Prof. Guido Liguori:“Capitalism in crisis represents a danger for humanity”

Prof. Guido Liguori. D.R.

Mohsen Abdelmoumen: You have published the major work Who Killed the Italian Communist Party? In your view, who had an interest in the disappearance of the PCI?

Prof. Guido Liguori: Obviously, there were very many actors interested in the disappearance of the PCI, the Italian Communist Party, at the time the strongest communist party in the entire Western world. First of all, the social and political forces supporting capitalist liberalism, which saw the PCI as an obstacle to the compression and nullification of the economic and social achievements of workers, of the “subaltern classes,” as Gramsci wrote.

Then there were all the political and also institutional forces, primarily Italian, but also from other countries (the United States had long opposed the Communist Party, during the time of Enrico Berlinguer), which were historically hostile to the PCI. Or even “hostile-competitors,” such as the Italian Socialist Party led by Craxi.

It should nevertheless be made clear that the “assisted suicide” of the PCI was the result, as always happens, of a convergence of events, both Italian and global, which I like to define as a “change of hegemony.” In the 1980s, in Italy and in the world, new hegemonies emerged. Gradually, a culture different from the Marxist and class-based inspiration of previous decades took hold, even among forces that claimed to be different from or alternative to capitalism and liberalism.

This new hegemony (which we could roughly also define as liberal-socialist) penetrated even the leadership of the PCI, imposing new paradigms (for example, that of “rights” instead of that of relations between classes) with which to interpret reality. It was this complex process, and the prevalence of this new hegemony, that determined the end of the PCI.

How do you analyze the rise of the far right in Europe and, in particular, in Italy?

The rise of the far right in Europe seems to me to be a defensive response by broad sectors of society to the profound changes that have characterized so-called capitalist globalization. In particular, on the one hand, the increase in competition suffered by the workforce of the most industrialized countries from countries of more recent industrialization (and with weaker trade unionization), with the consequence of massive job losses; on the other hand, the migratory processes that have marked recent decades.

All this has led large segments of the population in the most advanced and more prosperous countries to believe (mistakenly) that they could defend their living conditions as proposed by the far-right forces: by closing borders, preventing immigration, rejecting any solidarity with the poorest and most exploited of what was once called the “Third World.” It is a new “supremacist” fascism, hostile to multicultural and multiracial society — which, however, is now an unchangeable reality.

Enrico Berlinguer (together with left-wing social democratic leaders Olof Palme and Willy Brandt) had warned in time: major global processes must be governed and managed by trying to help everyone and by distributing the resources available to humanity. Failing to do so has led to the growth of a right-wing hostile to any solidarity among subaltern groups.

How do you interpret liberal hegemony within the European left?

As I said earlier, this hegemony is the result of global processes that were already underway in the 1980s: mechanization, robotics, information technology (in addition to delocalization) have led to a numerical decline, but also to a loss of visibility and power — and therefore of political consciousness — of the working classes. Liberal hegemony, even on the left, arose from the intertwining of these phenomena.

A reading of reality in terms of class struggle has been lost. It has been replaced by a struggle for rights, often just and legitimate, but concerning only minorities. Meanwhile, the old left, hegemonized by liberals, lost sight of the centrality of the material conditions of the subaltern classes, of the popular masses.

How do you explain the disappearance of critical thought in the West?

On the one hand, the hegemonic apparatuses of the bourgeoisie are tirelessly at work producing and disseminating a new mass common sense that is not progressive, along the lines mentioned above. The popular classes struggle to resist, also because — especially in Italy — they no longer have a party that defends them by establishing alliances with intellectuals capable of fighting an “hegemonic battle” with the intellectuals of the bourgeoisie. Intellectuals, in themselves, are not progressive: they respond to the call of social forces that offer them, and everyone else, a credible vision of society.

At present, left-wing forces do not have a credible alternative project to that of unbridled individualism, which is proposed in various forms by the informational and cultural agencies of the bourgeoisie. This precisely means that a different hegemony has prevailed — which, as Gramsci reminds us, first of all attracts intellectuals toward class interests that are not those of the subaltern classes.

