Interview: Spezzano Albanese

[sjwright@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx (Steve Wright)]

The following interview was kindly forwarded to me by editors of the
British anarchist magazine _Black Flag_. It appears in the latest issue
#210 (1997).

I am forwardeding it to the list in turn, as I think the experience of
community organising which it speaks will be of interest to others.

Steve

_____________



Spezzano Albanese; Interview with Domenico Liquore

Spezzano Albanese is a small town of 6000 situated in La Sila, in Calabria.
There is an Albanian community where Albanian is still spoken and orthodox
religion practised. (Note: There has been an Albanian minority in Calabria
since the 14th century).

Two comrades of the group "Drapeau Noir" who went to southern Italy last
summer, interviewed Domenico Liquore, one of the veterans of this
experience, who has written a book about it. The interview has been
translated from French, and some concepts have been impossible to convey
successfully in English; for example where "specific groups" are mentioned,
these are groups with a specific membership of people who subscribe to the
politics, aims and strategies of the group, as opposed to mass movements
where many groups of a diverse political nature, come together to pursue a
common aim.  The interview gives a fascinating insight into one group's
attempts and successes at not only confronting the local administration,
but also offering alternative ways of organising and decision making for
the local (and wider) community, to provide a 'glimpse of a future
libeterian society'.

Drapeau Noir: How did the Municipal Federation of the Base become constituted?
A: The FMB is the result of the local anarchist group's activities during
the period between 1972 and 1992 when the FMB was finally constituted. Our
activity always paid particular attention to local and territorial
problems, without ignoring national and international issues. For example,
the death of Franco and the reconstruction of the CNT in Spain, which
prompted debate nationally in Italy, was addressed in various activities in
Spezzano. The 70s saw strong social movements in Italy, after the Massacre
of the Piazza Fontana. Here this was expressed in a strong student and
unemployed movement.
Our group quickly understood we couldn't limit ouselves to ideological
intervention and thought our principles should involve us in the practice
of grassroots struggle which was developing at the time. The group was made
up of students, unemployed, some building workers and day labourers. The
only group not represented was, perhaps, women which was our eternal
problem, while there were more and more women in the collectives emerging
>from these struggles.
>From these struggles came the first Committees of the Unemployed, of
Workers, the first mass structures which aimed towards a national
influence. These bodies weren't only made up of anarchists, and were
completely autonomous from the specific anarchist group. There was a dual
vision of the organisation - the specific groups and the mass
organisations. This work continued until 1977, the years in which the local
anarchists of Spezzano provided a rallying point for the whole
Castrovillari region.
At a national level in those years there was talk of the reconstruction of
the USI (Unione Sindacale Italiana - AIT section). There were 2
"congresses", one in Rome the other in Genoa, from which emerged 2
tendencies. We fought for anarcho-syndicalism because our experience had
already pre-empted the debate which took place nationally. We participated
in the debate but were told that the Italian situation couldn't accommodate
our political viewpoint. The debate was mainly ideological, with almost
personal polemics and a perception that the USI didn't grow from the needs
of workplace organisation but from the desires of certain anarchists who
had simply changed their name. During this time, in Spezzano,
anarcho-syndicalism was being built in the committees of struggle which
covered a vast geographical area and contained anarchists, comrades from
extra-parliamentary groups, some from Proletarian Democracy or Marxist
formations and the majority were workers, unemployed, etc. While the
formation of a union was proposed nationally, there was little anarchist
presence in the struggles of this period (hospital workers, airport
workers, etc). So the USI was born inside specific groups incapable of
recruuiting dissidents from the official unions. This situation brought
about, at the Congress of Genoa, two different positions. On one side
certain comrades wanted the renaissance of the USI, on the other were those
who prioritised grassroots struggles (e.g. temporary school workers).
We did not fit into either of these positions and on returning to Spezzano
it was decided to unite all the different structures of the area in one
Union Sindacale de Zone (USZ). The USZ, formed in 78, did not adhere to the
CAD (Committee of Direct Action) formed in Bologna after the Genoa
Congress, nor to the USI constituted in the Parma Congress in 1979. The USZ
worked for more than 5 years on work struggles, unemployment etc. and
opposition to the communist leadership the town hall began to grow. From
this communalist and municipalist current came, in 1992, the FMB.  I would
like it to be understood - the diversified mass structures, which were
doing a specific job, with the USZ, found unity which expanded into a wider
territory. It moved from classical syndicalism to a complex intervention
which put together not only workplace issues but also the other realities
present in the local area. It began to look at the choices of the
administration which were publicly denounced for their clientist character,
blackmail, discriminatory behaviour and use of repression. There were
struggles over health, education & the presence of fraud in the local
council. Our relationship with the council administration, who tried to
stop our meetings, was one of struggle. Sympathy was growing towards us.
There were 200 in the organisation of which 30 were very active.

