I know.
I know the names of those responsible for what has been called a “coup” but what is actually a series of “coups” carried out to ensure the security of power).
I know the names of those responsible for the Milan massacre of December 12, 1969.
I know the names of those responsible for the massacres in Brescia and Bologna in early 1974.
I know the names of the “committee” that manipulated the old fascists into actualizing the “coups”, the names of the neo-fascists who carried out the first massacres and, finally, those of the “unknown’ authors of the most recent massacres.
I know the names of those who directed the two different yet opposite phases of the tension strategy: first, the anti-communist phase (Milano 1969), and then the second, anti-fascist phase (Brescia and Bologna 1974).
I know the names of that group of powerful men who, with the help of the CIA (and then by the “Greek colonels” of the mafia), first created (yet failing miserably) an anti-communist crusade to halt the ’68 movement and then, always with the help and inspiration of the CIA, they reconstituted an anti-fascist virginity so as to stall the disaster of the “referendum”.
I know the names of those who, between Holy Masses, gave their directives to young neo-fascists, or better neo-nazis (so as to give full weight to the anticommunist tensions). They further assured them and common criminals of their protection, alongside old Generals, whom they kept as a standing reservist organization for an eventual military coup. These privileges are still active today and will most likely last forever for these nameless individuals who will be used to create the next antifascist tension. I know the names of the serious and important ones who are behind the comic characters like that general of the Forestry Corps who was in Città Ducale (while the forests of Italy burned), or some of the gray and purely organizational characters like General Miceli.
I know the names of the serious and important people who are behind the tragic young men who chose the suicidal fascist atrocities and the common criminals, Sicilians or something else, who made themselves available, like hired guns or hit men.
I know all these names and I know all the actions (massacres and attempts on a variety of institutions) of which they have made themselves guilty.
I know. But I do not have the proof. I do not even have the clues.
I know because I am an intellectual, a writer who tries to keep track of everything that happens, to know everything that is written, to imagine everything that is unknown or goes unsaid. I am a person who coordinates even the most remote facts, who pieces together the disorganized and fragmentary bits of a whole, coherent political scene, who re-establishes logic where chance, folly and mystery seem to reign.
All this is part of my art and of the instinct of my art. I think it quite unlikely that the “plan of my novel” might be wrong; that it may not be in touch with reality, or that my references to events and actual persons are wrong. I also believe that many other intellectuals and writers know what I know as an intellectual and a writer. The reconstruction of the truth regarding what has happened in Italy after 1968 is not that difficult after-all. That truth – and one feels it with absolute certainty – forms the background of most journalistic and political commentaries and opinions: in other words, not works of imagination or fiction such as my work is by its very nature.
One last example: it is clear that the truth sought to emerge, with all its names, from behind the editorial in the Corriere della Sera of November 1, 1974. It is very likely that journalists and politicians even have some proof or, at least, some clues.
But the problem is this: journalists and politicians, even having some proof, and most certainly some clues, do not name names.
Whose responsibility then is it to pronounce these names? Obviously, it is up to whomever has not only the necessary courage but also someone who is not compromised in his relationship with power, and someone who has nothing to lose. This person is an intellectual.
Therefore an intellectual could very well publicly pronounce those names: but he has neither the proof nor the clues.
Power and the world, that even while not being power maintains a practical relationship with power, have excluded free intellectuals (for their very nature) from the possibility of having proof and clues.
Someone might object that I, as an intellectual, as an inventor of stories, could enter that explicitly political world (of power or close to power) and, through compromise participate in the right to share in the proof and clues.
But to such an objection I would have to answer that it is not possible. It is the very repugnance of entering into such a political world that defines my potential intellectual courage to speak the truth, to name the names.
The intellectual courage of the truth and political practice are presently two irreconcilable realities in Italy. Political practice imposes upon intellectuals – who are profoundly and viscerally despised by the whole of Italian bourgeoisie - a falsely high and noble mandate. In reality, the task of debating moral and ideological problems is servile at best.
