"When I consider this mysterious and miraculous movement of people, this
voluntary rush of humble people, until that day helpless and peaceful, who in asudden illumination felt that the time had come to go into hiding, to take theirrifle, to find themselves in the mountains to fight against terror, I think ofcertain inexplicable rhythms of cosmic life, of the secret celestial commandsthat regulate collective phenomena: like the buds of trees that sprout on thesame day: like certain underwater plants that in all the lakes of a region theyrise to the surface on the same day to look at the spring sky; like the swallowsof a continent that on the same day realize that it's time to travel. The timehad come to resist: the time had come to be men: to die as men to live as men.We do not believe that a truer interpretation of the phenomenon of the Resistancehas been given than this one, captured by Piero Calamandrei in the commemorativespeech of the Cervi brothers. Calamandrei fixed in these words the spontaneity,the ineluctability, the certainty of the Resistance.Who would have thought? Who would have thought that such a mass movement wouldhave sprung from this Italy, which in the twenty years of Fascism truly seemedthe "land of the dead", with the daring and heroic participation of workers,commoners, young people, women of every country and every city? Who would havethought that in the age of blitzkrieg, of armored divisions, of carpet bombing,with a highly armed foreign army-encamped on its own territory and supported by indigenous troops, a people, tornapart by three years of war, almost helpless, under the pressure of a propagandathat raised doubt and disorientation, would have, with decision, taken the roadto the mountains and with Pickup weapons attacked and crippled the enemy? Whowould have thought that against twenty years of gregarious education, againsttwenty years of servile habits, against the codes, the laws, the majesty of theState, against the terrible warnings of the occupier, against the police andrepressive institutions of the Prefectures , of the Military Garrisons, would thepopular masses still rise up?All of this has happened. All this had to take place in order to once again savethe dignity of men and trust in the society of men which always finds thestrength to destroy the agents of its extermination. It happened in Italy and ithappened in all the countries of Europe, in the aggressor countries and in theattacked countries, in the countries that had known war many times (and whichcould be tired of fighting, even if it was for a just cause) such as France orPoland, and in countries which for a long time had known only peace (and in theselfishness of neutrality could have put their feelings of solidarity to sleep)such as Norway, Denmark, Holland. But no, everyone stood up against Hitler,against Mussolini, even the Germans, even the Italians.These considerations lead us to discover one of the characteristics of theResistance: its anational and anti-nationalist, international andinternationalist character. Reducing today, as certain historians sick of myopiaand certain politicians sick of chauvinism would like, the Resistance to amovement of a "national" character, means reducing this new, grandiose, sociallyprofound fact to a "forty-eight", to a second "forty-eight», anachronisticallyreported in the era of imperialism. Now the Resistance was not a nationalmovement, especially in Italy, it was not, in those who participated (excludingthe badogliani), an expulsion of the foreigner, but it was a revolution, anattempt at revolution. Assigning it today the character of a national movementmeans not only degrading it but affixing a label to it that does not hold water.The variations on the theme of anti-Germanism were inevitable, a legacy howeverof that irredentism and interventionism that had given rise to the Fascistadventure, a legacy of a tradition and a literature, but all this would not havebeen enough to form the Resistance. Anxiety to see one's own country completelyliberated was inevitable, but this simple prospect could only lead to abenevolent expectation of the allies. No! The Italian, French, Belgian,Hungarian, Polish, Czech, Yugoslav partisans didn't take the field only againstthe invader, they took the field against regimes that were propped up by theGermans but in every country they had a basis in certain political and socialstructures.It is no coincidence that the partisan struggle is everywhere a civil war againstthe collaborators, who are also not by chance clinging to Hitler. During thenational wars of the 19th century, it was very difficult for an invading country,given the very national character of the war, which saw entire nationalcommunities opposed, to find collaborators in the occupied territory: in Hitler'sEurope instead not only the Petains, the Pavelics, the Tisos , the Quislings, theDegrelles, sided with the invader, but entire ruling classes offered theirservices to the enemy (and later, while for some time the workers had beenfighting not for the tricolor or the cross of Lorraine or the exiled sovereignsbut simply against fascism for the death of all fascism, when the allied victorylooms, it is then that the national bourgeoisies, through the double-dealingcatwalks, try to insert themselves into the movement of the Resistance, andtherefore to divert and corrupt it).Here the second character of the Resistance is revealed, revolution directed,guided, conducted by the working class. In the Resistance the working class isthe ruling class, the bourgeoisie is already reduced to the role of subaltern.The advent of the working class to the direction of the movement of opposition tofascism is determined by the very nature of fascism, anti-proletarian reaction,dictatorship of the most greedy part of the bourgeoisie.At this point the problem of the presence of the communist parties in theResistance arises. In our opinion, what was the communism of the Resistance stillneeds to be seriously studied: what was this communism in the sentiments of thepartisans, in the clandestine newspapers drawn up outside the central control, inthe formations that only administratively remained part of the communist line-up.An investigation of this kind would reveal that there is a «communism of theResistance» (as it can be called) which is very far from the political doctrineof the communist parties, and which only accidentally got confused with Stalinistcommunism in the great crucible of the struggle (whose word of order, pre-eminentand overarching, was for all the destruction of Nazism). But, we repeat, thedestruction of Nazism could not be the only objective of this revolution whichwas called the Resistance.The objective of this revolution, as a predominantly proletarian revolution,which was not identified with the strategy of the second imperialist war, butwhich had its own autonomy, even within the framework of the crisis that wasupsetting the capitalist world, was the renewal of society in the socialist sense, federalist and libertarian. We are not the only ones to say it, but many, amongthe lovers of the history of the Resistance, recognize it. The documents speak.They confess it, albeit in a generic way, asserting that the aim of theResistance was a more just and freer society, democrats and communists. Since itis evident that this objective has not been achieved, the third character of theResistance as a "failed revolution" becomes evident.On this commemorative occasion, we do not want to establish the responsibilities,the faults, the objective and subjective causes of this failure. We have statedthem many times already. We will come back to repeat them. We will deepen ouranalysis because from this past we can find the most correct indications ofstruggle for the future.http://alternativalibertaria.fdca.it/_________________________________________A - I N F O S N E W S S E R V I C EBy, For, and About AnarchistsSend news reports to A-infos-en mailing listA-infos-en@ainfos.ca
Geen opmerkingen:
Een reactie posten