DN: Who were the left groups working in the same terrain at the time?
A: In 76, the marxist Luta Continua disappeared. In 77, the Marxist left
returned to parliamentary institutions like Proletarian Democracy. There
were some Leninists and Workers Autonomy who never had much clout with us.
There weren't any organised groups  and already in 77 our group was the
only real opposition in the whole district.

DN: Which party controlled the Town Hall?
A: The mayor was Communist Party (PC), but was worse than a Christian
Democrat. Part of our work was to show that political membership didn't
change things deeply.  Power corrupts. The libertarian ideology of the USZ
could be seen there and it was agreed to propagate this idea, even if it
meant a hard struggle with the rank and file of the PC whose leaders
denounced us. There were times where this confrontation verged on the
physical.
In 92 the mayor and a group of councillors were held on criminal charges.
People began to realise that everything we had been denouncing since the
end of the 70s wasn't just fabrication, and it generated more interest in
our activities. Before 83, the mayor often dared us to denounce his
dealings to the law knowing this was against our logic and our praxis. In
83, some of the workers in the USZ, after a big debate, on a personal
level, decided to take the matter before the magistrate. A year later,
following the enquiry, a split occurred in the PC. In 84, to keep his
office, the mayor was obliged to buy a councillor of the MSI (fascists).
During the 85 elections, we took the opportunity to create an alternative.
There were strong pressures to present a list (of candidates); however over
the years we had developed an abstentionist practice. The message had got
across for national elections but in the local elections the illusion of
being able to change things was tenacious. A civic list was presented in
which we refused to participate. This list, in an indirect manner, had
libertarian aspirations and hijacked many of the methods which we had used
effectively in the previous years. With time though, it backtracked,
changing practice and objectives, to defend the same old interests as
before. While the civic list was being drawn up, we recognised the need for
a libertarian response, to reinforce the reasons for our abstentionism at
national and local level, a Municipal Federation of the Base which would
present an alternative to the power of the town hall. And while the others
worked on their electoral campaign, we set up a Committee for the FMB in an
attempt to gather together those who saw themselves in the current of
self-organisation and direct action and opposed abdicating power to the
local council. During the electoral campaign, a constitutive assembly of
the FMB was held. The Town Hall was made up of the civic list, socialists,
CDs and the PC in opposition. The mayor was from the civic list.

DN: What were the relations between the FMB and the local administration?
A: The FMB posed an alternative. It has always wanted to represent
something other than the power of the Town Hall and that's why we defined
ourselves as an alternative. Relations with the Town Hall were conflictual.
The FMB used its past experience and offered a complex structure. A mass
organisation which didn't want to be only about the bread and butter issues
of the workplace, unemployment and the school, but also political. It had
to offer a glimpse of what a future libertarian society could be.  There
were workplace union structures in the FMB  but they encompassed all the
other diverse social categories in the civic union.

DN: What's the civic union?
A: Workers are not just those fighting for their rights but also citizens
living in the same area. All groups had the right to sit in the civic
union. The civic union organises the district's services, education and
health in opposition to the choice of the administration and offers a
different way of managing and deciding. When we  began to talk about the
FMB, we were afraid of being misunderstood by the libertarian movement, of
being accused of being "interclassists", or of playing up to the ideas of
the right wing union UIL. That was our fear but it was the logical
follow-on from our actions over the years. It must be stated that our
conception of municipalism is different from that of Bookchin. Italy has
had historically a very varied tradition of communalism. Berneri is one of
the greatest agitators in this tradition and I believe he would have much
to say to Bookchin, as he would to Malatesta, in his later years when he
began to talk of gradualism. It is certain he would not have agreed with
Bookchin.

DN: What does Bookchin propose?
A: He proposes that anarchists should present themselves for election, and
once in the town hall, give an impetus to a direct, grassroots democracy.
We believe that to enter the electoral game is to lose what is specific to
anarchism. Anarchists reject the delegation of power. They can never create
a party. To accept power and to say that the others are acting in bad faith
and that we would be better, would force non-anarchists towards direct
democracy. We reject this logic and believe that all organisations must
come from the grassroots.

DN: How do you define communalism?
A: It is the bringing together of all the interests within the district. In
intervening at  a municipal level, we become involved in not only the world
of work but also the life of the community. Every time the Spezzano council
make a choice, the Civic Union of the FMB make counter proposals, which
aren't presented to the Council but proposed for discussion in the area to
raise people's level of consciousness. Whether they like it or not the Town
Hall is obliged to take account of these proposals. For example, it was
proposed that the rates and the land use plans and its variants should be
discussed in a general assembly. We have fought and continue to fight the
choices of the administration, but an alternative can be made possible,
making alternative proposals and managing it properly.