We are witnessing imperialist wars throughout the world. In your opinion, does capitalism in crisis not represent a danger for humanity? Is capitalism not a cancer corroding the social body of nations?

Capitalism in crisis certainly represents a danger for humanity. As the most recent events in Venezuela show us, first and foremost U.S. capitalism (a state that, economically speaking, is burdened by enormous public debt and that clearly suffers from the competition of new actors such as China and India) is prepared to risk everything in order to establish a new international order.

It is an extremely dangerous situation, with many nuclear warheads in circulation. But equally dangerous are the climate and environmental crisis, the scarcity of a vital resource such as water, and so on.

My country, Algeria, is targeted by certain neocolonialist and imperialist circles. Our comrades in Venezuela are fighting for their sovereignty. How can international solidarity be made effective, particularly by our comrades in the Northern Hemisphere? Is the struggle for the sovereignty of states and nations not a historical task for progressive elites in our countries?

It certainly should be. There have been examples of extraordinary mobilization, for instance for Palestine. But it is not easy to maintain a constant level of mobilization if the enemy, imperialism, continues to register successes. Even if driven by desperation, it remains on the offensive, and the left defends itself as best it can.

In any case, I do not believe that solidarity among the components of the anti-imperialist front can be primarily the work of elites. I believe it can and must come first and foremost from the masses, if they regain a critical perspective on the neocolonial dynamics of today’s world.

Can we speak of democracy in the West when an oligarchic minority governs? Is there not a vital necessity, for humanity, to have a strong labor movement, with combative trade unions and political parties?

Today in the West, democracy has been reduced to a minimum. Just look at the growing distrust of voters: in many countries, only a minority goes to the polls, not even 50% of those entitled to vote. Today we speak of post-democracy, or of “democratorship.” In short, political systems that may formally appear democratic, but are no longer so — both because elected parliaments have no power, and because the alternative in political offerings is more apparent than real, and because by not voting, citizens withdraw legitimacy from their respective political systems.

Certainly, a strong workers’ movement would be fundamental, intrinsically interested in relaunching democracy — a democracy that is at least partly substantive and not only formal, and that is at least partly grassroots, diffuse, and not only parliamentary.

You are a specialist of the great Gramsci. In your view, is it not indispensable to have optimism of the will in order to overcome pessimism of the intellect?

To tell the truth, optimism and pessimism seem to me limited and naïve categories. But certainly, the motto that Gramsci took up makes sense if it means that we must not surrender, that we must continue the struggle — with will and with intelligence.

You are president of the Gramsci Society Italia and director of the political culture journal Critica marxista. What can you tell us about your journal? What is its impact in the anti-capitalist struggle?

In reality, after having long been editor-in-chief of Critica Marxista, I became its director together with others following the death of its historic director, Aldo Tortorella, a former important PCI politician and collaborator of Berlinguer. The journal is therefore in a transitional and restructuring phase. We hope to continue to play a role in the anti-capitalist struggle.

However, I believe that these places of reflection and research are only one part of the work we must do. They are limited because they are inevitably destined for a few. The left — and we communists — should instead reach the broad masses. The central problem is the one indicated by Gramsci: the creation of a new mass common sense. It is not easy.

In your opinion, do we not need theoretical tools to defeat capitalism and its highest stage, imperialism?

Certainly yes. From this point of view, there is an undeniable delay in study and theoretical reflection. In Western Europe, for example, for a long time the study of classical authors has prevailed over the study of reality. If the categories of the classics are not used to interpret reality, and if they are not themselves subjected to verification in order to understand whether they are still valid, theoretical work will not help us understand or change reality.

Marx’s famous Eleventh Thesis on Feuerbach meant precisely this: one must understand the world if one wants to change it.

Interview by Mohsen Abdelmoumen

Guido Liguori is Professor of the History of Contemporary Political Thought at the University of Calabria, President of the Gramsci Society Italia, and Director of the political culture journal Critica marxista. Among his publications are Who Killed the Italian Communist Party? (Edizioni Delga, 2011) and Berlinguer the Revolutionary – The Political Thought of a Democratic Communist (Carocci Editore, 2014).

Published in French in La Nouvelle République and Palestine Solidarité