If he is given this mandate the intellectual is considered a traitor to his duty. Shouts go up of a ‘betrayal of the clerics” that is a gratifying alibi for politicians and the servants of power.
But along with power there also exists and opposition to power. In Italy this opposition is so widespread and strong that it represents a power of its own. I am referring, of course, to the Italian Communist Party.
It is more than certain that at this moment the presence of a great party of opposition such as the Italian Communist Party is the saving grace of Italy and its poor democratic institutions. The Italian Communist Party represents a clean Country within a corrupt Country, an honest Country within a dishonest Country, an intelligent Country within an idiot Country, a wise Country within an ignorant Country, a humanistic Country within a consumerist Country. The Communist Party is a compact unit of leaders, base and voters. During these recent years a period of negotiation has opened between the Italian Communist Party, an authentically unified group, and the rest of Italy. The Italian Communist Party has, as a result, become a “Country onto itself”, an island. And it is for this very reason that today, as never before, it is able to have a very close relationship with actual power, corrupt, inept and degraded as it is. But these are diplomatic relationships, similar to those between nations. In actuality the two realities are incommensurable, understood in their concreteness, in their totality. It is possible to project on this very basis that realistic “compromise” that might in fact save Italy from falling apart at the seams. This “compromise” might be considered to be an “alliance” between two bordering states, or between two states jammed one inside the other.
But everything positive thing that I have said about the Italian Communist Party makes up its relatively negative aspects as well.
The division of the country into two separate nations, one up to its neck in degradation and degeneration and the other intact and uncompromised, cannot be a good reason for peace and constructivism.
Furthermore, conceived in this way as I have outlined it, as a nation within a nation, the opposition identifies with another power, which is nevertheless still and always power. As a result, the politicians that make up this opposition cannot but behave themselves like men of power.
In the specific instance that at this moment so dramatically concerns us, they too have deferred to the intellectual a mandate of their making. So, if the intellectual does not meet the expectations of this purely moral and ideological mandate he is, to everyone’s satisfaction, nothing more than a traitor.
And now, why do not even the politicians of the opposition, if they have – and most likely they do – proof or at least clues, name the names of those truly responsible, of the politicians, of the laughable coups and of the terrifying massacres of the last few years? Simple: they do not name them as a result of the fact that they make a distinction between political truth and political practice, something an intellectual would not do. And so, naturally, they too keep the intellectual in the dark about proof and clues. Given the objective factual situation, they do not even give it a second thought.
The intellectual has to continue to keep to what is imposed on him as his duty, to reiterate his codified mode of intervention.
I know very well that presently in Italian history, it is not the case to make a public declaration of distrust against the political class. It is not diplomatic; it is not an opportune time. But these political categories, and not political truth, are what the impotent intellectual is required to serve, however and whenever.
Very well, for the very reason that I cannot name those responsible for the attempted coups and the massacres (and not in place of it) I cannot make my weak and idealistic accusation against the entire Italian political class.
Let it be known that I act fully believing in politics. I believe in the “formal” principles of democracy, I believe in the Parliament and I believe in political parties. Obviously these beliefs are filtered through my own particular communist view.
I would be ready and eager to recall my motion of non-confidence if some politician would decide to name the names of those responsible for the coups and massacres. But his decision would have to be not opportunistic, because the moment has come, but rather as a way to create the possibility for such a moment. This politician might decide to name the names of those responsible for the coups and the massacres, which he evidently knows as I do. The difference between us is that he cannot but have the proof, or at least some clues.
Most likely – if the U.S.A. will permit – maybe “diplomatically” deciding to concede to another democracy that which American democracy has conceded itself in the case of Nixon – these names will be named. But, even if this happens, men who have shared in their power will pronounce the names. It will be a case of those least responsible against those most responsible. And, as in the American case, it does not mean that they will be any better than the others. That would most definitely be a true Coup d’etat.
First Published in Il Corriere della Sera, 14 novembre 1974
No comments:
Post a Comment