DN: We read in Umanita Nova that there was one assembly where 4 mayors were
invited. How did you arrive at that decision and what was brought to the
FMB?
A: We have made links with 4 council districts because we felt that our
experience should go beyond Spezzano. In effect, the FMB is already well
known as Spezzano is the principal town in the canton and because our
activity was not only known in the surrounding country but by many passing
through. We think we must make a qualitative leap to promote the formation
of identical bodies in neighbouring areas where there is already sympathy
for the FMB. In areas such as Terranova, Tarsia, etc, research on services
and administrative choices was done. We have been to 4 districts where they
have been given provisional rates and studied them and looked at the
choices involved. It must be said that in this work we have some facilities
because after 20 years of existence no council administration dares refuse
our requests out of fear of public denunciation. In this study, a document
was produced where we laid out the choices and put counter proposals at a
departmental level. Those proposals which touched services, health,
education and town planning were addressed not just to Spezzano, but also
to Terranova, Tarsia and San Lorenzo. At the end of this work we called an
assembly where we invited the mayors to see the functioning and critiques
of the assembly. The assembly was positive because it created conditions
for this type of activity to spread across the whole area. After the summer
holidays, it's the type of intervention we are going to develop. Now,
nationally, this type of intervention is widely discussed. The festivals of
self-organisation mirror the question of  Communalism versus municipalism
or self government (the 2 terms used in Italy - municipalism a la Bookchin
or communalism which we prefer)

DN: Do other experiences of this type exist in Italy? Or others who work
>from the same perspective?
A: When we were thinking about the Civic Union we were afraid that many
comrades would misunderstand our step. This led us to under-publicise the
FMB. For Umanita Nova we only wrote a report of what led up to the FMB
without explaining what it really was. We immediately got a number of
letters asking for further explanations. In effect we got the negative
reactions we expected. This prompted us to come clean with our strategy. We
found that other currents were agitating on the municipalist problem. We
made contact with a network of small groups, co-ordinated from Bologna.
>From this came a first congress. At  the same time the Liga Nord were also
raising the question of federalism. On one side, in Italy, there is a
reactionary federalism, racist and conservative, as in the Liga, and on the
other, in opposition, libertarian federalism was reinvigorated from its
historic ideological roots. Comrades of Milan, Turin and others had the
idea of a festival of self-organisation to address all those active around
municipalism, communalism or simply self -organisation, against the logic
of domination. At Alessandria, the first festival happened and many
different currents were present. It linked all ages and was important as
much on a quantitative level as a qualitative. I would like to reaffirm
that municipalism wasn't invented by Bookchin.
Municipalism is part of the historic ideology of anarchism. Bookchin has
taken a strand of this and put his ideas inside it, ideas not shared by
all, us included. We reject the argument that anarchists should become
candidates, making them manage power and lose their identity. This strategy
could come from a grassroots movement but anarchists must have the capacity
to defend their alternative, or they risk becoming no better than the
others. The few who follow Bookchin's logic and stand in municipal
elections are not regarded as part of the general anarchist movement.

DN: In your book, you speak about  the attitudes and language that the
anarchists have taken from the Marxist movement. You consider it
embarrassing and negative, why?
A: I think that anarchists, historically, have an inferiority complex
towards Marxism (in the Spanish revolution I believe many errors were due
to this complex). If one takes as an example the concept of class and class
struggle, we still retain the Marxist conception of the proletariat. In the
anarchist movement, the class is not only the proletariat but all the
exploited, the dominated, those submitting to power.  When we begin to
speak only of the proletariat, our logic is Marxist. Even our syndicalism,
which is complex and not only supportive (anarcho-syndicalism ), has
submitted to the same logic. The Spanish CNT has at its core a strong
concept of the proletariat even though it attained communalism and self
organisation. It's as if the anarchists want to use the same Marxist logic,
logic in which they will be lost. If the Marxists have a perspective of
power, anarchists must take account of all the exploited, of all the
dominated and create the social structures  which anticipate a future
libertarian society. Apart from the Spanish revolution we have not
succeeded in that. I think that the Spanish revolution must be discussed
critically to separate the positive aspects and the limits.

DN: Does the FMB limit itself to counter-propositions to the Town Hall or
does it seek to create alternatives on the ground?
A: We have created a co-operative, "Arcobaleno" (Rainbow) of painters and
decoraters. We have also tried to organise agricultural workers and
services. We want to be capable of creating self-organised work. The big
merit and the goal of self-organisation is to regroup the comrades not only
for political discussions on municipalism but to confront practical
experience like the co-operatives. Beyond intervention in opposition to the
institution, one wants to create alternative structures of production
capable of glimpsing the future society.

