Other Pro Chinese Elements
The East German Communists noted in 1977 the existence of at least eight other self-proclaimed Maoist parties in Italy, some of them largely confined to a single city.[302] However, in addition to the groups that succeeded in forming avowedly Maoist parties which were to a greater or lesser degree associated with Maoism as a recognizable international movement, there were other elements in the Italian Far Left in the 1960s and 1970s that expressed considerable sympathy for the Chinese Communists.
These, however, were by no means part of International Maoism in any organizational sense. They were to be found in dissident elements of both the PCI and the Socialist Party.
The most significant of these was II Manifesto group. This was a dissident group within the PCI that arose in the late 1960s, attracting in particular a number of that parry’s intellectuals. Among their other disagreements with the post-Togliatti leadership of the Italian Communist Party was their strong support of the Chinese Great Cultural Revolution.
Livio Maitan, the Italian Trotskyist leader, wrote in 1970 about the pro-Maoism of the II Manifesto group, that the “theses” of the group “declare the universal validity of the conceptions of Mao and the cultural revolution; they consider that a real proletarian democracy exists in China and that the Chinese leadership is manifesting a ‘new Internationalism’ that ‘relies on the coherence and richness of revolutionary initiative in other sectors of the world.’”
Maitan observed of these positions that “All this, among other things, is in contradiction to other parts of the document that expound conceptions differing palpably from the Maoist conceptions, especially regarding the structure of revolutionary society and the conception of the party.”[303]
One of the several splinter groups of the Italian Socialist Party (PSI), the Socialist Party of Proletarian Unity (PSIUP), split from the PSI in the late 1960s. According to Dan Georgakas, writing in the American newspaper Liberated Guardian in 1971, the PSIUP “hoped to offer a radical alternative in the form of a socialist Maoist party.”[304]
In the middle of the 1970s, the II Manifesto group and the PSIUP joined forces to establish the Party of Proletarian Unity (PdUP). According to the French Trotskyist paper Rouge, “Without destruction, there can be no construction/ This quotation from Mao Tse-tung hangs in the place of honor on the wall of the Rome headquarters of the PSIUP, under a full-length portrait of the organization’s patron saint.”[305] The PdUP split apart in 1977, and neither faction really became a part of International Maoism.
The PCI Rapprochement with the Chinese
As we have seen, the Italian Communist Parry opposed Soviet efforts to excommunicate the Chinese party in the 1960s. They continued to oppose this idea, although there were no indications of the PCFs accepting Maoist ideas or policies.
However, in 1980 there occurred a rapprochement between the PCI and the Chinese party, which underscored the fact that the successors to Mao Tse-tung had had little further interest in trying to maintain a Maoist party in Italy. This was in the form of an official visit to China by a delegation of the PCI, headed by the then secretary general of the Italian party, Enrico Berlinguer. The Italians had separate audiences with Hua Guo-feng and Deng Xiaoping, and “five rounds of talks with the delegation of the CPC Central Central Committee, led by General Secretary Hu Yao-bang.”
An official Chinese press release on this visit began by noting that “The visit to China of the delegation of the Central Committee of the Italian Communist Party has marked the resumption and a new stage of development of relations between the Chinese and Italian Communist Parties.” It noted that “Generally speaking, the two Parties, while reserving separate views on some important questions, found common ground on many issues such as opposing war and safeguarding peace.”
The Chinese press release concluded that “Each side expressed its views frankly and in a comradely manner on an equal footing. They agreed that it was only normal for them to have differences on certain issues as their past experiences and present environments differed, and that these differences should not be an obstacle to developing relations between them. They felt that these differences would gradually be removed when further mutual understanding was achieved through future contacts, discussions and exchanges of positions, and through the test of practice in the revolutionary struggle. Neither side would impose its views on the other.”[306]
This rapprochement of the traditional Italian Communist Party with the Chinese had disastrous effects insofar as the Italian Maoists were concerned. Angelo Codevilla wrote in 1987 that “Since the PCFs serious rapprochement with the Chinese Communist Party, the small pro-Chinese Italian Communist Party shifted its allegiance to Albanian and then disappeared.”[307]
Conclusion
Pro-Chinese elements existed within the Italian Communist Party virtually from the beginning of the Sino-Soviet dispute. However, the PCI leadership sought to have that fact not result in a serious split in its own ranks, while trying at the same time to prevent an organizational split between pro-Chinese and pro-Soviet groups within the International Communist movement.
In the middle and late 1960s, several Maoist groups were established outside of the PCI. However, none of them became a significant factor in the far Left of Italian politics. The Maoist parties in Italy, as in other countries, found the shifting policies of China in the 1970s and particularly the Chinese rift with Albania to be a severe handicap, and ended up taking different sides in the Chinese-Albanian conflict. By 1980 it was clear that the Chinese leaders had little further interest in trying to establish and maintain a Maoist Communist movement in Italy.
Maoism in Luxemburg
Maoism in Luxemburg first took the shape of a Luxemburg-China Friendship Society. In 1966, the Central Committee of the Luxemburg Communist Party declared membership in the party incompatible with membership in the Society. Adolphe Franck, the Secretary General of the Friendship Society, visited China for the third time in September-October 1967. During that visit he declared that “We support what the imperialists oppose, and oppose what the imperialists support,” and proclaimed that “Chairman Mao Tse-tung is the powerful mainstay of world revolution. The people of Luxemburg will surely triumph if they take the road pointed out by Chairman Mao.”[308]
The Communist Party of Belgium (Marxist-Leninist) sought to foment a Maoist party in neighboring Luxemburg. However, in 1968, it was noted that “the impact of the Sino-Soviet fight on the Luxemburg Communist Party has been minimal. The party continues to support Moscow.”[309]
303
Livio Maitan, “The Theses of the 11 Manifesto’Tendency,” Intercontinental Press, organ of Socialist Workers Party, New York, December 14, 1970, page 1091.
304
Dan Georgekas, “Italian Left Applies Pressure at Many Points,” Liberated Guardian, pro-Maoist paper, New York, April 15, 1979, page 12.
307
Angelo Codevilla, in Yearbook on International Communist Affairs, 1987, Hoover Institution, Stanford, Calif., page 555.
308
Yearbook on International Communist Affairs, 1969, Hoover Institution, Stanford, Calif., page 382.
309
World Strength of the Communist Party Organizations, Bureau of Intelligence and Research, State Department, Washington, DC, 1968 edition, page 34.