Antonio Gramsci 1926
Once again on the Organic Capacities of the Working Class
Unsigned, L'Unità, 1 October 1926
Text from Antonio Gramsci “Selections from political writings (1921-1926)", translated and edited by Quintin Hoare (Lawrence and Wishart, London 1978). Transcribed to the www with the kind permission of Quintin Hoare.
Six years have passed since September 1920. In the intervening
period, many things have changed among the working-class masses
who in September 1920 occupied the factories in the metal-working
industry. A notable part of the most active and combative workers,
who in those years of heroic struggle represented the vanguard of
the working class, are outside Italy. Marked with a triple cross
on the black lists; after months and months of unemployment; after
having tried every way (by changing trade, isolating themselves in
small plants, etc., etc.) of remaining in their homeland to
continue the revolutionary struggle, and to reconstruct each day
the links which each day reaction was destroying; after unheard of
sacrifices and sufferings – they were forced to emigrate. Six
years are a long time. A new generation has already entered the
factories: of workers who in 1920 were still adolescents or
children, and who at most took part in political life by acting
out in the streets the war between the Red Army and the Polish
Army, and by refusing to be the Polish one even in a game. Yet the
occupation of the factories has not been forgotten by the masses,
and this is true not just of the working-class masses but also of
the peasant masses. It was the general test of the Italian
revolutionary class, which as a class showed that it was mature;
that it was capable of initiative; that it possessed an
incalculable wealth of creative and organizational energies. If
the movement failed, the responsibility cannot be laid at the door
of the working class as such, but at that of the Socialist Party,
which failed in its duty; which was incapable and inept; which was
at the tail of the working class not at its head.
The occupation of the factories is still on the agenda in the
conversations and discussions which take place at the base,
between vanguard elements and those who are more backward and
passive, or between the former and class enemies. Recently, in a
meeting of peasants and artisans in a village of Southern Italy
(all sympathizers of our party), after a brief report on the
present situation two kinds of questions were raised by those
present.
1. What is happening in Russia? How are the local authorities
organized in Russia? How do they succeed in getting the workers
and peasants to agree, given that the former want to buy
foodstuffs cheap and the latter want to sell them at a decent
price? Are the officers of the Red Army and the functionaries of
the Soviet State like officers and functionaries in our country?
Are they a different class, or are they workers and peasants?
2. Explain to us why we workers (an artisan was speaking, a
blacksmith) abandoned the factories which we had occupied in
September 1920. The gentry still say to us: “Did you occupy the
factories, yes or no? Why then did you abandon them? Certainly
because without 'capital' one cannot do anything. You sent away
the capitalists and so the 'capital' was not there, and you went
bankrupt.” Explain the whole question to us, so that we will be
able to reply. We know that the gentry are wrong, but we do not
know how to put our arguments and often have to shut our
mouths.
The revolutionary impact of the occupation of the factories was
enormous, both in Italy and abroad. Why? Because the working
masses saw in it a confirmation of the Russian revolution, in a
Western country more industrially advanced than Russia, with a
working class that was better organized, technically more skilled,
and industrially more homogeneous and cohesive than was the
Russian proletariat in October 1917. Are we capable of running
production for ourselves, in accordance with our interests and a
plan of our own? – wondered the workers. Are we capable of
reorganizing production in such a way as to transfer society as a
whole onto new tracks leading to the abolition of classes and
economic equality? The test was positive, within the limits in
which it took place and developed; within the limits in which the
experiment could be carried through; in the sphere of the problems
that were posed and resolved.
The experiment was limited, in general, to relations within the
factory. Contacts between one factory and another were minimal
from the industrial point of view; they occurred only for purposes
of military defence, and even in this sense they were rather
empirical and rudimentary.
The positive aspects of the occupation of the factories can be
briefly resumed under the following headings.
1. Capacity for self-government of the mass of workers. In
normal mass activity, the working class generally appears as a
passive element awaiting orders. During struggles, strikes, etc.,
the masses are required to show the following qualities:
solidarity, obedience to the mass organization, faith in their
leaders, a spirit of resistance and sacrifice. But the masses are
static, like an immense body with a tiny head.
The occupation of the factories required an unprecedented
multiplicity of active, leading elements. Each factory had to put
together its own government, which was invested at once with
political and with industrial authority. Only a part of the
technicians and white-collar employees remained at their posts; the
majority deserted the plants. The workers had to choose from their
own ranks technicians, clerks, managers, foremen, accountants,
etc. etc. This task was performed brilliantly. The old management,
when it took up its functions again, had no administrative
difficulties to overcome. The normal functions of an enterprise
had been kept up to date, in spite of the fact that the technical
and administrative personnel was extremely limited and made up of
“crude, ignorant” workers.
2. Capacity of the mass of workers to maintain or exceed the
capitalist order's level of production. The following
occurred. The work force was reduced – because a tiny proportion
did desert their work; because a certain proportion was assigned
to military defence; because a certain proportion was working to
produce objects that were not precisely for current use, although
they were very useful for the proletariat; and because workers had
had to replace the majority of technicians and white-collar
workers who had deserted – and in spite of all this, production
kept up to the earlier level and often exceeded it. More cars were
produced at FIAT than before the occupation, and the “workers”’
cars displayed to the public daily by proletarian FIAT were not
among the least of the reasons for the undeniable sympathy which
the occupation enjoyed among the general population of the city of
Turin, including among intellectuals and even tradesmen (who
accepted the workers' goods as excellent currency).
3. Limitless capacity for initiative and creation of the
working masses. An entire volume would be needed to cover this
point fully. Initiative developed in every direction. In the
industrial field, because of the need to resolve technical
questions of industrial organization and production. In the
military field, in order to turn every slight possibility into an
instrument of defence. In the artistic field, through the capacity
shown on Sundays to find ways of entertaining the masses by
theatrical and other performances, in which
Mise-en-scéne, production, everything was devised
by the workers. It was really necessary to see with one's own eyes
old workers, who seemed broken down by decades upon decades of
oppression and exploitation, stand upright even in a physical
sense during the period of the occupation – see them develop
fantastic activities; suggesting, helping, always active day and
night. It was necessary to see these and other sights, in order to
be convinced how limitless the latent powers of the masses are,
and how they are revealed and develop swiftly as soon as the
conviction takes root among the masses that they are arbiters and
masters of their own destinies.
As a class, the Italian workers who occupied the factories
revealed themselves to be up to their tasks and functions. All the
problems which the needs of the movement posed for them to resolve
were resolved brilliantly. They could not resolve the problems of
re-stocking or communications, because the railways and merchant
fleet were not occupied. They could not resolve the financial
problems, because the institutes of credit and commercial firms
were not occupied. They could not resolve the big national and
international problems, because they did not conquer State
power. These problems should have been confronted by the Socialist
Party and by the unions, which instead capitulated shamefully,
giving the immaturity of the masses as a pretext. In reality, it
was the leaders who were immature and incapable, not the
class. This was the reason why the Livorno split took place and a
new party was created, the Communist Party.
First Note. The Tribuna finds that our method
of reading is “subjective.” On questions of method,
Tribuna's author gives a helping hand to the
Mondo correspondent, who despite the intellectual
vicinity of Adriano Tilgher has managed to call in question
Einstein and relativism. With the “objective” method of
Tribuna, men would still be clinging to the idea that the
earth stands still while the sun moves round it. We think
Tribuna's correspondent is confusing “subjectivism” with
common “intelligence.”
Second note. A correspondent from Regime
Fascista has intervened in the discussion about the organic
capacity of the working class, demonstrating merely that he does
not know even the political nomenclature in Soviet Russia. We are
told that the Regime Fascista writer is a certain Father
Pantaleo, who has thrown off the habit. It is remarkable how many
talented unfrocked priests and monks are fuelling the
anti-working-class and anti-Bolshevik campaign in our country,
under the banner of religion and Catholicism – they who are at
least excommunicated: Romolo Murri, political columnist of Il
Resto del Carlino; Don Preziosi of Vita Italiana and Il
Mezzogiorno; Aurelio Palmieri, the former Jesuit who serves
as parsley in every anti-Soviet sauce; and this Father Pantaleo of
Regime Fascista.