DN: Let's be devil's advocate. Are you not afraid that your co-operative
will become like the co-operatives in the north of Italy? These
co-operatives, in their dealings with the capitalist economy succeeded in
achieving self exploitation, that is to say they respond to market forces
and so have lost all alternative potential.
A: The result of the co-operatives in Italy is as you say but the origin is
a libertarian idea of self - organisation. They must be taken back to their
origins. The same fears exist around federalism: the US is federalist,
Bossi (leader of the Liga Nord) is federalist, Switzerland is federalist.
They have taken many of our words, such as federalism, self-organisation,
etc, but should that stop us using these words? As for the co-operatives,
there are some dangers especially when there isn't a strong libertarian
presence. We had many difficulties when we set up the co-operative because
there isn't a mentality or conception of how to work in an alternative way,
in opposition to the capitalist model. Mistakes are possible but if the
conviction is there and the anarchist movement becomes practically
interested, there is less danger of a drift to authoritarianism.

DN: The co-operative is an economic structure and must be accountable to
the market. This is why I spoke to you about self-exploitation. To survive,
you must create an alternative market, an alternative manner of living
capable of blocking the race to consumption, which ends by denaturing it.
A: Certainly if the co-operatives are born in isolation, if they aren't
seen in terms of a global debate which includes different realities (that
is the aim of the self-organisation festivals), the danger of which you
speak is very real. We always have it in mind.  That's why we seek to bring
together all the currents, all the problems and contradictions, to seek
solutions. You spoke of self-exploitation. It is possible that in a
co-operative one gains less and works more. But all that can change if
there are more comrades who have input and a network of different
realities. The important thing is that you make it without a boss.
Decisions are taken altogether. Yes concessions have to be made to the
Capitalist system, but we are beginning to model an alternative society.
There is a division in the anarchist movement . Certain comrades are for
the supportive struggle, political, confronting power. They think that the
co-operatives, the self-organised groups, must be rejected because they
cannot be done within the capitalist system. Others think that it's only
important to set up co-operatives or other moments of self-organisation.
For me, both lack something. They must be brought together, one cannot live
fully in an antagonist manner. In a system of domination, one must be in
conflict with power and at the same time one can put forward alternative
structures; these two attitudes are part of the same struggle against
domination. However, many among us live either 100% class struggle, or a
lifestyle buffered against the world of capitalist work, in our self made
utopias. In both cases there is a danger of reintegration.

DN: After a long absence I'm struck by the uniformity that the south has
succombed to and by the push to consumer society. 12 years ago a variety of
different cultures were evident and the poor could easily be distinguished
>from the rich. Today it seems that the social fabric might disintegrate.
People live in front of the TV where the programmes are the same as in
France. In one of the poorest regions of Italy there is a constant
bombardment of impressionable riches. What is your evaluation of this
process and your position on these new facts.
A: The same situation which can be seen everywhere else is perhaps
amplified by the fact that people identify with the TV models and get the
impression that they can leave behind under-development. I don't believe
this to be be something positive because it hides the contradictions that
we live in. For example, here, with time, many Albanese words are being
replaced by Italian words. Spezzano has submitted to the tyranny of an
Italianising culture. The anarchists must be sensible and in this changing
situation, not prioritise the issue, but give it its place in a wider
cultural context, to make understood that a different way of life to that
proposed by consumerism and capitalism does exist. A communalist
intervention could address this issue, and progress towards the future in a
federalist discourse of respect for minority cultures. Our struggle must be
global and culture forms a part of it.

DN: What do you think of Bossi's proposition of secession from Italy?
A: I can say that in the south, the question doesn't exist. In Sicily, in
the last regional elections, there was a tentative independentist list but
it failed. There isn't a strong independence movement here and secessionism
is dimly viewed. There is, on the contrary, a strong demand for
administrative decentralisation. In the FMB there are also people who see
federalism as a means of decentralisation.  For example we are often asked
why our taxes must pass through Rome, and why we can't decide ourselves on
their use? We say that it is the community which should decide. This
question gets a lot of interest. There isn't a pro-independence feeling,
the Liga Nord is rather rejected than viewed as a project to support, even
among those who are against the State. The State here is seen in a
contradictory way. It is hated and liked at the same time, liked for the
facilities it gives.

DN: What are your links today with USI?
A: We stuck to the USI because we believed that a real discourse was
possible there about the social organisation of society. Now, with the USI
split, it was decided to stay outside. What is missing and is in our view
indispensable is a debate on anarcho-syndicalism: its ends and means. At
the moment this debate does not exist. And without it we can't see what
will come out of it.




     --- from list aut-op-sy@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx ---