The 17th Congress of the Italian Communist Party was held in Florence between 9 and 13 April, in the midst of Reagan’s first round of sabre-rattling against Libya and his authorization of a new nuclear test in Nevada. Since, as we shall see, the main peculiarity of the Congress was to proclaim a fresh enthusiasm for the American Way of Life and US democracy in general, these circumstances were a source of acute embarrassment to Party leaders addressing delegates from the platform. It is clear that, despite the denials of General Secretary Alessandro Natta, footnote1 the Congress had been called ahead of schedule, as a direct consequence of the widespread worry and confusion generated by the disappointing regional election results of May 1985 and the narrow defeat in the June scala mobile referendum. These setbacks had caused Natta’s previously untested leadership to become an issue in itself: when the Congress was announced, rumours had been rife that it would be not just his first but also his last as Party leader, and that the thrusting right-winger Luciano Lama, with years of experience at the head of the cgil, would sweep this supposedly ineffectual old man aside. The pci’s traditional capacity to conceal internal differences behind a facade of unity seemed to have finally deserted it.
On the eve of the Congress Repubblica carried an article on the various currents within the pci, naming their leading figures and estimating their relative strength in much the way that it would do before a Christian Democrat congress. There were seven identifiable currents at the beginning of April 1986: the Filosovietici (Cossutta, Cappelloni)—10 per cent; the Sinistra (Ingrao, Castellina, Magri, Bassolino)—20 per cent; the Berlingueriani (Minucci, Angius, Pecchioli, Fassino, Mussi, Reichlin, Tortorella, G. Berlinguer)—20 per cent; the Centro (Natta, Occhetto, Zangheri)—25 per cent; the Destra Storica (Bufalini, Jotti, Pajetta, Macaluso, Cervetti, Vitali, Chiaromonte)—10 per cent; the Miglioristi (Lama, Napolitano)—10 per cent; and the Destra (N. Colajanni, Perna, Galluzzi, Turci, Fanti)—5 per cent. We shall look in some detail at the
Natta’s leadership has proved more vigorous than anybody had forecast. While his age may preclude a long spell in office, his Secretaryship will be remembered in a way that Longo’s interregnum between Togliatti and Berlinguer is not. Despite his long-standing position in the centre of the Party, Natta has not been a mere caretaker reiterating Berlinguer’s declaration, in 1980 to 1984, of the pci’s distinctiveness from all other parties. Indeed, in a sharp image-reversal, he has broken the last taboo by saying: ‘We do not claim to profess the truth or to be superior to others . . . we know that we are a fallible human association just like any other.’ The language employed by Natta in his three-hour harangue bore no impress of Marxism: if one excepts its inordinate length and certain tactical ploys rooted in Italian political life, the speech could have been made by any leader of a large social-democratic party in opposition to a right-wing government. Nearly a quarter of a century ago, Giorgio Galli, the distinguished political scientist, remarked that one of the most enduring characteristics of the pci was its disguise of a very revisionist practice in very orthodox language. This is true no longer: the lexicon of Leninism has been consigned to the attic, as Natta has sought to revive the pci’s electoral fortunes by associating it with the large social-democratic parties. The constant references in his speech to the ‘European Left’ were precisely meant to designate a West European, social-democratic left.
The pci line has now executed a 180-degree turn, with a rapidity reminiscent of the zig-zags of the later Comintern. Whereas it was formerly regarded as a matter of debate whether the Socialists were any longer in a meaningful sense part of the Left, the task now is to preach for a ‘reconciliation between the two great currents into which the
As early as 17 July 1985 Occhetto had asserted: ‘It ought to have been recognized that the Socialist premiership was the result of a shift to the left of the whole political axis of the country.’ footnote3 Natta was not prepared to go this far in his congress speech, but his invocation of Soares’s recent election as Portuguese President, with Communist support, was deliberately pitched to assuage any fear that Craxi might have about the pci’s ambition to dominate an alliance, as well as to pander to his barely concealed designs on the presidency of the Republic. Naturally Natta was critical of Craxi’s economic policy: it would have been very strange if the leader of the main opposition party had shown no fire at all. Yet the Communist solutions are merely based on Keynesian economics, with an emphasis on reducing unemployment. Planning is advocated, nationalization is not. The untrammelled operation of market forces is condemned but the market as such is not. The black economy is ritually denounced in one breath, before ‘widespread entrepreneurship’ is praised in the next. In short, there is nothing that would distinguish the Italian Communists’ economic approach from that of even a rather moderate social-democratic party, at least during a period of opposition.