.
Although it instructed the IEC to use all its influence to bring
about a merger
of these groups, it also provided that at the congress, Fourth
Internationalist groups already existing separately were recognized
regardless of their size as sympathizing groups; but this
exceptional measure was not to be regarded as a precedent39. The
Eleventh Congress did not in fact take place until November 1979.
During the intervening
period a number of events transpired which ultimately brought
the conflict between the IMT and
LTF to an end, but which also resulted in a substantial split in
the United Secretariat.
One relatively minor development following the 1974 World
Congress was the breaking away from
USEC of the Third Tendency, which had stood apart from both the
IMT and LTF at the congress,
and had been led by an Italian, Roberto Massari. Soon after the
Tenth Congress Massari split the
Italian affiliate to form the Lega Comunista. He then took the
lead in establishing the Necessary
International Initiative (NII), a kind of opposition to USEC
conceived of as having a role similar to that of the Left
Opposition to the Comintern in the early 1930s. A Third Tendency
faction in
Great Britain, and the Spartacusbund, which had earlier broken
away from the German USEC
affiliate, were among the groups participating in the NII40. We
have no information concerning how
long the NII continued in existence.
One of the most significant events of the period after the Tenth
Congress was a split in the Leninist
Trotskyist Faction which took place in February 1976. At that
time several of the Latin American
sections which had been associated with the LTF broke away from
it in disagreement with the
LTFs position on the developments in Portugal following the 1974
revolution there. They formed the Bolshevik Tendency. The principal
figure of this Tendency was Hugo Bressano, more generally
known by his party name, Nahuel Moreno, the main leader of the
Argentine Partido Socialista de
los Trabajadores41. Before the Eleventh Congress, the Bolshevik
Tendency was to abandon the
United Secretariat and establish its own separate branch of
International Trotskyism.
-
Meanwhile, in August 1975 the LTF Steering Committee issued a
call for the dissolution of both
factions, saying that if there are guarantees for a full, free
and democratic discussion, there is no need for a factional
structure While ideological tendencies are still called for because
of the political differences, there would be no objective need to
maintain the factions in order to have the
necessary discussion. This suggestion was turned down at the
time by the International Majority Tendency42.
A number of new issues of dispute between the two factions
subsequently arose. These included the
attitude to be taken toward the Portuguese Revolution, where the
international leadership of the
IMT favored an alliance with the left wing of the Armed Forces
Movement (MFA), and the LTF
urged the Portuguese Trotskyists to have nothing to do with the
MFA and to issue a call for a
Socialist-Communist government instead of one dominated by the
military.
Another source of disagreement was the relations between the
United Secretariat and the Lambertist
international tendency, the Organizing Committee for the
Reconstruction of the Fourth International
(CORQI). CORQI approached the USEC for discussions with a view
to the possibility of
reunification of the two groups. The LTF favored such
discussions, the IMT opposed them.
Finally, the old organizational issue also was raised. The LTF
complained that USEC was attempting to interfere in the internal
affairs of various sections to a degree not provided for in the
Statutes of the international organization, and that in some of
the European sections it was
beginning to purge leaders of the Leninist Trotskyist
Faction43.
However, at a point at which, if previous experiences of the
Fourth International were to give any
indication, a complete split between the two factions seemed a
possibility if not a likelihood, the
situation suddenly changed. In part, at least, this was due to
increasing differences which were
tending to develop within both the IMT and the LTF. In part,
too, it was undoubtedly due to a
reassessment by the European leaders of the issue which had been
the cause of the original
differences in USEC, the endorsement of guerrilla warfare as the
basic strategy of the organization,
at least in Latin America.
In December 1976, the Steering Committee of the IMT published a
document of self criticism, the key paragraph of which was the
following: At the Ninth World Congress we paid the price for this
lack of systematic analysis of the Cuban revolution. On the basis
of rapid and hasty
generalizations, we did not clearly oppose the incorrect lessons
drawn from the Cuban revolution by
the great majority of the Latin American vanguard. Even though
what had really happened in Cuba
provided us the necessary means, we did not adequately combat
the ideawhich cost so many deaths and defeats in Latin Americathat
a few dozen or a few hundred revolutionaries (no matter how
courageous and capable) isolated from the rest of the society could
set in motion a historic
process leading to a socialist revolution44. A few months later,
in August 1977, the Steering Committee of the Leninist Trotskyist
Faction
proclaimed the unilateral dissolution of its group. Three months
after that, the IMT also dissolved.
Subsequently, leaders of the two groups worked together to draft
the major documents for the
Eleventh Congress of the USEC45.
The definitive end of this long controversy came at the Eleventh
Congress, with the adoption of a
new resolution on Latin America. It was passed with a vote of
ninety-four in favor, eleven against,
3.5 abstentions, and 4.5 not voting46. The key portion of that
resolution read, The Fourth International promoted an incorrect
political orientation in Latin America for several years As a
result of this erroneous line, many of the cadres and parties of
the Fourth International were
politically disarmed in face of the widespread, but false, idea
that a small group of courageous and
capable revolutionaries could set in motion a process leading to
a socialist revolution. The process
of rooting our parties in the working class and oppressed masses
was hindered. The line that was
followed led to adventurist actions and losses from our own
ranks47.
39 Intercontinental Press, New York, December 23, 1974, page
1722
40 Ibid., page 1754
-
41 Ibid., page 1765
42 Ibid., page 1772
43 Ibid., page 1802
44 Ibid., page 1802
45 Ibid., page 1814
46 Ibid., page 1816
47 Ibid., page 1720